Why do so many gun owners dislike the NRA?

[dburkhead]

Ok, I keep missing it, where is the compromise here?

If you haven't, please read the decision. Scalia does some quite involved tightrope dancing to come up with an individual rights interpretation that leads to them ordering DC to let him register his handgun while at the same time not overturning NFA '34, GCA '68, Brady/NICS, FOPA '86 or anything else except DC's complete ban on handguns.

That's compromise.

 

[MilitaryArms]

Please throttle back on the emotion and anger. I appreciated most of what your were saying when I wasn't offended by the bombs being lobbed.

There's no anger or emotion in anything I've posted. Just because you think there is doesn't make it so.

I've supported the NRA before and considered supporting the GOA. If you're a member of the GOA, do all the GOA's members treat others the way you did in this conversation? Do they all talk down to others than are still forming their viewpoints and open to an evolving understanding?

Excuse me, but you've missed all of the snarky comments made by others (NRA members). So let me ask you, do all NRA members basically tell non-NRA members they're worthless and do nothing to help our cause because we're not members?

I think you should follow your own advice and revisit this thread and it's related threads that have taken place over the last couple of months before chastising me while turning a blind eye to the transgressions of your fellow NRA members.

I'd have to say no, because I know other members on this board and they don't interact with people like that. Please, I don't mean this to be offensive or anger you, but be aware that when you fight like you are in this thread to win the battle, it doesn't help win the war.

That's funny, I've seen plenty of "anger" and snarky comments from others besides me. Perhaps you need a little objectivity.

We're back on track and we don't need people coming in here pointing fingers and trying to rile people back up.

Thanks for your advice.

 

[rcuhljr]

If you haven't, please read the decision. Scalia does some quite involved tightrope dancing to come up with an individual rights interpretation that leads to them ordering DC to let him register his handgun while at the same time not overturning NFA '34, GCA '68, Brady/NICS, FOPA '86 or anything else except DC's complete ban on handguns.

That's compromise.

I did read it, it was hardly tight rope walking, it came full out for a right to bear arms. The court case wasn't there to overturn any previous bans, the case was solely "Is the DC ban legal" The supreme court doesn't run off declaring every possibly related case overturned, they generally answer the case before them. Roe Vs Wade doesn't have the justice declaring Abortions are legal for everyone! all other rulings are overturned! it just answered the specific question regarding if Texas criminalization of assisting abortions was unconstitutional. The power of these rulings is there ability to establish precedent and be used to fight and overturn other decisions.

When segregation was declared illegal on a state level in a SC ruling for schools it still had to go to another case in D.C. to make it illegal there as well.

Scalia made a compelling argument, but he never compromised. This was a yes or no decision to be made, and it came up yes. That is not a compromise. A compromise would have been a tie and led to status quo ante.

The results of what this decision leads to aren't determined yet, and won't until it's taken to court to try and overturn things like the bans you listed. There was never any chance the court would have turned those over DURING the decision of this case. Period.

 

[cce1302]

Yeah.... This is why I decided to support the NRA and the others also. Some folks just aren't going to get it. They're probably the same people who threw thier votes away on a third party and helped Obama into the Whitehouse.

Yeah...Obama got what, 51% of the votes or more? so he got more votes than ALL the others combined, right? If everyone that didn't vote for Obama had voted for one person, whether it was Jesse Jackson, Ron Paul, or Mother Teresa, Obama still would have won...but don't let that logic ruin your "throwing their votes away" party.

GOA for me.

 

[dburkhead]

I did read it, it was hardly tight rope walking, it came full out for a right to bear arms.

[ 8< ]

Then you must have read a different decision than I read, one without the discussion why Miller wasn't overturned and so forth.

 

[rcuhljr]

Then you must have read a different decision than I read, one without the discussion why Miller wasn't overturned and so forth.

United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not
limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather
limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by
the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.

This is hardly a compromise for the majority of gun owners. Your own post about reasonable gun control describes things you see that no reason shouldn't be restricted (WMD's) which certainly falls under the category of weapons not 'in common use for lawful purposes'. I don't consider that much of a compromise.

Most of the items in the paragraph that I assume you read as compromise heavy are things that even full auto may well support, namely that mental illness or felonies prohibit gun ownership.

The whole point is still moot unless you can demonstrate that the initial vote before the draft had Scalia's opinion as the minority, and it converted people to his viewpoint, instead of the much more common outcome of him just not doing such a bad job as to cause someone to change their vote.

 

[dburkhead]

This is hardly a compromise for the majority of gun owners. Your own post about reasonable gun control describes things you see that no reason shouldn't be restricted (WMD's) which certainly falls under the category of weapons not 'in common use for lawful purposes'. I don't consider that much of a compromise.

Most of the items in the paragraph that I assume you read as compromise heavy are things that even full auto may well support, namely that mental illness or felonies prohibit gun ownership.

The whole point is still moot unless you can demonstrate that the initial vote before the draft had Scalia's opinion as the minority, and it converted people to his viewpoint, instead of the much more common outcome of him just not doing such a bad job as to cause someone to change their vote.

And if you had read my post carefully, I was quite explicit in that the 2nd Amendment makes no distinction in types of weapons. While I, personally, think banning WMD's from individuals is a reasonable thing to do, that does not make it a "reasonable restriction" on the 2nd Amendment in the sense that Congress should be allowed to just pass a law to that effect. To make such a restriction truly Constitutional would be to pass an Amendment to the Constitution to that effect.

Also, I am not the one saying compromise is always a bad thing (or, at least it is when the NRA does it). Compromise is often a necessary thing to get anything worthwhile done politically. I am not criticizing Scalia for compromising by not taking Heller farther than he did, by not overturning Miller for example. In fact, it was a brilliant bit of work on his part (and the parts of the other Justices on the majority side) to get something done when the alternative would have been a complete loss.

On the WMD idea, while I believe that the way the Constitution is written makes laws restricting them to the government only unconstitutional, I am willing to "compromise" to the extent of not trying to fight those restrictions--particularly since not only would it be futile (not politically achievable and I've got plenty of other windmills to tilt at) but it would actively harm the rest of the gun rights case by getting me and anyone who sided with me branded even more of a fanatic.

And, to answer an uptopic post, I, for one, don't consider groups like GOA, 2AF, JPFO, etc. "useless." I wouldn't be a member of GOA if I did. I do, however, think their most effective use at this time is as the "pit bulls waiting in the wings." As in the Civil Rights movement of the 60's. Government leaders were willing to talk to Martin because otherwise they'd have to talk to Malcolm.

And, like with the Civil Rights Movement, we're not going to get everything all at once. But by keeping a steady, constant pressure on, and exercising a little patience, we can get where we need to be.

The trick is to avoid creating the gun rights equivalent of Al Sharpton and Louis Farrakhan and becoming our own worst enemies.

 

[hornadylnl]

I see noone has addressed how the NRA endorses in absentia Nancy Pelosi as Speaker by endorsing demo congressional candidates. Who is more likely to affect our RKBA, an anti repub congressman or an anti demo speaker?

 

[melensdad]

I see noone has addressed how the NRA endorses in absentia Nancy Pelosi as Speaker by endorsing demo congressional candidates. Who is more likely to affect our RKBA, an anti repub congressman or an anti demo speaker?

Please clarify your statement, I am trying to understand your point and simply do not understand what you wrote.

 

[antsi]

Please clarify your statement, I am trying to understand your point and simply do not understand what you wrote.

It is a common argument and one that does have some merit.

The idea is that anytime you elect a Democrat to Congress, you aren't just voting for your hometown Indiana Democrat: you are in effect voting to empower his/her party leadership as well.

Your local Democrat congresscritter may indeed be fairly reasonable, or even a true RKBA supporter. However, if you put the Democrats in the majority, then they control all the committees and they set the legislative agenda. This determines what bills will come up for a vote and what bills just sit around gathering dust. A lot of wild Democrat anti-RKBA bills failed to pass under Republican leadership because they never made it out of committee to be considered by the whole senate or house. They never even had a chance to be passed because they never came up for a vote.

Furthermore, if your local pro-RKBA Democrat happens to be the 60th Democrat Senator, then there is no filibuster power and the Republicans can't even block legislation or force compromise language in. This latter could be an issue, if for instance, the Democrats were about to pass a new Assault Weapons Ban and had all the votes they needed to do so, the Republicans might threaten to filibuster unless they put in a sunset clause.

So, like I said, there is some merit to idea of voting by party platform instead of voting according to the individual candidate's merits.

However, there is also merit to the old adage of judging the man/woman him/herself based on his/her record. If the NRA basically just says "we will always support the Republican, even if they're an anti, and we will always be against the Democrat even if they are pro-RKBA, then you remove incentives for individual behavior. Anti-RKBA Republicans can hurt our cause, and pro-RKBA Democrats can help our cause. The way the NRA does it, the anti's get spanked and the pro's get boosted no matter which party they are in. They are providing incentive for politicians to consider pro-RKBA positions whatever their party affiliation.

Personally, I am generally conservative and would usually vote for the Republicans anyway. However I do not think it is a good idea to make RKBA a solely Republican issue. If we say as gun owners "we'll never vote Democrat no matter what," then we are essentially telling the Democrats "forget about the gun owners; you can be as anti as you want and it will never cost you any votes because you were never in the running for our votes in the first place." I don't think that is a good message to send.

Additionally, you have to consider that no matter what happens, no one party is going to stay in control forever. Sooner or later the other guys get their turn. When that happens, it is good to have a few friends in the other party. The NRA endorsing a couple of pro-RKBA Democrats is not what caused the Democrats to be able to seize the majority.

I can see the merit of what hornadylnl is saying, but I think there is an equally reasonable opposing point of view.

One other thing: I think hornadylnl is exaggerating his point a bit. The NRA is not supporting Nancy Pelosi as house leader. They've never endorsed her as a candidate, for one thing, so if voters listened to the NRA she wouldn't even be in Congress. If everyone in the country voted according to NRA recommendations, Congress would be 98% Republican and 2% Democrat, and those 2% would be Democrats with a strong pro-RKBA record. So it is a bit of an exaggeration to say that the NRA's candidate endorsements add up to a ringing support for Nancy Pelosi.

 

[hornadylnl]

Antsi did a very good job of clarifying my point. But it isn't just rkba that is at stake here. It is judicial appointments and many other things as well. When people said that I needed to vote for McCain because of judicial appointments, I laughed. Bush couldn't get most of his nominees in with a Repub house and senate majority. Largely due to spineless house and senate leadership not forcing the filibuster. If Bush couldn't get his nominees in with a majority, do you think McCain would get a single one out committee with the demos in charge? Next, do you think McCain would nominate anyone remotely as conservative as Bush did?

With the exception of McCain's military service, I believe that if the true charactor of McCain were exposed, I don't think there would be much difference between him and Gov. Blagidiot from Illinois. For the most part, I don't believe any of the candidates are any different than him. But I don't believe Ronald Reagan and George Bush is morally bankrupt like McCain. Bush 2 has proven himself to be an idiot, but not corrupt. I always believed in voting for the lesser of two evils but I couldn't comprimise my integrity and vote for McCain. At the end of 4 years, there wouldn't be a darn bit of difference between him and Obamassiah especially with the power gap in congresss that the demorats now enjoy.

 

[antsi]

I think you are right that McCain's nominees would not have been optimal. Despite all his flaws, I believe Bush did give us two pretty decent justices and McCain's would not be as good.

However, I still think even a McCain lame-o "acceptable to a Democrat Congress" nominee would likely be a lot better than the nominee of an outright socialist and nanny-state authoritarian like Obama.

McCain would have pushed through the most right or centrist nominee he could get away with given a Democrat congress. Obama will be giving us the most radical leftist nominees he can get away with given a Democrat congress.

When you say Obama will be similar to what McCain would have been, you must be basing that on Obama's election year facade. I used to be Obama's constituent in Illinois and there is nobody further to the left, nor anyone more contemptous of gun owners, than Obama. He may attempt to "govern from the center" for short-term tactical reasons, but his record is somewhat to the left of Trotsky.

The scariest thing to me about Obama is what he says about Heller and the 2nd amendment. He says he believes in an individual right to bear arms, but also believes in "reasonable gun laws." However, the fact that the man did support Washington DC's extreme draconian anti-gun laws, and objected to Heller overturning them, demonstrates that his definition of "reasonable" is not that different from an outright ban. What is even scarier is that he says "I believe in this constitutional right," but at the same time, supports laws that totally eviscerate that right. The man is obviously contemptuous of constitutional rights in general.

I agree McCain was a lame choice and would have been a lame president. However, I think you are seriously underestimating how bad Obama could be.

 

[Dogman]

However, I think you are seriously underestimating how bad Obama could be.

There's nothing could be about it, how about will be.

 

[Dogman]

I only joined the NRA so I could buy from their online store.

 

[Soundslikejosh]

Yeah...Obama got what, 51% of the votes or more? so he got more votes than ALL the others combined, right? If everyone that didn't vote for Obama had voted for one person, whether it was Jesse Jackson, Ron Paul, or Mother Teresa, Obama still would have won...but don't let that logic ruin your "throwing their votes away" party.

GOA for me.

+1

 

[MinuteManMike]

I got a gift membership to the NRA from Taurus when I bought my PT145. I signed up.

Over that year I watched a video of Mr. Joaquin Jackson, NRA board member saying no one needs more than 5 rounds in a magazine of a rifle.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSGySNLyACE]YouTube - NRA board member Joaquin Jackson, the enemy with in[/ame]
Nosing around a bit, I can't find if he is still serving on the board or not.

Then the lady (President, maybe named Sandra? IIRC) said we need to get rid of the ban on legally carrying on school grounds. Then some two months later, she's out of that position.

Perhaps a coincidence... I don't care. I have much better things to spend my money on than NRA membership.

 

[ryanmercer]

I've never given them a dime... I get something in the mail from them at least twice a week for several months now... don't even know how or where they got my info. I don't like either one of those things.

 

[melensdad]

I got a gift membership to the NRA from Taurus when I bought my PT145. I signed up.

Over that year I watched a video of Mr. Joaquin Jackson, NRA board member saying no one needs more than 5 rounds in a magazine of a rifle.
YouTube - NRA board member Joaquin Jackson, the enemy with in
Nosing around a bit, I can't find if he is still serving on the board or not.

Then the lady (President, maybe named Sandra? IIRC) said we need to get rid of the ban on legally carrying on school grounds. Then some two months later, she's out of that position.

Perhaps a coincidence... I don't care. I have much better things to spend my money on than NRA membership.

Did you bother do dig any deeper? The GOA, of which I am a member, loves to trot out the Jackson YouTube video as 'proof' the NRA is as bad as the Brady Campaign.

STATEMENT OF JOAQUIN JACKSON​

Recently, some misunderstandings have arisen about a news interview in which I participated a few years ago. After recently watching a tape of that interview, I understand the sincere concerns of many people, including dear friends of mine. And I am pleased and eager to clear up any confusion about my long held belief in the sanctity of the Second Amendment.

In the interview, when asked about my views of “assault weapons,” I was talking about true assault weapons – fully automatic firearms. I was not speaking, in any way, about semiautomatic rifles. While the media may not understand this critical distinction, I take it very seriously. But, as a result, I understand how some people may mistakenly take my comments to mean that I support a ban on civilian ownership of semiautomatic firearms. Nothing could be further from the truth. And, unfortunately, the interview was cut short before I could fully explain my thoughts and beliefs.

In fact, I am a proud owner of such rifles, as are millions of law-abiding Americans. And many Americans also enjoy owning fully automatic firearms, after being cleared by a background check and meeting the rigorous regulations to own such firearms. And these millions of lawful gun owners have every right – and a Second Amendment right – to own them.

As a hunter, I take great pride in my marksmanship. Every hunter should practice to be skilled to take prey with a single shot, if possible. That represents ethical, humane, skilled hunting. In the interview several years ago, I spoke about this aspect of hunting and my belief that no hunter should take the field and rely upon high capacity magazines to take their prey.

But that comment should never be mistaken as support for the outright banning of any ammunition magazines. In fact, such bans have been pursued over the years by state legislatures and the United States Congress and these magazine bans have always proven to be abject failures.

Let me be very clear. As a retired Texas Ranger, during 36 years of law enforcement service, I was sworn to uphold the United States Constitution. As a longtime hunter and shooter, an NRA Board Member, and as an American – I believe the Second Amendment is a sacred right of all law-abiding Americans and, as I stated in the interview in question, I believe it is the Second Amendment that ensures all of our other rights handed down by our Founding Fathers.

I have actively opposed gun bans and ammunition and magazine bans in the past, and I will continue to actively oppose such anti-gun schemes in the future.

I appreciate my friends who have brought this misunderstanding to light, for it has provided me an opportunity to alleviate any doubts about my strong support for the NRA and our Second Amendment freedom.

####​

Read About It:

Posted: 8/15/2007 3:22:01 PM
​

 

[melensdad]

So to set the record straight, Sandra Froman's term as President of the NRA expired in 2007, John Sigler was voted into office. Traditionally the office of the President of the NRA is a 1 term office, there have been a couple exceptions, Charlton Heston being the most noted. and Joaquin Jackson was the victim of a TV news crew's 'selective editing' process. I believe he also was voted out of office.

 

[thompal]

So to set the record straight, Sandra Froman's term as President of the NRA expired in 2007, John Sigler was voted into office. Traditionally the office of the President of the NRA is a 1 term office, there have been a couple exceptions, Charlton Heston being the most noted. and Joaquin Jackson was the victim of a TV news crew's 'selective editing' process. I believe he also was voted out of office.

"Selective editing?" He said nobody should have magazines that held more than 5 rounds! He said that assault rifles should be in the hands of the military and the police. Anything before or after that was extraneous.

After getting on national news as a representative of the NRA and giving these soundbites to the anti-gunners, any later "apology" letter sent to NRA members is useless. If he didn't get paid by the anti-gun lobby, he missed a prime opportunity.