So, how stupid must the NRA think we are?

[Boats]

I received a fund raising call from the NRA last night.

Some guy with a southern accent, (not that there is anything wrong with that) is on the horn going on about UN gun control efforts, George Soros, and Rebecca Peters, blah, blah, blah. I interrupt him.

“Do you know how a treaty gets ratified?” I ask.

Silence.

I give a mini lecture, “The President signs it and the Senate ratifies it. No way, no how is Bush going to sign off on small arms controls that abrogate the Second, let alone would the Senate ratify it. Good night.”

I have long been of the opinion that the NRA is more interested in easy self-promotion than it is in a serious battle to restore full American gun rights. This entire “anti-UN antis” program just underscores the way that they always identify the easiest way to appear to be doing something without actually doing much of anything.

Ambassador John Bolton, by himself, is doing everything the NRA could be doing at the UN. Why on earth isn’t the NRA finishing the job at home before chasing off irrelevant antis from abroad?

There are 1989 restrictions that need lifting. There is 1986 legislation that needs repealing. There is the 1968 GCA that needs serious gutting. There are states messing with the design of guns, to the detriment of buyers nationwide, in need of being stopped in their tracks. Trick is that those goals are hard and bashing ineffectual international antis is easy.

I am through with the NRA until they gain some serious domestic focus. One lawsuit pre-emption bill isn’t enough payback for my years of prior financial support.

The NRA should find some stones or just disband.

 

[1 old 0311]

Now wait just a minute...............Look at what they did for the people of New Orleans when the Police took their guns...........0.00

Kevin

 

[LAR-15]

Irrelevant antis abroad?



You mean ones that are alligned with the VPC and Brady Campaign?

 

[Old Dog]

Heh, I just went through the same cycle. Using the UN "threat" and this other stuff to try and get money out of us ... when the real threat to RKBA is our own country's politicians -- and our own dang media --, is swiftly turning me off of the NRA bandwagon.

 

[Zundfolge]

I give a mini lecture, “The President signs it and the Senate ratifies it. No way, no how is Bush going to sign off on small arms controls that abrogate the Second, let alone would the Senate ratify it. Good night.”

So what about president Hillary? Think she'll give a rat's behind about national sovereignty?

What about if the GOP loses the Senate (or worse, we get even more RINOs there)?

 

[Kim]

I disagree. While I admit the NRA raises maoney like any other special interest group with hollering the sky is falling I think the International Law pushers are a threat. I think you do not fully realize how an idea grows in that group of people. This is not going to go away. It is just now the tip of the point and just now a very few even know about it. The UN has MANY NGO's that are anti-gun and would very well push a ban on ALL civilian ownership of firearms. The NRA is a recent player in the NGO game and is a should I say an Army of One. These groups have great power, passion and are not going to quit. There is a whole lot of Liberal Lawyers who just practice "international Law".Our USSC is using IL and the opinion of the changing world norms in interpreting OUR Constitution. There are alot of believers in being "citizens of the world" and are working toward the end of the Nation State. Al Gore was really pi33ed at the Bush Adm stance taken at the UN regarding small arms. I have lived long enough to see danger at it's birth. This idea is now in adolescent stage.

 

[Alex45ACP]

The NRA doesn't want the 2nd Amendment to be protected. They're a big business now, and if the 2nd Amendment was safe they would go out of business.

 

[Tequila_Sauer]

+1 to Kim

The NRA is much like a home defense pistol. Better to have 'em and not need 'em, than need 'em and not have 'em. And I feel the pain about the fund raising calls, they are indeed annoying. I just donate when I feel there's an important issue on the horizon and give them an assertive "No" when I don't want to donate.

 

[Fly320s]

Boats,

If you believe that the UN, et. al., won't be a threat in the future, then maybe you should ask yourself that question.

There are more anti-gun people and organizations on this planet than there are pro-gun. Luckily for us, we have the NRA to help us retain our rights. But the NRA isn't solely a political action organization. Even if every country and person on the planet decides to become pro-gun, the NRA still has it's programs of education and safety to run. The NRA will always be with us.

 

[ravensword227]

The NRA doesn't want the 2nd Amendment to be protected. They're a big business now, and if the 2nd Amendment was safe they would go out of business.

+ 1

They thrive on conflict. Remember the 86' GCA?

 

[buzz_knox]

+ 1

They thrive on conflict. Remember the 86' GCA?

You mean the '68 GCA, that the hunters and sportsmen of the country allowed to get passed? Wasn't that one of the key points in getting the NRA in the lobbying business?

 

[El Tejon]

1968 Safe Streets Act provided the impetus to the "1977 Cincinnati Reforms" of the NRA with the formation of the NRA-ILA and the man that worked so diligently to save the RKBA--Harlon Carter (a great man).

But for Harlon Carter the NRA would have moved to Colorado Springs and removed itself from politics and we would be shooting spitwads and dice.

Boats, while I'm 100% with you on the things that need to be accomplished at home, the UN treaty is a serious threat. If the UN Treaty is ratified then domestic politics are of little concern.

 

[hillbilly]

Uh, the NRA didn't get involved with lobbying until the 1970s.

In fact, I was leafing through a library's collection of American Rifleman magazines, and came across the article that announced the brand new NRA lobbying effort.

It was 1970 exactly, I think.

But you can't hang the 1968 GCA on the NRA because the NRA wasn't in the politics business at that time.

The 1968 GCA was one of the reasons the NRA got into the politics business.

hillbilly

 

[markdaniel]

Well the 2nd isnt the only thing the UN is a threat to.We need to get them out of the US.

 

[bakert]

I disagree with the NRA on certain issues and don't like the fund raising calls, but I still think it's the best organization for all gun owners whether you're a hunter, target shooter or just like to own and fondle them!! Nuff Said!!

 

[Boats]

I do not deny that the international antis are a threat in the future. As of now, they are neutralized. The Bush Administration, via Ambassador Bolton, has stated unequivocally that no small arms treaty that errodes either US national security perogatives, or our tradition of constitutionally guaranteed civilian firearms ownership, is going to see the light of day.

So, when is the earliest IANSA and the Dems hook up for a real fight on the topic? January 2009, if/when the Hildebeast or some like minded jackass becomes president, and then, only if the Senate is turned hardcore jackass as well because the filibuster is a two edged weapon.

Therefore, the thrust of my point is that these internationalist blissninnies can only be turned into a current and compelling threat via artifice. Yet, while we have an allegedly friendly Congress and a President who seemingly won't veto anything, the NRA satisifes itself with the Lawful Commerce in Firearms legislation and the sunsetting of the AWB and moves on. Ignoring the home front while we have the upper hand is a total waste of the opportunity to make progress.

 

[El Tejon]

Question of timing then?

 

[Boats]

Well, if I saw any evidence of the NRA moving and shaking legislation to restore our rights previously lost on their watch, I wouldn't be so chagrined that they were expending effort taking swipes at international goofs who present no credible threat at this moment.

But Wayne gets to buy new suits, jet over to London and wear horns for the Euroninnies doesn't he? That is much more glamorous than twisting the dagger at home in pitched political trench fighting, isn't it?

 

[Igloodude]

I've asked myself the same question, Boats - almost verbatim, too.

Though, this is probably a good crowd to get an answer to the following question too: has the US signed/ratified any treaty in the last century or so that has conflicted with any provision of the US Constitution?

I can't think of any myself, but goodness knows that doesn't rule anything out.

 

[taliv]

there should be a whole forum here devoted to sledgehammer

 

[Northslope Nimrod]

I wouldn't brush aside the UN policies so quickly. As of late, the Democrats argue more and more that the US should step in line with international opinion, international law and the policies of other countries. They actually cite them for persuasive, approaching on binding, opinion and law.

Yes, for now it will not happen.....but things change. The founding fathers would roll in their grave to see how we have streched the Constitution. Look at the commerce clause. Limited Federal Government......Hah!

 

[John Hicks]

I got the same call.

I signed up b/c I let my membership lapse. While I don't agree with a lot of how the NRA raises money and allows "concessions" in gun laws, remember, the NRA is about a lot more than just lobbying.

Training, shooting ranges, and shooting sports all come to mind. Promoting safe gun usage to a wider audience is very important -- much more so than lobbying efforts and debating UN talking heads.

jh

 

[Winzeler]

The original and subsequent points by boats are, I think, good ones. However, I don't think cut and running from the NRA is the answer. Unfortunately, as with any membership organization, most of its members will be uneducated/ignorant. However, I would suspect that if the NRA got enough articulate complaints from it's membership about its handling of national and international issues it would adapt.

 

[AirForceShooter]

the NRA doesn't lobby.
The ILA does.

AFS

 

[NineseveN]

Uh, the NRA didn't get involved with lobbying until the 1970s.

In fact, I was leafing through a library's collection of American Rifleman magazines, and came across the article that announced the brand new NRA lobbying effort.

It was 1970 exactly, I think.

But you can't hang the 1968 GCA on the NRA because the NRA wasn't in the politics business at that time.

The 1968 GCA was one of the reasons the NRA got into the politics business.

hillbilly

Sorry man, you might want to check on that. Check the American Rifleman from March 1968. The NRA, some firearms manufacturers and others that would later become part of or work with the NRA testified in favor and supported the GCA. This is what started the Harlan Carter (leader of the NRA ILA that was fonded a little fater the GCA) rebellion shortly after that. In Cinncinati in 1977, Carter and Neal Knox (should be a familiar name) criticized the NRA for abandoning the 2A, appeasement and lack of focus on issues at hand. They were branded extremsists. Carter appointed Knox as the new leader of the NRA ILA. Knox worked hard against the appeasement grain of the NRA and those that lusted after beltway access and backdoor deals to smooth their image over to both the public and their mianstream members. Eventually, Knox, still branded an extremist by many of the NRA board, was defeated by Charlton Heston (who fully supported the GCA and is on record as saying so, and I believe he worked with LBJ on this very topic) by 4 votes.

This is going to be another flame thread I am sure, because any time you criticize the NRA, the bile rises. But at least get yourselves straight. Just because there was no ILA does not mean the NRA was not part of the problem. Remebers, and I quote them on this, "We have always supported reasonable gun control".