NRA comes out against H.R. 3999

[tacticalreload]

I tend to agree, though their original statement suffered from vagueness. Better to have said something like "NRA believes the issue of bump-stocks should be examined by BATFE and would be willing to consider the merit of additional regulations they may propose on the topic."

Better to have said "The NRA believes that these devices, which by a factor of their operation have been determined by the ATF to not in any way meet the definition of an already-regulated machine gun, are not to blame in this tragic incident. Instead, we firmly believe that the focus should be placed squarely upon the suspect of this evil and heinous act. We mourn for the victims of this senseless act of violence. The NRA stands together with the law-abiding people of this great country in the pursuit of means to avoid such tragedies in the future, even in the face of gun-control advocates that seek to politicize the acts of a madman for their own gain by pushing forward an ineffective political agenda."

That's the statement of the kind of organization to which I want to send my money. Hell, I would have settled for their saying nothing instead... that would have done less damage. IF the ATF had come out with "additional regulations", I would have expected the NRA to formally OPPOSE them as well... that's bureaucratic overreach. One pull, one bullet is now and has always been the definition. As per the NFA, "... any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger." Aside from stupid things like the Auto Glove enter a gray area by attaching some mechanized solenoid to your finger and effectively redefines "trigger", this has been the definition for 80 years. Giving the power to dictate legality of firearms based on vague subjectivity is the kind of backdoor gun banning control that skirts the entire idea of due process... in many ways, it's MORE dangerous than Congress trying to pass more laws even the end result is effectively the same thing.

[KCJones]

Better to have said "The NRA believes that these devices, which by a factor of their operation have been determined by the ATF to not in any way meet the definition of an already-regulated machine gun, are not to blame in this tragic incident. Instead, we firmly believe that the focus should be placed squarely upon the suspect of this evil and heinous act. We mourn for the victims of this senseless act of violence. The NRA stands together with the law-abiding people of this great country in the pursuit of means to avoid such tragedies in the future, even in the face of gun-control advocates that seek to politicize the acts of a madman for their own gain by pushing forward an ineffective political agenda."

That's the statement of the kind of organization to which I want to send my money. Hell, I would have settled for their saying nothing instead... that would have done less damage. IF the ATF had come out with "additional regulations", I would have expected the NRA to formally OPPOSE them as well... that's bureaucratic overreach. One pull, one bullet is now and has always been the definition. As per the NFA, "... any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger." Aside from stupid things like the Auto Glove enter a gray area by attaching some mechanized solenoid to your finger and effectively redefines "trigger", this has been the definition for 80 years. Giving the power to dictate legality of firearms based on vague subjectivity is the kind of backdoor gun banning control that skirts the entire idea of due process... in many ways, it's MORE dangerous than Congress trying to pass more laws even the end result is effectively the same thing.

For my part, I don't have a problem belonging to an organization that responds to the tides of public opinion with a carefully-crafted statement that preserves nearly all options to avoid regulation while also not saying anything to make an over-sensitized public turn against it. Buying time to allow the swell of emotion to abate is not a bad thing.

My problem is with an organization that made apparently-rushed, vague, seemingly-capitulatory statements that just fanned the flames.

However, I don't agree that a statement which amounts to "in your face!" would have been a good idea. NRA does not benefit any of us by making poorly-timed inflammatory statements thus setting itself up as a 'there you go again' type bogeyman for the left to say "see! see!"

YMMV (and apparently does, that's fine. See '1st amendment' in about 10,000 places in this forum...)

[JenniferG]

For my part, I don't have a problem belonging to an organization that responds to the tides of public opinion with a carefully-crafted statement that preserves nearly all options to avoid regulation while also not saying anything to make an over-sensitized public turn against it. Buying time to allow the swell of emotion to abate is not a bad thing.

My problem is with an organization that made apparently-rushed, vague, seemingly-capitulatory statements that just fanned the flames.

However, I don't agree that a statement which amounts to "in your face!" would have been a good idea. NRA does not benefit any of us by making poorly-timed inflammatory statements thus setting itself up as a 'there you go again' type bogeyman for the left to say "see! see!"

YMMV (and apparently does, that's fine. See '1st amendment' in about 10,000 places in this forum...)

Exactly. This is why we don't need reactionary spokespeople to represent us and lobby for us. You would look as silly as a democrat if when the dust settles you go back and see everything you said was in reaction to the overreaction of the democrats. Political dealings should be done by people that understand the process. I sent my money to the NRA to counteract the overreaction of the few individuals that will make a lot of noise but not much sense that are supposedly on our own side.

[KCJones]

Exactly. This is why we don't need reactionary spokespeople to represent us and lobby for us. You would look as silly as a democrat if when the dust settles you go back and see everything you said was in reaction to the overreaction of the democrats. Political dealings should be done by people that understand the process. I sent my money to the NRA to counteract the overreaction of the few individuals that will make a lot of noise but not much sense that are supposedly on our own side.

As you like. I was stating my viewpoint / offering a variant view - not really desiring to start a debate. I think we're all in violent agreement that the milquetoast response NRA gave is not to our liking, so perhaps debating what they -should- have said instead is moot.

Thanks for sharing your viewpoint too, of course. I think personalizing these things is nearly-always a mistake, so I'll not call it or you 'silly' or similar, and simply accept it as a valid POV from someone who has the same fundamental support of 2A rights as I do.

Having said that, I think you were looking for the word "reactive" not "reactionary"... The former means "acting in response to a situation rather than creating or controlling it." The latter implies a 'conservative' or 'right-wing' response and is a word usually applied by the left to -all- folks like us to our detriment: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/reactionary

Seeing as how neither of us is on the NRA board and both of us (to my knowledge) are dues-paying members, I'm not sure it makes much difference. Yes, I toyed with the idea of not renewing, but in the end decided that's pointless: I've sent (and will continue sending) my money to the NRA despite my discomfiture with their pronouncement on this particular occasion.

Regards,

KC

[tacticalreload]

Exactly. This is why we don't need reactionary spokespeople to represent us and lobby for us. You would look as silly as a democrat if when the dust settles you go back and see everything you said was in reaction to the overreaction of the democrats. Political dealings should be done by people that understand the process. I sent my money to the NRA to counteract the overreaction of the few individuals that will make a lot of noise but not much sense that are supposedly on our own side.

I've paid my dues and instructor certification fees and then some for over two decades; and despite what you might think, my opinion is both just as valid as yours or anyone else's AND is hardly the opinion of a "few individuals". I attended a local gun show this morning... you should have heard the earful that the NRA recruiter was getting at his booth by a near steady stream of disgruntled people.

As you like. I was stating my viewpoint / offering a variant view - not really desiring to start a debate. I think we're all in violent agreement that the milquetoast response NRA gave is not to our liking, so perhaps debating what they -should- have said instead is moot.

Thanks for sharing your viewpoint too, of course. I think personalizing these things is nearly-always a mistake, so I'll not call it or you 'silly' or similar, and simply accept it as a valid POV from someone who has the same fundamental support of 2A rights as I do.

Seeing as how neither of us is on the NRA board and both of us (to my knowledge) are dues-paying members, I'm not sure it makes much difference. Yes, I toyed with the idea of not renewing, but in the end decided that's pointless: I've sent (and will continue sending) my money to the NRA despite my discomfiture with their pronouncement on this particular occasion.

That's the whole thing... I don't think that we are "all in violent agreement" that the response was "not to our liking". A few NRA apologists will defend the organization no matter what with this "daddy knows best" mentality that is baffling to me. The organization is made up of 5 million people. 5 million people that do not all share the same opinions or ideas about the 2A or what is important to them. Some of them (probably a lot of them) are Fudds. Heck, many of them are Democrats or "independents" that lean left. For the percentage of the membership that believes that the NRA's purpose is to draw the line in the sand and shout "YOU SHALL NOT PASS", to say that this statement is disappointing is an understatement.

The bottom line is that I firmly believe that a gun-rights organization should NEVER in anyway utter the words "should be subject to additional regulations". If those same words came out of Diane Feinstein's or Hillary Clinton's or Chuck Schumer's mouth, it would fill us with rage and anger. If it was Donald Trump that said those words, we would be throwing a shit fit. Hell... there are people roasting Republican congressmen online as turncoats and traitors for proposing "additional regulations" right now. If some run-of-the-mill PAFOA member came out immediately following the shooting and made a statement here on these forums that included the words that bump fire stocks "should be subject to additional regulations", they would be absolutely DESTROYED by the rest of the forum. Yet somehow, because it's Wayne LaPierre that says those exact same words, we have to be cool with it? No f'ing way. Passive aggressive demeaning of people by marginalizing their opinion as "reactionary", "silly", "an overreaction", or not having "much sense" is transparent apologist behavior. And to suggest that people are just too ignorant to "understand the process" is foolish. What process starts with "from my cold dead hands" and ends with "should be subject to additional regulations"? Not one that I'm okay with and not one that I will cheerfully write a check to support.

It's not that complicated, and the fear that some people have with criticizing the NRA or calling them out when they do something asinine is borderline Stockholm Syndrome. If you are a member, then it's YOUR organization.

[KCJones]

I've paid my dues and instructor certification fees and then some for over two decades; and despite what you might think, my opinion is both just as valid as yours or anyone else's AND is hardly the opinion of a "few individuals". I attended a local gun show this morning... you should have heard the earful that the NRA recruiter was getting at his booth by a near steady stream of disgruntled people.



That's the whole thing... I don't think that we are "all in violent agreement" that the response was "not to our liking". A few NRA apologists will defend the organization no matter what with this "daddy knows best" mentality that is baffling to me. The organization is made up of 5 million people. 5 million people that do not all share the same opinions or ideas about the 2A or what is important to them. Some of them (probably a lot of them) are Fudds. Heck, many of them are Democrats or "independents" that lean left. For the percentage of the membership that believes that the NRA's purpose is to draw the line in the sand and shout "YOU SHALL NOT PASS", to say that this statement is disappointing is an understatement...

I wanted to point out that I should have been clearer: I meant "all of us" in "violent disagreement" to be the folks here on the forum in this conversation who have said as much - not "all of us" NRA members. Apologies for the lack of clarity: I do try to avoid making 'blanket' statements on behalf of others.

In any case, thanks for sharing your perspective. I find little/nothing to disagree with in it.

[JenniferG]

As you like. I was stating my viewpoint / offering a variant view - not really desiring to start a debate. I think we're all in violent agreement that the milquetoast response NRA gave is not to our liking, so perhaps debating what they -should- have said instead is moot.

Thanks for sharing your viewpoint too, of course. I think personalizing these things is nearly-always a mistake, so I'll not call it or you 'silly' or similar, and simply accept it as a valid POV from someone who has the same fundamental support of 2A rights as I do.

Having said that, I think you were looking for the word "reactive" not "reactionary"... The former means "acting in response to a situation rather than creating or controlling it." The latter implies a 'conservative' or 'right-wing' response and is a word usually applied by the left to -all- folks like us to our detriment: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/reactionary

Seeing as how neither of us is on the NRA board and both of us (to my knowledge) are dues-paying members, I'm not sure it makes much difference. Yes, I toyed with the idea of not renewing, but in the end decided that's pointless: I've sent (and will continue sending) my money to the NRA despite my discomfiture with their pronouncement on this particular occasion.

Regards,

KC

What in my post makes you believe I was referring to your statements as reactionary. We seem to be saying the same thing as I said at the beginning of my post "exactly". We seemed to have picked up a trolling anti NRA contingent on this forum for whatever reasons that may be.

[KCJones]

What in my post makes you believe I was referring to your statements as reactionary. We seem to be saying the same thing as I said at the beginning of my post "exactly". We seemed to have picked up a trolling anti NRA contingent on this forum for whatever reasons that may be.

Um... Well... Only because you used the word "reactionary" to describe my post, that's all. As in:

This is why we don't need reactionary spokespeople to represent us and lobby for us. You would look as silly as a democrat if when the dust settles you go back and see everything you said was in reaction to the overreaction of the democrats.

So basically you said 'reactionary' about my post (the "this" you referenced) and then followed up with two variations of 'reaction' in direct reference to my post. I'm certainly not trying to misattribute. But you pretty much said "reactionary" straight-up. And my point was merely grammatical: that you likely meant "reactive" (possibly true) rather than "reactionary."

[JenniferG]

Um... Well... Only because you used the word "reactionary" to describe my post, that's all. As in:

So basically you said 'reactionary' about my post (the "this" you referenced) and then followed up with two variations of 'reaction' in direct reference to my post. I'm certainly not trying to misattribute. But you pretty much said "reactionary" straight-up. And my point was merely grammatical: that you likely meant "reactive" (possibly true) rather than "reactionary."

The "you" is meant to be a general term as if speaking to an audience rather than one person in particular. There's a term for that but I'm not an English major nor do I play one TV. I believe my message to those that are concerned understand my meaning despite my grammatical deficiencies.

[KCJones]

The "you" is meant to be a general term as if speaking to an audience rather than one person in particular. There's a term for that but I'm not an English major nor do I play one TV. I believe my message to those that are concerned understand my meaning despite my grammatical deficiencies.

Okay, cool.

I still think you mean 'reactive' rather than 'reactionary' which I view as a 'loaded term' used by the left to dismiss anyone who doesn't buy their agenda.

But I accept it was meant generally, and on that basis I agree: "reactive" is not where we want to be.