I did not hear the interview but last I heard the NRA did not promote assault rifle carry. Assault weapons, yes.
What is it you think someone could do with an “assault weapon” that they could not do with a carbine hunting weapon?
Looking scary doesn’t make a gun more dangerous.
Amen, sister. The “assault weapon” ban was little more than political theater, and banned cosmetic attributes of firearms, ratehr than on any serious look at whether they were dangerous. Ah well.
I would also point out to the OP that Fast-and-Furious was carried out by the government, fuilling out all the right forms. That they did something which at a bare minimum is incredibly stupid, not to mention deeply immoral and flagrantly illegal, really doesn’t suggest we need better gun control laws.
If we have to pass laws to keep the ATF and the Justice department from handing weaponry over to murderous gangs smuggling drugs into the United States… then we’d be better served passing laws to ban the ATF and the Justice department!
The NRA no more “had to take a side” than your local rod and gun club is being forced to start a PAC to make campaign contributions and lobby for better wildlife protection policies. The NRA no more “had to take a side” than the American Automobile Association “has to” grade politicians on how well they support the US automakers.
The NRA chose to become a political machine; nobody forced them to do it.
True - they could have let their sport be slowly destroyed by the misguided anti-gun fervor that kicked off in the 60s, and kept on coming back after that. Instead, the members realized that they were in the perfect position with a pre-existing brand and organization to start lobbying for the maintenance and protection of existing rights that were under attack.
Saying that a federal law enforcement agency is populated by “jack-booted thugs” with permission to “murder law-abiding citizens” is defense of a sport? Is that really the word you choose to defend the NRA’s special interest activism, as defense of a “sport?”
I’d have more respect for that argument if you argued they were defending a political view or an idealized, rugged-individualistic view of the United States. But to call their lobbying efforts as being in the name of a sport is ludicrous.
To be clear, I have no question about the NRA acting as an intense lobbying group. Though I think in many (but not all) cases their position is too far, my understanding of their stance stems from an analogous view of encroachments on the First Amendment—limitations should only be considered in extremely rare circumstances.** Joebuck20’s** link gives an excellent overview of their move into lobbying.
Also, I have no significant support for Fast and Furious operation. When I said the NRA was “attacking [Democrats] because they’re democrats, not because of reasoned policy” I was not referring to the reasonableness of FaF. There are plenty of rational arguments why it was bad policy and illustrates poor decision-making.
Rather, ‘reasoned’ referred to the NRA crossing the line into batshit territory by claiming that FaF was conceived of as an attempt to make it easier to take away gun rights. That and other contorted positions are not reasoned policy differences, but reactionary claims based solely on the political affiliation of the administration. It’s about as transparently partisan as Rush claiming Obama was sending the military after good Christians (the Lords Resistance Army fiasco).
Again, it’s clear why the NRA is a vociferous advocate for gun rights.
What’s not clear is * when* they crossed so deeply into knee-jerk reactionary partisan advocacy.
It’s not only disappointing that the NRA would delve into anti-Obama conspiracy nonsense, it’s also bad strategy. People may disagree about how best to regulate firearms, but gun ownership has bipartisan support. The clash is between the NRA’s core supporters, who I imagine are mainly rural and suburban dwelling white people, and urban dwellers. Law abiding citizens living outside of the city don’t want to put up with what they consider to be arbitrary and ineffective regulations, that they shouldn’t be burdened by the nanny state when they’re not the ones causing gun problems. Conversely, people who live in cities don’t want a bunch of guns floating around, easily acquired by any nut who wants one, so the NRA’s rabid partisanship on this issue comes across as callous and ignorant.
The reason I think it’s bad strategy to so blatantly appeal to the nutty wing of the Right is that we’re starting to see a shift out of the suburbs and back into the urban centers. If you’re going to live in the city, you’re probably going to want some sensible gun regulation. What kind of regulations are acceptable? The Supreme Court didn’t offer much help in answering that question, and the NRA are no help at all.
It’s not just in the name of a sport, and I wouldn’t describe it that way. God, the NRA is misunderstood around here. It might as well be the KKK, the way people talk about it. Why don’t you actually read the NRA’s own website or magazine first?
Would you also advise us to ignore the rantings of it’s own Executive Vice President(hearkening back to the OP)?
I was a member for about three years before the “jackbooted thugs” fundraiser letter was issued. George HW Bush and I cancelled our memberships around the same time. (I, however, was not a lifetime member.)
So if you’re telling me, a one-time NRA donor, that I’m not familiar wit hthe NRA, you’re barking up the wrong tree.
Second time: It’s not partisan.
Ignoring the political side of this issue, for a second. What possible reason would there be to do this ? Is it just me or does this make, like, zero sense ?
Sticking by the candidate with the record, rather than a candidate who is making promises. Makes perfect sense to me.
Incumbents have more seniority, meaning they also have more power. All things being equal, an incumbent gun-rights Democrat is better for their purposes than a freshman gun-rights Republican. It’s a question of practicality over ideology.
Yeah, supporting incumbents is something that I think all advocacy organizations tend to do. I don’t pay attention to gun rights issues, but I’ve seen the same thing in gay rights groups, which I do pay attention to. I was a bit annoyed that Mass Equality stuck with my previous state senator, Dianne Wilkerson, who was obviously corrupt (the final proof, in the form of FBI footage of her shoving cash bribes into her bra, didn’t come until a little later, after she’d lost the primary) over a challenger who was just as much of a champion of the same causes. But that’s just how these things work. Also, it probably helps keep the incumbents voting for your cause if they can count on your support the next time around.
I take your point, but technically, abolishing those agencies doesn’t really lessen abuse by those who use power corruptly, it just turns their expression of power into new & slippery forms.
The Gun Control Act 1968 was a gamechanger for the NRA. Previous leaderships had stuck mostly to training for marksmanship, hunting lands preservation, gun safety and organising competitions. After that the perception began to arise that “if we don’t start becoming a lobbying organisation, there won’t be any guns left to compete with.”
Is that perception based on reality in any way? Has there ever been gun control legislation aimed specifically at guns that were primarily or only used for legitimate sporting/hunting purposes?
This is a serious question, I really don’t know. AFAICT much of the fervor of the NRA and gun-rights activists has to do with high-powered hand guns, assault rifles, and issues like concealed carry permits that have fuck-all to do with the sporting/hunting. But I’m prepared to be proven wrong. The previous responses in this thread by guns-rights posters are not a good start in that regard though.
There certainly has here in England. Of course counter-factuals are difficult to argue one way or another, given the lack of some sort of time machine.
What’s a “high-powered hand gun”? What’s an “assault rifle”? What, exactly, do you think people ought not be allowed to hunt with?
Regardless, NRA perceives that it has an interest in preventing any pointless law which constrains Americans to no legitimate or necessary purpose. You may disagree about what, exactly, is legitimate or necessary. That does not mean they don’t have a clear and very sharp point. Gun control laws have not historically been targeted at actual problems, and have not actually had measurable effects on actual problems.
Perhaps so, but my intent is to point out that passing stricter laws on the people who didn’t break it isn’t a very effective measure, and should like to see the people who did this punished, probably all the way to and including Eric Holder. I have my own doubts that the ATF is really necessary anymore, though that’s somewhat of a side issue.