Time to drain the NRA Swamp?

[jamil]

In all fairness, i think he implies a distinction between fudds and all hunters. I’ve always understood that ”fudd” refers to the subset of hunters who don’t really care about the 2nd amendment as long as they get to keep hunting guns.

I couldn’t really say how big this group is, or that it only consists of hunters. I imagine there may be other types of gun owners who aren’t all that committed to protecting everyone’s rights as long as there aren’t infringements for how they like to use their guns. But it’s a non-zero number of them.

Do they really control the NRA? I don’t know. Maybe. I’m not happy about the NRA’s support fornthis bumpstock ban. And I’m not happy about Trump doing this. All you guys who acted like he’s just playing 4d chess are hopefully seeing that’s a fantasy. It’s most obvious that this is the outcome Trump wants, and the NRA wants.

 

[jamil]

Oh YA?
I bet they get a hat.





I don't even have a hat.....

I think I got a hat and a cheep ass range bag.

 

[worddoer]

So, hunters are the bad guys?

Are the anti's the only narrow minds out there?

Use the word Fudd and people berate you for name calling. Try to use something that is not a derogatory term like "hunting class" and people berate you for not using Fudd.

Seems like people are looking for an excuse to be offended nowadays....even here on INGO.

Use whatever word you like, there is a group of gun owners out there that is willing to negotiate our rights away.....as long as they get to keep whatever is important to them. I believe that very group is larger than the broad 2nd amendment supporters and that group is the one in power in the NRA at this time and will be for some time in the future.

This is only my opinion, but I don't see things getting better nationally. Right now should have been the time for restoring rights...not losing more of them.

If you do not believe just like the "We want it all and we want it now" folk you are a Fudd now. Sounds very progressive.

I am not for a bump stock ban. I am for removing the infringement of tax stamps. I am for constitutional carry. I would love to see the repeal of the Hughes Amendment.

There is only one way to accomplish that in one fell swoop. That is is a revolution where only the pure are allowed to live. One of the pure even suggested earlier that he would start this, if only he had enough backing.

He found INGO is not the place to get this backing.

The pure have no use for us Fudds, so why do they stay here?

Please quote my post where I said "we want it all and we want it now". At the very least, we should be holding ground, but we are not. We are losing ground. So wanting to keep our current rights and not lose more rights is the same exact thing as "we want it all and we want it now?"

Please quote where I suggested or even hinted that we need a "revolution where only the pure are allowed to live". Are you saying that if we hold the position that we should at least be able to keep the rights we had before this additional ban was forced on us, that is the same as wanting to kill everyone that is not "pure"?

I find it revealing that between bwframe and blue falcon I have been called a narrow minded progressive for wanting to keep the rights we have now and not losing more rights. That for some reason they believe that wanting to keep the rights we have now is synonymous with being a narrow minded progressive. Revealing.....

 

[Clay Pigeon]

NRA pushed the 1986 machinegun manufaction ban through and now this

That's not what I recall happening... But RIF....

 

[Fallschirmjaeger]

That's not what I recall happening... But RIF....

Correct. The NRA backed the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act, which eased a lot of the garbage in the 1968 Gun Control Act. Unfortunately, a Democrat (maybe Charles Rangel) inserted an amendment at the last minute to the Act that he deemed passed by voice vote without a roll call, even though it sounded like the amendment failed. The NRA did not support that amendment. But maybe one of our resident historians has more detail on that.

 

[thompal]

Sorry to see this so late but does anyone specifically what anti gun things they have done in the past 3 years?

I haven't had anything to do with the NRA since the 90s, and don't pay a bit of attention to what they do. In the early 90s, all they cared about was $10,000 Benelli shotguns and NRA sanctioned competitions, which is why they threw us under the bus on the "sporting use" requirements of the Clinton Crime Bill gun and magazine bans. Ruger took the opportunity to pile on, and also supported the bans as long as Ruger firearms weren't affected. So, they can both go pound sand as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Clay Pigeon]

I haven't had anything to do with the NRA since the 90s, and don't pay a bit of attention to what they do. In the early 90s, all they cared about was $10,000 Benelli shotguns and NRA sanctioned competitions, which is why they threw us under the bus on the "sporting use" requirements of the Clinton Crime Bill gun and magazine bans. Ruger took the opportunity to pile on, and also supported the bans as long as Ruger firearms weren't affected. So, they can both go pound sand as far as I'm concerned.

You need to go and read again about what was going on back then, and here's a little info about Bill Ruger. He was always against 15 rounds and higher capacity magazines for the general public, that's why the mini 14 was only available the public from the factory with 5 round mags and LE was given high capacity mags. Notice the changes within the Ruger Corp that started a few short years after Bill passed away.

 

[Trapper Jim]

Recently, after reading this thread and the bump stock thread, I realized that many gun owners are not 2nd amendment supporters. There are a lot of people who have said in other threads they don't mind bump stocks and full autos being banned. According to these people, nobody "needs" those guns and they are "stupid". Those same people are also defending the NRA in other threads. They are entitled to that opinion, but I find it revealing.

The "hunting class", or Fudd's as some call them, are running the NRA. That 800lb gorilla that everyone keeps talking about is not a pro 2nd amendment gorilla, but a "hunting class" gorilla. Keep that in mind and you will understand what the gorilla does or does not do.

This is my opinion and totally subjective, but it seems to me the "hunting class" outnumber the 2nd amendment supporters by a fairly significant margin. We are outnumbered. Although the younger generations seem to be falling more on the 2nd amendment side rather than the "hunting class" side, I don't think their numbers will be large enough and come on board quick enough to save us.

The "hunting class" does not mind giving up 2nd amendment rights as long as it does not affect them. And since they are the ones with the majority of influence and power at this time, it is inevitable that they will "negotiate" our rights away.

When those who are willing to gain at the expense of others outnumber those with higher principals, our system of government will fail.

Has anyone ever listed the labels in the gun culture?

I saw this somewhere but don't know all the meanings.

Sportsmen
FUDD
Tactical Timmy
Paranoia Patrick
Death Merchants (industry) (retail)
Collectors
Posers
Military
Police
Criminals
Billy Bob

 

[thompal]

Who says they've backed off? They still have a joint statement on their website supporting the ban on bump-stock and similar accessories...


https://home.nra.org/joint-statement

Of course the NRA supports the ban. They're going back to their "sporting purpose" standard which says that they will defend (big-dollar engraved shotguns, and competition firearms) and what they won't defend (anything else).

 

[thompal]

Apparently it's time to upgrade my NRA life membership again since I'm almost done paying for all my kids life memberships.
I don't get much money but I donate what I can because my family and guns are worth it. All those "Other" organizations are great to have around (I guess) but how come the NRA is the only group that goes to battle for our rights when something major happens.

Do they really BATTLE for our rights though? I've seen them REPEATEDLY support "common sense gun legislation" as long as they get the government to exempt "sporting arms." If the NRA is all-powerful, how did we end up with rifle bans, magazine bans, waiting periods, federal gun-free zones, along with GCA68, NFA, etc? Where was their amicus brief in the Miller case? They will gleefully compromise our rights. They are the Neville Chamberlain of the gun rights war.

 

[KellyinAvon]

Do they really BATTLE for our rights though? I've seen them REPEATEDLY support "common sense gun legislation" as long as they get the government to exempt "sporting arms." If the NRA is all-powerful, how did we end up with rifle bans, magazine bans, waiting periods, federal gun-free zones, along with GCA68, NFA, etc? Where was their amicus brief in the Miller case? They will gleefully compromise our rights. They are the Neville Chamberlain of the gun rights war.

Miller was 1939. Come on, man.

 

[2A_Tom]

NRA ILA's weak statement.
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20181221/nra-statement-on-bump-fire-stock-rule

 

[thompal]

Ahhh.
There it is. If there is anything I've learned here on INGO is that if you are not pure enough, you are not worthy.

Is that really what this is all about? Libertarian Purity?

No. Small "l", not capital "L." They are not the same thing! Just like you wouldn't say that just because someone is a Republican they have republican values.

 

[2A_Tom]

Do they really BATTLE for our rights though? I've seen them REPEATEDLY support "common sense gun legislation" as long as they get the government to exempt "sporting arms." If the NRA is all-powerful, how did we end up with rifle bans, magazine bans, waiting periods, federal gun-free zones, along with GCA68, NFA, etc? Where was their amicus brief in the Miller case? They will gleefully compromise our rights. They are the Neville Chamberlain of the gun rights war.

Miller was 1939. Come on, man.

And NFA was 1934 and had it not been foe NRA Fudds handguns would be NFA items.

 

[Clay Pigeon]

Do they really BATTLE for our rights though? I've seen them REPEATEDLY support "common sense gun legislation" as long as they get the government to exempt "sporting arms." If the NRA is all-powerful, how did we end up with rifle bans, magazine bans, waiting periods, federal gun-free zones, along with GCA68, NFA, etc? Where was their amicus brief in the Miller case? They will gleefully compromise our rights. They are the Neville Chamberlain of the gun rights war.

Let's start with the NRA was not involved in legislative action until 1975 so in essence they haven't been at it that long, without the NRA millions would not have attended there classes that are available, state and national shoots most likely would not be held or scored nationality. The NRA is so much more than filing law suits and buying drinks on Capitol Hill.
Just imagine that no insurance companies offered range and club insurance? NRA offers not only that but grants to help clubs upgrade there range facilitys.
NRA is so much more than most think, and I just touched on a few things they do.
They are by far the best place to give your money to that is involved with the 2nd Amendment.

 

[thompal]

The key is Vote. Don't vote for (or at least vote against) anti-gun Democrats. Don't throw your vote away on someone that has no chance of winning.

So, which is it? Vote for someone you think will win? Or vote for a pro-gun candidate? If you don't think the pro-gun candidate stands a chance of winning, who do you vote for?

 

[thompal]

You know how all those celebrities say to destroy the GOA? Ah my bad that's the NRA they want to destroy because the NRA is relevant and the GOA is not.

Or maybe it's because they want all of the pro-gunners to support the NRA in response, knowing that the NRA will also compromise to support "common sense gun control."

 

[2A_Tom]

The point is that in the current system there are only two partied in national elections, I am surprised you do not understand this.

There are some pie in the sky folk that believe that voting for third parties is better than voting for the better rated candidate that actually has a 50 -50 chance of winning.

Do you really believe that about celebrities or are you just posing an argument?

 

[Dead Duck]

Do they really BATTLE for our rights though? I've seen them REPEATEDLY support "common sense gun legislation" as long as they get the government to exempt "sporting arms." If the NRA is all-powerful, how did we end up with rifle bans, magazine bans, waiting periods, federal gun-free zones, along with GCA68, NFA, etc? Where was their amicus brief in the Miller case? They will gleefully compromise our rights. They are the Neville Chamberlain of the gun rights war.

Yes!
Yes they do but it doesn't come cheap.
Here - This is how you can help too and remember to tell all your friends.

https://donate.nra.org/donate

 

[KLB]

NRA ILA's weak statement.
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20181221/nra-statement-on-bump-fire-stock-rule

It actually is pretty weak. Basically they say they are pushing for amnesty for those that already own them.

The last paragraph has the obligatory fear mongering too.

While there can be disagreement on legislative strategy, it’s important to remember that we will soon face a hostile, anti-gun Congress led by Nancy Pelosi. It’s critical that all gun owners unite and prevent the Bloomberg-bought Congress from dismantling our Second Amendment freedom.

I didn't realize that the House could pass laws on their own now.

That is the thing that has always turned me off about the GOA too. They are even worse with the fear mongering and hyperbole than the NRA.