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.
The NRA didn't compromise on the Uniform Firearms Act, they openly pushed for it's enactment. They didn't compromise on the National Firearms Act, they testified before congress in full support of it. They didn't compromise on the 68 Gun Control Act, again they testified before congress pushing for it's enactment. They stated that anyone not supporting it was unamerican, bragging about it's support of the GCA in the Mar 68 issue of their flagship publication The American Riflrman.
The list can go on and on, and the only conclusion one can realisticaly arrive at is that the NRA is neither pro gun or pro 2nd ammendment. Their support of politician's who are hostile to gun ownership and anti 2nd is pretty long and notable.
The NRA has, for decades, pushed for "reasonable" gun control. Reasonable is a pretty subjective term, so what would be "reasonable"? How reasonable does one need be in order to exercise a constitutional right.
quote:Originally posted by wifetrained
The NRA didn't compromise on the Uniform Firearms Act, they openly pushed for it's enactment. They didn't compromise on the National Firearms Act, they testified before congress in full support of it. They didn't compromise on the 68 Gun Control Act, again they testified before congress pushing for it's enactment. They stated that anyone not supporting it was unamerican, bragging about it's support of the GCA in the Mar 68 issue of their flagship publication The American Riflrman.
The list can go on and on, and the only conclusion one can realisticaly arrive at is that the NRA is neither pro gun or pro 2nd ammendment. Their support of politician's who are hostile to gun ownership and anti 2nd is pretty long and notable.
The NRA has, for decades, pushed for "reasonable" gun control. Reasonable is a pretty subjective term, so what would be "reasonable"? How reasonable does one need be in order to exercise a constitutional right.
But if the NRA had not done those things it would have been worse and you wouldn't even know what a gun is and if you don't support them you are gonna lose the gun rights the NRA has fought for.
I found the solution for this impossible conundrum right here on these forums!
I had it explained to me exactly what the NRA was up to, I took the only logical option available to me...I cancelled my membership (cut off their money) and joined GOA.
quote:Originally posted by Charles Johnson
I found the solution for this impossible conundrum right here on these forums!
I had it explained to me exactly what the NRA was up to, I took the only logical option available to me...I cancelled my membership (cut off their money) and joined GOA.
Simple.
Did the same thing, but be prepared to get a buttload of mail from the NRA pleading for money.
quote:The NRA does not represent my views as to the 2nd Amendment. It has an 80 year history of subjugating my freedom for political expediency. Why would any sane person support that record?
i agree, those 80 years of compromising my/our rights. the illegal gun laws should have been shelved by conservative politicians, BUT !! the whining and crying minority won over the majority of gun owners......,
SORRY....., i lost my train of thought here so i will just check out !!
Pro gun and Pro ownership (of guns) is anti-2nd Amendment?????
You lost me on that one!!!![?]
They need to push harder to get more concessions from the 'lawmakers' who have passed all of these unconstitutional laws for sure, but to say they are anti 2nd Amendment is just plain silly and childish.
Many here remind me of a 'child' having a temper tantrum because they did not get there way. We have to continue to work at getting these unconstitutional laws over turned ANY WAY WE CAN!!!! The NRA has backed many laws which are a compromise and many call that selling out, but unless any of you here are capable of 'leading a tall building in a single bound' we need to try and get to the top one step at a time and for some that is not good enough. So be it, but I will continue to keep trying to get there one step at a time because, unlike most of you, I am not Superman!!!![;)]
Copied from my previous post, Jim:
'We cannot afford to confuse legislated privileges with rights, and such confusion is one of the results of the actions and publications of the NRA-ILA.'
You have either been compromised by the NRA efforts to equate the two, have not spent sufficient time thinking about the difference, or simply don't have the intellectual capacity to understand the distinction.
FWIW, a person who is 'lost' by such a simple and obvious statement of fact doesn't have the mental standing to call anyone childish or silly.
Think about crafting legislation that requires people to apply for the privilege to own a firearm.
Now think about the individual right stated in the Second Amendment.
If you don't see the problem, you are a part of it.
Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.
We are beating a dead horse here. We both agree the NRA has compromised our rights. BUT as stated above, some see those compromises as gains in the right direction others see it as a sell out. It is a matter of degree here. You all have given up on the NRA, some of us have not. Plain and simple. You can't change the NRA or any organization from the outside. So all you are doing is venting your frustration with them, nothing more. Your venting may make you feel better, but other than that it accomplishes nothing.
Nuff said, you all have a nice day and keep your powder dry, we may need it!!![:)]
quote:We are beating a dead horse here. We both agree the NRA has compromised our rights.Yes they have, yet you continue to support them even in the face of over 80 years of doing so.
We, well we do not support a clear enemy...not...one...bit...
There is a clear distinction between positions, principle and ethic, here.
One side would remove the offending object, stop the hemorrhaging, clean, disinfect and sew-up the wound, then let it heal-over and move on into constitutional health.
The other side fails to remove the polluted object, to disinfect it, does not clean the wound and they allow it to fester and grow gangrenous in its putrid infection, NEVER regaining constitutional health.
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
We are beating a dead horse here. We both agree the NRA has compromised our rights. BUT as stated above, some see those compromises as gains in the right direction others see it as a sell out. It is a matter of degree here. You all have given up on the NRA, some of us have not. Plain and simple. You can't change the NRA or any organization from the outside. So all you are doing is venting your frustration with them, nothing more. Your venting may make you feel better, but other than that it accomplishes nothing.
Nuff said, you all have a nice day and keep your powder dry, we may need it!!![:)]
It is not a matter of degree, Jim. All compromise in this case is in a negative direction. Retreating to positions of ever increasing limits and restrictions; adding ever increasing legislation of privilege; empowering governments at all levels to add dictates as to where, when, and how, can never be viewed as positive but with one exception.
The man that is willing to sell out the rights of his children for the selfish desire of regulated possession today may think it positive. That man is a gun rights person who either knows nothing of the concept of individual rights, or more likely, selfishly cares nothing of that concept for future generations. I have no problem with someone compromising for himself. Compromising future generations while crowing that they are being done a favor is contemptible.
Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Your venting may make you feel better, but other than that it accomplishes nothing.
Have to disagree here.
You call it venting, I call it "EDUCATING" and it has done a WORLD OF GOOD in waking people up to the TRUTH about the organization that they thought was fighting for their 2nd amendment rights.
The facts, their actions, speak for themselves, and yet.....some people still try to defend them.
Oh yes, these threads are WELL worth the educational value alone.
quote:Originally posted by pickenup
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Your venting may make you feel better, but other than that it accomplishes nothing.
Have to disagree here.
You call it venting, I call it "EDUCATING" and it has done a WORLD OF GOOD in waking people up to the TRUTH about the organization that they thought was fighting for their 2nd amendment rights.
The facts, their actions, speak for themselves, and yet.....some people still try to defend them.
Oh yes, these threads are WELL worth the educational value alone.
quote:Originally posted by pickenup
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Your venting may make you feel better, but other than that it accomplishes nothing.
Have to disagree here.
You call it venting, I call it "EDUCATING" and it has done a WORLD OF GOOD in waking people up to the TRUTH about the organization that they thought was fighting for their 2nd amendment rights.
The facts, their actions, speak for themselves, and yet.....some people still try to defend them.
Oh yes, these threads are WELL worth the educational value alone.
Yes they are!!![8D] But do see a lot of venting going on!!![;)]
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
I don't agree with the American Socialist Party or the American Communist Party, Jim. Are you suggesting I waste my time trying to change them?
The NRA does not represent my views as to the 2nd Amendment. It has an 80 year history of subjugating my freedom for political expediency. Why would any sane person support that record? Why would any sane person try to change such a fundamentally flawed organization? I'll support them if they get out of the 2nd Amendment fight. I'll fight them if they stay in it, because every step they take to legislate a remedy to an infringement of my 2nd Amendment Rights is in and of itself an infringement on liberty.
You cannot point to a single clean bill promoted by the NRA that truly supports the 2nd Amendment.
All include restrictions.
All include Governmental oversight and/or regulation.
While most 'legalize' a specific action or process, all are anti individual freedom.
You see, Jim, it is not that the NRA has nothing to offer. What they do offer is the destruction of the individual right codified in the 2nd Amendment. Do you really not understand this, or are you simply hanging on to what is comfortable for you?
I have one son, Jim, and could not live with myself if I went along and accepted the Big Government solutions offered by the NRA. I could not live with knowing, without a shadow of a doubt, that I was helping to forge the shackles he and his children would be forced to live with.
The NRA is for and about Gun Owners and Gun Ownership, Jim. The Second Amendment is about the individual freedom of all Americans. The NRA does not want its supporters to understand that distinction. They remain an enemy of the 2nd Amendment, because they are corrupted by the money from their base of gun owners, manufactures, distributors, and the narcisistic need to be a player in Washington. Change them? Right.
You are showing your unwillingness to admit the obvious. The NRA is not an anti-gun organization. They are pro RTKABA'S. You and many here disagree with the way they go about it so you brand them as anti-gun. This is just plain silly and ignorant. The Communist and socialists are anti-gun so to use this analogy is ridiculous.
But I expect this type of reply from prejudice close minded people.[;)]
The NRA leaves a lot to be desired, and I give them hell on a regular basis, but to be as bitter and hateful as you and others here is just plain immature and silly.
Read for comprehension, Jim.
I have never said that the NRA is anti-gun. In fact, I have on many occasions stated that the NRA works to promote legislation that provides legal paths to gun ownership. This is pro-gun and pro gun ownership. I obviously recognize this; hell, I stated in the post above.
To equate these efforts, however, with the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms is what is ignorant and silly. It also displays a profound lack of understanding of the concept of the individual right that has been and is being destroyed by the Brady Bunch, the U.S. Congress and yes, the NRA and the stooges that support them.
Perhaps someday you will drop the blinders and open your actual closed mind and realize the difference between pro-gun and pro 2nd Amendment. I won't hold my breath.
While not bitter and hateful, Jim, I am saddened that you and the other sheep here that support the NRA are willing to accept the destruction of 2nd Amendment protections for our children and grandchildren for the purely selfish act of your legislated access to firearms today. I then become a little angry when you pretend that these subversive efforts are actually in support of the 2nd Amendment.
They are anti-gun in many respects. They oppose automatic weapons, they oppose firearms which have magazines of capacity 11 or higher, they oppose weapons where it is possible to attach a bayonet or rifles with a pistol grip, and they regularly denigrate weapons with no "sporting purpose". I dare say they would oppose more types save for the ads and reviews they run in order to bring in money and fools.
I don't know where you get your info, but they do not support limited magazine capacity, they do not support the semi-automatic weapons (erroneously referred to as assault weapons)ban. As for their exact position on Full auto, I can't honestly say where they stand, and I don't care. When we get the rest of the important stuff addressed then I will look at full auto. There are places where the mere possession of a hand gun is considered unlawful. We need to address the basics first, you have the 'cart ahead of the horse' if you are worried about full auto as this point.
I get my info from having been a member and reading their articles and various publications. Don't care to believe those assertions how about these?
"The National Rifle Association has been in support of workable, enforceable gun control legislation since its very inception in 1871."
-NRA Executive Vice President Franklin L. Orth
NRA's American Rifleman Magazine, March 1968, P. 22
Following are several telling quotes from the March 1968 American Rifleman - NRA's premier magazine, then and now - and brief analysis of a few of them. The complete article from which these quotes were taken can be found further below. Scanned images of this article are also linked below.
First, let's clear up the matter of NRA's support of NFA'34:
"The NRA supported The National Firearms Act of 1934 which taxes and requires registration of such firearms as machine guns, sawed-off rifles and sawed-off shotguns. ... NRA support of Federal gun legislation did not stop with the earlier Dodd bills. It currently backs several Senate and House bills which, through amendment, would put new teeth into the National and Federal Firearms Acts." -American Rifleman, March 1968, P. 22
Unless someone has evidence to prove that the NRA lied to its membership in its premier magazine, let the record show that the NRA got behind the first unconstitutional federal gun law in America and then bragged about having done so, many years later - decades after the law had been continually used to violate the rights of untold numbers of American citizens, including, surely, their own members.
The "Dodd" to which the above quote refers is the late Senator Thomas J. Dodd. Senator Dodd mimicked the Nazi Weapons Law of 1938, applied the underlying principles to the Gun Control Act of 1968, and took a leading role in getting the bill signed into federal law.
"The NRA supported The Federal Firearms Act of 1938, which regulates interstate and foreign commerce in firearms and pistol or revolver ammunition..." (P. 22)
The term "interstate commerce" is the BATF's fundamental justification for its firearms branch - a "color of law" excuse for the many assaults of innocent people they've conducted.
"The NRA supported the original 'Dodd Bill' to amend the Federal Firearms Act in regard to handguns when it was introduced as S.1975 in August, 1963. Among its provisions was the requirement that a purchaser submit a notarized statement to the shipper that he was over 18 and not legally disqualified from possessing a handgun." (P. 22)
That's one form of registration.
"In January, 1965, with the continued support of the NRA, Senator Dodd introduced an amended version of his first bill, now designated 5.14 and expanded to cover rifles and shotguns as well as handguns." (P. 22)
That's an extension of one form of registration to all types of guns not already under registration schemes at the time.
In order to "put new teeth into the National and Federal Firearms Acts," NRA management also pressed the federal government, in 1968, to:
"Regulate the movement of handguns in interstate and foreign commerce by:
"a. requiring a sworn statement, containing certain information, from the purchaser to the seller for the receipt of a handgun in interstate commerce;"
That's a registration list.
"b. providing for notification of local police of prospective sales;"
That's another registration mechanism.
"c. requiring an additional 7-day waiting period by the seller after receipt of acknowledgement of notification to local police;"
Wait a week to exercise your inalienable rights.
"d. prescribing a minimum age of 21 for obtaining a license to sell firearms and increasing the license fees;"
That is called Age Discrimination. In essence, in 1968, the NRA was saying "You can go die over in Vietnam for your country at age 18, but you can't sell a constitutionally protected item to your own neighbors for three more years."
"e. providing for written notification by manufacturer or dealer to carrier that a firearm is being shipped in interstate commerce;"
"Carrier" includes the U.S. Postal Service - another ripe opportunity for the federal government to collect names of gun buyers.
"f. increasing penalties for violation." (P. 22-23)
What do you think America's Founders would say about the NRA calling for "increasing penalties for violation" of unconstitutional gun laws?
At least as early as 1930, the NRA supported:
"...requir[ing] the purchaser of a pistol to give information about himself which is submitted by the seller to local police authorities..."
Historically noteworthy is the fact that the Germans were simultaneously doing the same thing, laying the groundwork for a Hitler to happen.
and
"...requir[ing] a license to carry a pistol concealed on one's person or in a vehicle..." [emphasis mine]
Ever heard of a license to carry a firearm in a vehicle? NRA has - over 70 years ago.
Not only has NRA management long supported gun owner registration, they've worked hard for it and still do. And NRA's current management still supports "penalties" for exercising your rights, which they now call "zero tolerance enforcement". (See Project Exile Condemnation Coalition and the Project Exile Archives for more information.)
"Many other instances of NRA support for worthwhile gun legislation could be quoted. But these suffice to show that Senator Kennedy's 'terrible indictment' of the NRA is groundless." (P. 23)
"Worthwhile gun legislation"?
The "terrible indictment" of NRA, as you will see in the full text below, was that NRA didn't support gun control. NRA set that matter straight with a loud thud. NRA Management still to this day supports a wide variety of ever-complex gun controls. And despite taking in hundreds of millions of dollars a year, they've still never managed a Supreme Court court victory based on the Second Amendment's historically-valid "individual right" argument. It's no wonder - their version of the Second Amendment is different than that of America's Founding Fathers.
Do notice the subtitle of NRA's 1968 article below. A "97-year record" of supporting gun control, to NRA's management, was a matter of pride. Some things never change:
"We think it's reasonable to support the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act. ... We think it's reasonable to expect full enforcement of federal firearms laws by the federal government. ... That's why we support Project Exile -- the fierce prosecution of federal gun laws...we think it's reasonable because it works. ... We only support what works and our list is proud."
-NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre
Congressional Testimony, May 27, 1999
Hearing Before 106th Congress
House of Representatives
Committee On The Judiciary
Subcommittee On Crime
First Session
Some will die in hot pursuit
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
Comments
The list can go on and on, and the only conclusion one can realisticaly arrive at is that the NRA is neither pro gun or pro 2nd ammendment. Their support of politician's who are hostile to gun ownership and anti 2nd is pretty long and notable.
The NRA has, for decades, pushed for "reasonable" gun control. Reasonable is a pretty subjective term, so what would be "reasonable"? How reasonable does one need be in order to exercise a constitutional right.
The NRA didn't compromise on the Uniform Firearms Act, they openly pushed for it's enactment. They didn't compromise on the National Firearms Act, they testified before congress in full support of it. They didn't compromise on the 68 Gun Control Act, again they testified before congress pushing for it's enactment. They stated that anyone not supporting it was unamerican, bragging about it's support of the GCA in the Mar 68 issue of their flagship publication The American Riflrman.
The list can go on and on, and the only conclusion one can realisticaly arrive at is that the NRA is neither pro gun or pro 2nd ammendment. Their support of politician's who are hostile to gun ownership and anti 2nd is pretty long and notable.
The NRA has, for decades, pushed for "reasonable" gun control. Reasonable is a pretty subjective term, so what would be "reasonable"? How reasonable does one need be in order to exercise a constitutional right.
But if the NRA had not done those things it would have been worse and you wouldn't even know what a gun is and if you don't support them you are gonna lose the gun rights the NRA has fought for.
I had it explained to me exactly what the NRA was up to, I took the only logical option available to me...I cancelled my membership (cut off their money) and joined GOA.
Simple.
I found the solution for this impossible conundrum right here on these forums!
I had it explained to me exactly what the NRA was up to, I took the only logical option available to me...I cancelled my membership (cut off their money) and joined GOA.
Simple.
Did the same thing, but be prepared to get a buttload of mail from the NRA pleading for money.
i agree, those 80 years of compromising my/our rights. the illegal gun laws should have been shelved by conservative politicians, BUT !! the whining and crying minority won over the majority of gun owners......,
SORRY....., i lost my train of thought here so i will just check out !!
Pro gun and Pro ownership (of guns) is anti-2nd Amendment?????
You lost me on that one!!!![?]
They need to push harder to get more concessions from the 'lawmakers' who have passed all of these unconstitutional laws for sure, but to say they are anti 2nd Amendment is just plain silly and childish.
Many here remind me of a 'child' having a temper tantrum because they did not get there way. We have to continue to work at getting these unconstitutional laws over turned ANY WAY WE CAN!!!! The NRA has backed many laws which are a compromise and many call that selling out, but unless any of you here are capable of 'leading a tall building in a single bound' we need to try and get to the top one step at a time and for some that is not good enough. So be it, but I will continue to keep trying to get there one step at a time because, unlike most of you, I am not Superman!!!![;)]
Copied from my previous post, Jim:
'We cannot afford to confuse legislated privileges with rights, and such confusion is one of the results of the actions and publications of the NRA-ILA.'
You have either been compromised by the NRA efforts to equate the two, have not spent sufficient time thinking about the difference, or simply don't have the intellectual capacity to understand the distinction.
FWIW, a person who is 'lost' by such a simple and obvious statement of fact doesn't have the mental standing to call anyone childish or silly.
Think about crafting legislation that requires people to apply for the privilege to own a firearm.
Now think about the individual right stated in the Second Amendment.
If you don't see the problem, you are a part of it.
Brad Steele
Nuff said, you all have a nice day and keep your powder dry, we may need it!!![:)]
We, well we do not support a clear enemy...not...one...bit...
There is a clear distinction between positions, principle and ethic, here.
One side would remove the offending object, stop the hemorrhaging, clean, disinfect and sew-up the wound, then let it heal-over and move on into constitutional health.
The other side fails to remove the polluted object, to disinfect it, does not clean the wound and they allow it to fester and grow gangrenous in its putrid infection, NEVER regaining constitutional health.
Hmmmm.
Good plan.
We are beating a dead horse here. We both agree the NRA has compromised our rights. BUT as stated above, some see those compromises as gains in the right direction others see it as a sell out. It is a matter of degree here. You all have given up on the NRA, some of us have not. Plain and simple. You can't change the NRA or any organization from the outside. So all you are doing is venting your frustration with them, nothing more. Your venting may make you feel better, but other than that it accomplishes nothing.
Nuff said, you all have a nice day and keep your powder dry, we may need it!!![:)]
It is not a matter of degree, Jim. All compromise in this case is in a negative direction. Retreating to positions of ever increasing limits and restrictions; adding ever increasing legislation of privilege; empowering governments at all levels to add dictates as to where, when, and how, can never be viewed as positive but with one exception.
The man that is willing to sell out the rights of his children for the selfish desire of regulated possession today may think it positive. That man is a gun rights person who either knows nothing of the concept of individual rights, or more likely, selfishly cares nothing of that concept for future generations. I have no problem with someone compromising for himself. Compromising future generations while crowing that they are being done a favor is contemptible.
Brad Steele
Your venting may make you feel better, but other than that it accomplishes nothing.
Have to disagree here.
You call it venting, I call it "EDUCATING" and it has done a WORLD OF GOOD in waking people up to the TRUTH about the organization that they thought was fighting for their 2nd amendment rights.
The facts, their actions, speak for themselves, and yet.....some people still try to defend them.
Oh yes, these threads are WELL worth the educational value alone.
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Your venting may make you feel better, but other than that it accomplishes nothing.
Have to disagree here.
You call it venting, I call it "EDUCATING" and it has done a WORLD OF GOOD in waking people up to the TRUTH about the organization that they thought was fighting for their 2nd amendment rights.
The facts, their actions, speak for themselves, and yet.....some people still try to defend them.
Oh yes, these threads are WELL worth the educational value alone.
+1.
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Your venting may make you feel better, but other than that it accomplishes nothing.
Have to disagree here.
You call it venting, I call it "EDUCATING" and it has done a WORLD OF GOOD in waking people up to the TRUTH about the organization that they thought was fighting for their 2nd amendment rights.
The facts, their actions, speak for themselves, and yet.....some people still try to defend them.
Oh yes, these threads are WELL worth the educational value alone.
Yes they are!!![8D] But do see a lot of venting going on!!![;)]
Since they say a picture is worth a 1,000 words, IMO perhaps 10,000.
This explains it quite well. [;)]
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
I don't agree with the American Socialist Party or the American Communist Party, Jim. Are you suggesting I waste my time trying to change them?
The NRA does not represent my views as to the 2nd Amendment. It has an 80 year history of subjugating my freedom for political expediency. Why would any sane person support that record? Why would any sane person try to change such a fundamentally flawed organization? I'll support them if they get out of the 2nd Amendment fight. I'll fight them if they stay in it, because every step they take to legislate a remedy to an infringement of my 2nd Amendment Rights is in and of itself an infringement on liberty.
You cannot point to a single clean bill promoted by the NRA that truly supports the 2nd Amendment.
All include restrictions.
All include Governmental oversight and/or regulation.
While most 'legalize' a specific action or process, all are anti individual freedom.
You see, Jim, it is not that the NRA has nothing to offer. What they do offer is the destruction of the individual right codified in the 2nd Amendment. Do you really not understand this, or are you simply hanging on to what is comfortable for you?
I have one son, Jim, and could not live with myself if I went along and accepted the Big Government solutions offered by the NRA. I could not live with knowing, without a shadow of a doubt, that I was helping to forge the shackles he and his children would be forced to live with.
The NRA is for and about Gun Owners and Gun Ownership, Jim. The Second Amendment is about the individual freedom of all Americans. The NRA does not want its supporters to understand that distinction. They remain an enemy of the 2nd Amendment, because they are corrupted by the money from their base of gun owners, manufactures, distributors, and the narcisistic need to be a player in Washington. Change them? Right.
You are showing your unwillingness to admit the obvious. The NRA is not an anti-gun organization. They are pro RTKABA'S. You and many here disagree with the way they go about it so you brand them as anti-gun. This is just plain silly and ignorant. The Communist and socialists are anti-gun so to use this analogy is ridiculous.
But I expect this type of reply from prejudice close minded people.[;)]
The NRA leaves a lot to be desired, and I give them hell on a regular basis, but to be as bitter and hateful as you and others here is just plain immature and silly.
Read for comprehension, Jim.
I have never said that the NRA is anti-gun. In fact, I have on many occasions stated that the NRA works to promote legislation that provides legal paths to gun ownership. This is pro-gun and pro gun ownership. I obviously recognize this; hell, I stated in the post above.
To equate these efforts, however, with the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms is what is ignorant and silly. It also displays a profound lack of understanding of the concept of the individual right that has been and is being destroyed by the Brady Bunch, the U.S. Congress and yes, the NRA and the stooges that support them.
Perhaps someday you will drop the blinders and open your actual closed mind and realize the difference between pro-gun and pro 2nd Amendment. I won't hold my breath.
While not bitter and hateful, Jim, I am saddened that you and the other sheep here that support the NRA are willing to accept the destruction of 2nd Amendment protections for our children and grandchildren for the purely selfish act of your legislated access to firearms today. I then become a little angry when you pretend that these subversive efforts are actually in support of the 2nd Amendment.
They are anti-gun in many respects. They oppose automatic weapons, they oppose firearms which have magazines of capacity 11 or higher, they oppose weapons where it is possible to attach a bayonet or rifles with a pistol grip, and they regularly denigrate weapons with no "sporting purpose". I dare say they would oppose more types save for the ads and reviews they run in order to bring in money and fools.
I don't know where you get your info, but they do not support limited magazine capacity, they do not support the semi-automatic weapons (erroneously referred to as assault weapons)ban. As for their exact position on Full auto, I can't honestly say where they stand, and I don't care. When we get the rest of the important stuff addressed then I will look at full auto. There are places where the mere possession of a hand gun is considered unlawful. We need to address the basics first, you have the 'cart ahead of the horse' if you are worried about full auto as this point.
I get my info from having been a member and reading their articles and various publications. Don't care to believe those assertions how about these?
"The National Rifle Association has been in support of workable, enforceable gun control legislation since its very inception in 1871."
-NRA Executive Vice President Franklin L. Orth
NRA's American Rifleman Magazine, March 1968, P. 22
Following are several telling quotes from the March 1968 American Rifleman - NRA's premier magazine, then and now - and brief analysis of a few of them. The complete article from which these quotes were taken can be found further below. Scanned images of this article are also linked below.
First, let's clear up the matter of NRA's support of NFA'34:
"The NRA supported The National Firearms Act of 1934 which taxes and requires registration of such firearms as machine guns, sawed-off rifles and sawed-off shotguns. ... NRA support of Federal gun legislation did not stop with the earlier Dodd bills. It currently backs several Senate and House bills which, through amendment, would put new teeth into the National and Federal Firearms Acts." -American Rifleman, March 1968, P. 22
Unless someone has evidence to prove that the NRA lied to its membership in its premier magazine, let the record show that the NRA got behind the first unconstitutional federal gun law in America and then bragged about having done so, many years later - decades after the law had been continually used to violate the rights of untold numbers of American citizens, including, surely, their own members.
The "Dodd" to which the above quote refers is the late Senator Thomas J. Dodd. Senator Dodd mimicked the Nazi Weapons Law of 1938, applied the underlying principles to the Gun Control Act of 1968, and took a leading role in getting the bill signed into federal law.
"The NRA supported The Federal Firearms Act of 1938, which regulates interstate and foreign commerce in firearms and pistol or revolver ammunition..." (P. 22)
The term "interstate commerce" is the BATF's fundamental justification for its firearms branch - a "color of law" excuse for the many assaults of innocent people they've conducted.
"The NRA supported the original 'Dodd Bill' to amend the Federal Firearms Act in regard to handguns when it was introduced as S.1975 in August, 1963. Among its provisions was the requirement that a purchaser submit a notarized statement to the shipper that he was over 18 and not legally disqualified from possessing a handgun." (P. 22)
That's one form of registration.
"In January, 1965, with the continued support of the NRA, Senator Dodd introduced an amended version of his first bill, now designated 5.14 and expanded to cover rifles and shotguns as well as handguns." (P. 22)
That's an extension of one form of registration to all types of guns not already under registration schemes at the time.
In order to "put new teeth into the National and Federal Firearms Acts," NRA management also pressed the federal government, in 1968, to:
"Regulate the movement of handguns in interstate and foreign commerce by:
"a. requiring a sworn statement, containing certain information, from the purchaser to the seller for the receipt of a handgun in interstate commerce;"
That's a registration list.
"b. providing for notification of local police of prospective sales;"
That's another registration mechanism.
"c. requiring an additional 7-day waiting period by the seller after receipt of acknowledgement of notification to local police;"
Wait a week to exercise your inalienable rights.
"d. prescribing a minimum age of 21 for obtaining a license to sell firearms and increasing the license fees;"
That is called Age Discrimination. In essence, in 1968, the NRA was saying "You can go die over in Vietnam for your country at age 18, but you can't sell a constitutionally protected item to your own neighbors for three more years."
"e. providing for written notification by manufacturer or dealer to carrier that a firearm is being shipped in interstate commerce;"
"Carrier" includes the U.S. Postal Service - another ripe opportunity for the federal government to collect names of gun buyers.
"f. increasing penalties for violation." (P. 22-23)
What do you think America's Founders would say about the NRA calling for "increasing penalties for violation" of unconstitutional gun laws?
At least as early as 1930, the NRA supported:
"...requir[ing] the purchaser of a pistol to give information about himself which is submitted by the seller to local police authorities..."
Historically noteworthy is the fact that the Germans were simultaneously doing the same thing, laying the groundwork for a Hitler to happen.
and
"...requir[ing] a license to carry a pistol concealed on one's person or in a vehicle..." [emphasis mine]
Ever heard of a license to carry a firearm in a vehicle? NRA has - over 70 years ago.
Not only has NRA management long supported gun owner registration, they've worked hard for it and still do. And NRA's current management still supports "penalties" for exercising your rights, which they now call "zero tolerance enforcement". (See Project Exile Condemnation Coalition and the Project Exile Archives for more information.)
"Many other instances of NRA support for worthwhile gun legislation could be quoted. But these suffice to show that Senator Kennedy's 'terrible indictment' of the NRA is groundless." (P. 23)
"Worthwhile gun legislation"?
The "terrible indictment" of NRA, as you will see in the full text below, was that NRA didn't support gun control. NRA set that matter straight with a loud thud. NRA Management still to this day supports a wide variety of ever-complex gun controls. And despite taking in hundreds of millions of dollars a year, they've still never managed a Supreme Court court victory based on the Second Amendment's historically-valid "individual right" argument. It's no wonder - their version of the Second Amendment is different than that of America's Founding Fathers.
Do notice the subtitle of NRA's 1968 article below. A "97-year record" of supporting gun control, to NRA's management, was a matter of pride. Some things never change:
"We think it's reasonable to support the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act. ... We think it's reasonable to expect full enforcement of federal firearms laws by the federal government. ... That's why we support Project Exile -- the fierce prosecution of federal gun laws...we think it's reasonable because it works. ... We only support what works and our list is proud."
-NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre
Congressional Testimony, May 27, 1999
Hearing Before 106th Congress
House of Representatives
Committee On The Judiciary
Subcommittee On Crime
First Session
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain