In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
NRA reply to story about them shafting us
Big Sky Redneck
Member Posts: 19,752 ✭✭✭
This was brought to my attention on another board after I posted the info posted here on that board. The member emailed the NRA and got this reply back from them, the following is a C&P of the reply from the NRA;
Chuck Cunningham, at ChuckC@visi.net. Just now recieved this reply back from him:
Your message has been received about S. 659 (Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act) and the "assault weapons" ban. Unfortunately, you have apparently received disinformation from Rocky Mountain Gun Owners about these issues.
While I have no idea where RMGO got their misinformation, the idea that anyone at the National Rifle Association is secretly supporting the Clinton gun ban is totally ridiculous. Such foolish lies are nothing but pararoid fantasy. In fact, we launched www.ClintonGunBan.com to supplement our serious and substantial efforts to guarantee that this gun ban expires on time.
In his Firearms Coalition alert (www.NealKnox.com) this past Sunday, Neal Knox wrote:
We've also been seeing an increase in hysterical speculation on the internet - stated as fact - that NRA and "the Republicans" have cut a deal to sell out gunowners.
It ain't so.
I worried out loud back in 2002 that there would be efforts to combine NRA's "No. 1 Priority" - S. 659 - with the Clinton gun ban reenactment. In January 2003 I buttonholed some people who would know. As I reported at the time, they flatly denied any deal had been made, or would be made "because as important as 659 is, it's not worth a gun ban."
In April, at the annual meetings at Orlando, all the NRA brass, from President Kayne Robinson and Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre on down, at every opportunity, put equal emphasis on passing S. 659 and preventing reenactment of the ban. (I was delighted to see they were even using my description, "reenactment" - which is what a new law would be.)
This week, after the hysterical reports of a sellout started bouncing around the internet, I had a chat with someone in NRA who knows: "We seek to pass S. 659 as a clean bill and will not accept a Clinton gun ban extension - for ten years or ten minutes -- or the McCain-Reed `gun show loophole' as the price for its passage."
I am confident that there is no deal, and won't be one - not from NRA at least.
In fact, all of us at the NRA are working extremely hard to protect the Second Amendment from gun ban activists, whether they push their anti-gun agenda through the courts or Congress. We appreciate your support in this fight and hope that you will call, e-mail and fax your two U.S. Senators to vote for passage of S. 659, for cloture (against a filibuster) and against any and all "poison pill" killer amendments, including reenactment of the Clinton gun ban or restrictions on gun shows.
Chuck Cunningham, at ChuckC@visi.net. Just now recieved this reply back from him:
Your message has been received about S. 659 (Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act) and the "assault weapons" ban. Unfortunately, you have apparently received disinformation from Rocky Mountain Gun Owners about these issues.
While I have no idea where RMGO got their misinformation, the idea that anyone at the National Rifle Association is secretly supporting the Clinton gun ban is totally ridiculous. Such foolish lies are nothing but pararoid fantasy. In fact, we launched www.ClintonGunBan.com to supplement our serious and substantial efforts to guarantee that this gun ban expires on time.
In his Firearms Coalition alert (www.NealKnox.com) this past Sunday, Neal Knox wrote:
We've also been seeing an increase in hysterical speculation on the internet - stated as fact - that NRA and "the Republicans" have cut a deal to sell out gunowners.
It ain't so.
I worried out loud back in 2002 that there would be efforts to combine NRA's "No. 1 Priority" - S. 659 - with the Clinton gun ban reenactment. In January 2003 I buttonholed some people who would know. As I reported at the time, they flatly denied any deal had been made, or would be made "because as important as 659 is, it's not worth a gun ban."
In April, at the annual meetings at Orlando, all the NRA brass, from President Kayne Robinson and Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre on down, at every opportunity, put equal emphasis on passing S. 659 and preventing reenactment of the ban. (I was delighted to see they were even using my description, "reenactment" - which is what a new law would be.)
This week, after the hysterical reports of a sellout started bouncing around the internet, I had a chat with someone in NRA who knows: "We seek to pass S. 659 as a clean bill and will not accept a Clinton gun ban extension - for ten years or ten minutes -- or the McCain-Reed `gun show loophole' as the price for its passage."
I am confident that there is no deal, and won't be one - not from NRA at least.
In fact, all of us at the NRA are working extremely hard to protect the Second Amendment from gun ban activists, whether they push their anti-gun agenda through the courts or Congress. We appreciate your support in this fight and hope that you will call, e-mail and fax your two U.S. Senators to vote for passage of S. 659, for cloture (against a filibuster) and against any and all "poison pill" killer amendments, including reenactment of the Clinton gun ban or restrictions on gun shows.
Comments
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." --Thomas Jefferson to Archibald Stuart, 1791. ME 8:276
That is very comforting. Craig just said basically the same thing on the Senate floor -- "Please read S.1805, Section 4, and if you have amendments, let's handle them separately later, and pass a 'clean' bill today." Halleluiah. Still, I'm sure our message is getting through -- we don' wan' no steenking amen'ments!!! Indeed, "as important as 659 is, it's not worth a gun ban." Still, the fact that Craig alludes to planned amendments convinces me that the Democrats DO plan to propose them -- the AWB, the gun show business, and the rest. So it's well worth our time to let them know how we feel. If I had a link to send mail to all 100 Senators, I would. Did you know neither Kerry nor Edwards is present to vote today, by the way?
T. Jefferson: "[When doing Constitutional interpretation], let us [go] back to the time when [it] was adopted. [Rather than] invent a meaning [let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
Anyone know?
Quote "Somehow government decided that the Constitutional Bill of Rights has become the Bill of "Suggested" Rights and are to be rationed to the citizens as the power elite sees fit"
http://www.awbansunset.com/
NRA Lifetime Benefactor Member.