The amendment was stupid.
The NRA fought it because that is what they do.
Non-answer. Has there ever been any legislation regarding gun control that they wholeheartedly supported?
edited to add: to say that they thought it was too weak and ineffective is to imply that they wanted something stronger and more effective.
I said it was weak. The NRA played the chicken little card. Big difference between the two.
In case you missed BG’s addition to this thread, the NRA was for gun control before it was against it. 1934 and 1968 to be exact. Since then, they have seen the errors of their ways. In recent memory however the NRA did support HR 2460 The NICS Improvement Bill as sponsored by Rep. Carolyn “The shoulder thing that goes up” McCarthy [D]
The NRA found that the vast majority of its members didn’t support the bill: Cite
I believe they supported a post-Virginia Tech bill that modernized mental health reporting.
Actually, what they supported were the changes made in the bill to the point that they considered the final result to be a pro-gun bill.
And your point is?
Any chance of seeing the wording used in their poll?
And this was a gun control measure how?
Sure it does, my guess is you are just pretending you don’t understand but that has nothing to do with the OP that you seem loath to address. So I guess that means all you gun grabbers know CNN and related stories are in the wrong, but you think it’s OK cause they are furthering your cause.
No it’s something that should have been just a brief disagreement regarding definitions of terms that has now taken over the thread. I understand why your side would want that because your side has no defense regarding the OP.
:rolleyes: It “Improves the accuracy and completeness of NICS by requiring federal agencies and participating states to provide relevant records to the FBI. For instance, it would give states an incentive to report those who were adjudicated by a court to be “mentally defective,” a danger to themselves, a danger to others or suicidal.”
If gun “safety” supporters can’t see that as a win (even if it’s a win-win for the NRA too), I don’t know what they’ll consider forward progress besides another AWB.
It didn’t exactly fit the description of a gun-control bill when the NRA got done with it. From the Huff Post:
Again, so what? Do you expect the NRA to openly support explicit gun control measures? Maybe a ban or two? 30 day wait to buy a bullet? Agreeing on anything with that idiot [D] from NY is quite an accomplishment. Whether Huffpo agrees is really not my concern.
And your side should have been happy with the scraps the NRA let them have. This ingratitude is stifling cooperation in Washington.
I’m sorry, but I am merely responding to your attempt to present this as an effective gun control measure that the NRA supported. I don’t recall bringing up gun bans or 30 day waits to buy a bullet, both of which I would oppose, btw.
At this point I don’t know whether I’m supposed to hold out my bowl and ask “Please sir, may I have some more?”, or bend over and ask “Please sir, may I have another?” :rolleyes:
The NICS Improvement Act was carefully tailored to find areas of agreement and support by the public. For example, better identifying the mentally ill who should be prohibited from owning firearms.
It happens to be the most pressing public concern: Gallup - Americans Fault Mental Health System Most for Gun Violence
Are you saying that it’s not something the gun control crowd should be supporting too?
So now you are looking for “effective” gun control measures that the NRA has supported. Before you asked:
I would venture a guess that the chances of the NRA wholeheartedly supporting any gun control legislation that you or Huffpo would consider “effective” are about as likely as the NAACP supporting David Duke to MC its next national convention.
I don’t think the NRA membership wants them to concede any inches to people they know want miles.
I think that once you get to the point that you think anyone with an opposing opinion is an enemy you must not give one inch to, once you lump everyone that doesn’t support you one hundred percent together and collectively demonize them, any chance for a reasonable debate is pretty much over. Twenty five or so years ago I might have joined the NRA, but right now it has a nutcase for a spokesman who is quite effective in rallying the troops and I just can’t support it at this time.
25 or so years ago making concessions might have seemed reasonable, but things like the AWB have taught the NRA that concessions are worthless and that this is essentially a fight to the death. It didn’t have to be this way, but sadly the anti-gun folks have made it so. At least, that’s how the current generation of pro-gun people are seeing it these days, and frankly based on watching this fight for several decades now and seeing the slimy (IMHO) methods used to try and ban whatever the anti-gun folks think they could ban (by hook or by crook) I can see their point. Give an inch and the anti-gun crowd will take a yard and try and make it a slippery slope to gain momentum.
Or, to put this another way, how many inches are the anti-gun folks giving in DC these days? They seem to be fighting tooth and nail to NOT give an inch…so, why should the NRA, and advocacy group for gun rights be entertaining compromise at this time? Is the NAACP willing to give ground on minority rights advocacy, their core constituency? Of course not…nor should they, since that’s the whole reason for their being, to advocate for and agitate for what they believe in and what their members expect of them.
Lots of people feel that way about the NRA. It isn’t hurting their membership yet. And who says the NRA wants debate? The SAF (Second Amendment Foundation) has won many major court battles. With the RKBA, public debate at this point in history is not productive. Why debate when you can win through the courts?
Those holding an opposing opinion are not the enemy, but an opponent. Why give your opponent an inch? The lack willingness to compromise is not one sided. Gun rights advocates have compromised and debated these issues for many years, and each step of the way (up until about 25 years ago with the success of the Shall Issue laws across various states) gun rights advocates have lost ground through these compromises. If I want “X”, and you want “not X”, there is no compromise possible.