We're on the same side here, but I honestly don't think they are helping.
The NRA has done more to hurt gun rights than to uphold them. Heck, Mayor Fenty has done more in the last year for gun owners than the NRA has done in the last thirty years!
I’ve had more than enough of seeing the NRA in action in places like Richmond, Virginia where they singlehandedly got good pro-gun legislation shot down because they hadn’t been the ones to get it introduced.
After their multiple attempts at derailing the Parker/Heller case, I finally got fed up with it. I won’t give the NRA the time of day ever again.
Mike
All this GOA hyperbole is going to end up hurting our gun rights more than it helps.
Supercat asks an easy question:
Which group was more accurately descriptive of the 1996 Lautenberg Abomination before or after its passage? GOA or NRA?
tcostell, unable to answer:
Look,... in terms of what they've actually accomplished the GOA can't hold a candle to the NRA. And in this specific case they are way over the top in terms of their exaggeration of what the bill actually does and doesn't do, and that allows our enemies to depict us as a bunch of lying idiots.
Can you post the exaggerations that make the GOA a bunch of lying idiots? -- I'd bet not.
We're on the same side here, but I honestly don't think they are helping.
People like you on 'our side' explains a lot about why we have lost many of our gun rights since 1968.
I would agree that there is probably no way any even remotely reasonable interpretation of the bill would be as bad as what the GOA is describing, but I have observed over the years that it is very unwise to expect the government to interpret laws in even remotely reasonable fashion.
If the provisions for putting people on the "prohibited" list are pushed as hard as possible so as to add as many people as possible, while the government does all it can to ignore the provisions for appealing such placement, would you still think it a good law? Particularly if the government didn't feel limited by what the statute actually said?
I don't care what the bill actually says. What matters is what the government is going to pretend that it says. And experience tells me that while the GOA's predictions on such things may sometimes seem pretty far 'out there', the government's actions are often even more so.
You are entitled to your opinion, but the NRA is largely responsible for every stinking gun law on the books. It is for that reason alone that GOA exists in the first place. Compromise with the devil is not part of the second amendment.
I watched the BS of 1968 pass, followed in 1986 by the further BS that resulted in the completion of undergunning the public vis-a-vis government. When it comes to gun law the NRA is on the losing side IMHO.
I have been an NRA member 5 times, and every single time they engage in some moronic compromise, or back a candidate that has a less than stellar second amendment record, or decide so and so ought to be on the board versus the individual who truly supports Rights.
Pay your dues and watch your gun rights go down the river. Not my idea of fun. Looks to me like the NRA has been in the pockets of the politicians for years. They don’t want a solution to second amendment abusers, and gun grabbers, just keep all the hunters on the reservation.
How can any bill sponsored (or co sponsored and backed) by the likes of McCarthy and Schumer be any good for us?
Why would the NRA join with the anti gunners on this bill?
Besides, they will still call us nuts no matter what we do so why give them even an inch?
Forget the candle; let's use a torch. The NRA has always been an elitist pro gun control bunch of tyrants. They're the ones that have a campaign to get enforcement of unconstitutional gun laws. I left the NRA in '96 and I'm not going back. The GOA is all we've got.