I think theres more need to give the NRA cash when all the stubborn GOPers vote in Romney than a need to give during Obama. Either way, if the 2nd cant stand aon its own then as I said we are all screwed. NRA isnt that vital.
OK, that's about as uneducated a statement as I've ever seen. So electing Romney will kill the 2nd amendment, but re-electing Obama won't? Clearly you are not paying attention.
NRA ain't doing much to combat GCA and its prohibited person clauses. That's the main issue. Not AWB's, not permits, not licenses, or open carry bullcrap.
The main issue is how easily you can end up a prohibited person, and the NRA isn't doing anything about it.
Oh, so protecting our rights, like preventing a new issuance of the AWB, or trying to get concealed carry an option every American can choose isn't the real problem? Of course, ending the prohibited person classes the GCA put into place is the true struggle?
So which group of prohibited persons should have their rights restored?
(1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
(2) is a fugitive from justice;
(3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));
(4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;
(5) who, being an alien, is illegally or unlawfully in the United States;
(6) who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
(7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship; or
(8) is subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child, except that this paragraph shall only apply to a court order that --
(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual
notice, and at which such person had the opportunity to participate; and
(B)(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or
(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or
threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child
that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury.
Gee, seems to me like people like that should be prohibited from owning firearms. But maybe that's just me. Somehow, it seems people are willing to claim grave injustices as a result of the NRA allowing these sections to stand, but refuse to understand that IF NOT for the NRA insisting sections be changed in the act, you wouldn't see handguns even manufactured today, let alone sold. And trust me, the public opinion of handguns at that time would have allowed them to be forever banned in America.
A question was asked in this thread asking if some folks would use anything to justify them not being a member. I'd say that pretty much covers it!
