Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  What's Your Deal!    So, anyone else no endorsing the NRA anymore?
Page 1 2 3 4 
So, anyone else no endorsing the NRA anymore? Login/Join 
Picture of RichardC
posted Hide Post

I am not walking away from the NRA.

The GDC's understand and use "divide and conquer" better than we.



Posts: 9550 | Location: Florida | Registered: June 23, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Picture of Storm
posted Hide Post
Originally posted by terma-nator:
I have no more support of the NRA when they let the Hughes amendment be added and passed to the FOPA. They said that they would try to remove it later, but they never did try.

In point of fact, they did keep their promise, and tried to have the Hughes Amendment declared unconstitutional and overturned. But when the it got to SCOTUS, the court wouldn't hear the case. (LA Times article on this below.)

So now you can become an NRA member, and support them again. Wink

LA Times: Supreme Court Lets Stand Ban on Machine Gun Ownership
January 15, 1991

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday declined to recognize a constitutional right to own machine guns sought by the National Rifle Assn., which had described a lower court's ruling in the matter as "the first ban on firearms possession by law-abiding citizens in American history."

Without dissent, the high court let stand an appeals court ruling which upheld a 1986 federal law banning the manufacture, sale or ownership of new machine guns except by police or government agencies. The appeals court dismissed the notion that the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution gives individuals a right to possess guns which have been banned by the government.

Gun control advocates called the court action the "worst legal defeat ever" for the NRA.

The Supreme Court issued neither a formal ruling nor a written opinion in the case. But its refusal to even consider the appeal undercuts the NRA's legal stance that the 2nd Amendment unconditionally gives individuals a right "to keep and bear arms."

The court's action similarly undercuts a pending NRA challenge to a California law banning ownership of assault weapons such as Uzi submachine guns. Before a federal judge in Fresno, NRA attorneys contended that the law was unconstitutional. In September, U.S. District Judge Edward Dean Price dismissed the legal complaint, but NRA attorneys have asked him to reconsider the issue.

In the case addressed Monday, (Farmer vs. Higgins, 90-600), a gun collector from Smyrna, Ga., applied to the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms in October, 1986, for permission to make and register a new machine gun. When the bureau rejected the application, the collector, J. D. Farmer, filed suit in federal court. After losing in the appeals court in Atlanta, attorneys affiliated with the NRA appealed the case to the Supreme Court.

Barbara Lautman, director of the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, said the high court's action shatters the NRA's "myth that the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms guarantees an unlimited right to own guns."

Richard Gardiner, the NRA's director of state and local affairs, stressed the high court's refusal to hear the appeal did not constitute a ruling on the 2nd Amendment. He also noted that the court did not consider "a prohibition against firearms ownership" across the board.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Storm,

Loyalty Above All Else, Except Honor

Posts: 3712 | Location: Colorado | Registered: December 19, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
I Am The Walrus
posted Hide Post
While I don't always agree with them, I believe they are the strongest, largest and most funded pro-2nd Amendment organization we have.

Therefore, I renewed with them for 5 years.


Posts: 9337 | Location: Central Florida | Registered: March 12, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
chillin out
Picture of florida boy
posted Hide Post
I will continue to support the NRA!!!

I practice Shinrin-yoku
It's better to wear out than rust out
Member NRA
Member Georgia Carry
Posts: 3632 | Location: Union County, Georgia | Registered: September 20, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
Here's my take. First, I will still contribute to the NRA. I get my monthly American Rifleman and I'm supporting the largest and most influential guns rights group in the world.
After the Vegas shooting, I saw all kinds of organizations asking, "Where is the NRA?" "Why are they silent?"
They could have come out and made a statement like, "Our thoughts and prayers are with everyone affected by this tragedy." For a lot of people, it would have been called lip service. What if they would have addressed the bump fire stock? "It was a legal accessory." Crucified for that I'm sure.
So they tossed it to the ATF. My thinking is that they want the democrats and the ATF to fight about it. It's not a machine gun as the ATF regulations state. They would have to rewrite something to put it in there. That takes time. How about the pistol brace stance? Flip flopped on that a few times. I see it going like that.
Meanwhile, possibly it dies down a bit. This is a dangerous game the NRA is playing to me but this is politics. Said in this thread already, chess not checkers. This is only the first move.

I'd rather be hated for who I am than loved for who I'm not.
Posts: 2006 | Location: The armpit of Ohio | Registered: August 18, 2013Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
I have left this alone for a while now, and I must say this. I am disappointed. To everyone saying there should be some regulation, some ruling, YOU ARE THE PROBLEM. Tell me how many states it took to break from of a government they did not like. The NRA folded.
They agreed with the gun control, for any regulation on the ownership of guns, or gun items, is against the 2nd. Because now bump stocks may be illegal, tell me why you need 556. 223 works just as well. What about a muzzle break? That trigger works just as well as the others, even if you must use a key to fire each bullet. Do you really need a 45 acp? what about a 40? Where does the line end? Because the same people who say its just a bump stock, also said Rome would not fall. Agreeing with this is not the right move. Fuck the political thinking that they are playing this to win something bigger. When the people who put you in office speak, you listen. When you dont, you are replaced.

Long story short, we aren't talking to our respensitives, and the NRA damn sure isnt listening to us. "Stricter gun control" is were the NRA failed. By that sentence existing in relation to America, we lost. Might as well turn them in.

Now, to be clear, I do agree bump stocks are silly, useless things. But so are car bumper stickers, and those are not outlawed. But next time you think about saying your fine they can be regulated, I want you to let me regulate how much of your fridge you can use. The rest is mine. Same principle. Gun control is a hard line or no line.

Used guns deserve a home too
Posts: 701 | Location: North Ga | Registered: August 06, 2016Reply With QuoteReport This Post
The Main Thing Is
Not To Get Excited
Picture of wishfull thinker
posted Hide Post
I will continue to be a member and to support the NRA.

In this case I think they took the right course, they handed the shit sandwich back to the ATF who, if this direction is followed, can now decide if they need to change their original determination, i.e. admit a mistake, or let it stand and stick a thumb in the eye of the lefties.

The NRA can nibble on pop corn while they figure it out and can't be said to have thrown gas on the works.
Basically they have a non-position, sometimes known as "hey, let's you and him fight!".


Posts: 5466 | Location: Washington | Registered: November 06, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Picture of OMCHamlin
posted Hide Post
Originally posted by Bisleyblackhawk:
Originally posted by SapperSteel:
I think that on the bump stock issue the NRA is screwing up.

But I have no intention of cutting off my nose just to spite my face.

Don't alienate your allies.


Yeah, pretty much this. And yes, they DID fuck up getting on board with this bump stock ban thing, I agree about that, but they are still the only real bulwark against the left... They just need to be managed when they go off the rails like this.
Posts: 372 | Registered: September 27, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Picture of bobandmikako
posted Hide Post
I'm paid up through 2019 so will be a member until then. When renewal time comes, I'll evaluate.

Since I've joined, I haven't really seen them do anything other than call asking for more money using some scare tactic.

I can care less about the bump stock but don't support any viewpoint that involves blaming anyone or anything but the shooter.

Posts: 1266 | Location: Alabama | Registered: June 15, 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Who else?
Picture of Jager
posted Hide Post
From the NRA statement:
Despite the fact that the Obama administration approved the sale of bump fire stocks on at least two occasions, the National Rifle Association is calling on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) to immediately review whether these devices comply with federal law. The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations.

I'm sticking with them. They've been doing a better job the last few years, IMO. This is a hardware issue, has been and always will be. Not the NRA's envelope. It's the BATFE corral. And the NRA brilliantly lateraled to the people who ruled it legitimate in 2010.


Let BATFE take the heat. And an awkward heat it is.

Bump stock 'resolution' is not where the eye needs to be focused in this act. Days and ZERO video footage of the declared 'sole' shooter, from an area with more camera footage than a gold repository? Timeline changing multiple times? Security guard gone silent? Valet (supposedly), too? LE going to the public and essentially saying "What you got - cuz we got nuthin'." It's all just too baffling that this crackerhead just decided to lone wolf this ugly act and had no declared or identified motivation.

The NRA did precisely what they should have. Handed the question to the department of government that makes those decisions.

Now, let's watch the LVPD, Clark County (and other county offices), the Nevada State Police and the FBI lay it all out for us. Let's not focus on the tools. It's never about that/them, as much as some people insist it must be.

It'a about the perpetrators and their motivations. Few care to go there, because we are powerless in a free society to prevent such acts of evil. Even our enemies know this. So they go after the bumpy-stocky-thingy. Small taters.

I'm certain the BATFE is having a 'wtf do we do with this' moment. I feel a little bad for them. They ruled correctly in 2010. Then some derp (it is insisted) acted alone using some of these devices and all the lefties go screaming to the doorstep of the NRA with demands and insistence's they weigh in on the issue.

Nope, sweetie, we don't do that here. That's the BATFE. They said happy, happy, joy, joy in 2010. Go talk to them.

It's gotten REAL quiet since then, hasn't it?

Because bitching at the NRA here is a dog that won't hunt.
Posts: 2137 | Location: Phoenix, Arizona | Registered: October 30, 2000Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Picture of Prefontaine
posted Hide Post
Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water.

Does Barry Manilow know that you raid his wardrobe?
Posts: 8612 | Registered: January 16, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Who else?
Picture of Jager
posted Hide Post
Preliminary reports are BATFE says Bumpfire stocks do NOT qualify as a machine gun - and the original ruling was correct. Nothing they can do with this. The definition is not met.

NRA said they were fine with another review by BATFE. They absolutely milked it with their 'concerned' statement.

BATFE, well, their hands are tied. The codified definition of a 'machine gun' is simply not met. The bump stock, as a part, does not qualify.

Dog won't hunt.

NRA play acted this out near perfectly.

All the knee jerk was entertaining.
Posts: 2137 | Location: Phoenix, Arizona | Registered: October 30, 2000Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
One of the most important things standing in the way of repealing the 2nd Amendment, or at least what it stands for, is the NRA. Disagree with some issues if you will, but understand that they are protecting one of our most important RIGHTS from the loons that would take it away. Give plenty of thoughts to what will happen without their constant vigilance, even if you don't agree with all of it.
Posts: 71 | Registered: January 23, 2013Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 2 3 4    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  What's Your Deal!    So, anyone else no endorsing the NRA anymore?

© SIGforum 2018