The NRA does a lot of good for those who enjoy shooting sports. They provide excellent safety training instruction for civilians and law enforcement and offer many other worthwhile programs for those whose hobby is shooting.
The organization is supposedly a "one issue" group and it does actually support pro-gun Democrats and give such politicians a high rating. Unfortunately the political wing known as the NRA-ILA does have a nasty tendency to demonize many liberals unfairly. Obama is one example as he has actually been pro-gun during his first term and has even received an 'F' rating from the Brady Campaign. Therefore I refuse to donate to the NRA-ILA and throw their propaganda unopened into the trash can.
Gun control group gives Obama an ‘F’
By Michael O’Brien - 01/19/10 07:00 AM ET
President Barack Obama on Monday received a failing grade from the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence for running away from gun control.
The group, which endorsed Obama in 2008, gave him an “F” on every issue it scored, including background checks, gun trafficking, guns in public, the federal assault weapons ban, standing up to the gun lobby and leadership.
“It’s been a very disappointing year for us, especially considering what he campaigned on,” the group’s president, Paul Helmke, said during an appearance on MSNBC.
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/76717-gun-control-group-gives-obama-an-f
There are an estimated 80 million gun owners in our nation but only 4.3 million belong to the NRA. I feel that the reason for this is that the NRA-ILA is largely unpopular with most gun owners. I've talked to many NRA members who dropped their membership as they grew tired of the constant donation requests in their mail. It's a common misconception that gun owners are stupid rednecks who looked like they stepped out of the 1972 movie Deliverance. Many, if not most, are well educated and professional individuals who just happen to enjoy the shooting sports or just own firearms for self defense or occasional hunting.
I also wish that there was actually a truly liberal organization that supported gun rights and the Second Amendment. So far I haven't found one but I will admit that I gave up on the effort years ago.
If the NRA does actually endorse Romney I plan to cancel my membership. I came damn close when it endorsed McCain.
NRA endorses McCain
By
The Washington Times Thursday, October 9, 2008
WASHINGTON — The National Rifle Association is endorsing Republican presidential nominee John McCain despite differences with the Arizona senator on gun-show rules and campaign finance restrictions.
NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre and the chairman of the NRA’s political action committee planned stops Thursday in Pennsylvania, Missouri, Colorado and Nevada to talk about the move.
***snip***
The NRA doesn’t always endorse presidential candidates. It has backed President Bush but declined to endorse Bob Dole in the 1996 race or President George H.W. Bush in 1992.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/09/nra-endorses-mccain/
I should add that I don't consider the Hughes amendment to be "crazy."
Firearm Owners Protection Act
***snip***
Machine Gun Ban: The Hughes Amendment
As debate for FOPA was in its final stages in the House before moving on to the Senate, Rep. William J. Hughes (D-N.J.) proposed several amendments including House Amendment 777 to H.R. 4332 [4] that would ban a civilian from ownership or transfer rights of any fully automatic weapon which was not registered as of May 19, 1986. The amendment also held that any such weapon manufactured and registered before the May 19 cutoff date could still be legally owned and transferred by civilians.
In the morning hours of April 10, 1986, the House held recorded votes on three amendments to FOPA in Record Vote No's 72, 73, and 74. Recorded Vote 72 was on H.AMDT. 776, an amendment to H.AMDT 770 involving the interstate sale of handguns; while Recorded Vote 74 was on H.AMDT 770, involving primarily the easing of interstate sales and the safe passage provision. Recorded Vote 74 was the controversial Hughes Amendment that called for the banning of machine guns. Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), at the time presiding as Chairman over the proceedings, claimed that the "amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, was agreed to." However, after the voice vote on the Hughes Amendment, Rangel ignored a plea to take a recorded vote and moved on to Recorded Vote 74 where the Hughes Amendment failed.[5][6] The bill, H.R. 4332, as a whole passed in Record Vote No: 75 on a motion to recommit. Despite the controversial amendment, the Senate, in S.B. 49, adopted H.R. 4332 as an amendment to the final bill. The bill was subsequently passed and signed on May 19, 1986 by President Ronald Reagan to become Public Law 99-308, the Firearms Owners' Protection Act.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act
I will agree that limiting the ownership of fully automatic firearms to those produced prior to May 19, 1968 has caused the cost of buying such weapons to skyrocket as the supply is drying up. Such weapons are a lot of fun to shoot and I have enjoyed the experience when offered the opportunity. I really see little use for a fully automatic firearm with the exception of the amusement experienced by shooting one. I can shoot far more accurately with a semi-auto firearm and still achieve a rapid rate of fire. Fully automatic weapons might be somewhat useful in warfare but serve little purpose for hunting, target shooting or self defense unless we have a zombie apocalypse which is highly unlikely.
Perhaps we could allow a limited number of such weapons made after 1968 to enter the market. That might cause the price to fall to a more reasonable level but to be honest I fail to see much value in doing so.
= new reply since forum marked as read
