Pre-emptive apology. This is a long one.
Devil5052 wrote:Just one quick web search but feel free to do your own:
This link is broken, either the page no longer exists or there is some other issue like a typo.
"The National Rifle Association is under fire for its lobbying tactics, but, this time, the shots are coming from Republicans and other pro-gun activists. The NRA, easily the largest and most influential gun-rights lobby in America, has been too quick to compromise and too slow to mobilize its troops to defeat anti-gun legislation in the House and the Senate, GOP leadership sources and gun activists say. "........
Devil, I read this and I think it is a great bit of evidence directly contradicting your claims against the NRA. The article describes how the NRA was taking a relatively moderate stance on the piece of legislation in question (Juvenile Brady Bill). They were ceding the anti-gunners their proposal for a ban on people younger than 18 being able to own an assault weapon (don't know how that is defined, lets just call say it means anything with that classic M4 style frame). They were also ceding a new gun lock provision. However, they were going to go to the mat on a proposed 72 hour waiting period on gun show firearm sales. They also were actively against a provision to ban "importation of ammunition clips". I'm not going to go into that point since the article gave it glancing mention and it is a wash as to who it most benefits since it is good for the average consumer (higher supply, lower cost needed accessory), retailers and distributors (multiple suppliers, better cashflow, moving more product), and manufacturers of such items (big players and knock off producers alike).
Who were the NRA being more moderate than? The Gun Owners of America organization who were against every provision of the bill, and source for the article you linked.
So, you claim that the NRA is all about the gun manufacturer and don't give a damn about the 2nd amendment or its membership and that they are for a virtually unlimited interpretation of the 2nd amendment (referencing high cap mags and virtually unlimited types of weapons) and you provide this article as evidence. But the article demonstrates that the NRA, at least in this case:
- Was no where near as extreme in their stance and lobbying efforts as you would have us believe is their MO.
- Was ceding a market for gun manufacturers to sell their wares to. Actually the very market that the smoking lobby has tried and continues to try to market to. I only bring them up because you did as a analogous example of an extreme, company oriented lobbying group to be reviled.
- Was sticking up for the "little guy" with their efforts and tactics on the 72-hour waiting period provision. While manufacturers do participate in some of the bigger gun shows, the vast majority of sellers are local and regional gun shops, individual sellers of antique and vintage and hard-to-find guns, custom gun makers and gunsmiths, etc. The purpose of this provision was to make it harder, indeed practically impossible for a large number of these non-manufacturer sellers to use the gun show as a viable sales venue. Such a waiting period would place a high burden on individual sellers and buyers, particularly those who are not geographically close together, to make delivery on their sales/purchases. Opposing this provision was at least as much for those small time players as it was for any gun manufacturing company. I'd say it was mostly for these small players rather than the big players.
- Was arguably being the better (as in more effective) lobbying group for all its members, not just the gun manufacturers, in the strategy they pursued. Their decision to cede ground in their stance and lobbying effort was clearly stated as being motivated by the political climate of the time. As quoted in the article, "If we had opposed everything, we would have lost everything." While the GOA may have held a more philosophically purist line, they are a relatively bit player in terms of funding and membership compared to the NRA and as such they pay no real price for holding that purist line, indeed they gain credibility among those who care most about philosophy and "being right" as opposed to winning as much ground as you can in the political game that is Washington D.C.
And on top of all this you are adamantly against the extremist type positioning on the 2nd amendment issue. You then use an article by just such a group, that describes how the NRA, whom you think is such a group, as having acted as a moderate, reasonable voice in "the debate".
Care to try again?
I posted my comments about them (NRA) because I was getting the distinct impression that alot of the forum members here were not clear as to what the NRA's purpose & agenda are. They are here to support firearms sales & legislation on behalf of their client, the Firearms Industry. ... There is no doubt that some of our (gunowners) interests & theirs will dovetail from time to time & that is great, but we should never forget who they represent in the long run & that is not the gun owner or the US Constitution.
The organization started out as a civil rights organization, both to defend the rights of people vis-a-vis the 2nd amendment and by virtue of its early membership being mostly those who either physically defended (racial) civil rights advocates and lawyers and targeted groups/buildings or were themselves such advocates or persons. It is possible they have strayed from this noble and righteous beginning, but I haven't seen convincing evidence that they've "sold out" or are now a bought and paid for lobby group for gun manufacturers to the near exclusion of all else.
edit: Ugh. I must have got the NRA confused with another organization with regard to its founding motivations. I'll have to try and dig up the organization I'm thinking of. NRA was formed on admirable principles and purpose, but I'm not finding the racial civil rights tie in that I have in my mind. First of all it was founded back in the mid 1800's, not the mid 1900's.
Jeez, maybe I'm just remembering an argument in support of the personal right 2nd amendment interpretation and for more liberal concealed carry policies. Anyway, my bad.
And finally, in another post I think you (might have been stockingfull) quoted an NRA position statement where they were against the 10 round limit on magazines/clips, stating your disagreement with the NRA position then going on to call their position on this (and in general, but we'll focus on this one point), "ludicrous". While you may not consider the rare circumstance of an individual potentially benefiting from a higher capacity magazine to be a reasonable basis, on balance, for keeping them legal, I think it is unreasonable to say holding such a position is "ludicrous". Not when such circumstances have happened a number of times in just the past two decades or so. Examples: Katrina lawlessness, LA riots, the NE blackout a few years back, the California blackouts a few years before that, various domestic terrorist acts against individuals' homes and businesses (such as recent ELF attack), various racial and other group perpetrated hate crimes against individuals, criminals using body armor during their crimes, and the list goes on.
Actually, one more: radical bike groups that terrorize motorists by surround cars and pounding on the vehicles. This is an actual phenomena in various places around the US. I don't wish anyone ill, but one of these days they're going to do it to the wrong mother carrying her kids in the car and will get a hail of gunfire sprayed at them. And form her perspective she will have been reasonable to do so, not knowing what the hell is going on except a bunch of lunatics have descended on her from no where, appear to be trying to make violent entry into the car, and are scaring the ever living hell out of her and her kids.
I'm not saying the use of deadly force would have been appropriate or was necessary in any of these cases, I am saying they all represent real events that at least had the potential to produce the kind of situations where this 10 round limitation may well have proven a fatal limitation to the lawful person defending his person, home, business, or community.
And if you've read all the way through, I thank you. Commence counter attack.