[Bartholomew Roberts]

Let's look at the facts:

The first bans on semi-automatic weapons are introduced into Congress in 1989. From 1989 to 1990 there are TWELVE different bills attempting to ban, excessively tax or severely restrict semiauto weapons. The NRA fought every one of those twelve bills to a standstill and repeats that fight EVERY SINGLE YEAR until 1994.

Finally in 1994, the NRA cannot stand against a Democratic White House, Senate and House and a Democratic president who wants to make an issue of assault weapons. The NRA fights hard but loses by one vote - though they do get an important provision providing for a sunset that gives up future hope.

After the ban, the NRA leads the fight to oust those who voted for it and then forces the Republicans to take up an effort to repeal the ban, even though then Republican presidential candidate Bob Dole is not sympathetic about assault weapons and doesn't want to deal with the issue in an election year. The repeal passes the House with bipartisan support and a large margin but is tied up in the Senate judiciary committee where it dies.

2003: Both Chris Cox and Wayne LaPierre state publicly that the NRA intends to fight ANY renewal of the ban.

Neal Knox, a man who is not afraid to criticize the NRA, says the NRA will fight the ban to the end.

So why is it I can't log onto any gun board on the Internet without seeing the chicken little prognostications of doom and NRA betrayal regarding the ban?

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't think they're going to betray us on this particular issue, though fear of NRA betrayals in general isn't totally irrational. They do, after all, occasionally decide that a bill can't be stopped, and then trade amendments that weaken the bill for a promise that the NRA won't punish polls who vote for it. Which looks an awful lot like betrayal from the outside.

I might trust the NRA a bit more, if it established a policy of never lying to it's members. So would a lot of people.

[Tempest]

Perhaps it's because John Dingell, an NRA director at the time, voted in favor of the 1994 AW ban.

[Balog]

Perhaps it's because they've supported such "reasonable" measures as the NFA and GCA, to name two.

[foghornl]

Why the distrust of the NRA on AWB?
Because evey day the NRA acts more & more like Sarah Brady et al are running the place.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Balog:
Perhaps it's because they've supported such "reasonable" measures as the NFA and GCA, to name two.

The most recent of those measures passed 35 years ago when the NRA was still a sporting club and before they had a PAC or political lobbying machine. So please tell me how these two examples from 35 years ago trump the more recent evidence I presented in my post?

Tempest:
Perhaps it's because John Dingell, an NRA director at the time, voted in favor of the 1994 AW ban.

Tempest, do you really think that statement is fair to John Dingell? Let's look at the facts:

HR 4092 - April 24, 1994
Vote to pass omnibus crime bill.
Representative John D. Dingell voted YES (http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?vote_id=411&can_id=H1990103).

NOTE: HR 4092 did not contain the AW ban

HR 4296 - May 5, 1994
Pass bill to ban certain semi-automatic assault weapons.
Representative John D. Dingell voted NO (http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?vote_id=425&can_id=H1990103).

HR 3355 - 11/03/93
Vote to pass omnibus crime bill (with AW ban)
I could find no official record of who voted because this bill passed on a voice vote - last record for Dingell on this bill is he voted YES (http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?vote_id=159&can_id=H1990103) to send it out of Conference Committee and to the House floor for a vote on 8/21/03.

Of course rather than blame the Democratic party for enforcing party discipline on this vote and pushing the issue on its members, you seem to feel that the problem lies with NRA on this vote? What other organizations do you judge based on the actions of a single member? Republican party? Democratic party? Libertarians?

foghornl:
Because evey day the NRA acts more & more like Sarah Brady et al are running the place.

If you have some evidence that the NRA intends to compromise on this issue than by all means please share it. I've posted why I think this line of thought is not based in fact (in addition to being foolish and unproductive). Let's hear your reasoning and not just your opinion on the issue.

[Balog]

Whether or not they chose to support this particular bit of victim disarmament is irrelevant. They have always supported legislation of this type. I listed the NFA and GCA because they are the worst laws ever passed to limit our gun rights (at least on a federal level). If I was a Jew in the Weimar Republic, a group that was opposed to genocide but supported "reasonable" resignation schemes would not be my friend.

For info on their more recent follies see.

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/Item.asp?ID=3616
&
http://www.armedfemalesofamerica.com/takingaim/betrayal_trust.htm

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Whether or not they chose to support this particular bit of victim disarmament is irrelevant.

On the contrary, it is the exact topic of this thread. You may feel it is irrelevant; but as the thread's author I'd like to keep the focus on this particular aspect rather than a more general "Why I hate the NRA" rant which I read all too often anyway and don't have the inclination or energy to address.

So to all of those who would like to discuss more broadly why they dislike the NRA, I suggest any of the numerous threads already running on that topic and ask your courteous indulgence in just addressing the specific issue at hand - namely why would you think the NRA would compromise on the ban and any evidence you have to support that judgement.

[Balog]

My evidence is their past conduct. They have shown themselves to be liars and against the RKBA. I'll say it again. If a group supports a right selectively, they cannot be trusted. If a group in the South in the '60's opposed lynching black men who touched white women, but supported segregation; then yes, their position on lynching is correct. But it would hardly be fair to call them a civil rights organization.

Edit: for grammar

[Tempest]

http://www.gunowners.org/news/nws9410.htm

Gun Owners of America says he did.

In early August, GOA learned that Rep. Dingell was leaning in support of the crime bill. So GOA acted quickly, issuing alerts by fax and on computer bulletin boards.

Immediately afterwards, Dingell's office was inundated with phone calls. (Also, his fax number was changed to stop the incredible number of faxes coming into the office.) In calling Dingell, many people discovered his office to be quite rude. One person told GOA that he had called Dingell's office, only to have them hang up on him when they determined that he was not from Dingell's district. In fact, every report GOA received indicated that Dingell's office did not care about people's opinion if they lived outside of the district.

GOA issued another alert asking people to call Dingell back and remind him that as an NRA Board Member, he had better be interested in what NRA members think. After all, he must rely upon their vote if he wants to retain his board member status.

Rep. Dingell still voted for the crime bill, thus betraying the gun owners he represented. But the effort was not without consequence for Dingell. By GOA's exposing his treasonous act, he was no longer able to maintain his hypocrisy -- Dingell resigned from the NRA Board after his vote for the crime bill.

[rick_reno]

It probably the result of actions in the past can tend to predict future actions. The NRA has a history of compromise - and while I'm sure this is the way things get done in Washington - at some point there must be a line in the sand. I have yet to see where that line is with respect to the NRA and reasonable gun legislation.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Balrog:

Past conduct? Like the over ten years of past conduct I highlighted? I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then.

Tempest:

OK, let's say that Dingell (convicted of the crime of not caring about what his non-constituents thought) voted for the crime bill with AW ban while under threat of part discipline from the Democrats. A vote that cost him his seat on the NRA Board of Directors.

Do you think that one piece of evidence is sufficient to justify the recurrent accusation that the NRA plans to betray us on the renewal fight? How does this one vote stack up against all of Dingell's other votes, his resignation from the Board of Directors and the NRAs past ten years of fighting this bill?

I guess what I'm asking is are you basing your opinion solely on this one vote or do you have some more evidence?

rick_reno:
It probably the result of actions in the past can tend to predict future actions.

Yes, that was my thoughts too - which is why given the past NRA actions I fail to see how people can get the idea that they might suddenly compromise on the ban after fighting it tooth and nail for over ten years.

The NRA has a history of compromise - and while I'm sure this is the way things get done in Washington - at some point there must be a line in the sand. I have yet to see where that line is with respect to the NRA and reasonable gun legislation.

I'd submit that killing the AWB appears to be about as clear cut a line in the sand as any position I've ever seen the NRA take.

[Hkmp5sd]

When the President of the United States informs the NRA that he will veto new legislation that bans the sale of newly manufactured machineguns to civilians if they want him to and the NRA tells him to go ahead and sign the bill into law, one can distrust the NRA on anything.

They always preach "no deals" and then make one with the gun grabbers.

[TallPine]

, every report GOA received indicated that Dingell's office did not care about people's opinion if they lived outside of the district.
Is that so unreasonable?

I don't really expect Schumer or Clinton or Feinstein to care about the opinion of someone from Montana.

And I sure don't want Burns or Rehberg to be swayed by a bunch of sissies from New York and California.

[Bainx]

2003: Both Chris Cox and Wayne LaPierre state publicly that the NRA intends to fight ANY renewal of the ban.

Then why, pretel, are they not "fighting" our President who supports the AWB?

The silence on this by the NRA is deafening.

[Balog]

Bart: You are making the error of equating their stance on one facet of this issue as being indicative of their conduct. Yes, over the last ten years they've opposed the AWB. To ignore A) the hundred odd years of behaviour before that and B) their actions on other RKBA issues during those ten years is to take an absurdly narrow view. My point is that since their inception, they have betrayed those who believe in an absolute RKBA. On issues other than the AWB, they haven't been our friends. Read the links I posted, and think about the analogy again.

If a group supports one facet of your civil rights (such as the right to own AW's or the right to get married to whoever you want regardless of race) but denies other facets of those same rights (the right to own rifles under a certain length or go to a university regardless of color) then they aren't your friend. Even if you really agree with their stance on one facet, their stances on all the others makes them unworthy of support or trust.

[Balog]

Oh, and nice touch calling me "Balrog." I love Tolkien, and I've never been compared to hell-spawn before:p:evil:

Edit: to add smiley

[Bartholomew Roberts]

hkmp5sd:
When the President of the United States informs the NRA that he will veto new legislation that bans the sale of newly manufactured machineguns to civilians if they want him to and the NRA tells him to go ahead and sign the bill into law, one can distrust the NRA on anything.

I had not ever heard Reagan made the offer. Do you have a source for that? In any case the NRA did the right thing. The 1986 FOPA contained a lot of good and important legislation (legislation that defines private sales as exempt from FFL, legislation removing registration requirements for handgun ammo, legislation reigning in ATF abuse of their powers). It had been defeated every year for the previous seven years and passed in 1986 only through a dumb luck and Democrat hubris (see http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33442&highlight=Firearm+Owners+Protection+Act ). Had Reagan vetoed it, it is unlikely it would ever pass again.

I'd even wager you'd have said the same thing - especially knowing now that you'd have faced eight years of the Clinton administration without the protections offered by that act.

Bainx
Then why, pretel, are they not "fighting" our President who supports the AWB?

Bainx, I know you are aware of the various theories regarding Bush's political strategy because I remember you from those discussions. If those theories are correct then the NRA actually loses effectiveness by attacking Bush. Whether you choose to believe that is the case or not is up to you; but I think the mass of evidence supports the NRA on this.

Balog:

The name thing was unintentional. I'm a big Tolkien fan myself and your name is so close to it that mentally I keep interpreting it that way. I've had to edit that several times in this discussion already and I guess I missed that one.

As to the other issue, agree to disagree though I can't see how the NRA "betrayed" those who believe in absolute RKBA since the NRA never has been and still is not an organization that supports an absolutist view of RKBA. Having said that, there is still a long, long road before those who believe in a absolute interpretation of the Second amendment and the NRA would split ways and the AWB is certainly not that issue.

I'd challenge everyone here that rather than find issues that we can disagree on to fight about, we work to find those issues that we do agree on and advance them. I think we still have many issues in common that we need to win before we can have the luxury of parting ways.

[Savage]

Just an FYI regarding Dingell and the AWB.

According to Neal Knox, Congressman John Dingell resigned his position on the NRA Board of Directors BEFORE casting his vote, under pressure from his party, for the AWB.

Research is easy. Accuracy counts. ;)

Savage

[Tempest]

I read that he quit the day AFTER, not before. However, regardless...

Bartholomew, I'm not basing my distrust of the NRA solely on Dingell's betrayal. I have a general distrust of this particular organization. However, in this case, I'm sincerely hoping that they'll stick to their guns, so to speak.

[Hkmp5sd]

Byron Quick -

"The ban was added by a New Jersey Senator at the very last moment. There were no negotiations prior to passage. President Reagan reportedly offered the NRA a veto of the bill after it was passed with the amendment. The NRA apparently decided that the good parts of the bill which affected millions of gun owners outweighed the bad that affected 125,000 registered machine gun owners of the time."

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=35866&highlight=machinegun+AND+NRA+AND+ban

You can't trade some rights just to have other rights protected. You can't negotiate with terrorists. They traded machineguns for the FOPA and we still got the '89 import ban, '94 AW ban and the Brady bill. In my opinion, if we had pressured Bush(41) into not causing the '89 ban, Clinton would never have become president.

[Standing Wolf]

I support both the N.R.A. and the G.O.A. I wish the N.R.A. were more like the G.O.A.

[Mark Tyson]

Why? Because some people think that cynicism plus pessimism equals realism.

[Don Galt]

As an NRA basher, I have to concede if what you say is true, I might change my position.

The thing is, I don't think the NRA is going to do much if anything about the AWB. And if it gets renewed or expanded (and I don't care if theres another sniper incident or some "national event" that "nobody could have predicted") without a hell of a lot of hell coming out of the NRA over it, then I will consider my opinions of the NRA to be correct.

If, on the other hand, they make a lot of noise and are able to defeat it, they will get some money from me. I'm on a pay for play basis now-- I haven't seen ???? from them, so they haven't gotten squat from me.

I believe the NRA cares about hunters rights, and only cares about the AWB because in renewing it they are going after all semi-auto rifles-- which includes some hunter rifles. I haven't seen them putting thier money into undoing the damage of years past, but I hear they have some really nice facilities, salaries and lobbyist budgets. I don't think the NRA's goal is the same as the GOA, or JPFO, and so they will fail to accomplish what a GOA or JPFO would with their budget... at the same time as the largest alleged "gun rights" organization, they should be pulling far more weight than they are on the political front.

We'll see what happens with the AWB, I'm just not holding out any hopes, nor counting on it being defeated. Hell, look at the number of gun owners--- even people who post here-- who will vote for Bush next time around. If the AWB is renewed, some wouldn't, but a lot still would. (They "wouldn't want to waste their votes").

So, AWB expires, stays expired for a few weeks or months, and then a re-elected GWB signs an expanded bill into law. Course we'll get thrown a bone-- either some semi-auto rifles won't be banned, or somethign will be changed to give the NRA and Bush an excuse to say "well, you should have seen teh other guy's proposal!"

But come 2005, we'll have an Assault Weapons Ban, and on the balance, I think it will be worse than it is now. IT certainly won't be an expiring one.

I sure hope I'm proven wrong.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't hold Dingell's vote against the NRA. I hold making excuses for Dingell's vote against the NRA. Those of us with long memories may recall that in '94 Dingell didn't get the lousy candidate rating that vote deserved, in the NRA's election issue. He got a phone number instead, that you could call to hear excuses made. And perhaps as a result, he barely squeaked through against an A rated challenger.

In fact, he was one of a number of soft on guns Dems who barely hung onto their seats that year, who'd benefited from rigged NRA ratings. What we did in '94 was impressive, but if the NRA's candidate ratings had been accurate, it probably would have been more so. And we might have gotten a REAL repeal vote, instead of that atrocity loaded down with poison pill amendments that they threw us as a sop.

And, yeah, I can't fault Dingell for not caring what people outside his district think. I can fault him for voting for a bill he'd denounced mere hours earlier as an assault on the Constitution. I don't care HOW MUCH pressure the Democratic party brought to bear, he swore an oath to defend the Constitution, including every bit of the Bill of Rights, and did not, and does not, have the right to vote for legislation attacking it.

Gun control isn't a matter of good policy or bad, it's something the Constitution flatly prohibits. Some members of Congress may not accept that, but Dingell, according to everything he'd said before that vote, was not among them. He KNEW he was violating his oath of office!

[Mark Tyson]

I'm on a pay for play basis now-- I haven't seen ???? from them, so they haven't gotten squat from me.

You didn't see Lapierre on CNN taking the network to task for their atrocious, deceptive "story" about the AWB a few months ago? By contrast, Larry Pratt made a fool of himself on Donahue during the "sniper" coverage.

Edited to add: I'm not bashing GOA or Mr. Pratt; it's a fine group and I think NRA should be more like them.

[Don Galt]

No, I didn't see LePierre or Pratt on TV in either of those situations... but neither of them are what I used to make my contribution choices.

Legislation and poltiical campaigns are what I'll pay for. JPFO and GOA get my money right now-- not because of the impact, but because they are small and using the money well.

NRA will get my money when they do something that impresses me. I don't consider the current gun dealer protection legislation to be impressive.

Where was the national campaign after 9/11 pointing out that rifles are necessary for homeland defense? Perfect opportunity.... and all we got was more "weapon" control in confiscating of tweezers and box cutters and such idiocy. Oh, and a great attack on the constitution by our gun grabbing* President.

Don

* The president thru the ATF has banned the importation of parts used to make legal rifles that bear too close of a similarity to the types covered by the AWB. IOW, he banned the importation of legal rifle parts for the manufaccture of legal rifles, merely because these rifles are not politically correct.