Who The NRA Really Speaks For

Plus the NRA is very quick to point out Illegal gun ownership.
But this disgusting MSM is too busy trying to smear and demonize anyone
or group that they can't control.The very fact that the democrats have no control
whatsoever over the NRA is a World Class selling point.

 

Most of not all.otherwise they would not be members.

Also with the exception of background checks most Americans agree with the NRAs positions.

It was not an article quote in the op it was an op ed

- - - Updated - - -

Completely unsupported and nonsensical assertion from the ignorant

 

74% of NRA members supported requiring a background check system for all gun sales (source). Also,older Americans are more likely to be in favor of background checks; my guess is it's because they come from a more sensible, less polarized time.

"Masters"? "Communists"? So much conspiracy. Steal beams don't melt.

You lost me at "sheeple".

I supported it in the previous page. I supported it above. Don't fear the truth.

 

You've got background checks right now. Maybe if we would use NICS, and fund NICS, and start actually using a reliable system we would have something that works.

But no, since NICS doesn't work, liberals want to push something even more complicated and expensive. How does this make sense when you can't make something much simpler (NICS) work reliably?

 

Background checks aren't being enforced. Dylann Roof obtained his guns due to lax background checks that would have denied him a purchase.

 

That's what I just said.

The anti-gun crowd now wants UBC style background checks, and they can't even get NICS to function.

How about identifying and fixing the flaws in the current system before moving onto something much more expensive, complicated, and where we have examples of the "tried and didn't work" variety?

 

No, what the NRA stands for is profit off of gun deaths. The more people that are killed by guns, the more people buy guns for protection, the more money they stuff in their pockets. It's that simple.

 

The background check was fine. That part of the system worked--it checked the background on record. What didn't work was that the data about his drug use/arrest wasn't entered in the system, and from what I've read about it, there was some mistake due to crossed jurisdictions.

 

Umm, and how would this change if there were "universal background checks"?

- - - Updated - - -

And..uh...how will UBC's change that?

 

The NRA doesn't make or sell guns but then stupid comments are par for the course for the hysterical gun grabbers.

 

I took a video of Obama talking and replaced all his drivel with the sound of "buy a gun - CHA CHING". He's the best salesman EVER.

 

That's the kind of nonsense spouted by lefties all the time. Did you read that in Salon? He got his gun because the background check showed no reason for which he could be denied. The government failed to enter the information that would have been the basis for denial into the NICS. It was the fault of bureaucrats not doing their jobs, not the NICS which worked like it was supposed to. A "lax" background check implies the checkers just kind of waved him through. Reality is the government didn't do its job.

 

To my own twisted way of thinking, a real gun crazy would not belong to the NRA or any other gun organization. Although some have purchased their guns legitimately and have subsequently gone crazy, most would no longer buy their guns legitimately or subject themselves to a background check. Gun crazies don't want to be on mailing or computerized lists. They buy their guns and ammo magazines at Circle K with cash. No subscriptions.

 

And these are the people that liberals think can keep them safe at night without being armed.

 

The NRA speaks for me. I am a gun owner, gun collector. I have many guns including full autos. It is my RIGHT under the Second Amendment to own them, fire them and come on here and brag about how many I have and how much fun I have with them.

If you bleeding heart cry baby liberal progressives do not believe in that, it is your opinion and you are most certainly entitled to it. I spent six years of my life, serving in two branches of the US military, defending your right to say what you want about this issue and for you to be wrong as hell about it.

Dream all you want, pray every night to whatever god you worship, but the NRA will NEVER go away, it is growing and getting larger and the Second Amendment will not go away either and more and more Americans are buying guns at record rates.

Matter of fact, I must log off now and check the classifieds on the M14 forum. I need another one of those Springfield Armory M1A's for my collection. Wish me luck.

 

No you did not actually and the facts prove you wrong

 

Felons usually get caught AFTER the fact, not before. The point is that felons have an easy access to firearms, to purchase firearms, to own firearms, which is the whole bloody (pun not intended) point. That means just because it is illegal does not mean that it is impossible, or hard, to obtain those firearms. UBC's can make it harder for those felons to obtain, or at least attempt, to purchase that firearm without going through a bloody background check.

 

The first two articles do not mention anything where they are getting their gun specifically other than "a robust black market." The first article states the drug cartels are obtaining military grade weapons from Central America. The United States is one of the top suppliers or military weapons to Central America.

The second article mentions the AK 47, a fine weapon and a hell of a lot better than the venerable M16. That being said, we do not know who is supplying that firearm. And that is the major problem.

The Stratfor article basically said that the 90% coming from the United States is a myth. That is partially true just as it is also partially true about the 90%. That 90% only refers to the 4000 or so firearms that can actually be traced. The remaining amount have no information whatsoever for various reasons whatsoever. However, because serial numbers are not there or the numbers have been filed off, one can only speculate.

None of the articles refute the fact that certain gun manufacturers are importing firearms into Mexico for nefarious purposes and they certainly do not want any criminal probe to investigate the reasons why they do this. That is why they pay the NRA.

 

The paper trail. That paper trail from the point the gun is sold by the manufacturer to the ultimate end consumer to the secondary sell to another consumer. That is how.

- - - Updated - - -

No one is talking about taking your guns away. In fact, if you have a FFL, I would guarantee you have had the background check that was very extensive and conducted by the ATF. Although that level of background checks is not what we are talking about, the point is that you went through a background check in order to obtain those fully automatic firearms legally.

 

Where do you read this BS? Arms manufs. don't "import into". By the way, correct English would be exported. No arms manuf. can export firearms without Gov't approval and to sell to govts, requires an end user certificate from the State Dept.

Realize, few Third World countries actually manufacture weapons of any sort as they don't have the infrastructure nor the brains. Mexico has never been a manuf. of weapons with few exceptions. Merely one's stating "the guns came from the USA" is as misleading as saying "the Hondas came from Japan".

Operation Fast & Furious was ORDERED by the Obama Admin. and was a complete & total fiasco for which no one has accepted blame and countless innocent lives were lost. It was a move by Obama (although he has never admitted authorship, the order had to have came from him) to try & taint the Gun Lobby and to garner more public support for his radical gun control plans. Period.

 

And Fast and Furious is the tip of the iceberg. If we caught one, how many have we missed?

 

I could ask you the same question, but I already know the answer.

Shall we talk about direct commercial sales? That is how most gun manufacturers sale firearms legally and export them to the foreign country. the problem is that there are no controls in place for those firearms once they leave the shores of the United States. In the Blue Lantern Report, it specifically cites examples of where the State Department does not monitor sales of firearm that are not deemed sensitive. This would include most firearms that are sold commercially within the United States, but modified to that specific country's request. However, if these small arms are sold under FMS, then the monitoring is conducted jointly by the Department of State and DTSA.

AS for Operation Fast and Furious, it was the sequel to Operation Wide Receiver, which the ATF Phoenix Office, and the same SAC, was trying to see where the pipeline fell with the gun trafficking from gun dealers in Arizona to Mexico. Although there were many problems involved, including some none cooperation from Mexico's Federales, the program has been a partial success. If you want to blame someone, blame the SAC in Phoenix, but somehow I don't think you want that.

 

The major difference between Operation Wide Receiver and Fast and Furious is the previous weapons were tracked, the later were not.

 

Sounds like a genius idea in the first place to provide weapons to drug cartels. The entire premise is idiotic even if it's not a conspiracy.

 

Another very large difference is that Wide Receiver had total cooperation of the Mexican Government and involved only handguns. The guns involved in Wide Receiver had RFID chips included so they could be tracked, unlike F&F which had no such safeguards. Further it had been shut down before Fast and Furious was initiated. Mexico not only did not cooperate on F&F, they knew nothing about it. It involved orders of magnitude more firearms and included fully automatic weapons and 50 cal sniper rifles. It also involved coercion of firearms dealers by the Feds into making the sales even though the dealers didn't want to make them.