National NRA - pro gun?

[po18guy]

Three fatal aspects of this article:

1. New
2. York
3. Times

A reasoning person must always consider the source.

 

[JRuby]

Three fatal aspects of this article:

1. New
2. York
3. Times

A reasoning person must always consider the source.

Everyone knows it must be FOX to have any value.

 

[po18guy]

Everyone knows it must be FOX to have any value.

Best not to assume. I don't watch Fox. I don't watch TV. But the NYT is far, far past her prime. So, the constitution is now simply a matter of a deft lobbyist manipulating a president?

Strange how the:

First
Amendment
Matters

but the one that follows does not.

 

[NW Backpacker]

Came across this - thoughts

In Act of Heresy, N.R.A.’s Former No. 2 Calls for Gun Control

The thread title is "NRA - pro gun?"

The answer seems to hinge on what you mean by "pro-gun" and "NRA".

According to the article, the "NRA" represented by Wayne LaPierre convinced Trump to not push for BGCs and red-flag laws (RFLs) or else "the membership would go wild". Based on that info, IF you consider being against BGCs and RFLs to be "pro-gun", then, on those 2 subjects the NRA was pro-gun.

However, IF butt-hurt fired former-employee Mr. Powell is correct when he claims that he, as well as a majority of gun owners, support BGCs, and IF you are amongst that group, then perhaps the NRA is not pro-gun.

Which group are you in? I'm in the first group, so YES, the NRA is pro-gun based on my view of what "pro-gun" means.

Other thoughts less directly related to the OP question:

1 - The intent of the article is to sell a book by a butt-hurt fired employee, reduce support for the NRA and the President, who the NRA is fighting for.
2 - The article says LaPierre filled NRA coffers by "catering to the extreme fringe". A cheap shot insulting most gun owners here, but hats-off to LaPIerre as an effective fundraiser.
3 - My opinion of LaPierre went up YUGELY after reading the article - he is apparently a very effective voice for gun rights and may have single-handedly stopped new BGC/RFL laws.
4 - Mr. Powell wrote to LaPierre and said his loyalty to the association is without question. Doesn't sound like it to me.

 

[JRuby]

Best not to assume. I don't watch Fox. I don't watch TV. But the NYT is far, far past her prime. So, the constitution is now simply a matter of a deft lobbyist manipulating a president?

Strange how the:

First
Amendment
Matters

but the one that follows does not.

Personally they all matter - equally to me.

 

[JRuby]

The thread title is "NRA - pro gun?"

The answer seems to hinge on what you mean by "pro-gun" and "NRA".

According to the article, the "NRA" represented by Wayne LaPierre convinced Trump to not push for BGCs and red-flag laws (RFLs) or else "the membership would go wild". Based on that info, IF you consider being against BGCs and RFLs to be "pro-gun", then, on those 2 subjects the NRA was pro-gun.

However, IF butt-hurt fired former-employee Mr. Powell is correct when he claims that he, as well as a majority of gun owners, support BGCs, and IF you are amongst that group, then perhaps the NRA is not pro-gun.

Which group are you in? I'm in the first group, so YES, the NRA is pro-gun based on my view of what "pro-gun" means.

Other thoughts less directly related to the OP question:

1 - The intent of the article is to sell a book by a butt-hurt fired employee, reduce support for the NRA and the President, who the NRA is fighting for.
2 - The article says LaPierre filled NRA coffers by "catering to the extreme fringe". A cheap shot insulting most gun owners here, but hats-off to LaPIerre as an effective fundraiser.
3 - My opinion of LaPierre went up YUGELY after reading the article - he is apparently a very effective voice for gun rights and may have single-handedly stopped new BGC/RFL laws.
4 - Mr. Powell wrote to LaPierre and said his loyalty to the association is without question. Doesn't sound like it to me.

I believe the NRA leadership is pro money under the disguise of pro 2A. The leadership is in it for the money and to me are a bunch of crooks. What new rights do we have for the money that has been donated to the cause? The NRA is using the slow attrition of our 2a rights to keep their piggy bank filled. IMHO

 

[Spitpatch]

I believe the NRA leadership is pro money under the disguise of pro 2A. The leadership is in it for the money and to me are a bunch of crooks. What new rights do we have for the money that has been donated to the cause? The NRA is using the slow attrition of our 2a rights to keep their piggy bank filled. IMHO

Attributable (recently) to NRA's efforts:

A nearly nationwide revolution away from "may issue" carry permits to "shall issue".

A tandem effort toward nationwide reciprocity for those permits (more incremental, but progress is measurable).

Castle laws and Stand your Ground laws: again, the task here is greater, progress understandably slow but visible.

The Heller decision.

Obama's defeat regarding knee-jerk gun-control legislation triggered by active shooter incidents (don't take it from me, HE gave the NRA credit).

"Attrition" may well be an accurate description of what has happened to the Second Amendment. That such description includes "slow" (rather than "fast" or "complete") can be added to NRA's scoreboard. Should it become "complete", we have only our disunity to blame. Not the NRA.

 

[Spitpatch]

That's the thing. As long as people need them, they can pretty much do whatever they want. Until some other group achieves the same level of hate from the left, the NRA gets my dollar.

Now THERE is a carefully considered unique perspective.

 

[The Resister]

So, a guy who was either fired or had to resign from the NRA and wasn't happy about it, is an example of the NRA seeking gun control?

Yes. When he got into trouble, he wanted to throw the NRA under the bus, but the leadership is just as guilty as he is.

 

[No_Regerts]

Yes. When he got into trouble, he wanted to throw the NRA under the bus, but the leadership is just as guilty as he is.

The point was people were using his post-fired from NRA support of gun control as being the word of the NRA, which it is not.

 

[The Resister]

Attributable (recently) to NRA's efforts:

A nearly nationwide revolution away from "may issue" carry permits to "shall issue".

A tandem effort toward nationwide reciprocity for those permits (more incremental, but progress is measurable).

Castle laws and Stand your Ground laws: again, the task here is greater, progress understandably slow but visible.

The Heller decision.

Obama's defeat regarding knee-jerk gun-control legislation triggered by active shooter incidents (don't take it from me, HE gave the NRA credit).

"Attrition" may well be an accurate description of what has happened to the Second Amendment. That such description includes "slow" (rather than "fast" or "complete") can be added to NRA's scoreboard. Should it become "complete", we have only our disunity to blame. Not the NRA.

We don't need a permit to exercise an unalienable Right.

The Heller decision is the most anti-gun ruling ever handed down by the United States Supreme Court.

The point was people were using his post-fired from NRA support of gun control as being the word of the NRA, which it is not.

The words of the NRA have been anti-gun for as long as I've been involved in gun rights legislation (going back to 1983 or thereabouts).

 

[No_Regerts]

We don't need a permit to exercise an unalienable Right.

The Heller decision is the most anti-gun ruling ever handed down by the United States Supreme Court.


The words of the NRA have been anti-gun for as long as I've been involved in gun rights legislation (going back to 1983 or thereabouts).

Your reverse psychology worked. I just donated to the NRA again!

 

[The Resister]

Your reverse psychology worked. I just donated to the NRA again!

Good for you. Here are the facts:

In the 1980s I was working as a paid lobbyist for the NRA. There I was twisting arms and doing my job while the NRA was running this campaign against a bill that would outlaw so called "armor piercing bullets." At that time, the most prolific rifle was the .30 .30 lever action rifle. According to our propaganda talking points was that if that bill passed, it would outlaw all .30 .30 ammo since all of it contained one of the banned metals.

So, one day Congressman Ed Jenkins calls me into his office. He says he's gotten my many phone messages, letters, etc. and wanted to show me something. He showed me a letter from NRA president Harlan Carter pledging his support even if Jenkins voted for the bill. I quit the NRA and never looked back.

When Charlatan Heston was president of the NRA he was on a radio show. In the course of that interview he said it not once, not twice, but THREE times "no civilian has a legitimate use for an AK47 rifle."

Under Heston, who supported Brady II, the NRA pretended to put up a fight against background checks, but were actually supporting them from behind the scenes.

Now,, the reason Heller is the most anti-gun ruling in American history will take a few paragraphs, but if the truth hurts, I realize you won't be able to read it.

 

[No_Regerts]

Good for you. Here are the facts:

In the 1980s I was working as a paid lobbyist for the NRA. There I was twisting arms and doing my job while the NRA was running this campaign against a bill that would outlaw so called "armor piercing bullets." At that time, the most prolific rifle was the .30 .30 lever action rifle. According to our propaganda talking points was that if that bill passed, it would outlaw all .30 .30 ammo since all of it contained one of the banned metals.

So, one day Congressman Ed Jenkins calls me into his office. He says he's gotten my many phone messages, letters, etc. and wanted to show me something. He showed me a letter from NRA president Harlan Carter pledging his support even if Jenkins voted for the bill. I quit the NRA and never looked back.

When Charlatan Heston was president of the NRA he was on a radio show. In the course of that interview he said it not once, not twice, but THREE times "no civilian has a legitimate use for an AK47 rifle."

Under Heston, who supported Brady II, the NRA pretended to put up a fight against background checks, but were actually supporting them from behind the scenes.

Now,, the reason Heller is the most anti-gun ruling in American history will take a few paragraphs, but if the truth hurts, I realize you won't be able to read it.

It does hurt, so dont bother posting. Thanks for your consideration.

 

[sobo]

-- by Martin Nimbler Niemöller

Fixed it for ya...

Martin Niemöller

 

[NW Backpacker]

Now,, the reason Heller is the most anti-gun ruling in American history will take a few paragraphs, but if the truth hurts, I realize you won't be able to read it.

Go ahead and tell us. We can handle the truth!

 

[Spitpatch]

"We don't need a permit to exercise an unalienable Right."

Idealistically, I would have to agree.

In reality, one may find one's self in a jail cell debating this with one's self.

 

[Spitpatch]

""A hunter since childhood..."

Anytime "being a hunter" is invoked as credentials toward a discussion of the Second Amendment, one may insert "Tiddlywink Champion" as equally relevant.

 

[JRuby]

""A hunter since childhood..."

Anytime "being a hunter" is invoked as credentials toward a discussion of the Second Amendment, one may insert "Tiddlywink Champion" as equally relevant.

So what kind of credentials does one need to prove they support the second amendment?

 

[Spitpatch]

"Now,, the reason.Heller is the most anti-gun ruling in American history..."

More effectively, I'd rather hear why the alternative (allowing the lower court decision to stand) is believed to be a better outcome (since that is precisely what this statement advocates).