Ted Nugent: Why gun sales are surging ( It just wont stop )

I am more than aware of the history of the bill as I followed it from inception, the changes you are referring to, that "loosened" up the restrictions, only came AFTER a lot of us threw a fit about restrictions even being considered against the Vets, it was added after a few drafts just to get the NRA's endorsement. Compromising on our Second Amendment Rights will in the end remove our Right!

The bill was and still is a bad bill (Read the Text) and the NRA should have NEVER supported it, as it was just a knee jerk reaction. I like the way the website you attached mainly uses NRA Documents and fact sheets as resource material... come on!

If the NRA had been doing their job in Supporting and Protecting the Second Amendment Rights as chartered instead of "compromising"... a lot of us would have never dropped our memberships.

Sounds like you just have a problem with the GOA... You on the NRA board or something? The NRA deserves any "bashing" it receives from the GOA... I've found that the GOA is very protective of the Second Amendment, they don't "compromise", they jump in the battles immediately and give timely alerts to members UNLIKE the NRA. But that will change as a lot of us rejoin the NRA and boot out some of the dead weight!

They feared the justices at the time it was started (remember, this was when Sandra Day O'Connor was still on the bench) would rule against them. Once the Heller case was adjudicated in our favor, they were back on the front lines putting lawsuits against cities with similar gun bann ordinances and getting them overturned. That you can't deny

That's what I like... "sunny day" warriors! you're not building a very good image of the NRA's actions and leadership! Hmmm what did the GOA do... oh yeah they didn't wait for SCOTUS to rule, from the start they jumped in with both feet in support of Heller!

"it was added after a few drafts just to get the NRA's endorsement."

So now you are admitting that what you said previously about the bill was untrue. The bill did not put more vets with PTSD on the banned firearms list, but took approximately 80,000 people off of it. The above statement is the reason to support the NRA. Only after the bill was revised to get the garbage out of it and get good stuff in it (like the vets being taken off the banned list) did the NRA endorse it. Notice how no one was looking for the GOA's endorsement? It was a good bill. Unless you think people with histories of serious mental impairment like the Korean kid who massacared those people at Virginia Tech should own a firearm.

I wish I were on the board of the NRA. I would probably be making a lot more money than I do now. No, I'm a member and I think there are a lot of good 2nd Amendment organizations out there. The GOA is not one of them. They do not add anything substantive to the debate. They do not help in any way legislatively to get things done for our side. All I've ever seen them do is rant and rave against the NRA.

"from the start they jumped in with both feet in support of Heller!"

Great, the GOA did as much as I did. I also supported it from the start. Beyond issuing a press statement saying they supported Heller, what did they do? Nothing.

When I said that the NRA did not get in at first on Heller, I meant they did not devote financial resources to the litigation or supply lawyers to help in the fight. They certainly supported what Heller stood for. So basically, they did as much as the GOA at the beginning. Yet you castigate them and praise the GOA for issuing a press release supporting Heller. Continue with the rose colored glasses.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.