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.
Options
How Easily The NRA Can Be Made to Unfairly Look Bad
tr fox
Member Posts: 13,856
Here Is a copy and paste of a topic I posted awhile back. I used it to try and demonstrate how NRA haters can manipulate true facts to unfairly make the NRA look bad. Here is another way this same one example can be unfairly used against the NRA. Notice at first the NRA was against a new MO bill that would have, overall, expanded gun rights. The NRA liked all the bill except for that one proposed clause, the firearms reporting bill. Now in this case the NRA was able to choose to temporarily block a a generally pro-gun bill simply because of that one troubling clause about "firearms reporting." So then and because of that NRA blocking, that one clause was removed and then the NRA supported the bill and it passed. I believe the NRA knew they could get away with this because they knew because of the circumstances, without that unwanted clause, the bill would still pass. Now here is where it gets tricky. What if the NRA desperately wanted the bill to pass and knew it was so close to not passing, that if the NRA opposed the addition of that one firearms reporting clause, the bill would not pass. If that had been the case, it would have been smart of the NRA TO NOT oppose that one unwanted firearms reporting clause and therefore get the bill passed. But when and if the NRA took that action, the NRA haters could scream about how "The NRA helped pass a bad bill!" Ignoring of course such COMPROMISE was needed or the bill would have been lost in it's entirety. Lost not only that one offending clause, but lost all the bill. And remember that during the next years MO legislating session, the NRA would have undoubtable lobbied to amend that SB367 and remove that offending clause. IOW, in the end it all would have worked out to the benefit of gun rights. But still, the NRA haters could post the same information I am posting but put a negative spin on the NRA's actions. Bottom line, the gun rights war is complicated. That means sometimes your allies might act in a way that you will not understand until later. JMHO
THE BELOW I POSTED AWHILE BACK
"The bill?s other stiff opposition came from an unlikely source: the NRA. Anti-gun Senator Jamilah Nasheed tried to sneak language into SB367 that would require gun owners to report a stolen firearm to police no more than 72 hours after the discovery of the theft, or face a $1,000 fine and a misdemeanor charge. However, the actual text of the bill included no such language.
Bill author Senator Eric Burlison and bill saboteur Senator Nasheed agreed to reconsider and the stolen firearm reporting clause was removed earlier this week, thus satisfying the source of NRA opposition."
There was obviously some confusion during the legislation, this is not uncommon. And during that confusion, the NRA took the appropriate stand, believing it was standing against the gun rights bill because of the anti-gun Senator Nasheed trying to sneak some anti-gun language into the bill. As the article says, when it became obvious to everyone that Nasheed gave up his efforts, then the NRA supported the bill. But years from now, after most people have forgotten this fact, the NRA haters can drege it back up again and claim that the "NRA was against a marvelous gun rights law."
THE BELOW I POSTED AWHILE BACK
"The bill?s other stiff opposition came from an unlikely source: the NRA. Anti-gun Senator Jamilah Nasheed tried to sneak language into SB367 that would require gun owners to report a stolen firearm to police no more than 72 hours after the discovery of the theft, or face a $1,000 fine and a misdemeanor charge. However, the actual text of the bill included no such language.
Bill author Senator Eric Burlison and bill saboteur Senator Nasheed agreed to reconsider and the stolen firearm reporting clause was removed earlier this week, thus satisfying the source of NRA opposition."
There was obviously some confusion during the legislation, this is not uncommon. And during that confusion, the NRA took the appropriate stand, believing it was standing against the gun rights bill because of the anti-gun Senator Nasheed trying to sneak some anti-gun language into the bill. As the article says, when it became obvious to everyone that Nasheed gave up his efforts, then the NRA supported the bill. But years from now, after most people have forgotten this fact, the NRA haters can drege it back up again and claim that the "NRA was against a marvelous gun rights law."
Comments
Guys like you irrationally 'believe' something different. You 'think' that the flood of available facts showing the NRA are and always have been in support of gun control are a myth because you refuse to acknowledge them and even if slapped across the eyes with examples you can't ignore, your ilk dodges, diverts and/or refuses to believe...all in one of the most bizarre displays of mental gymnastics and intellectual dishonesty one could ever be cursed to witness.
Such people who cannot see and absorb facts and/or who engage in duplicitous dishonesty and willful self-delusion simply cannot be trusted in any manner...personally, professionally, in their associations, or in any other way.
Check yourself and reevaluate, Fox. It can and would make you a better man.
I was, in some ways reference the NRA, in your position long ago, but I started seeing things that didn't add up to what I had been taught and told were true and I began focusing and specifically searching out information, e.g. educating myself, then I had to honestly assess what I learned and found out. My whole paradigm changed and shifted because I could do nothing but call things the way they actually were, not as I had previously believed them to be.
You have been lied to and fooled TR and it would behoove you to confront it, educate yourself about it, admit it and then act upon it, as a man does.
Here's what I posted on the last one and it's still appropriate here:
Such state laws have thus far not worked out as well as envisioned. Consider the Kettler case in KY, taken up by GOA. So far Kettler is up s. creek.
https://gunowners.org/gun-owners-of-ame ... eme-court/
I wholly support State Nullification efforts and while the NRA is on the correct side THIS TIME, there's such a long history of being on the wrong side it's hardly compensating for the harm they've done over the years. Consider bump stocks as just the most recent example, a device that we recently discover has never been confirmed to have been used in the commission of a crime, but here we are, shredding them along with our rights at the NRA's behest.
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
TR believes that if you shoot him in every limb but one, you've done him some good by saving his one limb. People who are able to think rationally laugh at such levels of stupidity.
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
If you can demonstrate otherwise, please do.
That would advance the conversation. Idle speculation about non-existent possibilities does not.
Brad Steele
It's quite precious, don't you think, to see the calls for fair evaluation of the NRA, when the OP isn't even willing to fairly acknowledge the distinct lack of criticism for this move.
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