"Of the major federal gun control legislation that controls/regulates firearms today, the NRA has openly or privately been involved in passing the legislation:
I cringe every time I think of the deals with the devil that have been made over the years. 1934, 1968, 1986, 1994, etc. Lots of opportunities to do better or worse in influencing legislation.
But think carefully about this: The NRA is an organization of those of us who care enough to pay our dues and become active. The personality, social conscience, beliefs, and goals of that organization can only reflect those of their constituent members.
If you're really upset with the NRA because "they" helped draft the 1934 NFA... wow. What was the NRA in 1934? Was it (politically) ANYTHING like the legal powerhouse it is today? How many men(women?) who were even brand new members of the NRA in 1934 are even still on this side of the grass? How many generations of leadership have come and gone since that law was passed? Do you have any concept of who the citizens of this country (and the members of the NRA) WERE in 1934? What they cared about? Prohibiton had only ended the year before. He!!, WOMEN had only had the right to vote for 14 years (yeah...three whole presidential elections)!
Fast forward to 1968 and things aren't much different. The NRA was still not terribly focused on the political fight. There was little perceived need to be. After certain events on the national scene, misguided social pressure was applied to restrict firearms sales. The NRA got involved and helped craft the legislation. It sure sucks, but what were the alternatives? Do you know? Are you suggesting that the NRA came up with these restrictions on their own? Would you have preferred that the NRA refuse to participate in protest and (like 1980 olympic boycot) let the other side write the legislation?
How about 1986? FOPA did a lot of good things (attempted to reform the ATF's contemptable enforcement practices, prohibited registry of Title I firearms, enacted the safe passage legislation -- which is HUGE) some controvercial things (enumerating who could be denied purcase due to criminal history, etc.), and one really bad thing -- the Hughs Amendment, which was tacked on at the last minute by a NJ Democrat Representative, and which closed the registry. If it wasn't for that last part, we'd generally treasure GCA '86 for the good things it did!
And the same stuff applies to the 1994 Brady Act.
If the NRA had come out in 1934 with a no-compromises stance, they'd have been marginalized and lauged at. In 1968, the same thing would have happened. Gun rights zealots look at history and say "How could you let these things happen, you traitors!" (as though the NRA thought up the whole idea of 2nd Amendment infringement) instead of realizing that the NRA has to represent its membership -- that its policies and goals change over time as those of its membership develop -- and
as this very thread has shown half of the time the NRA is
dragging 2/3s of those members kicking and screaming to a tougher stance in the fight against gun control!
Are they as aggressive as GOA or JFPO? Absolutely not. And the memberhsip of GOA and JFPO doesn't contain the 2 or 3 million (out of a total of 4.5 million or so) members who think "these NRA guys are over the top!" They don't represent those 100s of thousands who are ashamed to be associated with that bunch of hard-core extremists who want folks to carry guns in public. They don't have to listen to the Zumbos and the fudds who write letters to Chris and Wayne asking them to shut up about evil black rifles and only protect good ol' hunting guns. Or those who feel that we SHOULD perhaps have to pass tests to own guns or pay high fees so undesirable people can't buy guns.
When you're a huge organization like NRA, you're going to have a diverse support base. And, if you can't read between the lines, a great deal of the articles in
American Rifleman and
...Hunter are a kind of advertising
to the membership, trying to explain to those 4 million average Joes WHY NRA is taking such a hard-line stance all the time. I'd wager the NRA spends MORE to educate their own membership about legislation and the RKBA fight than they do on lobbying.
But, yeah, I can't support that bunch of extremist gun rights whackos -- making trouble and pushing that pro-killing-machine agenda, 'cause they're always compromizing with the anti-gunners and giving away our rights!
Sheesh.
I'll bet a lot of days those boys go home after hearing flack from both sides and wonder why they bother!
-Sam
