So let me get this straight, if the NRA is unsuccessful in stopping ANY part of this mess then they "fucked us"?Quote:
Originally Posted by asmotao
So you're telling me that every failure or mistake you've ever made was a cold and calculated underhanded scheme to fuck yourself?
There is zero reason why any piece of AWB legislation should be passed. If, for instance, the NRA does its normal dance of "Okay we will give in to this; but everything else is off the table" with something like "high-capacity" magazines then yes they have 'fucked us'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zundfolge
Not quite. If I hire someone and they continually and repeatedly do not do what I ask -- or go out of their way to harm me or my business -- then I fire them and get someone else. Granted, if they do an 80% job 80% of the time - I will keep them around while I shop for someone new. But please remember that the last incarnation of the NRA has been fairly anti-black rifle and only pro-sportsman. They actively tried to sabotage Heller and had to be dragged into MacDonald kicking and screaming the whole way. While I believe they have made some changes in 'recent' years - once bitten, twice shy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zundfolge
Also, don't attribute to malice what can also be explained by ignorance (or laziness).
WTF do you get this BS about the NRA trying to sabotage Heller?
Statement from Chris W. Cox Regarding Universal Background Checks
I refuse to use Facebook, but I certainly hope RMGO retracts their earlier statement. It would be appreciated if they would get the straight answer from the NRA before they post vitriolic claims like this.Quote:
An article appearing on TheHill.com today asserted that Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) is working on a bill with the NRA that would implement universal background checks.
NRA does NOT support universal background checks and is not working with Manchin to implement this type of legislation. NRA opposes, and will continue to oppose, universal background checks and registration schemes.
I have recently become an RMGO member and they're on probation with me. I received an email today from RMGO asking for my support. If you want my support, you'd better get a handle on this kind of behavior damn fast.
Not BS in any way... Here is a snippet from Wikipedia on the issue (there is more --- soooooo much more -- if you ever care to look. Read the filings and motions if you want to really see how bad the NRA tried to fuck things up)Quote:
Originally Posted by Aloha_Shooter
National Rifle Association
Attorney Alan Gura, in a 2003 filing, used the term "sham litigation" to describe the NRA's attempts to have Parker (aka Heller) consolidated with its own case challenging the D.C. law. Gura also stated that "the NRA was adamant about not wanting the Supreme Court to hear the case".[51] These concerns were based on NRA lawyers' assessment that the justices at the time the case was filed might reach an unfavorable decision.[52] Cato Institute senior fellow Robert Levy, co-counsel to the Parker plaintiffs, has stated that the Parker plaintiffs "faced repeated attempts by the NRA to derail the litigation."[53] He also stated that "The N.R.A.’s interference in this process set us back and almost killed the case. It was a very acrimonious relationship."[6]
Wayne LaPierre, the NRA's chief executive officer, confirmed the NRA's misgivings. "There was a real dispute on our side among the constitutional scholars about whether there was a majority of justices on the Supreme Court who would support the Constitution as written," Mr. LaPierre said. Both Levy and LaPierre said the NRA and Mr. Levy's team were now on good terms.[6]
The NRA didn't even file an amicus brief until all the hard work was done - and that Heller was an, all but, assured victory.
If you ever have an opportunity to talk with Alan Gura about it I highly recommend it.
Unfortunately most folks fail to understand understand how a negotiation works.
A truly successful negotiation requires that both sides come to the table and both sides give a little in order to make a deal happen.
In the event that a negotiation is unsuccessful both parties walk away empty handed. The emptyhandedness often results in someone losing far more than they were willing to or wanting to give up.
Here is the situation for the NRA and us pro gunners. The NRA is dealing with legislators who want to strip us of our second amendment rights. These people do not want to compromise, they do not not give a shit about the second amendment,their only goal is to disarm us or provide us with their definition of the second amendment which will allow us to own black powder fired muskets since that was the weapon available to those who wrote the second amendment.
As the NRA you have 2 options.
Option 1: You negotiate with your opponent to achieve an outcome that may not be perfect but it is far better than what your opponent is proposing. Let's say in this case it is something along the lines of Universal background checks for all firearm purchases and a restriction on magazines that restricts magazines to 10 rounds but grandfathers in all previously manufactured magazines prior to the restriction.
Option 2: You tell your opponent to fuck off and there will be no compromise.
With option 1 both sides could be considered winners and both sides could be considered losers. It just depends on your outlook.
With option 2 there are a LOT of possible outcomes. I'll list the most likely. The NRA goes back to congress and tells congress to tell the senate, the dem's and the majority of the people who represent the USA to go fuck themselves. Congress shoots down everything that comes their way and tells the pro gunners they are defending the constitution and will continue to defend the constitution at all costs. The MSM will run massive spin campaigns and portray everyone who is pro gun as a heartless monster(if you think it's bad now just wait), the super PAC's will come in and DESTROY every republican candidate because they will portray every Republican as a heartless, callus person who chooses to protect the rights of a few crazy gun owners over the lives of innocent children and innocent families who have had their lives completely destroyed by guns.
Thankfully I do not work for the NRA and I am not an elected official because there will be NO winners in this battle.
This might be pertinent to the situation:
Attachment 20097
We need to all work together.. but I don't think Dudley/RMGO believes that. The recent Eastern Sports and Outdoors Show mess shows what "we" the community can do when we are united.
Wikipedia. 'Nuff said about that. Of course they wanted to be sure a key Second Amendment case didn't go forward until the SCOTUS was friendly, that is a far cry from "sabotage". In 2003, Rehnquist was Chief Justice and he didn't exactly have a track record of being friendly to the Second Amendment. A 5-4 decision the other way had Rehnquist been able to hear it would have been disastrous. The NRA was extremely positive and did a lot to push Heller once the SCOTUS was friendlier and we got the right decision in 2008.
Have you read the underlying references to the Wiki? Anybody can write a Wiki entry and add whatever bias they have. There are two and some times more sides to the story. At least one of the sourced documents is not available but most are simply regurgitating Gura.
This is from Reference 6 in the above posting;
Quote:
Mr. Levy and his colleagues, Alan Gura and Clark M. Neily III, have worked hard to make what they say are modest claims. They said they were inspired by the work ofThurgood Marshall, who masterminded the litigation campaign against racially segregated schools.
“We didn’t want to be going to the court with a radical case,” Mr. Levy said. “All we are asking is to let law-abiding residents of the District of Columbia possess functional firearms to defend themselves where they live and sleep.”
Mr. Levy, who said he is “not particularly interested in guns,” pursued the case to vindicate his libertarian principles.
“Free markets,” he said, ticking off his basic beliefs. “Private property. Individual rights. And most of all, strictly limited government in accordance with the constitutional structure the framers established.”
The road to the Supreme Court has been a bumpy one, Mr. Levy said, thanks mostly to the National Rifle Association.
“The N.R.A.’s interference in this process set us back and almost killed the case,” he said. “It was a very acrimonious relationship.”
“Their thinking was,” Mr. Levy said, “‘good case, might win in the appellate court but it could be a problem if it reaches the Supreme Court.’”
Wayne LaPierre, the N.R.A.’s chief executive officer, largely confirmed that characterization. “There was a real dispute on our side among the constitutional scholars about whether there was a majority of justices on the Supreme Court who would support the Constitution as written,” Mr. LaPierre said.
Both men said the N.R.A. and Mr. Levy’s team were now on good terms.
If you have yourself a lexis-nexis account go do the legal research yourself or go talk to the folks about it.. They are all really good/nice people and very open about what happened -- it was a long and painful 10+ years. Examples of the sabotage included the NRA filing lawsuits AGAINST the Parker/Heller defendants for all sorts of made up bullshit in an effort to intimidate them and drain their legal funds. In one of the circuit cases the NRA negotiated with the other side on how to undermine the Parker/Heller case... Again, its all there - its all public.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aloha_Shooter
The NRA didn't want it go to the SCOTUS period. Ever. The NRA likes to deal at state levels because it creates enough of a fury that they can sabre rattle and get money -- without ever worrying about loosing or winning big. Its like playing blackjack at the 2 dollar tables.
Now saying all of this - please remember I am a benefactor member and routinely give the ILA money. I am not saying the NRA is evil and horrible - I am just saying they need to back up all that rhetoric that they have been spewing for soooo long with some real fricking action. That 'action' is defending the 2A completely -- not eroding it little by little. The incremental death by a thousand cuts is still death.