For those of you who support the NRA....

[RobertNashville]

I don't know it's really ragging so much, more like pointing out the elephant in the room...  The NRA has a spotty (at best) track record of agreeing to compromises that take away rights from law abiding citizens.  
 
Making sure that other gun owners aren't fooled into thinking that the NRA is a white knight on shining armor here to save us...  isn't ragging...
 
Now with that said, I'm a lifetime member of the NRA, and I did send them a check on Monday for their LAC.  I also talked to GOA in DC and am in the process of making a donation to their foundation.
 
But, just because somebody speaks truth to the questionable choices the NRA has made over the years in supporting anti-2nd amendment legislation (Hayes Amendment anybody?), and their opposition to ground breaking 2nd amendment lawsuits (their attempt to derail the Heller suit)...  Doesn't mean their trolling the NRA on the internet.
 
Dollar for dollar, the 2nd Amendment Foundation, and GOA does a lot more good for true 2nd Amendment rights IMHO.

I absolutely agree but I suspect some of the posts complaining about the NRA aren't entirely well intentioned. ;)

The NRA has and continues to do tremendous things for firearm enthusiasts, the shooting sports and perhaps most importantly; getting kids involved in shooting. They also have some tremendous failures, at least they are in hindsight.

I to like the GOA's approach and am a member...frankly, I had forgotten about the 2nd Amendment Foundation; I need to look into them. Edited December 19, 2012 by RobertNashville

[JayC]

Everybody really should look at SAF, http://www.saf.org/

 

They brought us the Heller, McDonald rulings...  They're the group that brought us the recent IL suit that found a right to bear arms, and they're pushing a lawsuit called Palmer v DC through right now towards SCOTUS to find the 2nd amendment does cover the right to bear arms.

 

SAF does a ton of good work for us gun owners, and I am I member and send them a check each year.

 

I absolutely agree but I suspect some of the posts complaining about the NRA aren't entirely well intentioned. ;)

The NRA has and continues to do tremendous things for firearm enthusiasts, the shooting sports and perhaps most importantly; getting kids involved in shooting. They also have some tremendous failures, at least they are in hindsight.

I to like the GOA's approach and am a member...frankly, I had forgotten about the 2nd Amendment Foundation; I need to look into them.

Edited December 19, 2012 by JayC

[Oh Shoot]

Heard on tube that NRA has averaged 8K new members per day since the shooting in CT.

 

- OS

[Erik88]

Heard on tube that NRA has averaged 8K new members per day since the shooting in CT.

 

- OS

good. very good. Regardless of how anyone feels the NRA is very important. The media never mentions the GOA.

[strickj]

Heard on tube that NRA has averaged 8K new members per day since the shooting in CT.

 

- OS

Methinks is why they have been silent.

 

Imagine the numbers if a ban gets put on the table or even goes through. Big bank. Big big bank.

[Garufa]

Any further support of the NRA from this guy will be decided after this Friday as I fully expect them to compromise.

[mikegideon]

Any further support of the NRA from this guy will be decided after this Friday as I fully expect them to compromise.

I wouldn't be surprised. Some low hanging fruit.

[Oh Shoot]

I wouldn't be surprised. Some low hanging fruit.

 

My guess is they'll be willing to give on the universal background checks if that's needed to forestall anything else of consequence. That's one major sop they can keep in back pocket.

 

I'm thinking I would myself. But not a national registry.

 

- OS

Edited December 20, 2012 by Oh Shoot

[Guest Wildogre]

Just a thought, background checks on all buyers of cars, private and dealer that precludes anyone who has had a DUI in the last five years from buying a car. In exchange for closing the so called "Gun Show Loophole".

 

Reasoning is that cars kill more people in the US than guns do. So if the goal is saving lives we need to look at that side of the equation too. 

[Jonnin]

I know most disagree with me but I would be very willing to do the background checks (buyer, gun serial #, go/no-go check) but IMHO those checks need to be free if they are to be required.  

 

What I expect at this time:

attempted assault weapon ban

attempted mag cap limit of 10

attempted tax on ammo, excessive

attempted tax on all guns, excessive

attempted closure of individual sales

possible NFA type rules for AR/AK/etc (?) not quite class 3 but in between class 3 and normal folks

attempted registry (very, very difficult to do now)

possible ammo limitation of some sort (can't buy more than X in X amount of time?)

possible hefty waiting periods (month+ per purchase).

[JayC]

My guess is they'll be willing to give on the universal background checks if that's needed to forestall anything else of consequence. That's one major sop they can keep in back pocket.

 

I'm thinking I would myself. But not a national registry.

 

- OS

 

So you're ok with having to run all private sales through an FFL?  How would that have stopped the shooting in CT?

 

We need to make a line in the sand, more gun control will only place law abiding citizens at greater risk...  Law abiding citizens must have ready access to the best self defense tools on the market.  PERIOD

 

I don't believe any amount of gun laws would have prevented this evil man from doing what he did, show me something that would have, and I might be willing to discuss how we can implement that and that alone...  but giving up private sales is a non-starter, this guy stole the firearms, a ban on private sales would increase the cost $35-50 per firearm transaction, plus another $10 to the state in the unconstitutional TICS fee.  That is $45-60 more for a $200 22lr?  pass.

[RobertNashville]

So you're ok with having to run all private sales through an FFL?  How would that have stopped the shooting in CT?

 

We need to make a line in the sand, more gun control will only place law abiding citizens at greater risk...  Law abiding citizens must have ready access to the best self defense tools on the market.  PERIOD

 

I don't believe any amount of gun laws would have prevented this evil man from doing what he did, show me something that would have, and I might be willing to discuss how we can implement that and that alone...  but giving up private sales is a non-starter, this guy stole the firearms, a ban on private sales would increase the cost $35-50 per firearm transaction, plus another $10 to the state in the unconstitutional TICS fee.  That is $45-60 more for a $200 22lr?  pass.

I dislike the "background check" process as much as anyone - we know it doesn't really stop criminals from getting guns and it especially can't stop someone from becoming a criminal after the purchase; maybe even weeks or years after the purchase.  However, would having to succumb to going through an FFL for all firearm transactions, including private party, be an reasonable trade to, say, keep being able to BUY weapons; especially those they wan to ban entirely because they "look mean"?  I would certainly prefer the background check if the alternative is banning many types of weapons.

 

Of course I don't like it but what exactly are we supposed to do?  We can talk about how we won't compromise our rights but what exactly does that mean?  How far are you willing to go? (no need to actually answer that; just proposing that people need to think about it...really think about it).

 

Of course there are no amount of gun laws of any kind that would have stopped this young man from doing what he did at Sandy Hook Elementary nor will any new gun laws stop the next one. But I'm sure you know, that doesn't matter.

 

People are so appalled by what happened that they are going to demand that something be done and, as is always the case with government, they'll address the symptom rather than the problem...as is always the case when a gun is involved, they'll blame the gun. Why?  Because it's so much easier to do so and because many people and especially those with a liberal mindset hate guns; even if they don't know why they hate guns.

 

We all know that if this disgusting, evil man had stolen a big dump truck and rammed his way into the school and killed twice as many children; NO ONE would be blaming the dump truck.

 

The real problem is not the gun or the dump truck; it's EVIL.

We know evil exists, that's why most of us who carry, carry...we understand the very unpleasant reality that the ONLY thing that can stop an evil man with a gun is a good man with a gun who is willing and able to use it. But, no liberal politician and a lot of (alleged) conservative politicians want to say that because they don't want to be labeled as a nutcase or as someone who wants "military grade child-killing weapons" available to the general public.

 

Any way you slice it, we have an uphill battle coming...I think we'll be lucky to beat back very many of the proposals that will be coming out of DC. As James Yeager said in his video that I and others posted, we had better pull together and stop eating each other...we can't find ways to agree on how to push back on what's coming then nothing will stop it.

[mikegideon]

So you're ok with having to run all private sales through an FFL?  How would that have stopped the shooting in CT?

 

We need to make a line in the sand, more gun control will only place law abiding citizens at greater risk...  Law abiding citizens must have ready access to the best self defense tools on the market.  PERIOD

 

I don't believe any amount of gun laws would have prevented this evil man from doing what he did, show me something that would have, and I might be willing to discuss how we can implement that and that alone...  but giving up private sales is a non-starter, this guy stole the firearms, a ban on private sales would increase the cost $35-50 per firearm transaction, plus another $10 to the state in the unconstitutional TICS fee.  That is $45-60 more for a $200 22lr?  pass.

It may not matter what we're OK with. Rational thought doesn't matter. Reality doesn't matter. The strategy has been to not give an inch, and I've always agreed with that. That may STILL be the strategy, but I'll leave that up to the NRA and our friends in the house. If a critical mass of people want something in this country, they'll get it.

 

We don't know what the House members are hearing from their districts. One thing's for sure... political suicide doesn't pay. The NRA's standard position is to not give an inch. If they change that position, it will be because they can't win it. They're in close touch with congress... count on it.

Edited December 20, 2012 by mikegideon

[JayC]

Robert,

 

I'm not willing to compromise anymore of my rights away, period.

 

I won't support a law that would have done nothing to protect the children in Sandy Hook from this evil man, and would continue to do nothing to protect children in the future from more mad men, while taking away my God given rights.

 

I know this is going to sound cold, but even if a law would have saved those children in Sandy Hook, I'm not sure I would support it...  The fact is in a free society good people die, and when evil people kill good people we need to punish them...  I shouldn't have my freedoms taken away because some evil doer goes nuts and shoots up a bunch of innocent kids.

 

It's time we draw a line in the sand and dare them to cross, let them pass a ban and see how well that works out for them.

 

I agree it's time to come together, this insanity needs to end now...  Never again should we allow a feel good gun control law pass in this state or in this country.  

 

But then again Robert you have to remember I'm one of those "crazy" God given rights people :)

 

 

I dislike the "background check" process as much as anyone - we know it doesn't really stop criminals from getting guns and it especially can't stop someone from becoming a criminal after the purchase; maybe even weeks or years after the purchase.  However, would having to succumb to going through an FFL for all firearm transactions, including private party, be an reasonable trade to, say, keep being able to BUY weapons; especially those they wan to ban entirely because they "look mean"?  I would certainly prefer the background check if the alternative is banning many types of weapons.

 

Of course I don't like it but what exactly are we supposed to do?  We can talk about how we won't compromise our rights but what exactly does that mean?  How far are you willing to go? (no need to actually answer that; just proposing that people need to think about it...really think about it).

 

Of course there are no amount of gun laws of any kind that would have stopped this young man from doing what he did at Sandy Hook Elementary nor will any new gun laws stop the next one. But I'm sure you know, that doesn't matter.

 

People are so appalled by what happened that they are going to demand that something be done and, as is always the case with government, they'll address the symptom rather than the problem...as is always the case when a gun is involved, they'll blame the gun. Why?  Because it's so much easier to do so and because many people and especially those with a liberal mindset hate guns; even if they don't know why they hate guns.

 

We all know that if this disgusting, evil man had stolen a big dump truck and rammed his way into the school and killed twice as many children; NO ONE would be blaming the dump truck.

 

The real problem is not the gun or the dump truck; it's EVIL.

We know evil exists, that's why most of us who carry, carry...we understand the very unpleasant reality that the ONLY thing that can stop an evil man with a gun is a good man with a gun who is willing and able to use it. But, no liberal politician and a lot of (alleged) conservative politicians want to say that because they don't want to be labeled as a nutcase or as someone who wants "military grade child-killing weapons" available to the general public.

 

Any way you slice it, we have an uphill battle coming...I think we'll be lucky to beat back very many of the proposals that will be coming out of DC. As James Yeager said in his video that I and others posted, we had better pull together and stop eating each other...we can't find ways to agree on how to push back on what's coming then nothing will stop it.

 

 

[RobertNashville]

Robert,

 

I'm not willing to compromise anymore of my rights away, period.

 

I won't support a law that would have done nothing to protect the children in Sandy Hook from this evil man, and would continue to do nothing to protect children in the future from more mad men, while taking away my God given rights.

 

I know this is going to sound cold, but even if a law would have saved those children in Sandy Hook, I'm not sure I would support it...  The fact is in a free society good people die, and when evil people kill good people we need to punish them...  I shouldn't have my freedoms taken away because some evil doer goes nuts and shoots up a bunch of innocent kids.

 

It's time we draw a line in the sand and dare them to cross, let them pass a ban and see how well that works out for them.

 

I agree it's time to come together, this insanity needs to end now...  Never again should we allow a feel good gun control law pass in this state or in this country.  

 

But then again Robert you have to remember I'm one of those "crazy" God given rights people :)

Fine...what exactly are you going to do?

 

Are you going to "go out guns blazing" when the police or BATFE or whoever comes to get you illegal guns?

 

Going to start a civil war and see maybe tens of thousands of people die?

 

It sounds so manly...so patriotic to say "I'm not willing to compromise any more of my rights away, period" but what exactly are you going to DO?

 

Those are rhetorical questions and even if they weren't you probably shouldn't answer. I just think they need to be thought through very carefully.

Edited December 20, 2012 by RobertNashville

[JayC]

The NRA's standard position is to not give an inch. If they change that position, it will be because they can't win it. They're in close touch with congress... count on it.

 

Since when has this been the case?  I'm positive that isn't the case...  The NRA was offered a veto on the Hughes Amendment and they said no, we'll take it out next year...  That was 25 years ago!  Has the NRA even gotten a bill introduced to remove the Hughes Amendment.

 

The NRA may very well fold like a cheap suit on this issue...  but I'm not willing to give up my God given rights, let them pass a ban and see how well that works out for them.

 

We've spent 20+ years working to repeal all of these non-sense laws from before I was born, there is no 'retreat' to win another day in this fight, it's for our freedom for our God given rights, and I'm not willing to barter those away on feel good laws.

[Oh Shoot]

So you're ok with having to run all private sales through an FFL?  How would that have stopped the shooting in CT?

 

I'm not "okay" with the laws we already have. Talking real world worst case scenarios here, and I'm no Spartacus.

 

Echo Mike and Robert's responses.

 

- OS

Edited December 20, 2012 by Oh Shoot

[JayC]

Fine...what exactly are you going to do?

 

Are you going to "go out guns blazing" when the police or BATFE or whoever comes to get you illegal guns?

 

Going to start a civil war and see maybe tens of thousands of people die?

 

It sounds so manly...so patriotic to say "I'm not willing to compromise any more of my rights away, period" but what exactly are you going to DO?

 

Those are rhetorical questions and even if they weren't you probably shouldn't answer. I just think they need to be thought through very carefully.

 

Robert,

 

I don't think they can go door to door to confiscate the firearms.  I don't think drawing a line in the sand is 'manly' or 'patriotic'....  but, I think it's time for gun owners, and 2nd amendment supporters to say in a clear voice, "never again, no more".

 

I don't subscribe to childhood fantasies, that it's somehow patriotic to die in a blaze of glory, and who wants a civil war to start?  

 

But, I'm not blind either, I believe that a civil war (revolution 3.0 whatever you want to call it) is at the very least a possibility in my life time, if not a probability...  So if this is the straw that breaks that camels back, then so be it.  Probably better this than waiting until a sovereign debt crisis hits.

 

Let me ask you some questions, and they aren't rhetorical :)

 

What is it that these folks want?  Do you think they will be happy with more red tape, and never ask for anything else again?  Or will they continue to chip away at this right?  Why do we as gun owners continue to even negotiate with people who have made it clear their end goal is to disarm all law abiding citizens?

 

Our grandparents and parents pushed this fight onto our shoulders, and that was unfair of them...  They knew the 'progressives' wanted to disarm us, and instead of making a stand they continued to 'appease' our progressive "friends".  We've had to spend the vast majority of our adult lives fighting to take those rights back...

 

It's not fair of us to continue to push this 'fight' onto the next generation or the generation after that...  We must say in clear terms, NO. We're not going to continue to give an inch, on these stupid feel good laws that violate our God given rights.  That there is no middle ground on this argument, that there will be no compromise, period.

 

History has taught me what happens when you give up these rights...  I know what is at stake, and I'm willing to draw a line in the sand and say NO.  My hope is that no is enough, because the only place I want to die, is in a warm comfortable bed surrounded by my children and grand children many years from now.  

[BrasilNuts]

Of course I don't like it but what exactly are we supposed to do?  We can talk about how we won't compromise our rights but what exactly does that mean?  How far are you willing to go? (no need to actually answer that; just proposing that people need to think about it...really think about it).

 

 

Enough already Robert, we get it.

 

If we don't agree with you, obviously, we haven't "really thought about it."

 

Talk about beating a dead horse....

 

 

 

So, in your opinion Robert, what should we be willing to give up?

 

Hi-cap mags?

 

Semi-automatic rifles?

 

Semi-automatic pistols?

 

 

Care to give your opinion?

 

 

Edit:  Almost forgot....Compromise.

Edited December 20, 2012 by BrasilNuts

[Commando68]

Fine...what exactly are you going to do?

 

Are you going to "go out guns blazing" when the police or BATFE or whoever comes to get you illegal guns?

 

Going to start a civil war and see maybe tens of thousands of people die?

 

It sounds so manly...so patriotic to say "I'm not willing to compromise any more of my rights away, period" but what exactly are you going to DO?

 

Those are rhetorical questions and even if they weren't you probably shouldn't answer. I just think they need to be thought through very carefully.

Ok, so the AWB goes back into effect and those 10 round mags are going to keep the kiddies safe. Oh, the vermin in dc feel great about themselves now. Oh no, another mass shooting in a Mall? What to do now the new law just didn't quite cut it. It was easy last time, so why not just remove the grandfather clause and give owners of ARS/AK'S etc 30 days to turn them in or they are felons. Ok, this happens. 8 mos later OMG another school shooting! Well the swamp crawlers on the hill must do something! Well those pesky old handguns are to blame.....now you have 30 days to turn them in future felon! And so on and so on. They will not stop with any new legislation. As sick as it makes me to say this; they are not stupid. Feinstink knows exactly what she is doing. That mutt knows that it is unconstitutional to "infringe" with any new federal laws but she is pushing for it anyway.

Consider this scenario:

4 yrs from now obama has appointed a new SCOTUS judge or two. The country is in chaos and he pulls the strings to get a 3rd term. We are left w/single shot rifles and ammunition is taxed at 1000%. We have a new currency and energy bills have quadrupled. What are you going to do when the stormtroopers start rounding up the trouble makers? The trouble makers that still think the 1st. amendment protects them. Or the 4th? Truthfully, without the means to keep evil out of your living room it will come. What then? I'll tell you what then.....The camps. If anyone is naive enough to think o wouldn't do it they would be fools. Just my two cents.

[mikegideon]

Enough already Robert, we get it.

 

If we don't agree with you, obviously, we haven't "really thought about it."

 

Talk about beating a dead horse....

 

 

 

So, in your opinion Robert, what should we be willing to give up?

 

Hi-cap mags?

 

Semi-automatic rifles?

 

Semi-automatic pistols?

 

 

Care to give your opinion?

It's not what we're willing to give up. It's what they're capable of taking. Let's give the NRA a chance to speak. The house members WILL bend to their constituents. We haven't quantified that. I'm sure the NRA is trying to do that now.

[RobertNashville]

The only way that "NO" to compromise/new gun laws has any impact is if those who say"no" are are willing to back it up with force; even if it means their death.

 

It's just my opinion but I suspect that for every 10,000 people who say we must say "no", about 1 of those 10,000 will actually show up for the fight.

Edited December 20, 2012 by RobertNashville

[JayC]

I agree it only works if the other side believe you are willing back the no up with force.  I think the least we could do is encourage them to believe that is the case, so we can avoid violence altogether.

 

Because if you're right 1 in 10,000 (I'd put the number closer to 1 in 100 or 1 in 1,000), that is still enough to cause a massive problem...  Just remember 1 adult and 1 kid nearly shutdown Washington DC for 2 weeks, and it seems they were dumb as rocks.

 

The only way that "NO" to compromise/new gun laws has any impact is if those who say are are willing to back it up with force; even if it means their death.

 

It's just my opinion but I suspect that for every 10,000 people who say we must say "no", about 1 of those 10,000 will actually show up for the fight.

[RobertNashville]

I agree it only works if the other side believe you are willing back the no up with force.  I think the least we could do is encourage them to believe that is the case, so we can avoid violence altogether.

 

Because if you're right 1 in 10,000 (I'd put the number closer to 1 in 100 or 1 in 1,000), that is still enough to cause a massive problem...  Just remember 1 adult and 1 kid nearly shutdown Washington DC for 2 weeks, and it seems they were dumb as rocks.

Maybe...but words don't cost anything (or at least not much) - not directed at you or anyone in particular but I suspect there are a LOT more people talking tough than there are willing to put their lives or their children's lives on the line to back it up.

 

Armed rebellion is a pretty messy business no matter who wins and likely, such a war here today will just result in misery - not a "win"...not a preservation...not a a restoration of anything; just a shattered country and misery.

Edited December 20, 2012 by RobertNashville

[JayC]

Maybe...but words don't cost anything (or at least not much) - not directed at you or anyone in particular but I suspect there are a LOT more people talking tough than there are willing to put their lives or their children's lives on the line to back it up.

 

Armed rebellion is a pretty messy business no matter who wins and likely, such a war here today will just result in misery - not a "win"...not a preservation...not a a restoration of anything; just a shattered country and misery.

 

So the answer is to roll over and give them what they want?  So we can wait until the next mass killing by a evil doer who is aided by their silly laws, so they can come back and ask for more again?

 

Where does the appeasement stop in your mind?

 

As for rebellion being messy, yes you're right...  but I'd much rather that messy misery start while I and you (and all otherwise law abiding citizens) are still armed, and not at the mercy of stronger men and despots.  

 

I don't know if there is anything we can do today to save this country from shattering under it's own weight, I hope I'm wrong, but I fear I'm not.

 

But we shouldn't be willing to trade rights for the promise of security, because we will end up with neither.