Join the #1 community for gun owners of the Northwest
We believe the 2nd Amendment is best defended through grass-roots organization, education, and advocacy centered around individual gun owners. It is our mission to encourage, organize, and support these efforts throughout Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming.
How a Pro-2nd Amendment President Supported Gun Control
Guns are cool and nothing will stop violence. Attempt gets made wait we need to do something about guns!!
Old machine kept well oiled as listed above in OP post to now. I don't personally trust the NRA. I know they've done something but they seem easy to buckle under pressure to keep the money flowing.
Bottom of the article, our friends at the NRA.....
NRA Yet Again roles over and Backs Red Flag Gun Control!
This really shouldn't be a shocker for anyone who reads articles on this site, but the Spineless bastards at the NRA who helped push the bump stock ban late last year, are yet again helping the government push another piece of gun control legislation. Backed with millions of fund-raising dollars from gullible funders who believed they were supporting a firearms rights organizations, the NRA has yet again screwed their members and decided to back these gun confiscation orders.
Late last year, Chris W. Cox, executive director of the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action, put out a statement endorsing "red flag" gun confiscations: "We need to stop dangerous people before they act," … "So Congress should provide funding to states to adopt risk protection orders."
Gun Owners of America and the National Shooting Sports Foundation have voiced concerns over red flag laws. Late last year, Gun Owners of America put out a statements saying:
"If a person is truly so dangerous that he must be separated from his firearms, it's illogical to still leave him active in society. Removing firearms does not stop violence."
Worse yet, gun confiscation orders are suggesting we take away an individual's constitutional right without probable cause of a crime having been committed — much less conviction of a crime.
It's absurd to take away a Constitutional right by predicting future action. What in the Bill of Rights is so fragile that a judge can remove it by playing "thought police," claiming that you might misuse it in the future?"
If our Supporting Vendors don't have what you're looking for, use these links before making a purchase and we will receive a small percentage of the sale