NRA

[GeneCC]

I donate to the NRA and GOA.

The NRA frightens gun control nuts.

The GOA frightens the NRA.

Both give me spare time to do things besides argue with idiots about guns.

[GeneCC]

What is and what should be are rarely the same. I accept that I'm just one in a country of more than 320 million people. I'm not going to get my way most of the time. Even when I join with 5 million like minded folks. We're still a drop in the bucket. Sadly, if the NRA had 50 million gun owners on their membership rolls, they could say "no" a lot more often and have that be the end of the discussion. But, that junk mail and those phone calls are just too much to deal with. Better to sit on the sidelines, or be a part of much less influential groups and demand something you can't have, purity. .

Would be nice to have a gun rights outfit of 50,000,000 people. Could happen some day but I bet not. Most people take their rights for granted. Still others shrug it all off. They have theirs and don't see the problem.

I run into a lot of people who bad mouth the NRA. I rarely see them name anything that ought to take its place.


Talk to someone from Europe about their gun laws. That's how we'd be today without the NRA. I have colleagues from Europe who have never seen their nation's world war 2 rifle. Ain't legal for civilians.

I have friends who have never seen a handgun produced in their own country. "You've got one of those? Where did you get it?"

Most of these folks think that Americans are "nuts" about guns.... but talk to them a little bit. They get a kind of wistfulness. They're a bit jealous, it comes out.


The NRA ain't perfect. What is in this imperfect world?

I give to the NRA and the GOA. One scares the gun control people, the other scares the NRA.

[Berncly]

Stating "you can't do that" only works if you have authority that can't be usurped or sufficient means to make those that disobey pay for their transgression. Your next option is to work diligently to ensure that the damage from the action is minimized. Our guns can be confiscated due to a PFAs, they can be confiscated due to a mental health commitment. I'm not one to stamp my feet and shout at the clouds. It is what it is. It's fights we've lost and we're going to lose on red flag laws as well. In part, we can blame ourselves. We were heard as we repeated over and over that it's a mental health issue.

So, the NRA saying "no" means they have no voice in what will come. They know when they have they have numbers to stop legislation and they know when they'll get steamrolled. I want a reactive, pragmatic NRA that does everything they can do to protect my rights even if they can't stop the legislation. It's how they've worked for decades. Couldn't stop the AWB, they got a sunset. They stopped legislation after the most horrific shooting most could imagine. That's not nothing.

What is and what should be are rarely the same. I accept that I'm just one in a country of more than 320 million people. I'm not going to get my way most of the time. Even when I join with 5 million like minded folks. We're still a drop in the bucket. Sadly, if the NRA had 50 million gun owners on their membership rolls, they could say "no" a lot more often and have that be the end of the discussion. But, that junk mail and those phone calls are just too much to deal with. Better to sit on the sidelines, or be a part of much less influential groups and demand something you can't have, purity.

What he said (again).

[Fujisawa-sensai]

Stating "you can't do that" only works if you have authority that can't be usurped or sufficient means to make those that disobey pay for their transgression. Your next option is to work diligently to ensure that the damage from the action is minimized. Our guns can be confiscated due to a PFAs, they can be confiscated due to a mental health commitment. I'm not one to stamp my feet and shout at the clouds. It is what it is. It's fights we've lost and we're going to lose on red flag laws as well. In part, we can blame ourselves. We were heard as we repeated over and over that it's a mental health issue.

So, the NRA saying "no" means they have no voice in what will come. They know when they have they have numbers to stop legislation and they know when they'll get steamrolled. I want a reactive, pragmatic NRA that does everything they can do to protect my rights even if they can't stop the legislation.

If the red flag laws truly are inevitable, why would the proponents of such a law weaken it or water it down to accommodate the NRA? Why wouldn't Blumenthal just write the law to be as expansive as he wants it, if he doesn't need the NRA's help to get it passed?

I see two possible answers. (1) The RFL is going to pass no matter what, and the NRA is just joining the winning side to appear as if they still have influence, when they really don't anymore. (2) The NRA is trying to avoid an AWB by throwing the left a bone in the form of RFL. As I've stated before, as terrible as an AWB would be I consider the RFL to be far worse. And throwing the left a bone NEVER works. They immediately come back looking for more. After the next mass shooting they'll be demanding mandatory psychiatric examinations for gun ownership because clearly RFLs didn't do enough. In neither of these options do I see any pragmatic case for supporting the NRA; they're either powerless or using their power in a foolish and destructive way.

Think of what it would be like if the situations were reversed. If we had 60 votes in the senate and a majority in the House and the president was ready to sign a bill removing all restrictions on suppressors, and then all the sudden the Brady Campaign said they would agree to support the bill as long as there was a background check and 30 day waiting period imposed on suppressors, why would we bother accommodating their request?

It's how they've worked for decades. Couldn't stop the AWB, they got a sunset. They stopped legislation after the most horrific shooting most could imagine. That's not nothing.

It's not 1994 or even 2013 anymore. There are literally no pro-gun Democrats in Congress anymore, and the NRA's success for those decades was based on maintaining a foothold in both parties. At best they're just another Republican interest group at this point.

What is and what should be are rarely the same. I accept that I'm just one in a country of more than 320 million people. I'm not going to get my way most of the time. Even when I join with 5 million like minded folks. We're still a drop in the bucket. Sadly, if the NRA had 50 million gun owners on their membership rolls, they could say "no" a lot more often and have that be the end of the discussion. But, that junk mail and those phone calls are just too much to deal with. Better to sit on the sidelines, or be a part of much less influential groups and demand something you can't have, purity.

This is a complete strawman. Every argument I've made here is pragmatic in nature. I have supported the NRA for a long time for exactly the reasons you state but times have changed. The problem with their seeking influence at the expense of purity is that eventually their influence wanes, and there's neither ideological nor pragmatic reasons left to support them.

[Berncly]

If the red flag laws truly are inevitable, why would the proponents of such a law weaken it or water it down to accommodate the NRA? Why wouldn't Blumenthal just write the law to be as expansive as he wants it, if he doesn't need the NRA's help to get it passed?

I see two possible answers. (1) The RFL is going to pass no matter what, and the NRA is just joining the winning side to appear as if they still have influence, when they really don't anymore. (2) The NRA is trying to avoid an AWB by throwing the left a bone in the form of RFL. As I've stated before, as terrible as an AWB would be I consider the RFL to be far worse. And throwing the left a bone NEVER works. They immediately come back looking for more. After the next mass shooting they'll be demanding mandatory psychiatric examinations for gun ownership because clearly RFLs didn't do enough. In neither of these options do I see any pragmatic case for supporting the NRA; they're either powerless or using their power in a foolish and destructive way.

Think of what it would be like if the situations were reversed. If we had 60 votes in the senate and a majority in the House and the president was ready to sign a bill removing all restrictions on suppressors, and then all the sudden the Brady Campaign said they would agree to support the bill as long as there was a background check and 30 day waiting period imposed on suppressors, why would we bother accommodating their request?



It's not 1994 or even 2013 anymore. There are literally no pro-gun Democrats in Congress anymore, and the NRA's success for those decades was based on maintaining a foothold in both parties. At best they're just another Republican interest group at this point.



This is a complete strawman. Every argument I've made here is pragmatic in nature. I have supported the NRA for a long time for exactly the reasons you state but times have changed. The problem with their seeking influence at the expense of purity is that eventually their influence wanes, and there's neither ideological nor pragmatic reasons left to support them.

You know every post you write has the same 3 common themes.

1. You want an "assault weapons" ban instead of red flag laws.
2. The NRA should not be supported by gun owners.
3. You offer no helpful alternative plan of action.

Your posts are also overly researched and wordy to an excessive degree, and you use a lot of language that I only see used by Liberal Democrats.
I think you are a paid Bloomberg gun control employee pretending to be a pro 2A gun owner.

[Mr_Gixxer]

Yea that's it.
This thread has truly run it's course when you get accused of being a plant for differing views in order to deflect and discredit.

[Berncly]

Yea that's it.
This thread has truly run it's course when you get accused of being a plant for differing views in order to deflect and discredit.

I call it how I see it, maybe you should read his posts more carefully.
Show me anywhere else, any other discussion with disagreement or not, where I called someone else a Bloomberg plant.
There aren't any.

[GunLawyer001]

Yea that's it.
This thread has truly run it's course when you get accused of being a plant for differing views in order to deflect and discredit.

If you don't want to be called a duck, then try not to walk and sound and look like a duck.

Let's say that there's a guy on a ledge, threatening to jump. His life hangs by a thread. A crowd of self-described friends shows up, and almost all of them are saying things like "don't jump, buddy" or "step back inside and we can talk".

But there's one guy who says "gravity isn't real, you have natural rights and no fall can kill you, you should just jump and you'll be better off."

At some point, you'll suspect that the last guy isn't really a friend at all.

[internet troll]

You know every post you write has the same 3 common themes.

1. You want an "assault weapons" ban instead of red flag laws.
2. The NRA should not be supported by gun owners.
3. You offer no helpful alternative plan of action.

Your posts are also overly researched and wordy to an excessive degree, and you use a lot of language that I only see used by Liberal Democrats.
I think you are a paid Bloomberg gun control employee pretending to be a pro 2A gun owner.

While I disagree with a lot of what he says I don’t think he is a plant.

Both red flag laws and assault weapons bans are harmful to the 2nd imo. Assault Weapon bans are immediate and obvious. Red Flag laws can be long term and insidious. Red flag laws are the slippery slope, Assault weapon bans are an avalanche.

Down the road red flag laws could be designed to include just about anything as a disqualifier. I think of stories I use to hear about Stalin era Russia where neighbors would rat on neighbor sometime making things up and people would wind up in a gulag. Who know what can be written in so that a neighbor could make something up so that another neighbor would wind up without their 2nd amendment rights. Red Flag Laws really are a slippery slope. I also realize that if a slippery slope is created we need to be vigilant and erect barriers on that slope so nothing can get to far on it.

A lot of pro 2nd amendment people hate the NRA with reason. I have that battle going on in my head. There are a things that they have done that compromise the 2nd which is sometimes hard to wrap your head around if you are a 2nd amendment absolutist. But in the end I understand that sometimes you lose battles to win the war. I also understand other people wanting to win every battle because they see that as the only way to truly win the war. I still see the role of the NRA and do think they are needed and will support them until/unless a viable alternative for what they do can step into their shoes. Groups like the GOA are great, but often have different goals and are not ready to step into the a void left by the NRA.

I would like every 2nd amendment person to be on the same page in the fight. That’s not realistic. It is possible to have supporters of the 2nd look at how to preserve the 2nd in different ways. That does not make one group antis and the other the true supporters. Discussion is good. There is nothing wrong with different viewpoints on the best way for the 2nd to thrive.

[alpacaheat]

Speaking of GOA...hit the President with their latest letter:

https://oneclickpolitics.global.ssl....?promo_id=6820