The NRA Has Always Chipped Away At the 2A

rsj

Joined
Jul 7, 2010
Messages
415
Likes
169
Feedback: 0 / 0 / 0
For your information, whether you love or hate the NRA, presented from a TIME article...
In the 1920s, the National Revolver Association, the arm of the NRA responsible for handgun training, proposed regulations later adopted by nine states, requiring a permit to carry a concealed weapon, five years additional prison time if the gun was used in a crime, a ban on gun sales to non-citizens, a one day waiting period between the purchase and receipt of a gun, and that records of gun sales be made available to police.


The 1930s crime spree of the Prohibition era, which still summons images of outlaws outfitted with machine guns, prompted President Franklin Roosevelt to make gun control a feature of the New Deal. The NRA assisted Roosevelt in drafting the 1934 National Firearms Act and the 1938 Gun Control Act, the first federal gun control laws. These laws placed heavy taxes and regulation requirements on firearms that were associated with crime, such as machine guns, sawed-off shotguns and silencers. Gun sellers and owners were required to register with the federal government and felons were banned from owning weapons. Not only was the legislation unanimously upheld by the Supreme Court in 1939, but Karl T. Frederick, the president of the NRA, testified before Congress stating, “I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons. I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses.”

On Nov. 22, 1963, President John F. Kennedy was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald. He shot the president with an Italian military surplus rifle purchased from a NRA mail-order advertisement. NRA Executive Vice-President Franklin Orth agreed at a congressional hearing that mail-order sales should be banned stating, “We do think that any sane American, who calls himself an American, can object to placing into this bill the instrument which killed the president of the United States.” The NRA also supported California’s Mulford Act of 1967, which had banned carrying loaded weapons in public in response to the Black Panther Party’s impromptu march on the State Capitol to protest gun control legislation on May 2, 1967.

The summer riots of 1967 and assassinations of Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy in 1968 prompted Congress to reenact a version of the FDR-era gun control laws as the Gun Control Act of 1968. The act updated the law to include minimum age and serial number requirements, and extended the gun ban to include the mentally ill and drug addicts. In addition, it restricted the shipping of guns across state lines to collectors and federally licensed dealers and certain types of bullets could only be purchased with a show of ID. The NRA, however, blocked the most stringent part of the legislation, which mandated a national registry of all guns and a license for all gun carriers. In an interview in American Rifleman, Franklin Orth stated that despite portions of the law appearing “unduly restrictive, the measure as a whole appears to be one that the sportsmen of America can live with.”

Gotta give a whole lot to keep a little bit, amirite???

For much of the 20th century, the NRA had lobbied and co-authored legislation that was similar to the modern legislative measures the association now characterizes as unconstitutional. But by the 1970s the NRA came to view attempts to enact gun-control laws as threats to the Second Amendment, a viewpoint strongly articulated at last week’s Republican National Convention by current NRA leader Chris Cox.

Chris Cox just stated, however, that, “The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semiautomatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations,” about the bump-fire stock. Isn't that an infringement on the right to bear arms- the exact opposite of what the 2nd Amendment says? Why would this guy ever support getting rid of the NFA status of select-fire weapons, whom his own organization was instrumental in getting out of the hands of 99.9% of the public in the first place? The NRA also was instrumental in keeping it that way in 1986 when it added a line into it's "flagship federal bill" that banned the manufacture of new machine guns for civilian sale!

So you keep "giving a little" to get absolutely nothing in return except more draconian restrictions, until you're limited to a slingshot and bow and arrow (and they will come for those too), but I and many others are fed up with this fifth-column organization. They are the traitors in the gate posing as allies, stabbing us in the back.

If you're fed up also after having read this, or are looking for an organization that actually does defend the 2nd Amendment, look into GOA, or a state-wide organization that has a track record of defending (not defeating) the 2nd. AzCDL is a good example.
 
Last edited:
On the surface, those quotes make a good case. I would need to know the whole context. For instance, after JFK was assassinated, the political momentum to stomp on the 2A was immense. New laws were guaranteed to happen. In that case, and most of those examples you cite, could it be that the NRA decided to get out in front of the situation so it could have some control instead of standing back yelling "No, no, no." while Congress goes full-retard writing poorly worded over-reaching laws?

Either way, I try to imagine where we would be right now if there had been no NRA for the last 50 or 100 years. I don't like what I imagine.
 
On the surface, those quotes make a good case. I would need to know the whole context. For instance, after JFK was assassinated, the political momentum to stomp on the 2A was immense. New laws were guaranteed to happen. In that case, and most of those examples you cite, could it be that the NRA decided to get out in front of the situation so it could have some control instead of standing back yelling "No, no, no." while Congress goes full-retard writing poorly worded over-reaching laws?

Either way, I try to imagine where we would be right now if there had been no NRA for the last 50 or 100 years. I don't like what I imagine.

Maybe we would have stood up to those trying to strip our rights away instead of depending on someone else to do it for us. I wonder if it was the GOA that gives more accurate grading of our politicians and is more hard-line how things would be if they had 5 million members and the income the NRA has. The NRA also has members on it's board that support amnesty for illegals from countries that tend towards gun control and vote D here. They will eventually outnumber supporters of the 2A and vote it away. http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/08/13/census.minorities/ also http://waronguns.blogspot.com/search?q="single+issue"
 
Maybe we would have stood up to those trying to strip our rights away instead of depending on someone else to do it for us. I wonder if it was the GOA that gives more accurate grading of our politicians and is more hard-line how things would be if they had 5 million members and the income the NRA has. The NRA also has members on it's board that support amnesty for illegals from countries that tend towards gun control and vote D here. They will eventually outnumber supporters of the 2A and vote it away. http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/08/13/census.minorities/ also http://waronguns.blogspot.com/search?q="single+issue"

Don't forget the NRA began the whole Concealed Permit licensing scheme. They have backed every major form of gun control, then say 'we kept the antis from getting the really restrictive measures put in there by meeting them half-way.'

I am astonished how people cling to this organization even after seeing its history.

Edit: But it doesn't matter... some people just don't hear it. They will say without the NRA we would have no rights at all- when it was the NRA who wrote and co-wrote the bills restricting those rights!! The fact they came out and asked the ATF to regulate bump-fire stocks to appease the Left, who can never ever be appeased, outs them as a fifth column.
 
Last edited:
Do you really hold onto the fantasy that if the NRA as we know it didnt exist then or now that some other group would not have been formed by RKBA supporters and filled the void and possibly have done a BETTER job without trampling our rights?

Where is that group? We have SAF but they're not so much in front of issues as much as they fight them on the back end.
 
Where is that group? We have SAF but they're not so much in front of issues as much as they fight them on the back end.

GoA. What the NRA does is "get in front of the issue" first and then sell out. GoA is what the NRA pretends to be.
 
Do you really hold onto the fantasy that if the NRA as we know it didnt exist then or now that some other group would not have been formed by RKBA supporters and filled the void and possibly have done a BETTER job without trampling our rights?

Where is that group or groups? They had from 1920-1970 (according to RSJ's quotes) to form and supplant the NRA as a political action group before they created the NRA-ILA.
 
On the surface, those quotes make a good case. I would need to know the whole context. For instance, after JFK was assassinated, the political momentum to stomp on the 2A was immense.

my favorite version of JFK assignation was by AR15 carried by his bodyguard, on accident, which explains a whole lot of secrecy around it. It also establishes the pattern by which .gov ****s up and citizens pay the price.

New laws were guaranteed to happen.

That's a great excuse and justification for taking away rights and making NRAs look good meanwhile, 'cause it could have been worse.


If you want to support NRA, good for you, better NRA than CNN or PETA ... but **** NRA.
 
The left hates the NRA and with 5 million members we hold considerable political power. Remember, Dirty Harvey Weinstein is coming after us.
 
Curious, how many people here have written to the NRA, stating dissatisfaction of the NRA's position on this matter?

The NRAs teeth come from its member count. - Not renewing may send a message, but it will not be a clear message. Sending emails or calling the NRA, stating that we do not back the decision and will be re-evaluation my member status; may help more.

With that said:

The politicians have not heard of bump stocks until this event happened. The perception that the law makers have is these are brand new, turn a semi automatic weapon into fully automatic, and can effectively kill people. This event turned a gimick, a POS novalty, into something that "appears" to be a better killing machine that has no regulation.

If you expect law makers to do research - you expect too much.
If you think that if the NRA came out and said - "there is nothing wrong with these things", then the issue will go away - you are out of touch with reality.
If you think that we will be in a better position nationally without the NRA doing its thing, then i am open to hear what you think we can do differently that will be more effective. If you have a better avenue that's realistic and can reduce or eliminate federal regulations - im all in.

Do i have a defeatist attitude to what i expect from law makers - yup, i currently live in mass.
 
Last edited:
Curious, how many people here have written to the NRA, stating dissatisfaction of the NRA's position on this matter?

The NRAs teeth come from its member count. - Not renewing may send a message, but it will not be a clear message. Sending emails or calling the NRA, stating that we do not back the decision and will be re-evaluation my member status; may help more.

With that said:

The politicians have not heard of bump stocks until this event happened. The perception that the law makers have is these are brand new, turn a semi automatic weapon into fully automatic, and can effectively kill people. This event turned a gimick, a POS novalty, into something that "appears" to be a better killing machine that has no regulation.

If you expect law makers to do research - you expect too much.
If you think that if the NRA came out and said - there is nothing wrong with these things, you are out of touch with reality.
If you think that we will be in a better position nationally without the NRA doing its thing, then i am open to hear what you think we can do differently that will be more effective. If you have a better avenue that's realistic and can reduce or eliminate federal regulations - im all in.

Do i have a defeatist attitude to what i expect from law makers - yup, i currently live in mass.


+1,000,000,000 Very well said!
 
The NRAs teeth come from its member count. - Not renewing may send a message, but it will not be a clear message. Sending emails or calling the NRA, stating that we do not back the decision and will be re-evaluation my member status; may help more.


It's worth a try, let's get some template message together, start a new thread and see how many emails/ letters/ calls we can do, then see what result would be.

Membership renewal is bigger than complaints, because those numbers are reviewed, I bet more frequently than what was the top complaints from our members. If there are many complaints that NRA sucks, well that means nothing. If people leave NRA, then it dies. NRA is not proud, it's afraid of death more than infamy.
 
"The NRA hasn't perfectly represented me in it's 145 year existence"


Wah Wah Wah.


Maybe you can name a few groups with a harder pro-2A stance, but show me the money.


GOA was created in the 70s. The NRA had protected our rights 100 times before that.


Every friggin day on this site it's "Yay NRA"/"Boo NRA". Get a life and pay your dues.
 
Why dont you give us a history of the 100 times the NRA defended our rights?

Was it capitulation on 34 GCA

Was it capitulation on the 68 GCA or any number of other instances of very significant expansion of rediculous gun control?


Well, it's like petting a kitten on a way to a robbery, the difference between speed and velocity. There are pluses and minuses, but grand total is a huge loss of rights over long time period. Could it be worse? **** yes, giant meteor could have hit the earth and it would suck more than gun bans. It can always be worse, it can always be better.
 
Curious, how many people here have written to the NRA, stating dissatisfaction of the NRA's position on this matter?

The NRAs teeth come from its member count. - Not renewing may send a message, but it will not be a clear message. Sending emails or calling the NRA, stating that we do not back the decision and will be re-evaluation my member status; may help more.

With that said:

The politicians have not heard of bump stocks until this event happened. The perception that the law makers have is these are brand new, turn a semi automatic weapon into fully automatic, and can effectively kill people. This event turned a gimick, a POS novalty, into something that "appears" to be a better killing machine that has no regulation.

If you expect law makers to do research - you expect too much.
If you think that if the NRA came out and said - "there is nothing wrong with these things", then the issue will go away - you are out of touch with reality.
If you think that we will be in a better position nationally without the NRA doing its thing, then i am open to hear what you think we can do differently that will be more effective. If you have a better avenue that's realistic and can reduce or eliminate federal regulations - im all in.

Do i have a defeatist attitude to what i expect from law makers - yup, i currently live in mass.
Interestingly, countless instructors wrote to/called the NRA when they borked Basic Pistol. They told us all to kindly get stuffed.

Know what changed it? We stopped teaching Basic Pistol. When they took a big enough hit to the bottom line, the tune quickly changed.

Looks like money really is a form of speech after all...
 
Interestingly, countless instructors wrote to/called the NRA when they borked Basic Pistol. They told us all to kindly get stuffed.

Know what changed it? We stopped teaching Basic Pistol. When they took a big enough hit to the bottom line, the tune quickly changed.

Looks like money really is a form of speech after all...

Agree - the difference is the ability to correlate.
People just allowing memberships to expire and not being vocal as to why, will take a long time for the NRA to recognize the effect. This is further aggravated by those that have multi year memberships.
Also they need to know why people are leaving, don't leave them to guess (and very likely will guess wrongly)
 
The Libs are coming for your guns , period , stop , end of sentence.
No amount of capitulation will stop that , ever.
Anyone want to argue that statement?

They thought caving in to a few "Common sense " regulations would make them stop in England.
They thought caving in to a few "Common sense " regulations would make them stop in Australia
Now they need to show ID to buy f*cking tableware , never mind owning a gun.

I don't really want to hear I don't understand how things work or politics.
I understand just fine.
We give, they take.
Not one more inch.
 
Yes, let's talk history. In 1976, a handgun ban and confiscation initiative appeared on the statewide ballot in Massachusetts The anti-2A forces outspent gun owners many times over, the dems were overwhelmingly in favor of it and polls showed an overwhelming win for the ban. But due to the hard work of the NRA, it was defeated. In addition, GOAL grew out of that effort.

Against All Odds
by Dave Kopel Jan. 25, 2012
http://davekopel.org/2A/Mags/A1F/Against-all-odds.html


In terms of lobbying and political contributions, the NRA and the gun industry generally spend next to nothing compared with the big players on the left.

In fairness, NRA-related outside PACs do bundle a good deal of cash, but it’s still a fraction of what big labor and the trial lawyers pony up. All NRA-related outside expenditures in 2016 added up to about $54 million. A single liberal super PAC, Priorities USA, spent $133 million.

According to Opensecrets.org, the legal profession contributed $207 million to politicians in 2016 alone. Fahr LLC, the outfit that oversees the political and philanthropic efforts of billionaire anti-global-warming activist Ton Steyer, gave $90 million (all to Democrats) in 2016.

https://patriotpost.us/opinion/51703

And let's not forget, Michael Bloomberg and George Soros donate even much more to fund gun control organizations, politicians and PACS.

The NRA is the influential pro-2A political and lobbying organization that has made the difference in successfully competing with the overwhelming financial and political resources of the anti-2A left.

GOA is a pro-2A group whose primary purpose is to solicit funds from its membership to fund itself. It's fine if you want to join but don't delude yourself it has much influence outside its own organization.

Unlike the anti-2A left, The NRA depends on it's members to fund their activities and they efficiently spend most of what they collect. It's not doing a service to gun owners to advocate denying support to the NRA. You are just carrying out the strategy of the anti-2A left.
 
Agree - the difference is the ability to correlate.
People just allowing memberships to expire and not being vocal as to why, will take a long time for the NRA to recognize the effect. This is further aggravated by those that have multi year memberships.
Also they need to know why people are leaving, don't leave them to guess (and very likely will guess wrongly)
I'll agree with this point - if one is going to flounce off, it's best to make sure they know why. "Quitting" is not the same as "non-renewal."
 
I am astonished how people cling to this organization even after seeing its history.

People change, organizations change, governments change, societies change. NRA was a group of hunters 90 years ago. The US was small, there were no TV's, no laptops, and no mass shootings. NRA membership is simply a small slice of the US population. They try and influence legislation in the best interests of their members at the time. The hunters who comprised NRA membership in 1934 apparently decided to ban the favorite toy of chicago's gangsters. Seems like a waste of time to attempt to turn back the clock and wish for a different result.

I will judge the NRA on their present actions. Overall I think they are acting in my best interests regarding firearms legislation both at the federal level and the state level. Have you read the pieces of legislation just introduced by Seth Moulton and Feinstein? A real piece of work. Who will oppose it or modify it other than the NRA? If you think another organization represents your interests better then the NRA, support them. Me? I'll support the NRA. I know they will be lobbying against the Moultons and the Feinsteins
 
Don't forget the NRA began the whole Concealed Permit licensing scheme. They have backed every major form of gun control, then say 'we kept the antis from getting the really restrictive measures put in there by meeting them half-way.'

I am astonished how people cling to this organization even after seeing its history.

Edit: But it doesn't matter... some people just don't hear it. They will say without the NRA we would have no rights at all- when it was the NRA who wrote and co-wrote the bills restricting those rights!! The fact they came out and asked the ATF to regulate bump-fire stocks to appease the Left, who can never ever be appeased, outs them as a fifth column.


Is it possible that if the NRA keeps up with the "Meet them half way" concept, eventually we will still be able to have a gun but, all the "Half way" compromises will result in us having a firearm in our houses ONLY and under lock and key until "Actually Needed"?

makes me wonder..
 
without the NRA we would have been disarmed years ago. No AR's or AK's, no Glocks or other polymer pistols and no right to carry laws. Remember one thing, the anti's hate the NRA worse than ISIS so they must be doing something right.
 
Have you read the pieces of legislation just introduced by Seth Moulton and Feinstein? A real piece of work. Who will oppose it or modify it other than the NRA? If you think another organization represents your interests better then the NRA, support them. Me? I'll support the NRA. I know they will be lobbying against the Moultons and the Feinsteins

I do not believe the NRA has stated a position on that as of yet, and i am eager to hear a response. Unfortunately the NRAs release stating the ATF should review did not work, and people are throwing paper with crap words around like crazy. There are a ton of Ds that want their name on the bill so they can use that when seeking re-election.


As for the NRA - yeah i support them. Its like voting in mass. A democrat is going to screw you, screw you hard, will tell you up front and wont use lube. Or you can vote republican, who will say what you want to hear, go in slow, use lube - even give you a reach around.

In the end you are screwed, but one will be easier on you.
 
Back
Top Bottom