Discussion in 'Legal' started by longwatch, Nov 2, 2006.
still not going to vote for the lier.
Neither am I on account of Webbs answer to question 6. I'm still amazed that the NRA would put in writing that they would not oppose instant checks on private sales, basically closing the gun show loophole.
And we slide further down the slope...
From survey question #6:
So what's his stance on question #17?
Is he for Smart gun or against it?
He expanded on question #25 explaining he is a handgun enthusiast but no clarification of #17's confused answer.
Thanks, gonna send an e-mail to NRA.
I can't believe the NRA supports checks on private sales at gun shows.
But if the anti gun Dem leadership takes control I can a gun show background check bill sailing through if it requires insta-checks.
+1. But according to #13, at least the records are suppose to be destroyed
within 24 hrs under Bush as opposed to the six months under Clinton.
Since both presidents have said the records will be "destroyed", they must
be, right? I mean we should trust what they both have said and put into
writing to that effect.....oh, wait a second....have either actually signed
anything to that effect? It would be really good to see something signed
by the president and hope there hasn't been some kind of lengthy signing
statement issued with it.
I can't believe the NRA is for this $200 federal tax stamp crap and the no new machine gun laws. Face it folks, you're either for or against the 2nd amendment. There's is no in between. You either have the right to keep and bear ALL arms, which the United States does. Or you don't have a right to keep and bear any arms....like those Communist countries. This is exactly why I will not become an NRA member.
Nothing like putting out a survey with extremely leading questions to get the response you want.
I wish the NRA would ask for an essay type answer on various firearms issues rather than just circle the NRA preferred response and then post the responses verbatim. A number of these issues do not have simple yes or no answers. It is fine to say you are in favor of some particular piece of legislation in a general way. It is another to have the critical decision making skills to determine that a particular piece of imperfect legislation is worth voting for.
Those of you that think the 2A is absolute do not live in the real world. It has not been that way for a very long time, maybe never. If we want to take back our rights, we have to do it in little chunks, the same way they were taken away.
If you gave me this questionaire, I would not circle any of the responses, but would probably write a 2 or 3 paragraph response to each one.
Scoring a 5 point strongly agree to strongly disagree scale would be
too hard for an organisation that does not have a competent program
evaluator on staff.
Look at numbers 9 and 14, but especially number 9, which acknowledges the strict regulations on militia weapons but states that the NRA does not oppose any of the "restrictions in their current form."
If the NRA changed their questionaire to something in essay format they'd effectively bury the program. Candidates for office are very busy and often surprisingly intellectually deficient. Writing an essay about firearms would be time consuming and potentially far too revealing of a candidate's trouble with the English language.
Also, I had no idea that the NRA supported "closing the gun show loophole." My membership is up for renewal in a few months and that's definitely something for me to consider as I reach for the checkbook.
Thanks for posting this questionaire. I found the questions quite interesting, well phrased, undisguised in their intent, and the potential responses very straight forward. I don't particularily care what the responses were by the candidate in this case.
Of all the questions, I find #22 the most interesting. I did not know the NRA was pursuing anything in this area. Opening firearm sales to out of state residents (as typical for that state's resident) would really be convenient for collectors after they are approved via the NICs check.
A question I would like to see is something that would allow the manufacture and sale of fully automatic firearms (Class III) again to non-class III dealers, or individuals who can pass the current NICs check. I have no problem with the $200 fee. In today's dollars, the amount would likely be something $5,000 or so.
You all can forget about the GC Act of 1968 or the machine gun act of 1929 (I think) being repealed. The NRA is advancing what they view as a reasonable and accomplishable set of objectives.
I also did not know that the NRA was not against the expansion of background checks for individual sales. I don't have a big problem with this, but I don't think it necessary that the sale be run through a FFL dealer. Essentially the NICs check is to protect the dealer in those cases and the obvious exclusion of certain people guilty of mostly Felonies. The system would have to be set up so that it was convenient, something like use a credit card # over the telephone to cover the $10 fee.
+1. This is one reason why I did not renew with NRA this year. When my
membership lapsed I got a nice LaPierre form letter that began with something
like "It's gun-owners like you" and then a bunch of things about how I wasn't
'helping the cause of freedom'.
I had just returned from Iraq not long before that letter and seriously
considered writing a letter back to Wayne regarding what was basically a
bunch of insulting drivel that I guess was meant to inspire me to send them
more money. Of course, the letter did just the opposite.
However, I figured it was very unlikely that I would get a personal response
back from Wayne unless I attached a check to add another wing to the
So, buh-bye, Wayne. Next time you approve a form letter with your signature
on it, maybe you should actually read it.
Call me an apologist if you want, but the NRA are just being political realists.
The gun show checks (for licensed dealers through NICS, which is law anyway) is a throwaway for idiot pols who think there actually is a "gun show loophole". And when it comes to "not opposing" checks on individual sales, it's a far cry from supporting it either. But I'm probably arguing with the exact same people who are angry at Bush for "not opposing" the (failed) renewal of the AWB.
And in all reality, NFA isn't going away any time soon, so what real harm does it do to say they "don't oppose it"? If the NRA was completely open and honest about stripping everything away back to and including NFA '34, it'd just be ammunition by the anti's to use against them. We'd have headlines saying, "NRA WANTS MACHINE GUNS FOR SCHOOL CHILDREN!" and "poof", there goes all the deer hunters and skeet shooters, and suddenly the NRA doesn't have a 5 Million member heavy club to hang over Congress any more.
Do people honestly think if the NRA got things beat back to the point that the only laws standing in our way were GCA '68 and NFA '34, there was a good chance they'd get overturned, that they'd suddenly put on the brakes?
But getting back to the real word, how about we work on packing the SCOTUS so we can finally get a proper and final "individual right" interpretation of the Second Amendment first?
Does nobody get it? This is how the game is played. These are political positions carefuly staked out for maximum effect. The NRA isn't stupid, they've been operating in Washington more than long enough to know how things work.
Taking the 2A absolutist stance in day-to-day political negotiations is like a coach trying to win a football game by insisting his players only try to score with 100yd punt returns, and 95yd hail-Mary TD passes. It isn't going to happen. If anything, you run the risk of losing to fumbles, turnovers, and safeties. You need consistent first downs. That's what the NRA does, and recent events prove, does it well.
I'm sorry to burst anyone's bubble, but if the GOA magically took the place of the NRA in the pro-gun food chain for the past 20 years, we'd be a lot worse off, because they'd have accomplished nothing.
There is no good reason to pass a law require checks on private sales at gun shows.
No need for that law at the Federal level.
The NRA should come out and oppose such laws but they say in that survey they will not.
You boys who are complaining about the NRA's position on a few things best remember something. If it weren't for the NRA, your right to keep and bear anything other than a bolt action rifle, a pump shotgun, and a 6-shot revolver would have been taken away A LONG, LONG TIME AGO. So belly ache all you want, but say a little thank you to the NRA the next time you pickup that AR15, SKS, Glock, SIG, HK, 1911, etc, etc, etc.
Those of you who complain about the NRA position on closing the gun show loophole best remember that if it weren't for the NRA, THERE WOULD BE NO GUN SHOWS. They would have been banned a long time ago.
I don't always agree with the NRA on every issue, but I'm going to keep handing them my $$$ as long as I'm breathing.
This is how the game is played when all other players forfeit.
I support NRA, NRA-ILA and the individual RKBA. ILA clearly knows a bit about what they're doing. That said, if it were up to NRA-ILA there wouldn't have been an effort to repeal the National Parks ban. Not that they oppose its repeal, but it was not on their agenda. All it took to change that political dynamic was for a few people to get up off of their butts and ACT, not type.
This is not a slam at ILA, it is a recognition that just like you cannot rely on the police to be where every crime is committed, WE cannot rely on NRA-ILA to take care of our problems for us. It is a realization that 'paying NRA dues' is not enough. Contributing to NRA-ILA is also not enough.
It's OUR duty to police Congress, not NRA's.
You must've been the one who wrote that form letter for Wayne....we actually
don't need the NRA to tell us how to research an issue or talk with a candidate.
If that had been the case, then maybe that Tree 'o Liberty would have had its watering by now...
It's easy to make decisions when presented with black and white, but it's those damnable infinite shades of grey which gum up the works.
Yep. The NRA is anti-gun.
And so is Colt, S&W, and Ruger, by the way.
At least that's what I've heard.
And you better start voting for the Democrats or some third party so the Republicans can lose all influence over the gun issue.
I'm glad to say that I just upgraded to life member a couple weeks ago.
I think one point people seem to be missing is that this is a survey designed to figure out how professional prevaricators stand on gun issues. In evaluating this survey, I think it is fair to remember that past surveys by the NRA have shown both Clinton and Gore to be "A-rated."
Personally, I think some of those questions represent a more subtle attempt to distinguish between the bad and the good than they do NRA policy. If you are the next Al Gore campaigning in TN, then you probably aren't going to choose options the NRA opposes on your survey. However, if you have a statement from the NRA saying they are OK with a particular measure, you might let your true colors show through.
Whether the NRA is truly OK with that measure, depends mostly on the NRA Board of Directors, who in turn are elected by the members. If you don't like the direction the NRA is heading, your choice is to either go with one of the smaller organizations and work real hard to make it as large and powerful as the NRA or join the NRA and work to change the direction.
I cannot open it or it doesnt seem to be there. Could someone post it or send it for me as our club is very interested in what questions the NRA asks candidates.
Separate names with a comma.