Just Blasted NRA

Hell no! I'm not abandoning the NRA (although it looks like they are trying to abandon me). Here is the latest reply from NRA-ILA: <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
To what, exactly, do you object? Is it that we have successfully worked to pass
reckless lawsuit preemption laws that prohibit cities from suing gun
manufacturers, and that we continue to promote such legislative reforms, or that
we are not sure of the viability of the SAF lawsuit, and are therefore not
willing to get involved in a potentially losing legal battle? The success or
failure of the suit would not be affected by NRA involvement.

NRA remains steadfast in its opposition to gun control, and we hope that we can
work with you in support of our right to keep and bear arms. If you have any
questions or concerns regarding areas where you feel we are "giving in,"
however, please be sure to let us know, and we will be happy to set the record
straight.[/quote]Does anyone care to address these comments? Please write to: ila-contact@nrahq.org and tell them what you think. Be sure to include your member number so they know the complaints are from dues paying members.

(An aside: I just received my "Y2K compliant" card today. They mis-spelled my name. I've only been a member since 1973. I really worry about the internal lack of QA/QC in the most powerful lobbying organization in the US.)
 
The fundamental problem with the NRA's "pre-emption bill" approach isn't the compromises they're making to get these bills. It's that they don't have a prayer of getting such bills in all states, or at the federal level. So long as even a half dozen states permit these lawsuits, (And notice that the preemption bill they got in Pennsylvania does NOT prohibit private anti-gun lawsuits, or lawsuits by the state itself.) the industry can be destroyed by even one loss. Heck, one state government could afford to match the entire industry dollar for dollar in legal costs, and drive them into bankruptcy!

So the preemption bill approach CAN NOT SUCCEED, because it must succeed everywhere to succeed at all.

The SAF's approach, on the other hand, has the potential of actually stopping this particular threat cold. And it puts us on the same footing as the anti-gunners, because WE can file multiple lawsuits ourselves, and subject them to the same threat of losing if they lose even once in one venue.
It renders the playing field even.

Why won't the NRA sign on? My personal suspicion is that they really don't want to risk restoring the Second amendment in it's full glory, that they've accepted these compromises as good things, and even if they had it in their power to repeal the last 60 years of gun laws with the push of a button, they wouldn't.

------------------
Sic semper tyranus!
 
Why won't the NRA sign on? I tend to agree with Brett. What if we all promised to provide for Wayne, etal. in the manner that they have been accustomed to if they would just kick azz and take names?
Just a thought, Hank
 
Although far from perfect, the NRA has done so very much. If memory serves me correctly, the reason GOA was formed was because the NRA was against compromise.
Yes, I forever hate any compromise when dealing with our collective rights, but with only three million members out of approx. 80 million gun owners, the NRA can only fight what they think will help the most. No, I will fight to the death to maintain the Bill of RIghts and the Constitution and I will never stop supporting the NRA.
 
I became a life member of the NRA on October 22, 1974. I was an annual member for many years before that. I will not cancel my membership. But I no longer donate to the NRA. My money goes to SAF, JFPO, GOA, CCRKBA, etc.

To be a "compromise", both sides must make concessions. With every NRA "compromise", gun owners lose Rights but HCI only loses what it never even had.

That's not a compromise, folks. The NRA is "agreeing" away our gun rights. The term compromise does not apply and is misleading.

-----

nralife,

I know we are going to butt heads here, and I commend you for the yoeman's job you are doing defending the NRA; but we dare not call this business compromise. Here's why:

Dennis: "Hey! Give me ten bucks!"
Nralife: "No! It isn't yours!"
Dennis: "I don't care! Give me ten bucks!"
NRAlife: "No! Will you take five?"
Dennis: "Okay, I'll compromise and take five."

Every time that scenario is played, Dennis gets five of NRAlife's dollars. Play it over and over and, eventually, NRAlife will lose everything he had.

What did Dennis lose? Nothing! Even though Dennis "compromised" every time, Dennis got all of NRAlife's money.

Now, NRAlife, please take this little story to the NRA and show them why many NRA members are dissatisfied with NRA "victories" that consistently degrade our Rights.

------------------
Either you believe in the Second Amendment or you don't.

Stick it to 'em! RKBA!

Stick it to 'em! RKBA!
 
Dennis,

I hear where you are coming from, but compromis is not always a lose-lose situation. During the battle of the juvinile injustice bill, it's true that the NRA gave some ground on trigger locks and so forth, but the anti's were giving ground too. That is one of the reasons why the whole bill was finally scuttled, along the fact that both sides wanted this as a campaign issue.

If I remember correctly, the juvinile justice bill in the House that failed to pass had provisions for LEO CCW reciprocity and some other good things that I can't recall right now. That is why there were some on this board that were actually pissed that it didn't pass to go on to conference.

If the anti's want to compromise in the future, the NRA's James Baker is going to be harder to deal with. He is going to demand that we get something in return for what we give up. We got lawsuit control in PA and the anti's got trigger locks. I would say we made the better horse trade in that case.

Don't give up on the NRA. I think, with Baker at the helm of the NRA-ILA, it is a brighter day for the NRA.

Joe
 
Frankly, I believe that if Tanya was in the top seat there, we'd see a whole lot more offensive actions, instead of the defensive game that Wayne likes to play.

Defense only works for so long. Eventually, you have to push the enemy back to his own line.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Holding the opposing team to 5 yards when they go for 10 is not a gain. Until Wayne and his buddies figure that out, they can't do anything to win back our rights.

------------------
"The evils of tyranny are rarely seen but by him who resists it."
-- John Hay, 1872
 
Joe,

Thanks for your reply.

The point I was trying to make is that the gun bigots are only giving up what they never had. We lose Rights on every deal.

I hope Jim Baker is a pit bull. I'll support him all the way if he is.
-----

Coinneach,

Like you, I miss Tanya Metaska. Her "I'm a civilized Grandma" presence immediately dehorned the redneck image of NRA members that gun bigots so falsely portray.

Time will tell.


------------------
Either you believe in the Second Amendment or you don't.
Stick it to 'em! RKBA!
 
Cassidy, regardless of whether I agree exactly on the merits of whether the "compromise" made sense, I'm all for your doing what you're doing, so long as you continue to give to the substitute groups - they do good work!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top