NRA turmoil creates rift among some big donors

Simon W. Moon said:

There may not have been a perceived problem, but I suspect other firearms were widely available besides just rifles.

Click to expand...

semi auto rifles became available to civilians before the military got them. Colt 1911 handguns, the state of the art military handgun until the late 70s were easily available to civilians. And after Korea, the US Government started selling hundreds of thousands of MI Garands and MI carbines to civilians through the department of Civilian Marksmanship. I have a pump shotgun my father used to win the national HS skeet championship in 44. For self defense in some environments, few weapons are better. That Model 37 is every bit as effective as modern pump shotguns like the military issue Model 500 Mossberg. Pump shotguns were popular in the USA and have been for 100 years. Thousands of skeet and trap shoots were won by the famous Winchester Model 12 and that was a primo weapon in trench warfare-as well as its predecessor the Winchester Model 1897. The Model 12 and the Ithaca 37 were extremely popular in WWII, Korea and Vietnam-often carried by "point men" in jungle patrols or for defending bases against sappers.

TurtleDude said:

when the democrats tried to hide their coddling of street criminals in the 60s, they adopted gun control as a facade to fend off charges that they were soft on crime. Gun owners were initially collateral damage in that pretext, and the NRA was the most recognized organization of gun owners and was the obvious choice to start the push back against the silliness and harassment caused by the Democrat schemes

Click to expand...

To be fair, what started the whole conversation thread was someone saying
In my memory, when people list objections to the NRA, I don't think I've ever heard any of those things listed as objectionable behavior.

Without regard to whether the changes were justified, the NRA has decided to get involved with much more than teaching gun safety, promoting safe competitions, and promoting safe public gun ranges.

It's these "new" things, particularly their lobbying efforts which draw ire.
Though I suppose the recent fiscal mismanagement allegations may trump that now.

TomFitz said:

You don’t need a lobbying organization for the gun industry to do any of that.

Click to expand...

one of the big lies of the gun banning movement is trying to demonize the NRA by pretending that it only cares about gun makers. This appeals to the socialist tilt of many gun banners who see "corporations" as bad, and corporations that make firearms even worse. Its a lie of course but that doesn't stop the gun banners because the gun banning movement is the most dishonest political movement in US politics

Simon W. Moon said:

To be fair, what started the whole conversation thread was someone saying

"...people teaching gun safety in this country.. or promoting safe competitions, or promoting safe public gun ranges so people have a safe place to shoot.
Why that's terrible for America."​

In my memory, when people list objections to the NRA, I don't think I've ever heard any of those things listed as objectionable behavior.

Without regard to whether the changes were justified, the NRA has decided to get involved with much more than teaching gun safety, promoting safe competitions, and promoting safe public gun ranges.

It's these "new" things, particularly their lobbying efforts which draw ire.
Though I suppose the recent fiscal mismanagement allegations may trump that now.

Click to expand...

if the supreme court tomorrow, ruled that federal gun control laws are unconstitutional (they are) and that the application of the second amendment to states wipes away

gun bans
magazine limits
limits on how many guns you can buy in a given period of time

and only allowed the kind of laws we had before FDR-ie laws that prevent dangerous use of guns or carrying concealed weapons without a license, then I bet the NRA would get out of the lobbying business. But the Democrats see gun control as a weapon to punish people who vote against them, and thus the NRA must do what it does

jaeger19 said:

Yep.. can't have people teaching gun safety in this country.. or promoting safe competitions, or promoting safe public gun ranges so people have a safe place to shoot.

Why that's terrible for America. :roll:

Please tell me whats "regressive".. about the above things.. or protecting peoples Constitutional rights?

Click to expand...

National Regressives' Association. Ahh isn't it just the cutest slogan you've ever seen?

zsu2357 said:

National Regressives' Association. Ahh isn't it just the cutest slogan you've ever seen?

Click to expand...

They hate the NRA far more than they hate the alleged targets of gun laws-armed criminals.

JacksinPA said:

Joe Olson was once such a passionate supporter of the National Rifle Association that he pledged to bequeath several million dollars from his estate to the gun organization upon his death.

But the steady drip of investigations and misspending allegations and a shakeup at the top ranks of the NRA compelled him to alter his will. The NRA will no longer get his money.

Click to expand...

His money his choice. Do you have a point?

Trust me when I say the NRA will not be hurt by this.

Rich2018 said:

Well 100 years ago, gun ownership was restricted to hunting rifle mainly and there wasn't a perceived problem

I'm not sure if there were any school mass shootings back then.

Click to expand...

You don't think people had guns "back then"?

You just made the very important point: it's not about the guns, it's about people who are criminals.

TurtleDude said:

They hate the NRA far more than they hate the alleged targets of gun laws-armed criminals.

Click to expand...

Of course because they can put a face on the NRA as the evil behind all gun sales and even handing them out on corners. They can't do that though with an armed criminals since they are faceless.

Rich2018 said:

Well 100 years ago, gun ownership was restricted to hunting rifle mainly and there wasn't a perceived problem

I'm not sure if there were any school mass shootings back then.

Click to expand...

Anyone could buy guns by mail (e.g. from the Sears catalog) prior to 1968.

=Rich2018;1070879785]Well 100 years ago, gun ownership was restricted to hunting rifle mainly and there wasn't a perceived problem

Click to expand...

100 years ago I don't think owning anything was perceived as as a problem. Be it a Tommy gun or BAR or M1911. Not sure where this restricted comes from.

I'm not sure if there were any school mass shootings back then.

Click to expand...

It was not unheard of just very rare. But the ones that were serious about it used dynamite.22 things you may not have known about the 1927 Bath school massacre - mlive.com

Simon W. Moon said:

Do you think that they changed from their original mission back in 1871?
If you do, then you support the assertion that there's been mission creep.

Is "mission creep" an emotionally laden term for you?

Why are you being weird about this — agreeing but implying that you disagree?

Click to expand...

Well... I stated that their mission was to protect the second amendment.. and promote the shooting sports and safety. Which has been their mission since the 1970's

You stated they had "mission creep".

I did not understand that you were going back to 1871. So yes.. if you want to go back to 1871... then yes.. the NRA has changed.

But then whats your point? You fault an organization for changing from over more than 100 years ago? Please explain.

(sounds to me like you are now trying to walk your post backwards)

jaeger19 said:

Well... I stated that their mission was to protect the second amendment.. and promote the shooting sports and safety. Which has been their mission since the 1970's
You stated they had "mission creep".
I did not understand that you were going back to 1871. So yes.. if you want to go back to 1871... then yes.. the NRA has changed.
But then whats your point? You fault an organization for changing from over more than 100 years ago? Please explain.
(sounds to me like you are now trying to walk your post backwards)

Click to expand...

You made a sarcastic comment about how various things the NRA does are not bad.
I pointed out that the things you brought up are not the things people generally object to. Imho, that makes your comment some subset of a strawman. ymmv
I also pointed out how the saddle burs for some folks all involve the more recent additions to their agendas.
Then you started a discussion of whether or not the changes to their mission were adequately described by the term "mission creep".

I didn't say that change was a fault of the organization.
Instead, my post was more about how you were avoiding the likely issues of discussion when you made your statement which focused on the non-controversial aspect of the NRA's mission.

That's really the gist of my reply to your post — you left out so many of the pertinent details that your assertion became a straw man.
You can decide that this critique of your post is a criticism of the NRA. That is your inalienable right to believe w/e the heck melts your butter. Who's to stop you, right?
All the same the scope of my comment was more limited than that. ymmv

Nickyjo said:

Their opposition to even studying gun violence, y.

Click to expand...

Well.first.. they obviously would oppose studying "gun violence"... just as the National organization of Women would oppose studying "fetal murder".. if there were right wingers in the CDC.

First of all.. guns are not violent. etc.

Secondly.. violence and firearms use.. is not a purview of the CDC... using a firearm is not a disease.. there is no medical connection there. So.. why would the CDC be studying it? It should be studied..and IS studied by law enforcement since its in the purview of law enforcement. Firearms are not a health issue.. they are a law enforcement issue and the NRA doesn't lobby against such research. Nor do they oppose such research...

their being a shill for the gun industry

Click to expand...

Except they are not. In fact.. you really don't understand who the gun industry is and what they do. There are sections of the gun industry that would LOVE to see more firearms regulations. Because it would eliminate some of their competitors. Imagine what happens when your competitors firearm is declared an "assault rifle".. and banned..?

heir opposition to regulations they once supported

Click to expand...

Well.... that's because 1. regulations went to far... 2. Many of those regulations were previously supported by a portion of members because they were directed toward minorities.
That occurred during the 1960's... and early 1970's during the civil rights movement when in response to black folks arming themselves.. laws against concealed weapons etc.. and the stop and frisk..that went along with it. A portion of the NRA.. was okay with that because it targeted minorities. Another portion of the NRA.. was worried that regulations went to far..and would affect all gun owners. That's why the NRA had a change in the 1970's. The group that was more for gun rights no matter who was affected.. sort of won the day..and they formed the lobbying arm of the NRA.

their reported opposition to regs their polled members support for starters.

Click to expand...

Yeah... that's study gets talked about a lot. But I have never met an NRA member that was for universal background checks. I would love to see how that study was done, how they decided who was "an NRA member"..and how was the questions worded.

Simon W. Moon said:

You made a sarcastic comment about how various things the NRA does are not bad.
I pointed out that the things you brought up are not the things people generally object to. Imho, that makes your comment some subset of a strawman. ymmv
I also pointed out how the saddle burs for some folks all involve the more recent additions to their agendas.
Then you started a discussion of whether or not the changes to their mission were adequately described by the term "mission creep".

I didn't say that change was a fault of the organization.
Instead, my post was more about how you were avoiding the likely issues of discussion when you made your statement which focused on the non-controversial aspect of the NRA's mission.

That's really the gist of my reply to your post — you left out so many of the pertinent details that your assertion became a straw man.
You can decide that this critique of your post is a criticism of the NRA. That is your inalienable right to believe w/e the heck melts your butter. Who's to stop you, right?
All the same the scope of my comment was more limited than that. ymmv

Click to expand...

Yeah... this is the part where you walk back your comments.

AGain… what is controversial.. about their mission? Which is gun safety..and protecting the second amendment?

The only mission creep they have had in over 100 years. is that they added lobbying to protect the second amendment. So..whats controversial about protecting the second amendment?

jaeger19 said:

Actually that's EXACTLY What it does now. The NRA is still the preeminent organization for gun safety.. training safety instructors.. supporting safe shooting sports and safe gun ranges.

Click to expand...

:lamo

jaeger19 said:

Yeah... this is the part where you walk back your comments.
AGain… what is controversial.. about their mission? Which is gun safety..and protecting the second amendment?
The only mission creep they have had in over 100 years. is that they added lobbying to protect the second amendment. So..whats controversial about protecting the second amendment?

Click to expand...

You're big on that strawman stuff.

If you are actually curious about which things people find objectionable, you can use this link:

I don't know exactly what all is on the list, but I'm pretty sure I've never heard anyone ever object to gun safety courses etc.
I have heard people make objections to the NRA's lobbying efforts though.
I think I may have mentioned that already. ymmv


Are you quite sure I'm walking back my comments?
Have you considered the possibility that you are just becoming more aware that the words I posted did not mean what you previously thought they meant?
jaq

zsu2357 said:

....not sure where this restricted comes from...

Click to expand...

The type of guns open to general supply 100 years ago...and no in 1919 it didn't include the BAR or Thompson sub machine gun

...it was not unheard of just very rare. But the ones that were serious about it used dynamite.

Click to expand...

Was dynamite available to the general public or was it banned.

Today I'm not sure but I think private individuals are banned from owning dynamite.

Rich2018 said:

The type of guns open to general supply 100 years ago...and no in 1919 it didn't include the BAR or Thompson sub machine gun

Was dynamite available to the general public or was it banned.

Today I'm not sure but I think private individuals are banned from owning dynamite.

Click to expand...

Actually, it did include the BAR and Thompson sunmachine gun. That BAR was developed in 1917 and put into production in 1918. The M1918 BAR did see some action in WW I, but only at the very end. The Thompson submachine prototypes were created in 1918 and shipped to Europe two days after WW I had ended, but would not be put into production until 1921.

The BAR would eventually be replaced by the M60 in 1957.

Private citizens are not banned from owning dynamite, or any other explosive.

Simon W. Moon said:

You're big on that strawman stuff.

If you are actually curious about which things people find objectionable, you can use this link:

things the NRA does that people don't like - Google Search​

I don't know exactly what all is on the list, but I'm pretty sure I've never heard anyone ever object to gun safety courses etc.
I have heard people make objections to the NRA's lobbying efforts though.
I think I may have mentioned that already. ymmv


Are you quite sure I'm walking back my comments?
Have you considered the possibility that you are just becoming more aware that the words I posted did not mean what you previously thought they meant?
jaq

Click to expand...

Yeah..you are walking back your comments.

And I never made a strawman argument. You however seem to be making up new arguments as you go along.

Have a nice day.

Rich2018 said:

The type of guns open to general supply 100 years ago...and no in 1919 it didn't include the BAR or Thompson sub machine gun







Was dynamite available to the general public or was it banned.

Today I'm not sure but I think private individuals are banned from owning dynamite.

Click to expand...

Private individuals are not banned from owning dynamite ..nor are they banned from owning fully functional BAR or Thompson Sub machine guns. In fact, a good friend of mine owns one. (Thompson).

jaeger19 said:

Private individuals are not banned from owning dynamite ..nor are they banned from owning fully functional BAR or Thompson Sub machine guns. In fact, a good friend of mine owns one. (Thompson).

Click to expand...

Private individuals had a hard time buying a BAR or a Thompson 100 years ago.

Could they but dynamite ?

Rich2018 said:

Private individuals had a hard time buying a BAR or a Thompson 100 years ago.

Could they but dynamite ?

Click to expand...

that is because those two weapons were not on the market then for private citizens. both were invented at the very end of the first World War and few BARs were even available with civilian sales not really appearing until the 1924 model was released. Since the Thompson was not actually on the market until 1921, no one could buy one 100 years ago.

TurtleDude said:

that is because those two weapons were not on the market then for private citizens. both were invented at the very end of the first World War and few BARs were even available with civilian sales not really appearing until the 1924 model was released. Since the Thompson was not actually on the market until 1921, no one could buy one 100 years ago.

Click to expand...

That was my point

QED

I was right.

Rich2018 said:

That was my point

QED

I was right.

Click to expand...

but your bigger point was a fail. Nice try at trying to cover up not understanding the supply of those two weapons