Keene: No filibuster on guns


PDA






AlexanderA
February 21, 2013, 11:15 AM
NRA President David Keene, speaking Wednesday, said that the NRA wants votes in the Senate on gun measures. In other words, he's taking the filibuster tactic off the table. This is either a sign of confidence, or a sign of foolishness. (This is going to give Reid the cover he needs to bring the Feinstein proposals to a vote.)

Another disquieting development from this speech: When asked what weapons should be illegal, Keene said "fully automatic weapons." To me, this says that he's either speaking in ignorance, trying to pander to the fears of the ignorant public, or else that the NRA is preparing to throw the NFA community under the bus again. We're not going to see any NRA-sponsored proposals to repeal the Hughes Amendment in this cycle.

It looks like the NRA is getting set to compound its error of 1986.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/20/nra-gun-control_n_2729865.html

If you enjoyed reading about "Keene: No filibuster on guns" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Justin
February 21, 2013, 11:27 AM
A vote in the Senate would generate a record of where each and every one of them stands on gun control.

If the attempt to pass further restrictions fails, we get a record of where these senators stand.

If the attempt to pass further restrictions succeeds, we get a record of where these senators stand.

In either event, we get a list of who needs to be thrown out of office.

Another disquieting development from this speech: When asked what weapons should be illegal, Keene said "fully automatic weapons." To me, this says that he's either speaking in ignorance, trying to pander to the fears of the ignorant public, or else that the NRA is preparing to throw the NFA community under the bus again. We're not going to see any NRA-sponsored proposals to repeal the Hughes Amendment in this cycle.

Machine guns are, for all intents and purposes, already banned to anyone but people with large amounts of disposable income.

Expecting Keene to fight for guns that are already nearly impossible to own at a time when we're trying to hang on to the ones we've still got is foolish. The NFA is settled law, the proposed ban on so-called "assault weapons" is not.

Expecting Keene to rail against the injustices of the NFA in order to demonstrate a level of fealty that warms your heart would amount to sending the man on a fool's errand. The NFA isn't going anywhere, and he (and we) have much more important things to take care of.

TNBilly
February 21, 2013, 11:36 AM
NFA is the ultimate hot potato for antis. While I don't expect it out of Keene or far too many on the board, gun control would be better pushed back from most recent backwards.

Justin - I will disagree on your term "established law", it merely infers the status of our infringement not the legitimacy of it (the law), and yes, I'm one that believes the whole of the system can be rotten!

481
February 21, 2013, 11:51 AM
I agree with Justin- the bill will never make it past the house and letting the Senate take a swing at it can only hurt those foolish enough to support it. I doubt that it'll ever come to the floor.

AlexanderA
February 21, 2013, 11:53 AM
The 2nd Amendment was put in place primarily to protect military-style weapons. Today, the exemplars of military-style weapons are fully-automatic arms. If the NRA is not prepared to advocate for the ownership of these, it's not really advocating for the 2nd Amendment.

At least I would expect Keene to be silent on this issue, not to actively agree that machine guns should be banned!

JVaughn
February 21, 2013, 11:54 AM
Justin, I agree, we are trying to hold on to what we have, it is probably impossible to improve this cycle. Here's the problem I have:

When asked what weapons should be illegal, Keene said "fully automatic weapons."

Ask me what should be illegal, and I would say: "legislation to ban any type of firearm." In fact, it already is. The purpose of the constitution is to prevent the states from making laws that are prohibited, such as violating free speech or allowing troops to be quartered. The second amendment makes gun legislation illegal - so that is what is illegal.

I totally understand that is not what was being asked of him, but we now have a record for all time that even Keene says fully automatic weapons should be illegal. He didn't do us any favors with that comment, even if he didn't mean it.

You have to watch what you say, because someone will use it against you if you leave any openings. These people will try to come after our boards with nails in them when that is all we have left... we cannot blink!

ATLDave
February 21, 2013, 12:06 PM
The 2nd Amendment was put in place primarily to protect military-style weapons. Today, the exemplars of military-style weapons are fully-automatic arms. If the NRA is not prepared to advocate for the ownership of these, it's not really advocating for the 2nd Amendment.

An insightful man once said, "Politics is the art of the possible." Repeal of the NFA is not possible at the moment. Trying to do so would be affirmatively harmful to the credibility of not only the person advancing that view, but everyone else who is generally pro-gun or gun-neutral (allowing those who want guns to possess them, and those who don't want them to eschew them is really gun-neutrality, not "pro-gun").

Sometimes one has to decide whether it is more important to be right or to win. If you care about winning on AWB, mag-cap, and other issues of the moment, it's better to let the NFA sit quietly.

Derek Zeanah
February 21, 2013, 12:09 PM
Sometimes one has to decide whether it is more important to be right or to win. If you care about winning on AWB, mag-cap, and other issues of the moment, it's better to let the NFA sit quietly.
As much as I hate to agree with this, I believe it's the right approach.

We're on the defensive as pretty much all the mainstream media, most of the Democratic party, and lots of moneyed interests (including Obama's Perpetual Campaigning Machine) are pushing for "meaningful" infringements on gun rights.

We don't want to shift the discussion toward how irrational the NRA is, in the aftermath of Sandy Hook, to try and change the gunowning environment so the nutjob shooter would have had access to an M4 rather than an AR15.

That's just a great way to nullify the impact the NRA would have. It's ideologically pure, and it might be the logical and reasonable approach from our point of view.

But now is certainly not the time. I say this as someone waiting on 4 tax stamps...

Akita1
February 21, 2013, 12:10 PM
A vote in the Senate would generate a record of where each and every one of them stands on gun control.

If the attempt to pass further restrictions fails, we get a record of where these senators stand.

If the attempt to pass further restrictions succeeds, we get a record of where these senators stand.

In either event, we get a list of who needs to be thrown out of office.



Machine guns are, for all intents and purposes, already banned to anyone but people with large amounts of disposable income.

Expecting Keene to fight for guns that are already nearly impossible to own at a time when we're trying to hang on to the ones we've still got is foolish. The NFA is settled law, the proposed ban on so-called "assault weapons" is not.

Expecting Keene to rail against the injustices of the NFA in order to demonstrate a level of fealty that warms your heart would amount to sending the man on a fool's errand. The NFA isn't going anywhere, and he (and we) have much more important things to take care of.
"Established law" gets overturned, re-interpreted and amended on a regular basis. None of us should ever feel that just because something is memorialized, it is eternal or infallible. If it were, we would not be in this fight right now.

MagnumDweeb
February 21, 2013, 12:17 PM
How does a tiger eat an elephant? One mouthful at a time.

The NRA does not control what happens with the NFA. Let's be honest, fully auto firearms are but gone the way of the Dodo for the mass majority of us. Now it's about drawing a lasting line in the sand outside the courts.

I'll admit it's a disquieting gamble to not have a fillibuster, but there is intelligence to it. One will have to vote either yea, nay, or abstain. Those whom abstain or say nay will be targets for 2014. If I had to gamble as well. I believe the NRA's legal team may see the holes starting to form in the legal fabric of making idiotically percieved "Assault Weapons" unlawful to won.

At least that's what I hope but I'm always for the safe bet. I wouldn't be pulling this unless I had a bunch of lawyers telling me we could get cases in front of the SCOTUS telling us we could make AWs legal for everyone. But that's me and no one pays me hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to make these decisions.

It's times like these I wish the NRA had a direct legal fund I could donate ten bucks a month to that I knew the NRA was going to use to file lawsuits against anti-2nd Amendment laws. It'd make me feel a lot better.

AlexanderA
February 21, 2013, 12:34 PM
By conceding that the M16 should be banned, the NRA puts itself on thin ice concerning its semiautomatic clone, the AR-15. There's very little difference in the tactical use of these weapons. (The M16's full-automatic capability is only useful in limited circumstances, and is not used routinely. And when it is, it's at the cost of ammunition consumption.)

Gun rights are not divisible -- they cannot be minced and diced. "Salami tactics" are exactly the method of the antigunners. The NRA needs to defend all of the 2nd Amendment.

Keene has said that full-automatics should be banned. LaPierre has said that they already are. Both of them are wrong.

jamesbeat
February 21, 2013, 12:35 PM
My thinking is that he said 'fully automatic weapons' to drive home the fact that the 'assault weapons' that the media keep going on about are not machine guns, despite how they are portrayed on TV.

SoCalNoMore
February 21, 2013, 12:48 PM
As far as I am concerned, there is no compromising on any legislation regarding the 2A, AWB or NFA. Especially since NO ONE is talking about the real issues of gun related deaths.

It sickens me to see so called legislators talking about new laws of any kind when they don't even enforce the ones that are in place.

316SS
February 21, 2013, 12:49 PM
The question "what types of weapons should be illegal?" was a trap. And he fell in it.

"Unregistered microphones" would have been a good answer, while pointing at the one the interviewer was holding.

pty101
February 21, 2013, 12:54 PM
Every time the NRA backs the NFA I hope they are just doing to it to look more moderate than what the media portrays them to be to people who have no understanding of the firearms culture. I would bet that if the debate was about the legality of the NFA, instead of mag bans and UBC, they would side against the NFA.

AlexanderA
February 21, 2013, 01:17 PM
I would bet that if the debate was about the legality of the NFA, instead of mag bans and UBC, they would side against the NFA.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. Didn't the NRA back the NFA, when it was first enacted (after handguns were taken out of it)?

It appears that machine gun owners have become the "sacrificial lambs" of the gun lobby. We are expendable since there are so few of us.

kwguy
February 21, 2013, 01:39 PM
Automatic weapons are already practically not legal (yeah, NFA and lot's of $$, i get it), and the "assault weapon" is portrayed as a "weapon of WAR", as opposed to... what exactly, I do not know. But by separating automatic weapons, Keene is pointing out one of the most abused portions of the whole gun control crowd's argument: that many think that our AR-15 'assault weapons' (stupid term that everyone uses now, so I guess they won THAT over on us) are automatic weapons.

To say that "even in war, semi auto fire is used more than automatic fire, so blah blah etc etc", is just silly. Semi-auto pistols are used in war as well, so, what? They should be illegal too? Just because they are used in war? People that say that nonsense don't really think about what they are saying. They act like the ONLY thing used are M4's, which we don't even have as civilians, and forget about the SAW's, and 240's that are used.

The whole "weapon designed for war" argument shows great ignorance on the entire subject. Here is another weapon "designed for war": Remington 700 bolt action sniper rifles. Soooo.... what? A bolt action deer rifle should be illegal now too, because it's also used for war? Stupid.

Keene pointing out the 'automatic weapons' was used to point out ignorance among gun control freaks.

jamesbeat
February 21, 2013, 01:49 PM
I'm sure that hunting rifles will be renamed 'Sniper Rifles' when the antis come for them...

CoRoMo
February 21, 2013, 01:57 PM
When asked what weapons should be illegal, Keene said...
My response would have been...

Look, nobody's arguing that the American public should be allowed ownership of cruise missiles or nuclear warheads. We are simply trying to draw a line in the sand that further disarming the American people is not acceptable. We have to be honest; banning the modern sporting rifle or dictating the capacity of ammunition magazines will not even slightly hinder an evil person bent on mass murder.

HorseSoldier
February 21, 2013, 02:05 PM
Sometimes one has to decide whether it is more important to be right or to win. If you care about winning on AWB, mag-cap, and other issues of the moment, it's better to let the NFA sit quietly.

This.

Trung Si
February 21, 2013, 02:17 PM
I'm sure that hunting rifles will be renamed 'Sniper Rifles' when the antis come for them
You are absolutely correct Sir! The E.Fudd Bolt Action, Hunting Rifles are on their List as well, the Fudd's however won't believe it until they come for them.;)

Thank God for Texas!!!!!!

Cosmoline
February 21, 2013, 02:22 PM
the NRA is preparing to throw the NFA community under the bus again.

The NFA community has been under the bus since 1934. I understand the tactic of "giving up" something you lost three generations ago.

jamesbeat
February 21, 2013, 02:29 PM
Plus, you might argue that automatic weapons are banned.
Some weapons are in circulation because they were grandfathered in, and those weapons can be transferred, but (apart from dealer samples) it is illegal to make new ones or import them.

He's probably just relying on the fact that non gun folks probably don't know about the NFA, so glossing over the few weapons that were grandfathered in isn't going to raise too many eyebrows.

Jeff White
February 21, 2013, 02:40 PM
The NRA is starting a campaign to go after anti gun senators.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/02/20/Campaign-2014-NRA-Begins-Running-Ads-Against-Dem-Senators-Seeking-Re-Election

We need the vote to smoke them out. If we can knock one or more off we can put gun control back where it's been for the last 12 years or so...a political third rail that will electrocute those who touch it.

Trung Si
February 21, 2013, 02:45 PM
My suggestion is that we shouldn't be nitpicking the NRA or trying to trow it under the Bus, every Organisation makes Mistakes, NO ONE is Perfect, we should be sticking together and focus on what confronts us as a Unit!
Just think if every American Gun Owner were a Member of the NRA we wouldn't find ourselves in the Position we are in Today, simply by sheer numbers.:cuss:

rdhood
February 21, 2013, 03:02 PM
Repeal of the NFA is not possible at the moment.
The NFA is more than fully automatic weapons.
While repealing the NFA is not really possible at the moment, removing things from the NFA is.
#1 on that list is suppressors. They should be removed for health reasons. The NFA does not prevent a criminal from creating a soda bottle suppressor, and (therefore) only affects law abiding citizens.
#2 on the lst is SBRs. Since any criminal can saw off a rifle, SBRs in the NFA only affects law abiding citizens.

Notice the thread between the two? Any law that can be bypassed with common household items or tools.. a hacksaw or soda bottle... is not deterrent at all to criminals. Thus, the ONLY affect is on law abiding citizens. Criminals have all of the suppressors and short barreled weapons that they want.

NosaMSirhC
February 21, 2013, 05:45 PM
Anything that is brought to the floor should get it a vote. It accomplishes a few things

1. Satisfies President Obama's talking point of "These items deserve a vote" Not a fan of his BTW
2. Puts everyone on record as to where they stand. This is the big IMO - With the mid-terms 21 months away it gives PLENTY of time to have primary elections on those on the "right" that vote for anything and allows ample time to find good opposition to those on the "left" that support anything.
3. I don't think anything will pass the House of Representatives so why waste filibuster time? Just let those in the Senate up for reelection next year go on record?

Be Safe!

NosaM

Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF700T using Tapatalk HD

19-3Ben
February 21, 2013, 05:56 PM
A vote in the Senate would generate a record of where each and every one of them stands on gun control.

If the attempt to pass further restrictions fails, we get a record of where these senators stand.

If the attempt to pass further restrictions succeeds, we get a record of where these senators stand.

Which is a very interesting tactic considering the context of the new ad they just put out. The message that I get is "We are the ones in a position to give you power or take it away, and now we'll know exactly where you stand."

Kind of like an update on the old bumper stickers that read "I am the NRA and I vote."

gyp_c2
February 21, 2013, 06:11 PM
What was that he said, " if we don't stand together, we'll surely hang separately......or something like that ...:cool:

AlexanderA
February 21, 2013, 06:31 PM
jamesbeat wrote:

He's probably just relying on the fact that non gun folks probably don't know about the NFA, so glossing over the few weapons that were grandfathered in isn't going to raise too many eyebrows.

I guarantee you that the antigunners (the leaders, not the soccer-mom followers) know all about the NFA, and they've been salivating for years about absolutely outlawing all the items covered by the NFA. An official statement by the NRA -- by its President, no less-- that machine guns should be banned gives them the green light to do so. In view of Keene's statement, the NRA couldn't even score a Senator's vote for this against him, in terms of NRA rating. This is crazy! Why did Keene have to open his mouth and stick his foot in it? The NRA should be working to repeal the Hughes Amendment, not expand it! This sure looks to me like 1986 all over again -- they threw machine gun owners under the bus then, and they're getting ready to do it again now!

PapaGrune
February 21, 2013, 06:44 PM
The House and the Senate should be made to have a up-down vote. Yea-Nay, no pass. It is on the record.

MasterSergeantA
February 21, 2013, 06:55 PM
The NRA is NOT on the side of those of us who own/collect/build NFA items. Period. Keene should have kept his mouth shut...or said 'nuclear weapons', when asked the question. I sent NRA-ILA a note expressing my displeasure and the fact that I will send them no further donations until Keene is gone.

Just my $.02.

r1derbike
February 21, 2013, 07:13 PM
It would seem the NRA, no matter their stance or ads, or what they print, offends, doesn't seem to support, or ignores some segment of their subscription base.

Unfortunately, they can't be all things to all people.

If nothing else, contribute to the NRA-ILA fund.

They aren't perfect, but they and the GOA and some other organizations are all we've got.

yokel
February 21, 2013, 08:35 PM
The wretched NFA and Hughes Amendment constitute a disadvantage for us in every sense of the word.

Indeed, they are a road map for the exponents of domestic disarmament by showing them their ways around and through their problem of how to "regulate" the Bill of Rights into insignificance and oblivion.

Mr. Keene showed blithe disregard for the rights of others by apparently signing off on "sensible" and “reasonable” restrictions intended to impair, weaken, or defeat piecemeal (as through a series of small incursions) the Second Amendment.

bushmaster1313
February 21, 2013, 10:54 PM
A bolt action deer rifle should be illegal now too, because it's also used for war?

A handful of bolt action rifles in the right hands can wreck havoc.

10 well hidden snipers could immobilize and inflict great harm on 1000 infantry with M-16's

Bartholomew Roberts
February 22, 2013, 01:46 AM
By conceding that the M16 should be banned, the NRA puts itself on thin ice concerning its semiautomatic clone, the AR-15

Weren't you just arguing in another thread that by opposing universal background checks (i. e. registration), the NRA was overreaching and setting itself up for a significant defeat and antis are salivating at the thought?

Now in this thread, you are saying you want the President of the NRA to promote legal ownership of machineguns right now? How do you reconcile those two apparently contradictory messages?

-v-
February 22, 2013, 03:06 AM
Although I don't agree with all of Keene's statement, as others have pointed out the RealPolitik aspect has to be appreciated. Launching a crusade to repeal the NFA, or the 1986 gun control act would not be in our near-term advantage. The biggest threat we are facing is mandatory background checks on all firearms, magazine bans, and an even more restrictive AWB.

Myself, I'd rather he hammer on defeating those measures and putting the pro-gun community again on more stable legislative footing then it is right now.

We also have to remember this is both a media and a legal battle. Our goal is to sell our message to the Average Joe, who may own a few hunting rifles and a few handguns, and overall is much more concerned with the economy, his kids' education, and the price of gas. We come out screaming that "Belt fed's for everyone!!11elevn" he's not going to listen to us, and more likely want to distance himself from us. We need a message that sells to everyone right now, not the message that the echo-chamber wants to hear.

As many have said, do you want to be right or do you want to win? We can have hammer on Keene to deliver the right message, or we can hammer on him to deliver the message that will win this. I'll take the later, thank you.

As the anti's approach this, so must we. How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time. We realistically can't expect a slam-dunk Battle of Trafalgar on getting rid of all gun legislation - that's simply not realistic thinking. We must instead dig in for the very long haul of a campaign of attrition versus the anti's. The latter is very important to keep in mind.

The move to encourage the senate to Vote is a great idea. There's a better then not chance that the house will not pass any anti-gun legislation (notice I didn't say certainty), and we will know which Senators we need to replace for ones more like minded. Gun owners vote, and gun owners have long memories.

VVelox
February 22, 2013, 07:29 AM
How does a tiger eat an elephant? One mouthful at a time.

The NRA does not control what happens with the NFA. Let's be honest, fully auto firearms are but gone the way of the Dodo for the mass majority of us. Now it's about drawing a lasting line in the sand outside the courts.

I'll admit it's a disquieting gamble to not have a fillibuster, but there is intelligence to it. One will have to vote either yea, nay, or abstain. Those whom abstain or say nay will be targets for 2014. If I had to gamble as well. I believe the NRA's legal team may see the holes starting to form in the legal fabric of making idiotically percieved "Assault Weapons" unlawful to won.

At least that's what I hope but I'm always for the safe bet. I wouldn't be pulling this unless I had a bunch of lawyers telling me we could get cases in front of the SCOTUS telling us we could make AWs legal for everyone. But that's me and no one pays me hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to make these decisions.

It's times like these I wish the NRA had a direct legal fund I could donate ten bucks a month to that I knew the NRA was going to use to file lawsuits against anti-2nd Amendment laws. It'd make me feel a lot better.
I believe some one from the NRA said the some thing similar back in 1968 and in 1994. Drawing the line there and saying no further did not work either times then or should we see as working now.

We need to go on the defensive and begin demanding some of what we have lost back. Till we start doing that that in mass, we will continue to see it slowly chipped away at.

jamesbeat
February 22, 2013, 10:18 AM
Until Sandy Hook, we really had the antis on their back foot.
With several supreme court wins, and the national right to carry stiff going on, we had the upper hand.
The NFA does need attention, but in my opinion that should be taken care of when (if?) we are ever in an advantageous position in the future.

One could argue that, since the Second Amendment is about militia, it covers weapons in use by the modern military, and the military uses select-fire weapons.

If that argument ever happens, nobody will care what Keene said years in the past. It simply won't be fresh enough to make a difference.

To attempt it now would be to spread ourselves out too thin.
It's no good trying to argue the case for select-fire weapons if you can't own a semiauto.

Pick your battles...

AlexanderA
February 22, 2013, 10:41 AM
Launching a crusade to repeal the NFA, or the 1986 gun control act would not be in our near-term advantage.

I'm not saying that the NRA should launch such a crusade. But, for heaven's sake, don't go the other way and say that MG's should be banned!

Weren't you just arguing in another thread that by opposing universal background checks (i. e. registration), the NRA was overreaching and setting itself up for a significant defeat and antis are salivating at the thought?

Now in this thread, you are saying you want the President of the NRA to promote legal ownership of machineguns right now? How do you reconcile those two apparently contradictory messages?

I'm looking at it from the point of view of an MG owner. We already have background checks and registration out the kazoo. So far, it hasn't led to confiscation. But, statements such as Keene's will lead to confiscation. Excuse me, but I'm understandably upset about this.

alsaqr
February 22, 2013, 12:19 PM
i totally argee with the NRA on this one. Hold the senate vote and go after the antis in 2014.

geekWithA.45
February 22, 2013, 12:33 PM
Much as I don't like it, the machine gun ship sailed into the sunset when the Heller ruling came in.

To paraphrase Alan Gura, the practical choice was between having a second amendment without machine guns, or a second amendment with flintlocks.

Where we stand today is Heller's premise that the second amendment protects militarily useful arms "in common use", which definitively includes America's most popular civilian rifle, the AR-15, and some revisionists who seek to redefine this and other auto loading rifles as "weapons of war", and therefore subject to being batched with machine guns.

Hopkins
February 22, 2013, 01:01 PM
It's a shame that our sympathetic representatives in the House and Senate aren't pointing out that the liberal gun control faction is so obsessed with its agenda it has ignored Sequestration. It would illustrate to the public how irresponsible that focus is.

HorseSoldier
February 22, 2013, 01:05 PM
I guarantee you that the antigunners (the leaders, not the soccer-mom followers) know all about the NFA, and they've been salivating for years about absolutely outlawing all the items covered by the NFA.

Who are these leaders of whom you speak? I've not seen much evidence that Feinstein, Shumer, McCarthy, and whoever else is well informed about any aspect of firearms. Most of them seem to confuse semi automatic weapons with machineguns all the time, at the best of times, and just get dumber from there.

If you enjoyed reading about "Keene: No filibuster on guns" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!