There are a couple of things to consider here. On the one hand, the term "assault weapon" (and even the proper historical term "assault rifle") is silly, since any rifle that's suited for offensive use can be just as easily used for defense. Obviously it depends on the circumstances and the intent of the user.
Having said that, many of these so-called "semi-auto assault weapons" essentially ARE military weapons, the only difference being the lack of an auto or burst feature. This difference, though based on unconstitutional and illegitimate law, is of little to no practical importance in a lightweight, shoulder-fired rifle. Well-trained soldiers almost always stick to semi fire even when auto or burst is an option. And favored police weapons (like the Colt LE6920) and even some modern military rifles (like the Mk12 SPR and the Army's SAM-R) are semi-auto only. The lack of a "fun switch" on these weapons doesn't change them into range toys. They are perfectly suited for fighting (assuming the weapon is made by a good manufacturer, like Colt, LMT, Bravo Company, etc.).
So in a sense, the antis are RIGHT about our ARs, FALs, etc., being combat weapons. If they weren't, then I wouldn't bother to own mine. Where the antis are wrong is in thinking that civilians shouldn't own them. Any weapon, ammo, or gear available for police use should also be available to any citizen of good moral character.
They created and then banned a class of weapons. YUUUUP! So why admit this now? Because SCOTUS admitted that government CANNOT ban classes of weapons!
Now, they are going to put all resources into "regulation". Interestingly, that leads right into your next article down page. The new gun control Schtick is going to MATCH the NRA line - "trained, permitted people only".
The NRA is reaping what it's sowed. It's gun control message is now adopted by the heavy handed "former" outright banners. How can the NRA now oppose the very messages they have delivered for many decades? They CANT!
Indeed, the banners have accepted that their best course of action is to join the NRA above board, support ITS version of gun control and con the Fudds into continuing to support "that" gun control.
Here, the NYT admits what happened in 2008 without admitting that they ignored it all this time. Others are doing so as well. And what will they adopt going forward? Why the NRA gun control of course.
I for one look forward to the NRA being exposed on this front. It's about damn time. The NYT admission here is meant to hide the exposition of the NRA. NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.
"Indeed, the banners have accepted that their best course of action is to join the NRA above board, support ITS version of gun control and con the Fudds into continuing to support "that" gun control."
So.....
Anyone think it's time to flood the board with Threepers?
We claim that 3% of America's gun owners are ready to defend the 2A come what may. Does it follow that 3% of NRA members are so inclined? Why and/or why not?
Published numbers on NRA board elections seem to indicate that if 3% of NRA's membership were Threepers, and they acted as such, they would swamp the elections with pro 2A candidates and put them on the board, perhaps in big enough numbers to control the organization. Why isn't that happening? Are the 3% serious about defending the 2A or not? As David Codrea says: "any chair in a bar fight." I think the 4 million member NRA would be a pretty big chair. And who knows how many members it would have if it showed the kind of pro 2A muscle we wish it would.
Question is..... does the 3% really exist, and does it have the stones to pull off a takeover of the NRA?
I'll submit that most of those who would consider themselves threepers have long ago left the stench of NRA shehannigans. This in part at least explains why the NRA neverendingly touts it's growth in new members yet there's only a handful of millions at any given time.
I submit that new folks come in, fired up and ready to be part of the fight - only to be browbeaten by the elite controllers within and turn away from it despite the good stuff the NRA actually still does do ( teaching youngsters the ropes as example).
Much like the GOPe has functioned more to turn voters away by compromising core principles, the NRA has turned people away too.
Is the NRA salvageable? Possibly but I think far too much credibility has been exterminated because of its own chosen actions. Heck, even today there is no attempt to atone for past actions. When threeper minded folks call the sofas a spade, NRA members do not seek forgiveness.... Instead they try to shoot the messenger for daring to tell the truth. Hey, it even adopted the Eric holder excuse about underlings being responsible for foolish stories being told.
Then there is the competition factor. Why try to "reform" the very organization that ushered in so much gun control under the guise of "it coulda been worse" and "compromise" and back room deals that only truly saw both ends against the middle tactics rather than call the duck the duck that it is and just fock to a organization that doesn't carry the baggage?
For crying out loud the NRA just went NEUTRAL on the creation of carry permit structure where none existed AND courts had already ordered the outright ban struck down! Why concede and make "deals" when you already hold the winning hand? That tells me that the NRA of today DOESNT WANT TO WIN - they just want to keep their bread buttered.
Decade after decade the NRA collected people's money. And it Negotiated Rights Away and that's culminated with the current FIASCO called state preemption. For crying out loud - the NRA sues to gain incorporation under the 14th so the Second is held AGAINST the states AT THE SAME TIME pushing a policy of empowering state governments with EXACTLY what the 14th says states CANNOT HAVE!!!
It's reached the height of idiocy. To me, that all makes the NRA a lost cause. As the "majors" now abandon their long held gun control positions in the extreme, they seek to replace those positions with the more "moderate" ( supposedly) positions. The long time ANTI gunners are and will now adopt the NRA "moderate" positions - state level control, permission slips, "training" requirements, no select fire, background checks etc etc etc.
Couldn't happen to a nicer back stabber.... Karma is a bitch sometimes and truth hurts sometimes. This is indeed one of those times. Fact is - the NRA supports government control over a fundamental enumerated right. That's something NO threeper could OR would support.
"Is the NRA salvageable? Possibly but I think far too much credibility has been exterminated because of its own chosen actions."
Congress still believes the NRA has clout. The press still refers to the NRA as the gun lobby. I'll wager many of them have never heard of GOA.
I agree with you that NRA has lost clout with many bona fide 2A supporters. But it is precisely those hard core 2A supporters who could mobilize and drastically change the NRA into something it claims to be, we wish it was, but isn't close to being: a truly powerful and effective force defending The Second Amendment.
"Fred" in his Shotgun News column points out that if we were totally committed to winning the "soft war", the hard war would probably never be need to be fought. Make no mistake about it. If the civil war that Mike thinks is just around the corner happens, whether we win or lose, large parts of our society will be changed forever, and not necessarily for the good.
Is what you're saying is that we shouldn't try every option to making the other side back off before the shooting starts?
Are you saying it's not worth your time and money to try?
In my not so humble opinion, speaking as an NRA Endowment Member, Wayne LaPierre has been allowed to regard NRA as his own personal play toy for far too long. It's past time someone took it away from him. And I believe Life Member David Codrea would agree with that statement. What is needed is a few thousand Threepers to join in and do what it takes to make that happen.
If we give it our best shot and can't pull it off, we're out some time and some bucks. Still way cheaper than a civil war.
7 comments:
Sounds about right. It took a gang of New Yorkers 30 years to learn what anyone south of the Mason Dixon line knew at birth.
Marxist, criminal bastards one and all.
There are a couple of things to consider here. On the one hand, the term "assault weapon" (and even the proper historical term "assault rifle") is silly, since any rifle that's suited for offensive use can be just as easily used for defense. Obviously it depends on the circumstances and the intent of the user.
Having said that, many of these so-called "semi-auto assault weapons" essentially ARE military weapons, the only difference being the lack of an auto or burst feature. This difference, though based on unconstitutional and illegitimate law, is of little to no practical importance in a lightweight, shoulder-fired rifle. Well-trained soldiers almost always stick to semi fire even when auto or burst is an option. And favored police weapons (like the Colt LE6920) and even some modern military rifles (like the Mk12 SPR and the Army's SAM-R) are semi-auto only. The lack of a "fun switch" on these weapons doesn't change them into range toys. They are perfectly suited for fighting (assuming the weapon is made by a good manufacturer, like Colt, LMT, Bravo Company, etc.).
So in a sense, the antis are RIGHT about our ARs, FALs, etc., being combat weapons. If they weren't, then I wouldn't bother to own mine. Where the antis are wrong is in thinking that civilians shouldn't own them. Any weapon, ammo, or gear available for police use should also be available to any citizen of good moral character.
They created and then banned a class of weapons. YUUUUP!
So why admit this now?
Because SCOTUS admitted that government CANNOT ban classes of weapons!
Now, they are going to put all resources into "regulation".
Interestingly, that leads right into your next article down page. The new gun control Schtick is going to MATCH the NRA line - "trained, permitted people only".
The NRA is reaping what it's sowed. It's gun control message is now adopted by the heavy handed "former" outright banners. How can the NRA now oppose the very messages they have delivered for many decades? They CANT!
Indeed, the banners have accepted that their best course of action is to join the NRA above board, support ITS version of gun control and con the Fudds into continuing to support "that" gun control.
Here, the NYT admits what happened in 2008 without admitting that they ignored it all this time. Others are doing so as well. And what will they adopt going forward? Why the NRA gun control of course.
I for one look forward to the NRA being exposed on this front. It's about damn time. The NYT admission here is meant to hide the exposition of the NRA. NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.
"Indeed, the banners have accepted that their best course of action is to join the NRA above board, support ITS version of gun control and con the Fudds into continuing to support "that" gun control."
So.....
Anyone think it's time to flood the board with Threepers?
We claim that 3% of America's gun owners are ready to defend the 2A come what may. Does it follow that 3% of NRA members are so inclined? Why and/or why not?
Published numbers on NRA board elections seem to indicate that if 3% of NRA's membership were Threepers, and they acted as such, they would swamp the elections with pro 2A candidates and put them on the board, perhaps in big enough numbers to control the organization. Why isn't that happening? Are the 3% serious about defending the 2A or not? As David Codrea says: "any chair in a bar fight." I think the 4 million member NRA would be a pretty big chair. And who knows how many members it would have if it showed the kind of pro 2A muscle we wish it would.
Question is..... does the 3% really exist, and does it have the stones to pull off a takeover of the NRA?
I'll submit that most of those who would consider themselves threepers have long ago left the stench of NRA shehannigans. This in part at least explains why the NRA neverendingly touts it's growth in new members yet there's only a handful of millions at any given time.
I submit that new folks come in, fired up and ready to be part of the fight - only to be browbeaten by the elite controllers within and turn away from it despite the good stuff the NRA actually still does do ( teaching youngsters the ropes as example).
Much like the GOPe has functioned more to turn voters away by compromising core principles, the NRA has turned people away too.
Is the NRA salvageable? Possibly but I think far too much credibility has been exterminated because of its own chosen actions. Heck, even today there is no attempt to atone for past actions. When threeper minded folks call the sofas a spade, NRA members do not seek forgiveness.... Instead they try to shoot the messenger for daring to tell the truth. Hey, it even adopted the Eric holder excuse about underlings being responsible for foolish stories being told.
Then there is the competition factor. Why try to "reform" the very organization that ushered in so much gun control under the guise of "it coulda been worse" and "compromise" and back room deals that only truly saw both ends against the middle tactics rather than call the duck the duck that it is and just fock to a organization that doesn't carry the baggage?
For crying out loud the NRA just went NEUTRAL on the creation of carry permit structure where none existed AND courts had already ordered the outright ban struck down! Why concede and make "deals" when you already hold the winning hand? That tells me that the NRA of today DOESNT WANT TO WIN - they just want to keep their bread buttered.
Decade after decade the NRA collected people's money. And it Negotiated Rights Away and that's culminated with the current FIASCO called state preemption. For crying out loud - the NRA sues to gain incorporation under the 14th so the Second is held AGAINST the states AT THE SAME TIME pushing a policy of empowering state governments with EXACTLY what the 14th says states CANNOT HAVE!!!
It's reached the height of idiocy. To me, that all makes the NRA a lost cause. As the "majors" now abandon their long held gun control positions in the extreme, they seek to replace those positions with the more "moderate" ( supposedly) positions. The long time ANTI gunners are and will now adopt the NRA "moderate" positions - state level control, permission slips, "training" requirements, no select fire, background checks etc etc etc.
Couldn't happen to a nicer back stabber....
Karma is a bitch sometimes and truth hurts sometimes. This is indeed one of those times.
Fact is - the NRA supports government control over a fundamental enumerated right. That's something NO threeper could OR would support.
"Is the NRA salvageable? Possibly but I think far too much credibility has been exterminated because of its own chosen actions."
Congress still believes the NRA has clout. The press still refers to the NRA as the gun lobby. I'll wager many of them have never heard of GOA.
I agree with you that NRA has lost clout with many bona fide 2A supporters. But it is precisely those hard core 2A supporters who could mobilize and drastically change the NRA into something it claims to be, we wish it was, but isn't close to being: a truly powerful and effective force defending The Second Amendment.
"Fred" in his Shotgun News column points out that if we were totally committed to winning the "soft war", the hard war would probably never be need to be fought. Make no mistake about it. If the civil war that Mike thinks is just around the corner happens, whether we win or lose, large parts of our society will be changed forever, and not necessarily for the good.
Is what you're saying is that we shouldn't try every option to making the other side back off before the shooting starts?
Are you saying it's not worth your time and money to try?
In my not so humble opinion, speaking as an NRA Endowment Member, Wayne LaPierre has been allowed to regard NRA as his own personal play toy for far too long. It's past time someone took it away from him. And I believe Life Member David Codrea would agree with that statement. What is needed is a few thousand Threepers to join in and do what it takes to make that happen.
If we give it our best shot and can't pull it off, we're out some time and some bucks. Still way cheaper than a civil war.
They are trying to recover some of their long-ago squandered credibility with such admissions. It won't work.
Post a Comment