Anyone else see the RMGO post on FB about the NRA being a sell out?

Here is the context if you didn't:

Rocky Mountain Gun Owners - Official Page



The NRA is preparing to sell gun owners out! Read this story. Despite their public rhetoric, they're working back-room deals to pass a "universal background check" system. This only ends in one place, folks -- a national gun registry. SHARE this with your friends. Call your Congressman and Senators Udall/Bennet today and tell them to OPPOSE any new restrictions on our right to keep and bear arms.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...#ixzz2IvDhCfOL

Read the linked article. NRA states they do not want the NICS expanded to private sale. We'll have to wait and see exactly what legislation is intorduced and who supports it.

Mike

I read it and that is what I got out of it as well. I didn't see anything about them selling gun owners out

I guess I must be blind as well, pretty much said that they were on our side of the issue through and through, and from what I gathered, the only thing they might support is gun show sales having a BGC like they do here.

Just cause they are meeting with the guy wriitng a bill doesn't mean the necessarrily support it, they could have been in there telling him no F'n way.

I'll submit to background checks -- *IF* they require the same background checks to be done on every person before they are able to vote.

Every vote a new background check.

Shit like this is why I stopped listening to or paying attention to RMGO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aloha_Shooter

Shit like this is why I stopped listening to or paying attention to RMGO.

---

I am not far behind you.

The anti NRA stuff is the main reason I've never become a member of RMGO or GOA. I can see some of their points (the NRA isn't perfect and there have been a couple times they compromised with the antis more than I think they should have), but we need unity, not division and while the NRA isn't always 100% right I still see them actually getting more done than RMGO or GOA.

Again, I don't expect RMGO to champion NRA, but often it seems like the RMGO and GOA are more interested in throwing mud at the NRA than actually defending our Second Amendment rights (much like the Libertarian Party is more interested in throwing mud at the GOP than fighting the DNC).

At any rate, I still see RMGO and GOA as my "friend" (in the sense that we're on the same side) and I certainly support the work they do fighting the antis, but I'm just unconvinced that joining either is going to help.

This is NOT the time for the various gun groups to tear each other down. The anti-gun community would like nothing more.

Thanks a lot Dudley.....NOT!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zundfolge

The anti NRA stuff is the main reason I've never become a member of RMGO or GOA. I can see some of their points (the NRA isn't perfect and there have been a couple times they compromised with the antis more than I think they should have), but we need unity, not division and while the NRA isn't always 100% right I still see them actually getting more done than RMGO or GOA.

Again, I don't expect RMGO to champion NRA, but often it seems like the RMGO and GOA are more interested in throwing mud at the NRA than actually defending our Second Amendment rights (much like the Libertarian Party is more interested in throwing mud at the GOP than fighting the DNC).

At any rate, I still see RMGO and GOA as my "friend" (in the sense that we're on the same side) and I certainly support the work they do fighting the antis, but I'm just unconvinced that joining either is going to help.

---

I'm starting to see this as well, I look at it this way.

1. RMGO is losing out on membership by slinging the mud at NRA, Evidence? ^^^
2. I'm an RMGO member more in that it's a more local org, and they have a better presence in the state and at the state level, as frankly the NRA is working their end more at the federal level. (yeah I know about local NRA-ILA chapters)
3. On the state/local level I donate to RMGO and NRA-ILA to get "double coverage".
4. On the federal level RMGO doesn't have the stick that the NRA has to swing so that's why I look to their actions on the state/local level.
5. The non NRA groups are starting to give me the impression that they are jealous of the big fish and are taking pot shots at them because of poorly written articles and jumping to conclusions and it's not helping the cause.

To be fair I don't know Dudley, he's a fellow gun nut so he's probably an ok guy that I'd enjoy having a few beers with.

I think he just gets caught up in trying to differentiate himself and his organization from the NRA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hatidua

This is NOT the time for the various gun groups to tear each other down. The anti-gun community would like nothing more.

Thanks a lot Dudley.....NOT!

---

I agree. Dumb move Dud. Way to show the anti's how easily we can be divided! What a Croc!

So the nra has never hung us out to dry over back door deals before?

I believe the NRA has at times agreed to support legislation they didn't like but considered less dangerous than alternatives but "hung us out to dry"? No, I don't believe that -- certainly not the extent portrayed by RMGO and GOA. Please note I am NOT telling you to drop RMGO or GOA if you're members or supporters. I simply consider Dudley's over-the-top rhetoric counterproductive and it lost MY support.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trlcavscout

So the nra has never hung us out to dry over back door deals before?

---

Did they "hang us out to dry over back door deals" or did they just not get everything they wanted in deals with recalcitrant Democrats?

If you always go around demanding "All or Nothing", you end up getting "Nothing" a lot. That's not an excuse for caving too easily (and maybe that's what the NRA did in the situations you're thinking about) but you can't expect the NRA to win 100% of the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trlcavscout

So the nra has never hung us out to dry over back door deals before?

---

That was nearly 20 years ago... keep that in mind. It appears they're a little more steadfast this time around, and it would seem that they're a totally different organization now. I'll err on the side of caution, but their latest track record over the past couple months have led me to believe we can place more faith in them than 1994.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronin13

That was nearly 20 years ago... keep that in mind. It appears they're a little more steadfast this time around, and it would seem that they're a totally different organization now. I'll err on the side of caution, but their latest track record over the past couple months have led me to believe we can place more faith in them than 1994.

---

WTF are you talking about Ronin? The NRA fought the AWB pretty damned hard and used its passage to defeat a lot of the Democrats who were responsible for that POS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aloha_Shooter

Shit like this is why I stopped listening to or paying attention to RMGO.

---

I can see that. The NRA has made some mistakes, and it appears that they've learned a lot from them.
...and now is not the time for Pro 2A groups to be flinging poop at one another.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gman

I can see that. The NRA has made some mistakes, and it appears that they've learned a lot from them..

---

I actually believe this will be a real litmus test for the 'new' NRA. They got their arse handed to them by their members after the first AWB -- and there was a concentrated effort to make the duck hunters go the fuck away. It didn't wildly succeed -- but there a few people on the board now with some common sense and a love for black rifles. Its no where near a majority and there are a whole bunch of them that care more about their Company's bottom line than your rights as an individual.

If the NRA fucks us on this -- and I define fucks us as ANY new restrictions on gun/magazine ownership in ANY way -- I pray that there will be a massive exodus from the NRA membership. It wouldn't be good for us, as a whole bunch of splinter groups would pop up - and we would loose any notion of a combined voice. But I'd have a smaller few speak the truth than a large majority of liars.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hatidua

This is NOT the time for the various gun groups to tear each other down. The anti-gun community would like nothing more.

Thanks a lot Dudley.....NOT!

---

I joined RMGO several weeks back as I think every single pro-2A group needs to be supported right now. If they pull this kind of stunt, they'll never see another penny of my money. LISTENING DUDLEY?????

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asmotao

If the NRA fucks us on this -- and I define fucks us as ANY new restrictions on gun/magazine ownership in ANY way -- I pray that there will be a massive exodus from the NRA membership.

---

So let me get this straight, if the NRA is unsuccessful in stopping ANY part of this mess then they "fucked us"?

So you're telling me that every failure or mistake you've ever made was a cold and calculated underhanded scheme to fuck yourself?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zundfolge

So let me get this straight, if the NRA is unsuccessful in stopping ANY part of this mess then they "fucked us"?

---

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

So you're telling me that every failure or mistake you've ever made was a cold and calculated underhanded scheme to fuck yourself?

---

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.

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

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 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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aloha_Shooter

WTF do you get this BS about the NRA trying to sabotage Heller?

---

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)

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aloha_Shooter

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.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gman

Have you read the underlying references to the Wiki?

---

More times than you could possibly imagine -- not only those, but the actual filings in the cases as well. Again, this is well known and very public knowledge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slapps74

I think that this quote from that Feinstein should be of more concern because its what I think they are up to,

"No weapon is taken from anyone,” said Feinstein. “The purpose is to dry up the supply of these weapons



Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/2...#ixzz2IxGGLGW8

---

Wrong thread. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt.

Yea just found that one. Removed it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aloha_Shooter

WTF are you talking about Ronin? The NRA fought the AWB pretty damned hard and used its passage to defeat a lot of the Democrats who were responsible for that POS.

---

True- but they still allowed some "compromise." By comparison, today the NRA has stated that they will not support nor allow any new legislation. Compromise is done with. That's what I was getting at.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronin13

True- but they still allowed some "compromise." By comparison, today the NRA has stated that they will not support nor allow any new legislation. Compromise is done with. That's what I was getting at.

---

Ronin, you don't get it -- and you're not the only one. The Democrats were passing a ban in 1994 come hell or high water. I'm just happy the 10 year sunset clause got inserted or we'd still be under the damned thing. The NRA fought the bill as hard as they could and it still passed through so the NRA did the next best thing, they defeated a lot of the a-holes that voted for it. They're fighting Feinstein's latest POS as hard as they can and they have used the 1994 election results to try to keep Democrats in check (for the most part, successfully until this year).

Yeah, they didn't want weak cases to go to a SCOTUS they weren't sure about because a loss there is HUGE but they supported Heller and used that result to push other cases but they are not omnipotent and every loss isn't because they stabbed us in the back.

I am going to be in the minority on this board, but we as gun owners really don't know how to pick our fights.

I do not have a problem with strengthening the background check system. Personally, I would really like to use a state background check on a private sale especially if no FFL was involved. I do a pretty thorough background check every time I lease my rental property.

Lets face it, there are nut jobs out there who should not own firearms among other things. There is a certain amount of due diligence we should exercise to keep our firearms out of their hands. Yes, they will get what they need, but it shouldn't come from us!

Our focus in this fight should be about the banning of firearms not the universal background check system. Actually, I am for strengthening it. I was absolutely pissed at Dudley and his antics toward Governor Owens and I get pretty agitated when he blasts people in the primary only to lose the general election. I will be really really pissed if he and others like him screw this up!

Anyhow, I said my peace.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MED

I do not have a problem with strengthening the background check system. Personally, I would really like to use a state background check on a private sale especially if no FFL was involved. I do a pretty thorough background check every time I lease my rental property.

---

That's because you still own the asset. When you sell an asset, you sever any responsibility for what the new owner does with it.

There's no parallel here.

Sent from my tactical android.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gman

That's because you still own the asset. When you sell an asset, you sever any responsibility for what the new owner does with it.

There's no parallel here.

Sent from my tactical android.

---

Only that I do care about what happens when it leaves my possession. In all my actions that have consequences, (I don't think to myself...not my problem so I don't give a shit) Its more about due diligence.

The last time I leased my house, I caught a potential person that was convicted for fraud. ...so, this only matters if I have something to lose?

If I were selling one of my firearms to somebody that was stopped by a felony history or mental health hold, I find that valuable whether it was my problem or not. My wife's X husband was convicted for beating her and menacing with a firearm. Would you want to be the guy who supplied him with a firearm to do worse? I agree that any person intent on doing harm will do harm, but I do not want to be the person to enable it.

If you have a problem selling a firearm to an individual, don't do it. Your problem is solved. At some point you have to mind your own business.