Aguila Blanca
Staff
Unrelated to Willes Lee and his response to the NRA member who commented on his Facebook page.
Willes lee responds to a question about the NRA and silencers.
- Thread starter wolfwood
- Start date
Unrelated to Willes Lee and his response to the NRA member who commented on his Facebook page.
He wants to have it both ways. He represents the NRA only if you agree with him.
Are there any good directors left that we know of? I kinda think all of them should be fired just to remind the board that they work for us. But I think they've changed the rules so that's impossible; and they don't work for us anymore, we just pay the bills.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
The by-laws were revised two (I think) years ago. The changes effectively made it impossible for the members to exercise any control over "their" organization.zxcvbob said:
Jeff Knox wrote about it fairly extensively in his blog at the time.
Back to the "snarkiness" of the post(s), everyone should get in the habit of writing or typing a snarky or controversial post without sending it. Chill out a few minutes or longer. Then re-read it and maybe have someone you trust also read it. Only then should you post it. I've done this many times and have been glad I didn't go off half-cocked. Having said that, I realize that's not the way the online world normally works, but maybe it should be.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
KyJim, are you referring to Mr. Willes' post, or the NRA member's post to which Willes was responding? Willes characterized the member's post as "snark," but I didn't see it that way at all. I saw it as a sincere statement/question. The snark was Willes's reply.KyJim said:
Thomas Clarke
New member
I read at 46 posts in this thread. The OP is I think correctly understood by all. What he represents is what no one tolerates at either work or in our own homes. I call it My House My Rules. I win. You Lose. I would like to think that all of us as Americans recognize that this level exemplified by the OP is not what we are all about. It is why the Second Amendment must be protected at all costs by all of us. The OP is dangerous and a threat to all of us. He is much worse than the Democrats. There can be no compromise on out rights to Keep and Bear Arms. The alternative is not acceptable.
Kind of like the government...
That is a deal breaker for me.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
Please don't take my word on it. Read up on it and make your own decision based on more complete information than my fuzzy memory.
https://www.ammoland.com/2017/01/vote-no-on-nra-bylaw-changes/#axzz5qJtc2cAO
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2017/06/robert-farago/jeff-knoxs-letter-nra-re-rules-changes/
https://www.wnd.com/2017/01/dont-be-fooled-by-nra-reforms-push/
https://www.ammoland.com/2017/01/vote-no-on-nra-bylaw-changes/#axzz5qJtc2cAO
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2017/06/robert-farago/jeff-knoxs-letter-nra-re-rules-changes/
https://www.wnd.com/2017/01/dont-be-fooled-by-nra-reforms-push/
Certainly agree with that. YUGE gun owning ‘middle ground’ out there of who could be brought into the fold......poor messaging by the nra, imho, poor messaging in general.....
I’m visiting wife’s relatives in WI...none are gun owners but their impression of a gun owner is really ‘skewed’, until I try to explain this guy(me), who has entered their gigantic family via marriage, isn’t some sort of ‘gun weirdo’...at least I don’t think I am...just a Glock fanboy
BUT Lee’s FB BS just reinforces my desire to stay away from the nra. He’s evidently not smart enough to see he hurts the nra far more than he helps it.
punkinhead
Inactive
Any reasonably mature person knows that you don't attach your company or organization's name to a social media page and act snarky and childish. Willis needs to grow up.
It was directed at Mr. Willes' post in particular, but to forum members generally. A lot of people just go off without thinking of ramifications. I've done it and suspect most of us have. Some things you can't take back. I always warned by children (now adults) to be careful about what they post because you have to assume it's online forever.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
A couple of people may notice that your posts have incurred minor edits. It's not stated explicitly in the forum rules, but it's tradition and practice around here that we try not to lower ourselves to the level of the opposition. The office of President deserves respect, and whether you like him or not Donald Trump deserves to be addressed or mentioned with the respect due any President of the country. Accordingly, with concurrence of the more senior staff, I have edited a few posts to remove references to President Trump that were less than polite, civil plays on his name or person.
This is rather fascinating to watch.
Even if suppressors were to get banned (and the currently haven't been), that doesn't change the idea of keeping arms or bearing them....at all. Banning bump stocks does not change my ability to keep and bear arms either (however much I might loathe the idea of it happening). I just feel like things need to be kept in perspective. Even though there are many people that have silencers, most don't. In time I will have a few but currently don't. As long as they are not banned anyway. But I understand the perceived threat.
As for Pres. Trump, he so obviously has so much opposition that ANYTHING can and will be used against him in the court of public opinion. I'm amazed he's managed to get this far. Now with that said, this should not be twisted to make me a blind follower. I am not. I do keep in mind though that the left would much rather repeal the 2nd all together. Witch makes this particular discussion so small as to render it just about pointless.
If you want to be THAT much in-tune with Twitter, you are going to be lead down the prim-rose path.
As to the degree of "snark" involved here, well, emotions are running high in all directions. Lots of people are expecting things of the NRA that they either can't or wont actually deliver. People all over the place are talking about America being on the edge of civil war. With this degree of angst, anger, frustration, and insanity....I frankly don't see how people can realistically expect anything else. Particularly across social media.
Even if suppressors were to get banned (and the currently haven't been), that doesn't change the idea of keeping arms or bearing them....at all. Banning bump stocks does not change my ability to keep and bear arms either (however much I might loathe the idea of it happening). I just feel like things need to be kept in perspective. Even though there are many people that have silencers, most don't. In time I will have a few but currently don't. As long as they are not banned anyway. But I understand the perceived threat.
As for Pres. Trump, he so obviously has so much opposition that ANYTHING can and will be used against him in the court of public opinion. I'm amazed he's managed to get this far. Now with that said, this should not be twisted to make me a blind follower. I am not. I do keep in mind though that the left would much rather repeal the 2nd all together. Witch makes this particular discussion so small as to render it just about pointless.
If you want to be THAT much in-tune with Twitter, you are going to be lead down the prim-rose path.
As to the degree of "snark" involved here, well, emotions are running high in all directions. Lots of people are expecting things of the NRA that they either can't or wont actually deliver. People all over the place are talking about America being on the edge of civil war. With this degree of angst, anger, frustration, and insanity....I frankly don't see how people can realistically expect anything else. Particularly across social media.
Last edited by a moderator:
I wasn't going to open any of these cans of worms, but this seems like a fine stage of the thread to open them.
Not only has no suppressor ban been instituted, no one I've read about in the exec branch has proposed one. This is unlike the bumpstock episode in that the reactions aren't to a government proposal, but a rational anxiety about how this could pan out.
The bump stock regulation is arguably a greater threat to the central right than would be a suppressor ban. The stock is a necessary element of a rifle, whereas a suppressor isn't. That the specific item re-classified is something most of us consider silly shouldn't obscure the sloppy reasoning invoked in the re-classification itself.
While a suppressor isn't a necessary element of a firearm, it is part of the array of items congress has seem fit to regulate or ban as related to arms. I suppose a detachable magazine isn't a necessary element of a modern rifle either, but a complete ban on magazines should be a 2d Am. violation since those are part of the proper function of the rifle.
Are suppressors common firearm parts, i.e. do they meet a common use test? I would not wield that "in common use" hammer very heavily where the relative rarity may be the direct consequence of government discouragement. If the government were to ban, collect and crush every snub nosed revolver, should it then be permitted to argue the legitimacy of the ban because snub nosed revolvers are no longer in common use? I would resist that argument.
Are suppressors in common use if most people don't have them? If the ATF figures are correct, more than a million of them are registered. While far from a majority use, would we call it a rare use?
I have neither a bumpstock nor a suppressor, but how they are treated is interesting because it bears on what limits the government has.
Prndll said:
Not only has no suppressor ban been instituted, no one I've read about in the exec branch has proposed one. This is unlike the bumpstock episode in that the reactions aren't to a government proposal, but a rational anxiety about how this could pan out.
The bump stock regulation is arguably a greater threat to the central right than would be a suppressor ban. The stock is a necessary element of a rifle, whereas a suppressor isn't. That the specific item re-classified is something most of us consider silly shouldn't obscure the sloppy reasoning invoked in the re-classification itself.
While a suppressor isn't a necessary element of a firearm, it is part of the array of items congress has seem fit to regulate or ban as related to arms. I suppose a detachable magazine isn't a necessary element of a modern rifle either, but a complete ban on magazines should be a 2d Am. violation since those are part of the proper function of the rifle.
Are suppressors common firearm parts, i.e. do they meet a common use test? I would not wield that "in common use" hammer very heavily where the relative rarity may be the direct consequence of government discouragement. If the government were to ban, collect and crush every snub nosed revolver, should it then be permitted to argue the legitimacy of the ban because snub nosed revolvers are no longer in common use? I would resist that argument.
Are suppressors in common use if most people don't have them? If the ATF figures are correct, more than a million of them are registered. While far from a majority use, would we call it a rare use?
I have neither a bumpstock nor a suppressor, but how they are treated is interesting because it bears on what limits the government has.
Last edited:
Aguila Blanca
Staff
The current problems with the NRA are only partially over member dissatisfaction with what the NRA can or does deliver politically and legislatively. The more fundamental issue is that the NRA leadership seems to have forgotten that the NRA is a membership organization and that they (the leaders) are supposed to represent the members. Also, as a registered not-for-profit organization, the leadership and the members of the board of directors have certain requirements for exercising fiscal responsibility. In plain English, they are supposed to spend the members' money wisely (or, at least, not blatantly negligently). What is coming out is that the board has not been fulfilling its responsibility to ensure that the members' money is not being wasted or used improperly.Prndll said:
IMO, we are now seeing a double-barreled dissatisfaction among NRA members. There have been questions for a long time about how effectively the NRAs "long game" strategy coincides with the members' expectations in regard to 2A rights and legislation. (For example, the NRA initially tried to kill the Heller lawsuit. It is debatable -- I can understand why/how the NRA or any other pro-2A group might have had doubts -- the decision was 5-4, and it could easily have gone 5-4 against the 2A.) Now it comes out that the advertising agency may (note: "may") have been massively overbilling the NRA for many years. And it is coming out that Wayne LaPierre has been feathering his own nest at member expense by getting vacation trips and personal clothing paid for by the members while drawing a million-dollar-a-year salary.
The concern is, IMHO, legitimate. When elected members of the board, who have a collective and individual responsibility to guide and direct the organization and to control and protect the members' money, react to legitimate concerns expressed by a member in such a childish and defensive manner, it does not speak well for the board in general and for that director in particular.
I completely agree.
I had no intention however in suggesting the the rarity of suppressors weigh in on wether or not they should be considered for banning. Just that keeping things in perspective in important. Everyone going nuts over something that has not happened. The only reason I can see this even making people nervous is the bumpstock ban that actually did.
Banning snub nose revolvers for any reason (including rarity) would be banning firearms. That's akin to banning Garands. That would certainly be a very big issue and would obviously be against the 2nd.
Keeping things in perspective is something I really believe the left has real issues with. They want to ban AR15's when those are so small of a blip on the radar as to be insignificant. Loosing perspective is too easy. Especially when following social media.
If you really want to get down to it though. The thing that defines "firearms", "arms", "weapons", and "guns" are set down by our glorious leaders as we agree to let them regulate and ban in the first place. Perhaps as we subconsciously believe that we (as a whole) can't be trusted enough....or was the power ripped from us as the NFA was born?
If he bans silencers, what are people going to do? Vote him out? Revolt? or accept it?
Where this topic is concerned, what limits does the government actually have? They define the game AND it's Rules.
I had no intention however in suggesting the the rarity of suppressors weigh in on wether or not they should be considered for banning. Just that keeping things in perspective in important. Everyone going nuts over something that has not happened. The only reason I can see this even making people nervous is the bumpstock ban that actually did.
Banning snub nose revolvers for any reason (including rarity) would be banning firearms. That's akin to banning Garands. That would certainly be a very big issue and would obviously be against the 2nd.
Keeping things in perspective is something I really believe the left has real issues with. They want to ban AR15's when those are so small of a blip on the radar as to be insignificant. Loosing perspective is too easy. Especially when following social media.
If you really want to get down to it though. The thing that defines "firearms", "arms", "weapons", and "guns" are set down by our glorious leaders as we agree to let them regulate and ban in the first place. Perhaps as we subconsciously believe that we (as a whole) can't be trusted enough....or was the power ripped from us as the NFA was born?
If he bans silencers, what are people going to do? Vote him out? Revolt? or accept it?
Where this topic is concerned, what limits does the government actually have? They define the game AND it's Rules.
Prndll said:
I agree that your analysis is sound, but it may not be so obvious that a contrary argument wouldn't be employed in a ban.
When Kavanaugh was being interrogated by Sen. Feinstein, she argued that AR15s aren't in common use, even if many millions of people possess them. The mechanism is to slice parts of "in common use" into such thin slices that each part may be argued to be rare.
If the government banned, collected and crushed every last Garand, they wouldn't be "in common use" any longer, but that would be solely because of a condition the government itself created. My modest point is that the government shouldn't be able to create a condition of scarcity, then rely on that scarcity to undermine a constitutional protection. That more people don't have suppressors is a direct consequence of a history of government dissuasion.