Should the NRA take the initiative on future gun legislation

I don't think it would be a bad thing for the NRA to take charge on the current watch list hysteria and define it in a way that would ban people on the watch list from buying guns with a requisite amount of due process. Maybe losing that right and being put on the list requires something like a warrant that must be obtained by a judge , or a gun rights hearing is scheduled when you're placed on the list etc. Realistic? I dunno. Might be good for the NRA to be seen working on that though
 
I don't think it would be a bad thing for the NRA to take charge on the current watch list hysteria and define it in a way that would ban people on the watch list from buying guns with a requisite amount of due process.
Click to expand...

Indeed.

On the other hand, only a couple of weeks ago BHO complained that people who have been known to visit ISIS websites are still allowed to buy guns, and they should never be allowed to buy a firearm.

The negative education, teaching people why it is wrong to abridge someone's rights merely for what they've read, is important as well.
 
Again, if gun owners do nothing, they will lose this fight, and they are losing. They make themselves look like the problem, instead of part of the solution. This is fast becoming a campaign issue at the executive and legislative level, and there is a very good chance one or both houses could go Democratic.
Click to expand...

I disagree. First, Bloomberg is pumping in millions of dollars to create the wave of media attention - most of it from the usual suspects and containing the usual distortions. Compromise won't make that problem go away. Bloomberg is going to keep pouring in money until federal gun laws look like NYC's. If anything, compromise will signal progress and encourage more attacks along those lines.

I think you've fallen into a trap of thinking that the people creating the press treatment of firearms are reasonable people who just want an effective solution. They aren't. They don't.

If they did, you'd see reports about how rarely gun possession by felons is prosecuted. You'd see Senators spending 15 hours asking why there were 72,000 NICS denials in 2010; but only 4,732 investigations and 63 prosecutions? You'd see the mainstream media asking why is it when the FBI determined that 45,000 approvals were incorrectly granted to prohibited people, they didn't even make an attempt to retrieve the firearm in 38,000 of those cases? Not even a "Hey you! We saw that!" letter.

We keep seeing this cycle where gun control proponents demonize the NRA and ignore the input of people who actually know guns. Then they propose ineffective, poorly drafted laws that they don't enforce and couldn't enforce if they wanted to. Then when those are ineffective, they propose more of the same. It is a continuous ratcheting and the only people affected by it are those who voluntarily attempt to comply.
 
I disagree. First, Bloomberg is pumping in millions of dollars to create the wave of media attention - most of it from the usual suspects and containing the usual distortions. Compromise won't make that problem go away. Bloomberg is going to keep pouring in money until federal gun laws look like NYC's. If anything, compromise will signal progress and encourage more attacks along those lines.

I think you've fallen into a trap of thinking that the people creating the press treatment of firearms are reasonable people who just want an effective solution. They aren't. They don't.

If they did, you'd see reports about how rarely gun possession by felons is prosecuted. You'd see Senators spending 15 hours asking why there were 72,000 NICS denials in 2010; but only 4,732 investigations and 63 prosecutions? You'd see the mainstream media asking why is it when the FBI determined that 45,000 approvals were incorrectly granted to prohibited people, they didn't even make an attempt to retrieve the firearm in 38,000 of those cases? Not even a "Hey you! We saw that!" letter.

We keep seeing this cycle where gun control proponents demonize the NRA and ignore the input of people who actually know guns. Then they propose ineffective, poorly drafted laws that they don't enforce and couldn't enforce if they wanted to. Then when those are ineffective, they propose more of the same. It is a continuous ratcheting and the only people affected by it are those who voluntarily attempt to comply.
Click to expand...

... well said and a view I had not taken. I'm going to take your word on those facts. If that's the case, the NRA should be buying radio ads blasting that to the public so they see that current gun laws are not being effectively enforced. Why add new laws when current ones aren't enforced?
 
Here is the 2010 Brady Enforcement report. The numbers are pretty disturbing.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/239272.pdf

Some key parts:
72,000 denials
4,732 investigations
~1,100 firearm retrievals
63 prosecutions (with about a 50% plea or conviction rate)
Approximately 21% of denials reversed on appeal
Of the few cases referred for prosecution, almost 40% declined because of "no prosecutive merit" and 10% because the person was not a prohibited person (and this is AFTER the ATF investigation).
 
Did some fast math on those numbers: 6% of denials are even investigated, and less than 1/10 of 1% are prosecuted.

As a part of this discussion, I was pleased to see a rational analysis of gun control efforts published in, of all places, the Washington Post. The link follows, but in summary, they stated that three major claims by the senator currently leading the charge for more gun control, that states with more gun control have less gun crime and homicides, that the AWB decreased firearm deaths, and that there is a gun-show loophole that allows people to purchase scary firearms including fully automatic weapons without background checks, are all false. None of us are surprised to know these are false, but this was the Washington Post calling out a senator for his false premise.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...les-and-guns/?wpisrc=nl_politics-draw6&wpmm=1
 
yes I do believe the NRA should be working on the future of firearms regulations. At this point to continue to hold to their high ground is going to cost them, some legislators are and will remain firmly on the side of the NRA others who are teetering in the middle are going to fall to the wave of public outcry and go to the other side. honestly I miss the years past when the NRA was THE advocate for firearms safety and good legislation. Certainly continue to fight against laws that violate the second amendment, but work with the system or get overwhelmed. Just my opinion, be the driving force to get the "No Fly No buy" list corrected and put into play, work to get better enforcement on NFA violations (although ATF is pretty good at pouncing on those), work to provide not require training for firearms owners, work to promote the prosecution of illegal sales and questionable ethics by dealers.
 
I agree with Panfisher. By the continued resistance to doing anything seen as positive in regards to slowing the access to AR's and other weapons (key word there) the NRA is painting gun owners into a corner.
 
I know its called an ASSAULT RIFLE by those who do not know better. Armalite Rifle comes to mind and isn't an assault rifle fully automatic, which we cannot buy??????
 
Panfisher said:
I miss the years past when the NRA was THE advocate for firearms safety and good legislation
Click to expand...

The idea that those are "years past" is nonsense. Look at the current kerfluffle with Trump for an excellent example. Every news article out there makes it sound like Trump has convinced the NRA to end their opposition to selling guns to people on terrorist watch lists. Maybe a handful of articles mention that this legislation is legislation the NRA has already proposed and supported. Almost none mention that Democrats in the Senate killed the bill by poison pill amendment.

The NRA is not just THE national leader in firearms safety; they are practically the only ones engaged in teaching it. You'll notice that despite all the "We are gunowners too. We just want reasonable common sense gun safety" BS from gun control groups pretending to be moderate, not a single one of them spends a dime on teaching firearms safety. Not even for programs as uncontroversial as the NRA's Eddie Eagle program.

The reason the NRA opposes gun control legislation is because those are bad bills. Every single time you see something like a background check bill or something similar, NRA has proposed an alternative piece of legislation that addresses the concerns of gun owners. That is almost never reported and never accepted by the same people who wail and do their 15-hour kabuki theater about why we can't even take small baby steps towards gun legislation.

Which brings me back to my original point - the people pushing this on the general public are not reasonable. They do not want a common sense compromise. They want you disarmed and they aren't interested in legislation that actually does something to slow their bloody media juggernaut.
 
IF Trump is seen as being able to work with the NRA I think that is going to be a plus for his campaign, honestly I am not a big Trump fan, but firmly in the "Never Hillary" camp. I have been an instructor in Hunter Safety Education for over 20 years, and don't see much involvement by the NRA, they are still there but it is a behind the scenes more than before, I am sure there are places where they are the main player. I want them out in front, being the poster child for responsible gun ownership and use. I understand that the legislation the NRA proposes is basically good stuff, but I think they are missing the boat on getting the word out, and there are more than enough of "us" out here who would post, share etc. the NRA legislation as good stuff, but why does it not even come out to us. We as gun owners/enthusiasts can have a pretty powerful voice in saying, hey public, the bill being pushed by Congress sucks, here is a much better one and is from the NRA. I just think they are missing the boat.
 
Last edited:
The NRA doesn't advertise legislative efforts because they will be criticized for "selling out" by both gun owners and certain other "gun rights" groups. Heck, just look at any discussion of NRA here. People still won't forgive them for comments the NRA President made in the 1930s concerning gun legislation even though he is dead and the Cincinatti revolution happened 40 years ago. The NRA fought tooth and nail against the 1968 Gun Control Act; but time and time again I have to recite the actual history of that to people who are convinced that was also the NRA's doing.

For that matter Sen. Cornyn has proposed a number of good gun rights bills supported by NRA that were heavily criticized on gun boards just in the last four years.
 
NRA catches flak from everyone.
Now the NRA is directly responsible for a terrorist slaughtering innocents. Give me a freekin break.
 
The reason the NRA opposes gun control legislation is because those are bad bills. Every single time you see something like a background check bill or something similar, NRA has proposed an alternative piece of legislation that addresses the concerns of gun owners. That is almost never reported and never accepted by the same people who wail and do their 15-hour kabuki theater about why we can't even take small baby steps towards gun legislation.
Click to expand...

The only people doing the 15 hour kabuki theater seems to be the avid "no way but my way" gun rights people. If somebody has a need..say that word ten times...for an AR but they are on some list that would prevent purchase or ownership of said weapon, they can wait till the agencies charged with clearing them to work through the process. If congress does not allocate the monies to those agencies to speed the process, will we abandon the process? Or will we pressure congress to allocate the funds? These are issues that need to be resolved. By waving our arms in the air and proclaiming that a person wanting to buy an AR is being violated thus we need to provide them weapons on demand is not valid, IMO.

I have opinions the same as any other member of this forum . I have no reason to fight for the rights of every deranged violent person that might want "assault weapons." I used that terminology on purpose---the people that throw fits over usage of the term are derailing the conversation. Technically maybe that term is not correct in the minds of some paramilitary people. But if a poll asked 10,000 ordinary citizens what "assault weapon" refers to, 9900 would likely point to an AR. The other 100 wouldn't know what the word weapon means.
 
surg_res from Texas asked:

Should the NRA take the initiative on future gun legislation?
Click to expand...

NO!
Law abiding gun owners do not need ANY more restrictive LAWS!
Gun control laws do not work on BAD guys!




surg_res from Texas wrote:

I have been an NRA member and financial supporter for about 15 years. I am a staunch supporter of the 2nd amendment to its roots, time and again defending the right to own firearms as not only a right, but an American responsibility. This privilege clearly established by our founding fathers to keep power in the hands of the people.....
Click to expand...

The words right and privilege are NOT interchangeable:

In 15 years as an NRA member,
If you have not learned the difference between "a privilege" and "a right",
You don't need to re-up with the NRA for any more years!
You are wasting your time and ours!
 
ColoradoRedneck said:
If somebody has a need..say that word ten times...for an AR but they are on some list that would prevent purchase or ownership of said weapon, they can wait till the agencies charged with clearing them to work through the process.
Click to expand...

In 1994, there were approximately 103,000 ATF agents and 246,000 Type I FFLs. In 2007, there were about 50,000 Type I FFLs and over 137,000 ATF agents. 1/5 of the dealers that were being monitored with pen and paper just 20 years previous by 34,000 fewer agents. Given those numbers, exactly why do you believe that the problem is a lack of resources or that the NRA is to blame?

ETA: The ATF budget request for FY2016 is just shy of $1.3 billion.
 
Last edited:
If you have not learned the difference between "a privilege" and "a right", You don't need to re-up with the NRA for any more years!
You are wasting your time and ours!
Click to expand...

Your rights are nothing more than ink on paper. Privilege is a matter of exercising those rights with appreciation and wisdom. If you disagree, you can fall on the sword when that day comes. As for the rest of us, preservation of our culture and heritage will likely come at the cost of compromise. I hope that we do not lose that initiative. It is cute to be a purist, willing to blockade yourself up in the hills while the feds gun you down, but lets face it, we are only as free as the rest of us say we are.
 
I'm having a difficult time understanding how leading the charge toward more restrictive gun laws is in any way "going on the offensive" against more restrictive gun laws. To me, going on the offensive would be convincing more legislators and more legislatures to repeal onerous anti-gun laws, and to enact laws protective of the Second Amendment.

I think it should be obvious that "guns" are not the problem. Terrorists have killed people with bombs, but the aftermath of such incidents hasn't been cries for more anti-bomb laws. People have killed large numbers of people with automobiles, but those incidents haven't been followed by calls for anti-automobile laws, or calls for background checks before a person can be allowed to buy or drive a car.

Going on the offensive means doing something to shift the focus of the debate onto the crux of the problem ... and that ain't guns.
 
the NRA taking the initiative on gun control is literally the equivalent of shooting yourself in the foot. We've compromised to the point where now the only thing left to take away is due process from gun rights... think about that

we don’t need any more gun control and we don’t need to be the ones to initiate it. The problem is not the guns.
 
All of these posts should encourage everyone to vote for a house and senate candidate from your state who backs the second amendment. Gun control laws save no lives and are not meant to, those laws are to make law abiding citizens dependent upon the government for their protection.
Can't remember where I saw this " Isn't it ironic that if guns are outlawed, people with guns will come to take yours away."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top