Posted on 04/03/2013 10:23:16 AM PDT by Sir Napsalot
NRO’s Andrew Johnson notes that the NRA rushed to counter its own spokesman for the new school-safety initiative shortly after this aired yesterday on CNN, but Asa Hutchinson’s “support” for expanded background checks was, shall we say, nuanced. While Hutchinson did say he was “open” to expanded background checks, his idea for expanding them runs counter to the proposals circulating in Congress at the moment:
(video link at source)
(snip) Therefore, Hutchinson’s support for expanding background checks sounds more like support for the federal government to enforce the laws they already have on the books. We already know that federal agencies do almost no follow-up on failed background checks, and Joe Biden claims it’s because they don’t have the resources to do so. (read the rest at source)
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
“Asa Hutchinson” YET ANOTHER “mistake” from Arkansas.
GOA, JPFO, SAF.
Hope you aren’t regretting your lifetime membership dollars going to a group where they employ folks that say dumbass things like this.
I mean he’s a freaking spokesman for the group.
NRA, the Lords of Fairfax, still playing by Marquess of Queensbury rules, while the Democrats and Progs are bloodying noses.
Somehow I can hear the collective clenched fists when lifetime members are calling the NRA as we speak..
The only thing that *ANY* official from *ANY* gun rights organization should be saying is, “We are vigorously and vehemently opposed to *ANY* anti-gun legislation introduced at *ANY* level of government.”
There are already approximately 20,000 anti-gun laws on the books now, all of which are selectively enforced, guaranteeing that equal protection is being violated as is any modicum of justice.
The only gun legislation that should be considered are REPEALS!
Anyone that has dealt with the Government knows that if they wish to find something in your background that will disqualify you from purchasing a firearm, they can and will. will it be true and factual? Probably not but that is a horse of a different color.
Fire him. He does not speak for me.
He doesn’t speak fo rme either— Good news is if the Federal Govt. hasn’t got any idea how many OTL (Other than legal) come across our Southern border every day—how can they possibly do any reliable expanded background checks for gun sales?
Will NRA actually fight for our rights? Time will tell. I’ll join them but have greater faith in GOA.
The time may be approaching when how and with what one protects one’s family and self needs to be kept secret from the criminals as well as from all others, including the government.
The problem with background checks is they will end up with a gun registry. I’ve gone through many background checks, but the checker keeps the forms. You can bet when we get universal checks, the gubmint will want a copy. If I want to sell my own property to a neighbor, why does the gubmint have a say? If I sell my lawnmower, they don’t know about that.
LLS
Room temp IQ, IMO.
And they wonder why they can’t get 5 million tops in membership. Comprimise(GOA is right about them no matter what folks say), lousy customer service(just try to get something simple like a change in your magazine subscription and see what a quagmire it is). I keep my annual membership only because Congressional critters look to the numbers to see what they think they can get away with. My extra donations go to GOA, SAF, etc.
I should have added that the Pratt boys over at GOA can run circles around old Wayne defending the cause.
The NRA has written and backed every major gun control law for over 100 years.
No, I’m not regretting it. Without the NRA there would be no 2nd Amendment anymore. It would be stupid to regret giving them $500 dollars 27 years ago anyway. What I regret is that out of 100 million gun owners only about 1.5 million will stand up for our right to keep and bear arms. The NRA’s power comes from its membership rolls. Think what influence they would have with 10 million members. Not to mention the influence they would have over the NRA.
There was an excellent guest on Tom Gresham’s Gun Talk last Sunday who explained a major problem with any new bans on “transfers”.
See:
http://guntalk.libsyn.com/guntalk-2013-03-31-part-a
If you let your son/buddy/wife/neighbor fire your gun at the range, is that a transfer?
If you loan your gun to someone whose gun malfunctions while on a hunt, is that a transfer?
He pointed out that it you could be arrested, spend time in jail, spend tens of thousands on lawyers, and take years before the courts, who hopefully, will rule that what you did was not an illegal transfer.
How would a progressive (commie) judge rule in such a case?
The background check law is a ruse to put gun owners in jail.
We need to explain this to everyone.
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.