Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Turmoil wracking the National Rifle Association is threatening to turn the group’s annual convention into outright civil war, as insurgents maneuver to oust Wayne LaPierre, the foremost voice of the American gun rights movement.

The confrontation pits Mr. LaPierre, the organization’s longtime chief executive, against its recently installed president, Oliver L. North, the central figure in the Reagan-era Iran-contra affair, who remains a hero to many on the right.

Behind it is a widening crisis involving a legal battle between the N.R.A. and its most influential contractor, Ackerman McQueen, amid renewed threats from regulators in New York, where the N.R.A. is chartered, to investigate the group’s tax-exempt status. With contributions lagging, the N.R.A. is also facing an increasingly well-financed gun control movement, motivated by a string of mass shootings.

Mr. North asked Mr. LaPierre to resign on Wednesday, according to documents reviewed by The New York Times. He said he had also created a committee to review allegations of financial improprieties that threaten the N.R.A.’s status as a nonprofit

 

organization.

But Mr. LaPierre, in a stinging letter sent on Thursday night to the N.R.A.’s board, accused Mr. North of threatening to leak damaging information about him and other N.R.A. executives unless he stepped down.

“Yesterday evening, I was forced to confront one of those defining choices — styled, in the parlance of extortionists — as an offer I couldn’t refuse,” Mr. LaPierre wrote. “I refused it.”

Even as the leadership tussled behind the scenes, President Trump addressed the N.R.A. faithful at the convention on Friday and proclaimed himself a champion of gun rights. In a speech that was part political rally and part pep talk, he said his administration would not ratify an arms treaty designed to regulate the international sale of conventional weapons.

The power struggle within the N.R.A. is an abrupt escalation of a legal battle between the organization and Ackerman McQueen. The Times reported earlier this year that prominent members of the N.R.A. board had grown dismayed at the performance of Ackerman because of its NRATV online media service, which has drifted into right-wing politics far beyond gun rights. Ackerman employs Mr. North, who hosts an NRATV series called “American Heroes.”

It is not clear whether Mr. North has the board support to oust Mr. LaPierre, who has led the N.R.A. for decades. Previously, the presidency has been a ceremonial position, though Mr. North, in documents reviewed by The Times, has asked for it to be a paid post. A key factor will be Chris Cox, who runs the N.R.A.’s Institute for Legislative Action and is effectively the group’s second-ranking official.

more at the link

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/26/business/nra-wayne-lapierre-oliver-north.html

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

I wish the NRA would give up the laundering and lobbying, (not to mention propaganda) and just go back to teaching firearm safety. 

If you mean continue to teach firearm safety, you can join me in volunteering for Friends of the NRA, but I doubt your wish will really translate to action.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, badlatitude said:

With contributions lagging, the N.R.A. is also facing an increasingly well-financed gun control movement, motivated by a string of mass shootings.

Nice to see you get a mention, badlat, though I still think transparency in your $peech would be good.

On 4/7/2018 at 9:08 PM, badlatitude said:

There is nothing I can do now but support a full Second Amendment extermination, which I will do with huge endowments. Money talks.


But you're free to $peak and don't have to say what you're doing and that's a good thing too.

2 hours ago, badlatitude said:

renewed threats from regulators in New York, where the N.R.A. is chartered, to investigate the group’s tax-exempt status.

Are there new threats since the ACLU came out on the NRA's side in that one?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Importunate Tom said:

Nice to see you get a mention, badlat, though I still think transparency in your $peech would be good.


But you're free to $peak and don't have to say what you're doing and that's a good thing too.

Are there new threats since the ACLU came out on the NRA's side in that one?

It's all moving to a quick conclusion, the only real question is will the NRA be better or worse under Oliver North and will the damage be repairable?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, badlatitude said:

It's all moving to a quick conclusion, the only real question is will the NRA be better or worse under Oliver North and will the damage be repairable?

Considering that they are going out of business I’d say yes it will be irreparable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The NRA used to be about hunting, responsible handling of rifles and, etc. It's morphed sometime in the 70s into the hand gun and assault weapon assoc. It's really very sad. Almost as if the Arbor Day Foundation started promoting the girdling of mature hardwoods so that they could be harvested by corporations for a profit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

30 minutes ago, Mrleft8 said:

The NRA used to be about hunting, responsible handling of rifles and, etc. It's morphed sometime in the 70s into the hand gun and assault weapon assoc. It's really very sad. Almost as if the Arbor Day Foundation started promoting the girdling of mature hardwoods so that they could be harvested by corporations for a profit.

A question.

Are there any other associations that promote the old goals of the NRA?

Seems to me the best way to undermine the NRA is to poach it's responsible and reasonable members.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

 

A question.

Are there any other associations that promote the old goals of the NRA?

Seems to me the best way to undermine the NRA is to poach it's responsible and reasonable members.

In a similar vein, where's the majority of the funding come from?

Through members subscriptions or a questionable minority of "donations"?

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Fakenews said:

Considering that they are going out of business I’d say yes it will be irreparable.

The NRA is America's longest-standing civil rights organization - I don't think their going out of business anytime soon

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, -Dino said:

The NRA is America's longest-standing civil rights organization - I don't think their going out of business anytime soon

Interesting point of view, perhaps you'd care to explain to a non American?

Founded in 1871, I think I can come up with quite a few older than that.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

 

A question.

Are there any other associations that promote the old goals of the NRA?

Seems to me the best way to undermine the NRA is to poach it's responsible and reasonable members.

Ducks Unlimited would be a good successor.

The NRA is just a gun fetish cult at this point

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Clove Hitch said:

Ducks Unlimited would be a good successor.

The NRA is just a gun fetish cult at this point

Ducks Unlimited is about hunting, the NRA is about the 2nd, there is no connection except fire arms.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The early history of the NRA was as anything but a civil rights organization. It was founded as a gun club. It remained that for decades. What Sol wants it to be now is what it originally was. Moreover, calling it a civil rights organization now is only an amusing bit of trolling. Calling it a gun fetish cult is more accurate.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, warbird said:

Ducks Unlimited is about hunting, the NRA is about the 2nd, there is no connection except fire arms.

The NRA is not about the second. They want nothing to do with a well regulated militia

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Clove Hitch said:

The NRA is not about the second. They want nothing to do with a well regulated militia

 

15 minutes ago, Clove Hitch said:

The NRA is not about the second. They want nothing to do with a well regulated militia

Seeing as the militia was every Male over16 ready to defend the nation (no girly boy Democrats need apply), yes the NRQ is about the second.

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Lifted Tack said:

Please feel free.

Childrens aid society ? 1853.

National women suffrage association 1869?

And I'm pretty sure there's a few abolitionist associations founded before 1871.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, warbird said:

 

Seeing as the militia was every Male over16 ready to defend the nation (no girly boy Democrats need apply), yes the NRQ is about the second.

Where does the militia muster?  Who do they report to?   If I have a gun I need to know where I'm supposed to muster. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, warbird said:

 

Seeing as the militia was every Male over16 ready to defend the nation (no girly boy Democrats need apply), yes the NRQ is about the second.

You need to read a history book. The Republicans high-tailed it for Canada after the war. Redcoats were not welcome in America, much like now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, badlatitude said:

 the only real question is will the NRA be better or worse under Oliver North . . 

Nothing can be better under Olie North, but that Wayne dude is just about as bad. 

It's all about the gun porn - and big bucks from the merchants of death

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Mrleft8 said:

The NRA used to be about hunting, responsible handling of rifles and, etc. It's morphed sometime in the 70s into the hand gun and assault weapon assoc.

Happened by magic, I guess, not in response go the various gun bans and confiscation programs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Clove Hitch said:

The NRA is not about the second. They want nothing to do with a well regulated militia

Your first sentence is accurate.

They attempted twice to prevent the Heller case from being heard.

As for the second sentence, at least they know that we had outdoor militias. The Brady Center thinks they operated inside homes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Clove Hitch said:
5 hours ago, warbird said:

 

Seeing as the militia was every Male over16 ready to defend the nation (no girly boy Democrats need apply), yes the NRQ is about the second.

Where does the militia muster?  Who do they report to?   If I have a gun I need to know where I'm supposed to muster. 

Are you part of The People? You know, like some illegal immigrants?

If so, then you have a right to keep and bear arms in case you're needed for militia service, but the assumption with militia is different from soldiers who have duty stations.

Quote

In a militia, the character of the labourer, artificer, or tradesman, predominates over that of the soldier: in a standing army, that of the soldier predominates over every other character, and in this distinction seems to consist the essential difference between those two different species of military force.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, badlatitude said:

You need to read a history book. The Republicans high-tailed it for Canada after the war. Redcoats were not welcome in America, much like now.

The Whigs are going to be disappointed to have been erased from whatever books you read.

The Republicans will probably be pleased to have a longer history than their real one.

Where is this amusing source anyway?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Ease the sheet. said:

The NRA is about money for its funders.

Apparently, that's true across the board.

As badlat noted in bragging about secret $pending,

On 4/7/2018 at 9:08 PM, badlatitude said:

There is nothing I can do now but support a full Second Amendment extermination, which I will do with huge endowments. Money talks.

Do you think he's bribing nutterz or grabberz?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Importunate Tom said:

Apparently, that's true across the board.

As badlat noted in bragging about secret $pending,

Do you think he's bribing nutterz or grabberz?

 

I think he's going to be outspent by the gun manufacturers.

They are the only one's who have benefited from  the NRA.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ease the sheet. said:

I think he's going to be outspent by the gun manufacturers.

 

That would be a new development.

In recent times, Bloomberg'$ $peech has dwarfed the NRA's repeatedly.

But at least badlat has a fan, though I'm not sure he qualifies as blue collar.

14 hours ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

What blue collar workers should celebrate is their freedom to purchase any politician they can afford. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said:

I think he's going to be outspent by the gun manufacturers.

They are the only one's who have benefited from  the NRA.

Funeral services do okay as well. They may be chipping some in. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Gissie said:
12 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said:

I think he's going to be outspent by the gun manufacturers.

They are the only one's who have benefited from  the NRA.

Funeral services do okay as well. They may be chipping some in. 

TeamR types are horrified by $oro$' $pending, not so much the NRA's.

TeamD types are horrified by the smaller NRA $pending, not so much Bloomberg'$ $peech.

Confirming for me that people who like censorship and cen$or$hip really only like it when it's applied to their enemies.

That's why none of the usual opponents of $peech here will say a bad word about badlat's $peaking out to exterminate our rights.

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Importunate Tom said:

TeamR types are horrified by $oro$' $pending, not so much the NRA's.

TeamD types are horrified by the smaller NRA $pending, not so much Bloomberg'$ $peech.

Confirming for me that people who like censorship and cen$or$hip really only like it when it's applied to their enemies.

That's why none of the usual opponents of $peech here will say a bad word about badlat's $peaking out to exterminate our rights.

This seems to be the standard behaviour these days. Demand free speech for all, as long as it agrees with them. Otherwise they need shutting down as they are obviously a fascist or whatever other insult they can think of. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Ease the sheet. said:

In a similar vein, where's the majority of the funding come from?

Through members subscriptions or a questionable minority of "donations"?

and

4 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said:

I wonder if he NRA is as transparent in its funding as it's apparent opponents.

 

 

That information is available.

There are more effective ways of finding it than repeatedly wondering about it on a forum.

But a really surprising thing would be for you to wonder about the transparency of Bloomberg'$ $peech, or badlat'$.

Or possibly learn that "it's" is a contraction of "it is" while "its" is the possessive of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Importunate Tom said:

and

That information is available.

There are more effective ways of finding it than repeatedly wondering about it on a forum.

But a really surprising thing would be for you to wonder about the transparency of Bloomberg'$ $peech, or badlat'$.

Or possibly learn that "it's" is a contraction of "it is" while "its" is the possessive of it.

Unreasonably troublesome Tom, guns cost a lot more than the manufacturers contribute.  The NRA is bought and sold by them. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Importunate Tom said:

Whom do you suppose Bloomberg and badlat are buying and selling?

I like Mr. Bloomberg.  I expect I'd enjoy sailing with Southern Latitude.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said:

Would Bloomberg and bat lat save their money if schools weren't shot up?

Bloomberg tries to scare people by presenting a suicide on property that was once a school as a "school shooting."

23 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said:

Why does the NRA only focus on a bit of the 2nd?

Just guessing: because discussing indoor militias isn't productive, since we never had them?

24 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said:

Surely there's other tools that are considered arms?

Yes, there are. Some of them are dangerous and unusual.

I'm glad the Supreme Court unanimously said that the bill of rights applies to technology developed since it was written.

I don't think the idea that the bill of rights does not apply to modern tech would be tolerated with respect to any other right, but it drew no criticism here from grabbers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it interesting that Lapenis and bone spur trump (both draft dodgers) support Guns,

where were they when the country call them for duty in the services , where they could of shoot guns for real, with people shooting at them

but being the corwards they are, says alot.

fyi ; I served twice in vietman when I was drafted

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Clove Hitch said:

Ducks Unlimited would be a good successor.

The NRA is just a gun fetish cult at this point

This X 1000!

I did the NRA hunter safety thing and shot rifles and pistols at a range in the mid 1970s. The NRA was about safe handling of guns and keeping hunters from shooting their friends instead of deer. It has morphed into something incredibly ugly.

* My groups were the size of a dime with a dogballs rifle, pistols not so much.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

 

A question.

Are there any other associations that promote the old goals of the NRA?

Seems to me the best way to undermine the NRA is to poach it's responsible and reasonable members.

It would be a sporting association of some type. It is hard to imagine in 2019, but back in the day guns were not a political statement, they were sporting gear along with fishing rods and crab nets. We had rockfish season, crab season, goose season, duck season, deer season, etc. etc.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a real mystery why the NRA would suddenly start opposing gun bans and confiscation programs when they appeared.

1 hour ago, garuda3 said:

I find it interesting that Lapenis and bone spur trump (both draft dodgers) support Guns,

where were they when the country call them for duty in the services , where they could of shoot guns for real, with people shooting at them

but being the corwards they are, says alot.

fyi ; I served twice in vietman when I was drafted

 

Not sure about at that time, but since that time Trump has been a supporter of scary-looking gun bans. He dropped that support when it became politically inconvenient.

Of course, when it was politically convenient, he bought into FAKE NEWS from those evil lefties so he could order a ban on bump stocka.

This leaves me in no doubt that if gun bans and confiscation programs once again become Duopoly projects instead of partisan TeamD projects, he will be right there supporting them. Again.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kent_island_sailor said:

This X 1000!

I did the NRA hunter safety thing and shot rifles and pistols at a range in the mid 1970s. The NRA was about safe handling of guns and keeping hunters from shooting their friends instead of deer. It has morphed into something incredibly ugly.

* My groups were the size of a dime with a dogballs rifle, pistols not so much.

Based on what’s discussed here you would probably be surprised to hear that the NRA is still about safe handling of guns and hunter safety.

At my club NRA is usually followed with the phrase Range Safety Officer. The political aspect is brought up for about 2-4 minutes at our monthly members meeting. We spend far more time discussing the pistol team who is shooting at Camp Perry, and our NRA junior programs teaching gun safety to young hunters and shooters takes up more time then the Pistol Team. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Importunate Tom said:

The Whigs are going to be disappointed to have been erased from whatever books you read.

The Republicans will probably be pleased to have a longer history than their real one.

Where is this amusing source anyway?

Whigs, Maga, it's all the same just a different time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

They didn't. They supported the firearms act of 1934. http://jpfo.org/articles-assd02/nra-supported-nfa34.htm
They supported the firearms act of 1938. They supported other gun control programs.

It's no mystery you'll bullshit and lie Tom. Now bump another post of mine somewhere else, psycho.

So you're saying that a high tax is the same as a ban?

That will be fun when I take it to the New Jersey Gone Nutz thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It appears that Wayne LaPierre is emerging the winner.

Oliver North: 'Informed' I will not be renominated NRA president

Source: CNN

(CNN) National Rifle Association President Oliver North told NRA members on Saturday he will not be renominated president of the group following a dispute with its CEO Wayne LaPierre. The announcement was made in a letter read Saturday during the NRA convention being held in Indianapolis, NRA officials confirmed to CNN. North said in the letter that he hoped he would be renominated for a second term but, "I am now informed that will not happen," according to a video of the letter being read. There was a vote scheduled for Sunday to choose the president. 

North, a central figure in the Iran-Contra scandal, was selected last year to be the NRA's president. At the time, LaPierre -- the group's longtime executive and key public face -- called him "hands down, the absolute best choice to lead our NRA Board." Already a controversial figure due to the Reagan-era scandal over secret arms sales to Iran, North joined the preeminent gun rights group at a critical juncture for it as it responded to renewed calls for gun control in the wake of the school shooting in Parkland, Florida. 

But on Friday, the Wall Street Journal reported that LaPierre told the NRA's board that he had refused a demand by North to step down and accused the NRA president of trying to extort him.According to the Journal, North told the board that he was forming a crisis committee to look at the organization's finances and had told the board's executive committee that LaPierre charged more than $200,000 in wardrobe purchases to a vendor. 

The dispute between LaPierre and North originated in part from a dispute between the NRA and contractor Ackerman McQueen Inc., an ad agency which runs NRATV, its online media service. That resulted in a lawsuit filed earlier this month by the NRA.

Read more: https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/27/politics/oliver-north-nra/index.html 
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Clove Hitch said:

The NRA is not about the second. They want nothing to do with a well regulated militia

It's not that they don't want anything to do with it.  It's just a part of the 2nd amendment that is not convenient. 

We only need to follow parts of the 2nd that are not difficult.  Think of it as a buffet. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

$200k in wardrobe? Why do those rightwing assholes spend so much money to look like shit?

As Dolly Parton once said: “ it takes a lot of money to look this cheap. “

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Importunate Tom said:

So you're saying that a high tax is the same as a ban?

That will be fun when I take it to the New Jersey Gone Nutz thread.

gun thread, assumes tapeworm mode and wriggles all up in that shit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

You've equated them when you whine you can't get your hands on a full auto.

Hah! I've never said that because know I easily could. It would eat into the boating budget quite a bit due to the high prices brought on by the closed registry, but I could do it. Poorer people, OTOH, well, who gives a shit about their rights, huh? If they were smart enough to exercise their gun rights they would not be poor, right? That certainly seems to be the operating theory.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, that's one less psycho fascist asshole at the top of the pile of gun nuttery.

The only time I enjoyed watching Ollie was during Iran / Contra when he was testifying before the committee.

He was scolding them, saying essentially that he wouldn't have had to do what he did if they "had done their duty".

Daniel Inouye, sitting on the committee with his sleeve pinned up where the arm he lost in combat should have been, quietly said "I don't need any lessons in duty from you Colonel".

That really shut up that fascist asshole North. He did have the decency to look embarrassed, I'll give him that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, warbird said:

 

Seeing as the militia was every Male over16 ready to defend the nation (no girly boy Democrats need apply), yes the NRQ is about the second.

You forgot the "B".....

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Mrleft8 said:
18 hours ago, warbird said:

 

Seeing as the militia was every Male over16 ready to defend the nation (no girly boy Democrats need apply), yes the NRQ is about the second.

You forgot the "B".....

 

Sometimes I'm tempted to take warbird off ignore, I'm missing some tremendously stupid shit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Passover shootings at Poway Synagogue

Source: East County Magazine


April 27, 2019 (Poway, CA)--A suspect is in custody following multiple shootings at the Chabad of Poway synagogue, the San Diego Sheriff reports. According to the synagogue's website, a Passover celebration was slated for 11 a.m. 

The Sheriff's office reported shortly after noon that it was investigating reports of a man with a gun in the vicinity of the synagogue in the 16000 block of Chabad Way. The Sheriff's Poway office later confirmed injuries. ECM news partner 10 News reports that at least four victims have been transported for medical treatment. The injured have been taken to Pomerado Medical Center, the Sheriff confirms.

Read more: https://www.eastcountymagazine.org/passover-shootings-poway-synagogue?fbclid=IwAR3v4jVgBmis-32M-N_Dg7l8UQj_mGKjwfTawxpBS6LgmA8TIdmihHa6eMQ 
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ishmael said:

Sometimes I'm tempted to take warbird off ignore, I'm missing some tremendously stupid shit.

I keep him off ignore for that very reason - daily laughter.

He puts the OLD in Old Fart. reading his shit is like a time portal to the 50's.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, kent_island_sailor said:
On 4/27/2019 at 6:01 AM, Clove Hitch said:

Ducks Unlimited would be a good successor.

The NRA is just a gun fetish cult at this point

This X 1000!

I did the NRA hunter safety thing and shot rifles and pistols at a range in the mid 1970s. The NRA was about safe handling of guns and keeping hunters from shooting their friends instead of deer. It has morphed into something incredibly ugly.

* My groups were the size of a dime with a dogballs rifle, pistols not so much.

BS!  What all of you are missing is there are really two completely different divisions of the NRA.  There is still the traditional NRA that promotes hunting, sports, safety, and conservation (Yes hunters are some of the biggest pro-environmental folks out there).  None of the traditional NRA stuff you describe above has gone away.  However, then there is the branch called the NRA-ILA.  ILA = Institute for Legislative Action.  It is the lobbying arm of the NRA and was established in 1975 as a response to increasingly aggressive anti-gun rights politicians and legislation.  As tom alluded to, the NRA didn't become involved in politics and lobbying just for shits and grins.  They became militant as a direct response to very militant left wing attempts to ban gunz.  This is not a chicken vs egg debate..... the NRA-ILA came later only as a response to militant grabber's efforts.

Anywho.... I personally would like to see some changes in the NRA leadership.  I don't know if Ollie is the right person or not.  But I'm not a fan of WLP and I think that there needs to be more of an attitude of compromise and seeking more bipartisan solutions to some of our violence issues in America rather than being the lobby that just says NO to everything.  I personally think the NRA could have gained some huge leverage in the gun debate had they backed some reasonable universal background check laws in exchange for less calls for banning toolz themselves.  As an example.....

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

BS!  What all of you are missing is there are really two completely different divisions of the NRA.

No they're not.

"I wish the NRA would do something else" really only means the same thing censors and cen$or$ always mean: I want to make my opponents shut up, or at least $hut up.

29 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I personally think the NRA could have gained some huge leverage in the gun debate had they backed some reasonable universal background check laws in exchange for less calls for banning toolz themselves.  As an example....

Yeah, right. The current "gold standard" for grabberz would have to be the Senate bill discussed here, since the Senate is a national body and is said to be more moderate than the House.

The bottom line:

Quote

Paragraph 2 suggests to me that "a  temporary transfer  of  possession  for  the  purpose  of  participating  in target  shooting" here in my back yard would not be exempt and would therefore require a background check because this is not a licensed range.

So the same people who want me to drive to town for a background check prior to handing my wife's squirrel shooter to a friend are going to suddenly become reasonable?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Importunate Tom said:

So the same people who want me to drive to town for a background check prior to handing my wife's squirrel shooter to a friend are going to suddenly become reasonable?

Tom, I never said the proposed senate legislation was reasonable.  RIF.  There are several ways to do UBC and make them reasonable and I've outlined several suggestions here in the past.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Tom, I never said the proposed senate legislation was reasonable.  RIF.  There are several ways to do UBC and make them reasonable and I've outlined several suggestions here in the past.

But not one that would be acceptable to grabbers, at least based on the wide gulf between what you have proposed and what their legislation says.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Importunate Tom said:
3 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Tom, I never said the proposed senate legislation was reasonable.  RIF.  There are several ways to do UBC and make them reasonable and I've outlined several suggestions here in the past.

But not one that would be acceptable to grabbers, at least based on the wide gulf between what you have proposed and what their legislation says.

I believe they would be absolutely acceptable to grabberz IF their true intent was the reduction of violence by keeping gunz out of bad people's hands.  But since I doubt their sincerity on that front and think many want gunz banned for the sake of banning, I doubt they would go for it.  But you never know until you try.  And the point is I have not seen the NRA propose or back anything along those lines either.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Importunate Tom said:

But not one that would be acceptable to grabbers, at least based on the wide gulf between what you have proposed and what their legislation says.

Tom,

Politics is the art of the possible. There is a middle ground there people can reach *if each side is not 100% dedicated to screwing the other side*.

Kind of like:

We think there should be universal background checks

Well we think all 4th graders should be issued shotguns for recess

Well WE think there should be a new background check every time you buy ammunition

Well WE think 1st graders need RPGs in school

Well WE think anyone that touches a gun should be put in jail for 3 life sentences and then killed

rinse repeat :rolleyes:

 

Of course now the NRA is a subcontactor to Russian intelligence services the compromise thing is kind of moot.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I believe they would be absolutely acceptable to grabberz IF their true intent was the reduction of violence by keeping gunz out of bad people's hands.  But since I doubt their sincerity on that front and think many want gunz banned for the sake of banning, I doubt they would go for it.  But you never know until you try.  And the point is I have not seen the NRA propose or back anything along those lines either.  

In reality the NRA has never proposed or backed anything but but unfettered access to weapons. They are the gun equivalent of JerKZ idea of capitalism.

They put up smoke sometimes but when it comes to action they are just like youse guys - no proposal is ever quite right.

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

In reality the NRA has never proposed or backed anything but but unfettered access to weapons. They are the gun equivalent of JerKZ idea of capitalism.

They put up smoke sometimes but when it comes to action they are just like youse guys - no proposal is ever quite right.

I don't think that is true for their entire history, but certainly true for the last 20-30 years at least.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/26/2019 at 6:56 PM, d'ranger said:

They should modify the name to National Assault Rifle Association.  Plus NARA fits on a Red Hat really well.  Honesty in advertising - it could be a thing. 

Both NJ (S2299, A3689) and federal (S.66) democrats consider the following an assault weapon. I'm sure the nearly identical language didn't come from some lobbyist.

 

image.jpeg.711714841c5be26a0266f9e7462c4871.jpeg

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, mad said:

Competition Target shooting.... they’re specifically designed for that one purpose. 

Edit,

 and pretty damn expensive as well!   Well over $2000 dollars. 

https://www.pardiniguns.com/store/product_info.php?cPath=1_8&products_id=6

it is an ugly thing - too expensive your average mass killer to use I presume

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, kent_island_sailor said:
22 hours ago, Importunate Tom said:

But not one that would be acceptable to grabbers, at least based on the wide gulf between what you have proposed and what their legislation says.

Tom,

Politics is the art of the possible. There is a middle ground there people can reach *if each side is not 100% dedicated to screwing the other side*.

Kind of like:

We think there should be universal background checks

Well we think there should be an exception allowing people to hand squirrel shooters to their friends in their back yards for target shooting.

NO!

Edited to reflect the current state of debate.

I think the hard no there indicates that the intent is punishing people for owning guns, not anything to do with safety.

Other indicators include

"We think the bill of rights doesn't apply to technology invented since the 18th century."

and

"No, you can't take your licensed, registered, locked, and unloaded gun anywhere but ONE local range."

Both of those issues were important enough to grabbers to bring to the Supreme Court.

You'll have to forgive me for thinking there's no reasoning with people who hold those beliefs. I think that's why none of the grabbers here even attempt to address any of the three.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent article on Sante Fe school shooting

by Skip Hollandsworth - who is a terrific writer, not sure how TM has managed to keep him.  It's very touching with the emphasis on how 2 very different girls bonded becoming BFFs from extremely different backgrounds. It touches on the shooter at the end who only managed to kill 10 and wound 10 as his dad had a shotgun and pistol. 

So because some are scared shitless that somehow their precious dogballs might be taken away we can't do background checks on those who purchase weapons to shoot people. The Synagogue shooter was luckily inept enough to have his rifle jam.  When someone takes out 20 innocents with a dogballs then I might have a smidge of sympathy.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/28/2019 at 1:10 AM, Shootist Jeff said:

BS!  What all of you are missing is there are really two completely different divisions of the NRA.  There is still the traditional NRA that promotes hunting, sports, safety, and conservation (Yes hunters are some of the biggest pro-environmental folks out there).  None of the traditional NRA stuff you describe above has gone away.  However, then there is the branch called the NRA-ILA.  ILA = Institute for Legislative Action.  It is the lobbying arm of the NRA and was established in 1975 as a response to increasingly aggressive anti-gun rights politicians and legislation.  As tom alluded to, the NRA didn't become involved in politics and lobbying just for shits and grins.  They became militant as a direct response to very militant left wing attempts to ban gunz.  This is not a chicken vs egg debate..... the NRA-ILA came later only as a response to militant grabber's efforts.

Anywho.... I personally would like to see some changes in the NRA leadership.  I don't know if Ollie is the right person or not.  But I'm not a fan of WLP and I think that there needs to be more of an attitude of compromise and seeking more bipartisan solutions to some of our violence issues in America rather than being the lobby that just says NO to everything.  I personally think the NRA could have gained some huge leverage in the gun debate had they backed some reasonable universal background check laws in exchange for less calls for banning toolz themselves.  As an example.....

So the good part of the NRA should secede.  Sounds like the civil war first shots have been fired.

Link to post
Share on other sites