PDA

View Full Version : Not my writing, copied from somewhere else


CavTrooper
08-17-2007, 4:13 PM
National Rifle Association supports gun control!!!!!!!!!

When you email the ask the this question:When will they act like they care about the Second Amendment and for the people.

I got this information on another website.

http://www.nrawinningteam.com/bios01/jackson.html

NRA Supported the National Firearms Act of 1934

In fact, they've supported gun rights infringements "since...1871."

by Angel Shamaya
Founder/Executive Director
KeepAndBearArms.com

March 29, 2002

"The National Rifle Association has been in support of workable, enforceable gun control legislation since its very inception in 1871."

—NRA Executive Vice President Franklin L. Orth
NRA's American Rifleman Magazine, March 1968, P. 22

INTRODUCTION

When I recently used the term "NRA-supported" in reference to the National Firearms Act of 1934, some readers asked why I would assert such a thing. They believed NRA had no involvement in gun control politics back then. Because they and others didn't believe me, I prepared this historical record — to prove my claim and inform others.

Confronting NRA management's longstanding support of gun control is a first step toward understanding that "My NRA" of today views the Second Amendment differently than America's Founders did — and they have for a very long time.

Don't take my word for it.


KeepAndBearArms.com — The National Rifle Association has been called "the largest and oldest gun control organization in America" by more than a few gun owners. A fair amount of evidence supports their claim.

As the Gun Control Act of 1968 was nearing the President's desk, NRA was being accused by Senator Robert Kennedy (D-NY) of not supporting "any legislation to try and control the misuse of rifles and pistols in this country." Naturally, NRA needed to respond to the allegation, and they responded with great detail and unusual candor.

To deflect Senator Kennedy's assertion, NRA published an article by their magazine's Associate Editor entitled "WHERE THE NRA STANDS ON GUN LEGISLATION" — elaborating at length about NRA's longstanding support for a wide variety of gun controls that included gun and gunowner registration, waiting periods, age restrictions, licenses for carrying a firearm or having a firearm in your vehicle, increased penalties for violating gun laws, regulating ammunition and more.

Following are several telling quotes from the March 1968 American Rifleman — NRA's premier magazine, then and now — and brief analysis of a few of them. The complete article from which these quotes were taken can be found further below. Scanned images of this article are also linked below.

First, let's clear up the matter of NRA's support of NFA'34:

"The NRA supported The National Firearms Act of 1934 which taxes and requires registration of such firearms as machine guns, sawed-off rifles and sawed-off shotguns. ... NRA support of Federal gun legislation did not stop with the earlier Dodd bills. It currently backs several Senate and House bills which, through amendment, would put new teeth into the National and Federal Firearms Acts." —American Rifleman, March 1968, P. 22

Unless someone has evidence to prove that the NRA lied to its membership in its premier magazine, let the record show that the NRA got behind the first unconstitutional federal gun law in America and then bragged about having done so, many years later — decades after the law had been continually used to violate the rights of untold numbers of American citizens, including, surely, their own members.

The "Dodd" to which the above quote refers is the late Senator Thomas J. Dodd. Senator Dodd mimicked the Nazi Weapons Law of 1938, applied the underlying principles to the Gun Control Act of 1968, and took a leading role in getting the bill signed into federal law.

"The NRA supported The Federal Firearms Act of 1938, which regulates interstate and foreign commerce in firearms and pistol or revolver ammunition..." (P. 22)

The term "interstate commerce" is the BATF's fundamental justification for its firearms branch — a "color of law" excuse for the many assaults of innocent people they've conducted.

"The NRA supported the original 'Dodd Bill' to amend the Federal Firearms Act in regard to handguns when it was introduced as S.1975 in August, 1963. Among its provisions was the requirement that a purchaser submit a notarized statement to the shipper that he was over 18 and not legally disqualified from possessing a handgun." (P. 22)

That's one form of registration.

"In January, 1965, with the continued support of the NRA, Senator Dodd introduced an amended version of his first bill, now designated 5.14 and expanded to cover rifles and shotguns as well as handguns." (P. 22)

That's an extension of one form of registration to all types of guns not already under registration schemes at the time.

In order to "put new teeth into the National and Federal Firearms Acts," NRA management also pressed the federal government, in 1968, to:

"Regulate the movement of handguns in interstate and foreign commerce by:

"a. requiring a sworn statement, containing certain information, from the purchaser to the seller for the receipt of a handgun in interstate commerce;"

That's a registration list.

"b. providing for notification of local police of prospective sales;"

That's another registration mechanism.

"c. requiring an additional 7-day waiting period by the seller after receipt of acknowledgement of notification to local police;"

Wait a week to exercise your inalienable rights.

"d. prescribing a minimum age of 21 for obtaining a license to sell firearms and increasing the license fees;"

That is called Age Discrimination. In essence, in 1968, the NRA was saying "You can go die over in Vietnam for your country at age 18, but you can't sell a constitutionally protected item to your own neighbors for three more years."

"e. providing for written notification by manufacturer or dealer to carrier that a firearm is being shipped in interstate commerce;"

"Carrier" includes the U.S. Postal Service — another ripe opportunity for the federal government to collect names of gun buyers.

"f. increasing penalties for violation." (P. 22-23)

What do you think America's Founders would say about the NRA calling for "increasing penalties for violation" of unconstitutional gun laws?

At least as early as 1930, the NRA supported:

"...requir[ing] the purchaser of a pistol to give information about himself which is submitted by the seller to local police authorities..."

Historically noteworthy is the fact that the Germans were simultaneously doing the same thing, laying the groundwork for a Hitler to happen.

and

"...requir[ing] a license to carry a pistol concealed on one's person or in a vehicle..." [emphasis mine]

Ever heard of a license to carry a firearm in a vehicle? NRA has — over 70 years ago.

Not only has NRA management long supported gun owner registration, they've worked hard for it and still do. And NRA's current management still supports "penalties" for exercising your rights, which they now call "zero tolerance enforcement". (See Project Exile Condemnation Coalition and the Project Exile Archives for more information.)

"Many other instances of NRA support for worthwhile gun legislation could be quoted. But these suffice to show that Senator Kennedy's 'terrible indictment' of the NRA is groundless." (P. 23)

"Worthwhile gun legislation"?

The "terrible indictment" of NRA, as you will see in the full text below, was that NRA didn't support gun control. NRA set that matter straight with a loud thud. NRA Management still to this day supports a wide variety of ever-complex gun controls. And despite taking in hundreds of millions of dollars a year, they've still never managed a Supreme Court court victory based on the Second Amendment's historically-valid "individual right" argument. It's no wonder — their version of the Second Amendment is different than that of America's Founding Fathers.

Do notice the subtitle of NRA's 1968 article below. A "97-year record" of supporting gun control, to NRA's management, was a matter of pride. Some things never change:

"We think it's reasonable to support the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act. ... We think it's reasonable to expect full enforcement of federal firearms laws by the federal government. ... That's why we support Project Exile -- the fierce prosecution of federal gun laws...we think it's reasonable because it works. ... We only support what works and our list is proud."

—NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre
Congressional Testimony, May 27, 1999
Hearing Before 106th Congress
House of Representatives
Committee On The Judiciary
Subcommittee On Crime
First Session
(source)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NOTE: This article has been out of print for decades and is very hard to find, so we include the full text. This information is distributed free of charge, is not being used for profit and is strictly for educational purposes. Scanned images of this article can be accessed by clicking the following links: Page 22 (319K), Page 23 (275K). (In fact, if you'd like, you can see a scanned image of the color cover of the magazine where this gun control braggadocio was published.)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CavTrooper
08-17-2007, 4:14 PM
BEGIN TEXT OF PAGES 22 AND 23 OF NRA'S
AMERICAN RIFLEMAN MAGAZINE, MARCH 1968 EDITION

###

WHERE THE NRA STANDS ON GUN LEGISLATION
97-year record shows positive approach to workable gun laws

By ALAN C. WEBBER
Associate Editor
THE AMERICAN RIFLEMAN

"I think it is a terrible indictment of the National Rifle Association that they haven't supported any legislation to try and control the misuse of rifles and pistols in this country."

"The NRA supported The National Firearms Act of 1934 which taxes and requires registration of such firearms as machine guns, sawed-off rifles and sawed-off shotguns..."
—American Rifleman
March 1968, P. 22


That flat assertion was made by Senator Robert Kennedy (N.Y.), Jan. 16 in addressing the New York State University law school in Buffalo.

Terming Kennedy's accusation "a smear of a great American organization," NRA Executive Vice President Franklin L. Orth pointed out that "The National Rifle Association has been in support of workable, enforceable gun control legislation since its very inception in 1871."

A few days later, Orth seconded the request of President Lyndon Johnson, made Jan. 17 in his State of the Union message, for a curb on mail-order sales.

"The duty of Congress is clear," Orth said, "it should act now to pass legislation that will keep undesirables, including criminals, drug addicts and persons adjudged mentally irresponsible or alcoholic, or juveniles from obtaining firearms through the mails."

"The NRA supported The Federal Firearms Act of 1938, which regulates interstate and foreign commerce in firearms and pistol or revolver ammunition..."
—American Rifleman
March 1968, P. 22


The NRA position, as stated by Orth, emphasizes that the NRA has consistently supported gun legislation which it feels would penalize misuse of guns without harassing law-abiding hunters, target shooters and collectors.

Here is the record over the years:

Item: The late Karl T. Frederick, an NRA president, served for years as special consultant with the Commissioners on Uniform State Laws to frame The Uniform Firearms Act of 1930.

Adopted by Alabama, Indiana, the District of Columbia, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and Washington, the Act directly attacks the "mail order murder" to which President Johnson referred in his State of the Union Message. It specifically forbids delivery of pistols to convicts, drug addicts, habitual drunkards, incompetents, and minors under the age of 18. Other salient provisions of the Act require a license to carry a pistol concealed on one's person or in a vehicle; require the purchaser of a pistol to give information about himself which is submitted by the seller to local police authorities; specify a 48-hour time lapse between application for purchase and delivery.

Item: The NRA supported The National Firearms Act of 1934 which taxes and requires registration of such firearms as machine guns, sawed-off rifles and sawed-off shotguns.

Item: The NRA supported The Federal Firearms Act of 1938, which regulates interstate and foreign commerce in firearms and pistol or revolver ammunition, and prohibits the movement in interstate or foreign commerce of firearms and ammunition between certain persons and under certain conditions.

"NRA supported the original 'Dodd Bill' to amend the Federal Firearms Act..."

—American Rifleman
March 1968, P. 22


More recently, the spate of articles on gun legislation has spread the erroneous impression that the NRA has always opposed Senator Thomas J. Dodd's attempts to keep guns out of the hands of juveniles. This is simply untrue. The facts are these:

The NRA worked closely with the Senate Subcommittee on Juvenile Delinquency, of which Senator Dodd was chairman, in its investigation into the relationship between juvenile crime and the availability of firearms.

The NRA supported the original "Dodd Bill" to amend the Federal Firearms Act in regard to handguns when it was introduced as S.1975 in August, 1963. Among its provisions was the requirement that a purchaser submit a notarized statement to the shipper that he was over 18 and not legally disqualified from possessing a handgun.

In January, 1965, with the continued support of the NRA, Senator Dodd introduced an amended version of his first bill, now designated 5.14 and expanded to cover rifles and shotguns as well as handguns.

"Senator Kennedy's 'terrible indictment' of the NRA is groundless."
—American Rifleman
March 1968, P. 23


The parting of the ways came only when Senator Dodd introduced still another bill (S.1592) in March, 1965, which drastically intensified his earlier bills. The NRA opposed S.1592 and subsequent bills introduced by the Connecticut Senator. If passed into law, S.1592 would, among other things, have ended all interstate shipments of firearms except to persons holding a Federal firearms license. It also would have prohibited even a Federal licensee from selling a pistol to anyone residing in another State.

NRA support of Federal gun legislation did not stop with the earlier Dodd bills. It currently backs several Senate and House bills which, through amendment, would put new teeth into the National and Federal Firearms Acts. The essential provisions which the NRA supports are contained in 2 Senate bills introduced by Senator Roman L. Hruska (Nebr.) and House bills introduced by Congressmen Cecil R. King (17th fist.-Calif.) and Robert L. F. Sikes (1st Dist.Fla.). These bills would:

1. Impose a mandatory penalty for the carrying or use of a firearm, transported in interstate or foreign commerce, during the commission of certain crimes.

2. Place "destructive devices" (bombs, mines, grenades, crew-served military ordnance) under Federal regulation.

3. Prohibit any licensed manufacturer or dealer from shipping any firearm to any person in any State in violation of the laws of that state.

4. Regulate the movement of handguns in interstate and foreign commerce by:

a. requiring a sworn statement, containing certain information, from the

CONTINUED ON PAGE 23 (text below)
THE AMERICAN RIFLEMAN
(March 1968)

purchaser to the seller for the receipt of a handgun in interstate commerce;

b. providing for notification of local police of prospective sales;

c. requiring an additional 7-day waiting period by the seller after receipt of acknowledgement of notification to local police;

d. prescribing a minimum age of 21 for obtaining a license to sell firearms and increasing the license fees;

e. providing for written notification by manufacturer or dealer to carrier that a firearm is being shipped in interstate commerce;

f. increasing penalties for violation.

Through bulletins to its members, the NRA has often voiced approval and support of State and local ordinances designed to keep firearms out of the hands of undesirables. A bulletin of Feb. 20, 1964 notified Virginia members of the introduction in the Virginia House of Delegates of a bill requiring a 72-hour waiting period for purchase of a handgun. In the bulletin, which outlined the provisions of the bill, NRA Secretary Frank C. Daniel commented as follows:

"A number of States and local jurisdictions have a waiting period of varying length for the purchase of a concealable firearm; and, where intelligently and reasonably administered, it has not proved to be an undue burden on the shooter and sportsman. ... The bill from a technical point of view adequately protects citizens of good character from any arbitrary denial of their right to purchase a handgun. It should be judged on the basis of whether or not a waiting period for the purchase of a handgun is desirable for the State."

The bill was killed in the House Feb. 25, 1964.

When bills were introduced in the Illinois legislature in February, 1965, to provide mandatory penalties for crimes committed while armed with a firearm, the NRA expressed its opinion to Illinois members in these terms:

NRA Secretary Daniel

"The purpose of these bills is to penalize the criminal misuse of firearms and weapons, and not the firearms themselves. This is a sound and reasonable basis for regulation and is aimed in the right direction--that of criminal conduct when armed. Senate Bill No. 351 and House Bill No. 472 are worthy of the support of the sports-men of the State of Illinois."

The bills were passed by the Senate and House but were vetoed by Gov. Otto Kerner a few months later.

Many other instances of NRA support for worthwhile gun legislation could be quoted. But these suffice to show that Senator Kennedy's "terrible indictment" of the NRA is groundless.

###

END TEXT OF PAGES 22 AND 23 OF NRA'S
AMERICAN RIFLEMAN MAGAZINE, MARCH 1968 EDITION
_________________________

Dont Tread on Me
08-17-2007, 4:37 PM
The one thing we have going for us is a strong pro gun rights organization like the NRA.

The small groups like to spread this stuff so we send money to them. The anti gun groups spread this stuff to splinter us.

Go join your local NRA members council and see how anti gun the organization is from the inside.

jumbopanda
08-17-2007, 5:01 PM
http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/5321/awjeezyi9.jpg

hoffmang
08-17-2007, 5:01 PM
Hey Cav,

You got anything to post that isn't more than five years old and talks about events that happened this century?

Can I ask why you (in your own words) have an issue with the NRA? Are you a member?

-Gene

CavTrooper
08-17-2007, 5:14 PM
I have an issue with the NRA because they have been at the front of all firearms legislation enacted in this country, yet people still consider them the tip of the spear on 2nd Amendment issues. History plays a major part of any organization, to know where one is, you must know where one comes from.
I have been researching the NRA because I WANT to be part of an organization that supports our rights, and while there are good aspects, there are also glaring offenses. Im not one to fall for the "lesser of two evils", I belive one should stand for something or stand for nothing, am I wrong? Are my standards and morals unrealistic or offensive in some way?
I cant blindly follow something without knowing the facts, Im not a sheep, wont ever be, sorry.
Did anyone take issue with JJs comments in the vids posted recently? Did anyone bother to question the NRA on this issue? I doubt it, if you had, you would know about JJs backpedaling on the issue and the outright lies hes told trying to defend himself, yeah JJ, NRA board member, the one who wants civilian rifles limited to 5 rounds and "assault rifles" for LEOs and Military only. Thats the guy.

Dont Tread on Me
08-17-2007, 5:21 PM
I have an issue with the NRA because they have been at the front of all firearms legislation enacted in this country, yet people still consider them the tip of the spear on 2nd Amendment issues.

Have you any idea what the NRA has been doing in CA over the last few years? The NRA is not a mythical beast to me because I'm part of it. You can be too. They just want $30 member fee and then any time you have to volunteer. The NRA is not perfect, but it is a lot less imperfect when you understand the battle field it operates on and the tactics it employes.

There are four million NRA members in the country fighting for the rights that the other 40 million enjoy.

M. Sage
08-17-2007, 5:34 PM
Jesus, that stuff's older than I am. The NRA's changed a hell of a lot since 1968, man.

Heck, they've changed a lot since my dad was a member (about 20 years ago). Back then they were all about hunting. The NRA seems to be less hunting-oriented and more self-defense oriented these days.

+1 to jumbopanda's post.

CavTrooper
08-17-2007, 5:37 PM
As a firearms owner, these are the issues that are importaint to me, and what I want to know about an organazation is where they stand on these issues:

Civilian ownership of full auto weapons

Civilian ownership of suppressors/silencers.

Civilian ownership of "high capacity" ammo feeding devices.

Civilian ownership of SBRs & SBSGs.

As of now, all of these items (save for feeding devices in most states) are heavily regulated by the Federal Government with regulations that the NRA assisted in putting in place. My concern is the current stance on these issues and what is being done to restore the citizens rights to own and use these items freely. I have found nothing from the NRA that states they are opposed to regulating these items, however I have found many instances of comprimising our rights away for "the public good". Thats a big part of my beef with the NRA.

If there is new news to the contrary, please enlighten me, Id love to find it.

Fjold
08-17-2007, 6:46 PM
Name any other organization that can mobilize 1% of the pressure that the NRA does to stop bad legislation and fights in court for gun owner's.

paladin4415
08-17-2007, 7:19 PM
CavTrooper,
The second amendment has NEVER been interpreted, by ANY court to say that any citizen, can have any type of firearm they want, and take it anywhere they want. I don't think any court ever will either. Just as courts have ruled that "free speech" under the first amendment has limits, so does the second. That is just a fact that we all have to accept.
The NRA is a very different organization than it was in 1934 or 1968. It is not perfect, but it is far and away our best hope of getting good legislation passed and bad defeated.
If you are waiting to find an organization with power that thinks exactly as you do, you are in for a long wait. Join, get involved, and help protect what we have like the rest of us.
I spoke with Sandy Froman a few weeks ago. We were talking about the number of NRA members and she made a very interesting comment. She said that the reason legislators listen to Wayne is because the NRA has 4 million members. Then she asked who would be elected President if the NRA had 20 million members? She then answered, "ANYBODY WE WANT".
Think about it.

xenophobe
08-17-2007, 7:36 PM
:laugh: CavTrooper, you might have wondered why I didn't take you seriously when you joined, I certainly don't take you seriously now.

Dont Tread on Me
08-17-2007, 7:48 PM
Easy guys, Cav has strong opinions but is prepared to listen. His still good to go in my book.

Prc329
08-17-2007, 8:37 PM
If the NRA didn't work to get the legislation we have toward those items there is a good chance the law would have been so strict that no one would own these items.

Yes the NRA may not be perfect but I would hate to see what the state of firearms ownership in this country would be like if they did not exist.

EastBayRidge
08-17-2007, 8:37 PM
Let me toss in my two fortune cookies:

Politics is the art of the possible.

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

The NRA ain't perfect, but it's a damn sight better, and more effective, than anything else out there.

CALGUNS excepted, of course... :chris:

hoffmang
08-17-2007, 8:43 PM
Cav,

Are you a member and have you called the NRA in California or called or written National?

I personally was not happy with some of the positions that NRA took early in the Parker litigation and then minorly later. I can understand the difference of opinion between reasonable men - read between Gura/Levy and Holbrook etc. However, when Parker won at the appellate level and NRA made some squeeks about mooting it, I picked up the phone and made sure a few senior NRA folks understood that as an influential member, that didn't make me happy.

Funny thing happened. The listened and since this last annual meeting where my complaints and many others were heard, the NRA has been fully backing Parker/Heller.

And Cav, I have some news for you. If you don't accept CA NRA, there is no one but us Calgunners between you and the loss of all your firearms in this state. Even CPRA can be bought off.

-Gene

CavTrooper
08-18-2007, 1:22 AM
:laugh: CavTrooper, you might have wondered why I didn't take you seriously when you joined, I certainly don't take you seriously now.

Everything Ive mentioned is perfectly legal in most states provided you pay for the privledge.
You dont take me seriously, oh well, im heart broken.

I have not called the CA NRA, ive been exploring the internet, looking for statements, writings, stories, opinions and everything I can asociated with the NRA. Like I said, I like to know about something before I join, Im not going blindly follow the stink in front of me. Nobody is perfect, I understand this, but sometimes people/groups are so far from perfect they arent even OK. There are questions I would like answered before I associate with an organization, things Ive been looking for that should be easily found but for some reason are not.

Can'thavenuthingood
08-18-2007, 5:07 AM
This is the Senator that wants ALL guns banned.
This is the Senator that was astonished that the NRA got the votes to defeat her high and mightiness.

Even when President Bush said he would sign an Assault Weapons bill, they couldn't get it to his desk. Why? Who or what put the kibosh on it?
It was attached to an NRA sponsored bill and the NRA killed it.

We are the NRA.
We as individuals cannot wait for the cavalry to ride into this state and save us. We are the cavalry, we are already here, we just need to start aiming in the same direction and fire for effect.

The last line is the kicker or truth teller.

Vick
-------------------------------------------------------------------

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/06/28/MNGQK7D4RU1.DTL


NRA clout is outgunning Feinstein

Assault weapons ban renewal in doubt

Edward Epstein, Chronicle Washington Bureau (eepstein@sfchronicle.com)
Monday, June 28, 2004
http://sfgate.com/c/pictures/2004/06/28_t/mn_davisrecall_t.gif (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?f=/c/a/2004/06/28/MNGQK7D4RU1.DTL&o=0&type=printable)




(06-28) 04:00 PDT Washington -- Sen. Dianne Feinstein knows the odds are increasingly daunting as she tries to win congressional renewal of her 10-year-old assault weapons ban before it expires Sept. 13, and she warns that if the law lapses "you can expect the market to become flooded'' with such guns as AK-47s and Uzis.

The California Democrat will be home in San Francisco on Tuesday to join her colleague Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom in marking the 11th anniversary week of the 101 California St. shootings that killed eight people and left six others wounded. The shootings helped persuade Congress to pass the assault weapons ban a decade ago. A frustrated Feinstein is looking toward November's elections to produce a president and a House leadership more supportive of gun control.

"I really believe passionately in this,'' Feinstein said in an interview about her bid for the renewal. "I'm not going to give up.''
Feinstein won a momentary victory on March 2 when the Senate voted 52-47 to adopt the renewal as an amendment to a gun manufacturers' liability shield legislation backed by the National Rifle Association. But the NRA scuttled the entire bill when it told its supporters that it didn't want the liability shield, which was the industry's main legislative goal for the year, to pass with Feinstein's assault ban amendment.
Feinstein is searching for another piece of legislation to serve as a vehicle for her amendment, which bans the manufacture and sale of 19 types of semiautomatic weapons and ammunition clips of more than 10 rounds. But there are only about 20 legislative days left in Congress before Sept. 13, and even if the bill passes the Senate, the House Republican leadership has said it won't allow the renewal to come up for a floor vote.
The NRA and other elements of the powerful gun lobby say the Feinstein's assault weapons ban has been ineffective and violates what they consider Americans' Second Amendment rights to own guns. The groups have lobbied vehemently to keep the legislation from reaching the floor.

On its legislative action Web site, the NRA tells its members it is girded for action. "The stage is now set for a showdown, and you can be sure we're in for a sustained political battle over the next three months,'' it said.
During his 2000 campaign, President Bush pledged to sign a renewal of the assault weapons law, a pledge repeated since then many times by Bush spokesmen. But Feinstein and her allies blast the president for not lobbying Congress to pass the bill.
"The president has done nothing,'' Feinstein said. "His party is in control and is controlled by the gun industry.

"We need a president who doesn't want assault weapons on our streets,'' added Feinstein, who warned that after the ban ends, "you can expect more incidents'' such as the July 1, 1993, shootings at 101 California in which a gunman used two TEC-9 semiautomatic weapons on a rampage through the office tower. The guns were among those banned under the law passed narrowly the next year.

Feinstein said the percentage of assault weapons used in crimes has fallen by two-thirds since the legislation took effect. Opponents, using a separate set of statistics, say such weapons were used in 2 percent of violent crimes before 1994, a figure that has remained constant.
Robert Spitzer of the State University of New York at Cortland, who has studied gun legislation, said Feinstein can claim some success.
"There is truth in that the assault weapons ban put a partial brake on guns and that effect will be gone after Sept. 13,'' he said.

Even with the law in effect, semiautomatic weapons have been readily available since 1994 through the largely cosmetic changes manufacturers have been allowed to make to keep their guns on the market. Hundreds of types of semiautomatics remained legal.

Also, as Feinstein points out in response to critics who say she is out to seize their weapons, all pre-1994 guns are still legal.

None of the arguments matter to the rifle association. The group's executive vice president, Wayne LaPierre, told the NRA annual convention in Pittsburgh in April that once Sept. 13 comes, Feinstein's law will be history.
"I'm here to promise you that's the end of it. It's over,'' he said. "On Sept. 14, the sun will rise and it will never see the light of day again as long as we stay strong.''

On the NRA's new radio program, host Cam Edwards has told listeners that he expected Feinstein and her supporters to claim that the law's demise would mean a flood of guns, a claim he described as false.
"What you are going to hear in the media is the line that there'll be Uzis in the hands of terrorists. ... There will be an effort to paint it as an antiterrorism bill,'' he said on Thursday's program.

For Bush, the fading chances that the ban renewal will reach his desk is good news, said Richard Feldman, a lobbyist for gun manufacturers.
"It would be close to his political death if he signed it before the election,'' he said, because gun rights supporters would take it out on him at the polls, probably by staying away rather than voting for Bush's Democratic opponent, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, who voted for the ban's renewal.
"Come January, it's a different story. Then, if he's re-elected, he'd be forced to sign the bill, if he gets a clean one that just contains an extension of the existing law,'' Feldman said.

Feinstein and her allies are trying to stir up public interest in the debate, but it's hard in a political climate where the war in Iraq, the battle against terrorism and economic concerns are at center stage. "Those three issues loom large and will dwarf any others,'' Spitzer said.
In such a climate, the rifle association and other gun lobbies gain political traction because their adherents tend to be single-issue voters who can punish those in Congress who support the assault weapons ban or other gun control measures.

That's one reason that even Feinstein admitted that some House members are breathing a sigh of relief that they won't have to vote on her legislation this year, going into tough races in some closely divided districts.
But she insists she will persist.
"Right is on our side. Public opinion is on our side. It's only the sheer power of the gun lobby that stands in the way,'' Feinstein said.



//

paladin4415
08-18-2007, 8:10 AM
Just what is it that you want to know?


Nobody is perfect, I understand this, but sometimes people/groups are so far from perfect they arent even OK. There are questions I would like answered before I associate with an organization, things Ive been looking for that should be easily found but for some reason are not.

striker3
08-18-2007, 8:23 AM
CavTrooper ,

You're problem is that you are not asking any of the right questions. You are asking, what does the NRA do? What you need to ask is, What do ANY of the other organizations do? Every misstep and success of the NRA is out there, published in black and white for anyone to read and applaud or criticize. What can you find out about any of the other gun lobby groups? In my youth, I felt the same as you, I even joined a few of the other groups and stayed out of the NRA myself. That changed when I realized that a large part of the groups I joined were nothing but full of hype. Check it out for yourself, get on some of their mailing lists. Once you receive some of their stuff, compare it to the writing tactics of the Brady Campaign, et al. To me, they all sound like they are foaming at the mouth, I hate that crap. The NRA puts the facts out there and asks for support without all of the fear tactics that is normally present in the other groups.

Another thing to look at, what do ANY of those other groups do to further firearm ownership and create the next generation of activists? How many have such widespread programs to attract new shooters, arm them with the knowledge to help them to become safe and proficient, and at the same time educate them on the legal challenges faced today?

If you can find any group that can do all of that better than the NRA, please let me know, I will join them in an instant. Until then though, you can either be someone who is on the fringe of the movement, someone who is ineffective because they are alone or in to small of a group to be heard, or you can join the group with the biggest bite, the most clout and have a hand in making a difference.

You will never find an organization that is perfect and is everything you want it to be. But the next best thing is an organization that KNOWS it is not perfect, that it will make mistakes, but has the fortitude to acknowledge those mistakes, and a system in place to be changed from WITHIN.

KenpoProfessor
08-18-2007, 10:22 AM
I spoke with Sandy Froman a few weeks ago. We were talking about the number of NRA members and she made a very interesting comment. She said that the reason legislators listen to Wayne is because the NRA has 4 million members. Then she asked who would be elected President if the NRA had 20 million members? She then answered, "ANYBODY WE WANT".
Think about it.

I'm going to play devil's advocate and say this isn't a good thing either. I love my firearms but we'd still be playing with fire if this were to happen. Just imagine if the Brady's, or any other nutter left wing group, could do the same thing, not a happy thought. I like things just the way they are, to sway enough people to vote our way without sacrificing the integrity of how the system was designed. You're talking a democracy and I happen to like the Republic for which it stands.

Oh yea, I'm not a member of the NRA for exactly the same reasons as CavTrooper. I don't like all the policies they stand for so I won't give my money to them.

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

hoffmang
08-18-2007, 10:51 AM
The nature of politics is that a group as powerful as the NRA can not and does not take credit for all of the work they do to stop bad gun legislation.

A good example of this is that when the OLL fight got started, no one noticed NRA in CA DOJ's office threatening CA DOJ and keeping them honest. We all found out about it later when NRA submitted long and in depth comments on OLL issues in the failed mag fixing regulation.

NRA had the new San Francisco handgun ban scuttled, but over active "activists" messed up the deal. NRA then spent a few hundred thousand dollars making sure other CA cities couldn't ban handguns.

But they aren't an organization worth supporting :rolleyes:

-Gene