The Pennsylvania "backtrack"

Ret10Echo · 01-12-2015, 11:12

This is why I'm a member...

Quote:

Pennsylvania cities rush to repeal gun crackdowns as NRA-backed lawsuits loom....

By Cheryl K. Chumley - The Washington Times - Monday, January 12, 2015

A new law in Pennsylvania that makes it easier for gun groups like the National Rifle Association to sue cities for burdensome Second Amendment regulations has municipalities on the defense, and almost two dozen have already backed off some of their most stringent firearms rules.

Here

fred111 · 01-12-2015, 13:02

Me too. The NRA is one of the very few organizations that says what it is going to do and then does it.

Sdiver · 01-12-2015, 13:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by fred111

Me too. The NRA is one of the very few organizations that says what it is going to do and then does it.

Yep ....

They said they were going to give Harry Reid an "A" rating ... and they did.
They said they were going to give Harry Reid a huge campaign contribution ... and they did (at least $5,000.00 of members money).

http://godfatherpolitics.com/8917/th...id-re-elected/

IMO the NRA has lost its credibility. They compromise just a little bit too much on 2nd Amendment issues.

There are 27 words to the 2ne Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the last four being ... SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. I think the NRA has forgotten that.

I am no longer a member and don't think I'll ever consider being a member again.

**Pete** · 01-12-2015, 13:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sdiver

Yep ....

They said they were going to give Harry Reid an "A" rating ... and they did.
n.

It has been explained time after time on this board why they endorse candidates the way they do.

I'll try one more time with you. If they only endorsed Republicans there would be no reason for the Democrats to listen to them.

Their bottom line is - "you don't cross us and the incumbent gets the endorsement." Most Democrats will listen to that.

And I'm a life member.

Sdiver · 01-12-2015, 14:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pete

It has been explained time after time on this board why they endorse candidates the way they do.

I'll try one more time with you. If they only endorsed Republicans there would be no reason for the Democrats to listen to them.

Their bottom line is - "you don't cross us and the incumbent gets the endorsement." Most Democrats will listen to that.

And I'm a life member.

I don't think they ever actually publicly endorsed Reid. They just helped him get re-elected by giving him that "A" rating and campaign contribution and any other back room deal(s) that are associated with the world of politics.

I have absolutely no problem of a pro 2nd Amendment organization publicly endorsing a candidate who themselves is pro 2ne Amendment and believes in the words, "Shall Not Be Infringed." But I have a feeling Wayne knew exactly what he was doing in giving Reid that rating and contribution. It would then justify them being the "powerhouse" that they've become. Putting a politician that is anti 2nd Amendment into office equates to nothing more than "Job Security" for them, in my book.

In my opinion, the NRA should change their name to The Janus Group. Not for the Roman God Janus who was the god of beginnings and endings/transformations, but for being two faced in their dealings (But there's already a corporation that uses that name). Maybe they can get Harvey Dent to be their chief lobbyist (Darn, that name is protected under copyright law as well). I feel they've lost their credibility as a pro 2nd Amendment organization because of their saying one thing then doing another, such as compromising. Again, that falls under that "Shall Not Be Infringed" statement.

Sure, they may play the political game by hedging their bets. Giving money to both candidates running for the same office, and when elected hold that contribution over the winner's head, "Play ball with us ... remember, we gave you money and helped you get elected.", Hell, that's just politics. But the 2nd Amendment is nothing that should EVER be gambled with. Okay I lie, the ONLY time I'd ever throw the 2nd Amendment into a pot was when I was holding two pair .... A pair of red aces and a pair of black aces.

Yes, at one time the NRA was a great organization, but their constant compromising has left a bitter taste. They are definitely NOT my Grandfather's NRA anymore. I'm not sorry I left.

Ape Man · 01-12-2015, 16:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sdiver

Yes, at one time the NRA was a great organization, but their constant compromising has left a bitter taste. They are definitely NOT my Grandfather's NRA anymore. I'm not sorry I left.

You know, I was able to follow your argument until I got to this part. How well do you know the history of the NRA? If anything, the NRA was more willing to compromise in the past then it is now by my reading of history.

Otherwise, your give a good argument for staying out of politics altogether. There are no saints in that game.

MR2 · 01-12-2015, 16:14

I had an interesting conversation with a NRA Board of Directors member this very morning.

He's a borderline poser that had the audacity to coin me. Cultivating statements in front of witnesses and incriminating emails.

mark46th · 01-12-2015, 16:57

"They said they were going to give Harry Reid a huge campaign contribution ... and they did (at least $5,000.00 of members money)."

That's the way business is done in DC. All the major businesses donate to both sides to remain in good standing with Liberals and Conservatives. I don't like it, but I understand why...

**Peregrino** · 01-12-2015, 20:21

The NRA of my youth was only interested in protecting the rights of "sportsmen" and that didn't include anyone who believed in the 2A as a right for defense of self. And God forbid you favored anything useful to a militia. Unfortunately, remnants of that old guard continue to decry the "thugs" who dethroned them and work to restore the "lost" elitism they stridently promoted for most of the NRA's history. The NRA is still not where I wish they were but I'm a lot happier with them now than I ever have been before. I too disagree with some of the political decisions they make but on the whole, they've been more effective (nationally) than any other pro-firearms organization I'm aware of.

Ret10Echo · 01-12-2015, 21:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

The NRA isn't perfect, but it has done a lot to protect gun rights and continues to do so. And it used to be a lot more willing to compromise than as of late, because the leadership recognized that "compromise" meant continually giving up on gun rights.

I'm with you Broadsword. We go to war with the "army" we have. NRA-ILA does much where there are few others working.

Yes flawed, but without their efforts, I would suggest that things would be much, much worse. If memory serves me correctly, there was NRA involvement when the Colorado laws were first enacted.

SF_BHT · 01-12-2015, 22:12

Still a member and would just like it if they would quit spamming me with mail asking for money.... I get 2 or more pieces of mail from the a week.

futureSOF · 01-22-2015, 13:23

There was a big push by a lot of local/state organizations to get the preemption statutes amended

Trapper John · 01-23-2015, 12:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by SF_BHT

Still a member and would just like it if they would quit spamming me with mail asking for money.... I get 2 or more pieces of mail from the a week.

I'm with you on that one. I get phone calls at least 2-3 a month offering me deals on a lifetime membership. I just explain that I have a 5-year membership and that at my age that could be a lifetime.