Quote:
Originally Posted by Brock_Manson
John,
They were right to speak against HR 822 for numerous reasons. Maybe you should call them and ask them why they did that? It *has* be amended. Point of fact, their claims have -- despite what the NRA says -- already proven true. The bill has already been amended and it isn't even out of committee in a Republican-controlled House. Imagine what happens when it gets to Harry Reid's Senate.
Do I know the Senate won't approve the UN's proposed Treaty? How do I know that? Remember who controls the Senate (referenced above).
And by "stick with the NRA and GOA" do you mean the same NRA and GOA that are fundraising off of, you guessed it, the UN Small Arms Treaty? I know for a fact that Wayne Lapierre has spoken about that subject on the world's stage more than once and they are cranking out emails regarding the subject. So if you claim that NAGR is using "scare tactics" regarding the UN, then you better point that criticism at the other two groups instead of advocating for them.
Or do you mean the NRA that compromised on the 1934 Act? Or the 1968 GCA? Or the "Assault Weapons" ban in 1994? Or the NRA that has rated politicians with "A's" who have consistently voted against the Second Amendment? Do I hear Harry Reid's name, anyone? No? How about the current governor of Montana, who just vetoed Constitutional Carry there despite his "A" rating from the NRA? Or, better yet, how about endorsing 13 of Nancy Pelosi's "most protected" Congressman in the 2010 elections? Is that the NRA you're talking about?
I'm guessing that, after reading that paragraph, most of you are either completely unaware of those facts or are mad because you think I'm lying or being arrogant. If the latter is the case, do your research. If it's the former, don't listen to the people who tell you that the NRA is looking out for your best interest.
Brock Manson
A Voice
|
Hi, Brock -
For the record, I'm neither unaware nor mad. I have no illusions about the omnipotence of the NRA, but this discussion is more about the NAGR, which is a newcomer on the stage.
My understanding is that 60 Senators (some of both parties) have already written to Obama indicating they would never vote for the U.N. Arms Treaty if contains anything abrogating 2nd Amendment rights. In other words, it will be dead on arrival. I believe this to be true, and building up hysteria over the treaty, whether by the NAGR or the NRA, simply to get more funding, is not warranted at this time. It bears watching, of course. But I doubt that the treaty will be accepted by our legislators. NAGR is also bleating about Carolyn McCarthy's gun-ban proposals, which will never see the light of day outside of committee.
So far, amendments to the CC reciprocity bill have been positive (pro-gun) ones. The NRA is cautioning about any other amendments, and the co-sponsors are vehement about not modifying it further. There are enough pro-gun people in Congress to vote down any anti-gun amendments. There are a number of issues to be worked out; hopefully this will be done with a view towards reasonableness that makes sense to all of us who carry concealed. The main problem that I see is that such a bill will never be signed into law until after the next national election, if you get my drift.
You are right - the NRA, GOA or any of the other gun lobbyists are not perfect. I've often taken the NRA to task on a number of issues. However, it's the thousand-pound gorilla in Congress, and I've never regretted sending them money from time to time when I think they are making sense. My only point is that NAGR seems to be only a money-making scheme for its founders, and so far I am not impressed with them.
Hope this explains my thinking more thoroughly - we're on the same side, and infighting among pro-gun people strikes me as very counterproductive. I'd like to think that also applies to pro-gun groups. Huddling and strategizing together in a spirit of cooperation would make more sense. We have a common enemy in the hoplophobic gun-grabbers, and we need to concentrate on defeating their agendas.
John