NRA selling out since 1934! 1968! 1989! 1994! 2017!

[Reverenddel]

GOA, VCDL, and such might be the answer at this point...

(shakes head) Way to go! #GiveAntiGunnersAnInch

[Monkey]

Funny how they're trying to backtrack now.

Getting up in front of everybody to try to convince the base that NRA merely wants BAFTE to look at it is only a slightly unworse thing to say. Like that's going to unring the bell or something.

[Reverenddel]

Well, in less than 24 hours? This got posted in the Dallas paper.

https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/comm ... ay?ref=yfp

For starters, we need more rigorous and uniform national background checks for all gun purchases, including transactions that happen at thousands of trade shows each year. Congress should close the loophole that allows private buyers to purchase guns from unlicensed sellers.
"With this loophole, guns easily find their way into the hands of illegal buyers and gun traffickers, dramatically increasing the likelihood of gun murders and suicides," according to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

We also should cap the number of guns an individual can own at one time, or at least have a different type of registration for those who stockpile weapons. We can call them a "gun collector" or whatever, but they deserve extra scrutiny.

"That doesn't bother me as long as the process doesn't give the ATF, without just cause or judicial order, license to come into my home and search it," said John Kemp, a self-described lifetime member of the NRA and a retired oil executive from Dallas.
It will be easier to track these "collectors" once their names are in a national database, too.
"So if they're ever committed to a mental hospital," said Kemp, "we'd know about it."

[SHMIV]

And none of that would have stopped what happened last weekend. That guy could have easily paid a "collector" fee for the special registration. At best, it might have postponed the event for a few months.

Or...

This guy had a pilots license. Apparently, he also owned 2 planes. Maybe, had the shooting plan been too inconvenient, he would have just crashed his plane into the crowd. With some prep work, he could have easily engineered the deaths of far more people, that way.

Incidentally, had he actually worked on some shooting skills, and not just used that bumpfire thing to rain down some lead, in 10 minutes (give or take), the death toll could have been far higher.

The NRA, I guess, is trying to appear reasonable. Why anyone would care about appearing reasonable to unreasonable people, is beyond me. But it certainly ensures that I won't join that club.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Viper21]

"SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED".... Seems pretty easy to comprehend to me.

How's all that gun control working out in Chicago..? Kalifornia..? NYC...? Baltimore..? Seems to me, the places with the strictest gun laws, have the highest murder rates. Hmmm....

I'll never be able to understand how punishing lawful gun owners prevents crimes from nut jobs. No matter the restrictions, laws, etc... somebody hell bent on taking life will find a way. Preventing good people from protecting themselves will never be the answer in my mind at least...

[jdonovan]

laws don't prevent crime, they simply provide a framework to apply a penalty to someone who does the prohibited action.

[Swampman]

I agree completely with the sentiments expressed above. I don't want the NRA to give an inch, not so much because of the left, but more so because of the folks who are supposed to be on our side in Congress and elsewhere. Truth be told, the left can't really take anything from us. The bigger, and more pressing problem, is what is given by our side.

The strategy that may be at play here (and I'm sure you all have thought of this) is to give an inch (regulation of bump-fire stocks) that can be taken back at a later date so we can get a mile (national reciprocity). The ban on so-called assault rifles implemented by Clinton didn't last. A ban on bump-fire stocks will be temporary as well, IMO.

The left has been employing this strategy of "an inch at a time" for decades. Why the right doesn't adopt it is beyond me.

You Americans are so gullible. No, you won't accept communism outright, but we'll keep feeding you small doses of socialism until you'll finally wake up and find you already have communism. We won't have to fight you. We'll so weaken your economy until you'll fall like overripe fruit into our hands.

Democracy is a government where you can say what you think even if you don't think.

Both of these statements were made by Nikita Khrushchev. The first is coming true and the second . . . well . . . Bernie Sanders.

The NRA had to know what kind of backlash they'd face by offering to give this inch. If they didn't, then it's time for a change in leadership. Every so often they do things like this and people call and cancel their membership in droves. Then they backtrack and "clarify" their statements. Sorry boys, the cat's out of the bag. "Clarification" is nothing more than damage control, but it's difficult to plug a crack in the Hoover dam with a plastic egg full of silly putty. The problem with instances like this is no one outside the executive offices of the NRA knows what went in to making this decision. On the outside it appears to be ill-timed and poorly thought out, if there was any thought at all.

I hold a life-membership in the NRA and have no wish to cancel it. Overall, they do good things and they look out for my 2A rights at the national level. Sometimes, however, they say the most asinine things (like now) and I have to wonder what the back-story is. I am of the opinion (and I think history will bear me out on this) that there is no easy answer when defending natural rights that are constitutionally guaranteed. I would be incensed if the NRA said/did nothing in the face of calls to ban bump-fire stocks or close the mythical gun-show loophole. This is probably not the choice I would have made, but I don't know what their argument is for taking this tack. This probably isn't something they have time to poll the membership about for comments and I'm not sure how much good it would do. Likely we, and they, can accurately predict 99% of the responses.

Accepting a ban on bump-fire stocks in exchange for national reciprocity is a calculated risk like anything else. An Article V Constitutional Convention of States is a calculated risk that many on the right are not willing to take. I want to hear more from the NRA regarding the thinking that went into making this decision rather than just casting stones. I intend to write Wayne LaPierre and Chris Cox and urge them to speak directly to the membership about this issue before they throw us completely under the bus. I'll make my own assessment of the risk and let them know what I think. Organizations that represent millions of people aren't going to please everyone. We shouldn't expect the NRA to be any different.

[Reverenddel]

Life member, Not cancelling, but I haven't given a thin dime since I read in "The Riflemen" that the "...NRA pushed this bill through the General Assembly of Virginia...."

Um... No. You didn't. the VCDL LIFTED THAT PAIL OF WATER!

Called them, told them to stop sending me "donation" forms, because they're opportunistic. Yes. Most VCDL MEMBERS are NRA members, but THEY didn't do JACK!

Why I joined the GOA.

[kelu]

NRA is taking all the heat, and they do it very well, allowing GOA, VCDL, etc to do the real work. Ask any lib if they ever heard of GOA. No. And that is good.

Left politicians are selling out their base as much (or more) than right politicians. If NRA will make public the trade of bump stocks for national reciprocity, left politicians will have a lot of heat from their people and the deal will be off.