For an example see Marco Rubio's 2A position both pre and post Las Vegas. There's one...
This point reminded me of Marco Rubio going to that Parkland town hall meeting just a week after the shooting. Once that father got in his face and repeatedly asked "were guns the factor?", Rubio wilted and said "of course they were". That was a huge gift to the opposition, and there was no reason for Rubio to give it to them. He should have known better than to put himself in that position. Likewise, the NRA should have remained silent or at a minimum placed blame where it belonged. Their statement was categorically wrong in that it placed some of the blame for the Vegas massacre on an inanimate object instead of the criminal who committed it. Both the NRA and Rubio did harm to our cause by voluntarily moving that goalpost.
I'm so sick of hearing "but, how much worse would it be if Hillary had won" as an excuse for poor performance by Trump!!! Don't get me wrong, I voted for him because Hillary was worse.......but I'm NOT going to give him a pass for bad decisions just because Hillary would have been worse! Yes, it probably would have been worse......but I fail to see how that justifies the NRA leadership releasing a public statement IN SUPPORT of a ban on bumpstocks and red flag laws!!
I'm not criticizing the NRA leadership for losing a battle......I'm criticizing them for surrendering before the battle started, and, worse than that, for aiding and abetting the enemy by releasing a statement that provides ammunition for the other side!!
With the huge amount of influence the other organizations have I'm surprised you don't already have the proof you seek.
I'm not the one that believes the propaganda in the original post.....why would I look for proof of something I don't believe is true?? Unlike you, I didn't drink the NRA koolaid!!
Now, your turn.......answer the questions I posed to you!!
In the previous post your wanted proof...now you don't want it?
If there were another organization that rivaled the NRA the leftists would be bitching about them. You don't hear them bitching about other orgs because they are nobody in the grand scheme of things. SAF does good things in the courts but they don't have any pull at the federal level, GOA doesn't appear to either.
Do you happen to be a member of NAGR?
You should quit kidding yourself and others, the left hates and I mean hates the NRA. That should tell you all you need to know about the NRA and the people who undermine them.
Is this an answer to a question, or just a random non sequitur? @Buzzgun wanted to see proof of Liptak's assertion that both houses of Congress were on the verge of passing gun control legislation when the NRA released their bump stock statement. That assertion is a key point of Liptak's defense of the NRA's stance regarding bump stocks following Vegas and Parkland, and I agree that there is absolutely no proof of that. "The other organizations" you refer to were not referenced by Buzzgun, but they definitely didn't go out of their way to ask for the .gov to further regulate a piece of plastic.
Now you're taking two unrelated responses from different posts and twisting them in order to point out an inconsistency that doesn't exist. Aside from that, nobody is arguing that the NRA is the biggest dog in the fight; but I'd prefer it if they stuck to biting the opposition. The problem is that the NRA will occasionally and for no conceivable reason give the left ammo to use against us. If one of the smaller organizations did that it would hurt, but not as badly since they don't have the power of the NRA.
Also, like I said earlier in the thread, the NRA can't have it both ways. If they had enough power to prevent any new legislation or regulation after Sandy Hook, when Dems controlled the Senate and WH, then they definitely had enough to do the same after Vegas and Parkland when the GOP controlled both houses of Congress and the WH. Except that somehow they didn't. To be fair, I don't question the motives of the NRA, except to the extent that whatever they do is with an eye towards fundraising (they're much like politicians in that respect); I think they merely made a miscalculation of epic proportions. After seeing the ATF under Obama rule consistently that bump stocks were legal, I think they assumed that the same would happen under Trump. They guessed wrong, but I don't think they really cared either way. Had everything returned to the status quo ante, they could take credit and raise money off of their success. If ATF imposed new regulation, like they subsequently did, the NRA could howl about the evils of unchecked regulation and raise money off of their failure.
We need the NRA in the fight. What we don't need is for them to play strategic games that backfire like this one did. They need to draw a line and then crush anyone on either side of the aisle who tries to venture past it. If they can't, at the very least they can minimize the friendly fire.
Pardon the pedantry for a moment, but the NRA engages in very limited lobbying. As explained at https://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2018/03/08/ask-the-taxgirl-is-the-nra-a-charity/, it's a 501(c)4 (yes, 4; tax-exempt, but your donations are not tax-deductible) organization, which can do very limited lobbying. The work the NRA does in that capacity is related to its educational and public safety mission.
There are two other organizations, the NRA Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) and NRA Political Victory Fund (NRA-PVF) that are explicitly political, and are not tax-exempt (there's also the NRA Foundation, which is a 501(c)3). If you follow the subtleties, I don't see anything whatsoever wrong or hypocritical with supporting the NRA's educational mission (including participating as an instructor) while criticizing it's turncoat behavior in the political arena.
(Yeah, I know, leave it to the lawyer to get technical, but I think it was important, especially as the NRA proper is bar-none the leading authority on gun safety, and for good reason. I happen to think that's worth keeping.)
I wanted proof and then didn't want proof????......try to keep up.....
Your words:
"I think the whole point of this article was to illustrate that when gun control is going to be inevitably passed"
"How are they to stop legislation that will inevitably be passed?"
"So if the house and senate already have the votes for gun control legislation the NRA can still stop it?"
Apparently, you accept Liptak's statement that the votes were there to pass gun control measures that would be more damaging than a bump stock ban........I do not assume that is true and asked " Again, who said the votes were there?? Where is the proof of that???"
Then you wrote:
"With the huge amount of influence the other organizations have I'm surprised you don't already have the proof you seek."
My response: "why would I look for proof of something I don't believe is true??"
and now you say "In the previous post your wanted proof...now you don't want it?".......not sure where that came from??? I don't necessarily believe the votes were there just because Liptak said they were.
Had to look up NAGR......no, I'm not a member......don't know anything about them.
As far as NRA being our only hope??? Well, if the NRA ship is headed for an iceberg, I think I'd rather be in one of the smaller boats that isn't being steered by idiots like Wayne and Chris.
