NRA selling out on background checks

[itshappening]

Join GOA, do not compromise!

-
Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) said Thursday that he was working on a bill with Senate colleagues and the National Rifle Association (NRA) that would implement universal background checks, a major component of President Obama's proposed gun-control reforms.

Manchin, a member of the NRA, had not previously endorsed any specific measures to address gun violence.

"I’m working on a bill right now with other senators — Democrats and Republicans — we’re trying to get it, and looking at a background check that basically says that if you’re going to be a gun owner, you should be able to pass a background check, to be able to get [universal background checks]," Manchin told Metro News radio's "Talkline," in an interview reported by The Washington Post.

The West Virginia lawmaker went on to say his bill would carve out exceptions for certain transactions.

"With exceptions. The exceptions are: Families, immediate family members, some sporting events that you’re going to — that if you’re just going to be using them at the sporting events. So we’re looking and talking to people with expertise. I’m working with the NRA, to be honest with you, and talking to them," he said.

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/279103-manchin-says-hes-working-with-nra-on-universal-background-check-bill#ixzz2IvDhCfOL

[pcosmar]

NRA selling out on background checks

This is not news. They have been supporting the Police State over 2nd amendment rights for as long as I can remember.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

I don't care about gun shows, but screw them if they try to do this for private sales. How would that even work without being a burden? Another law to ignore.

[dannno]

Ya this is totally expected.

They espouse the philosophy correctly at times but they can't seem to ever get it right when it comes to policy.

[AFPVet]

The NRA sucks... join GOA.

[Matt Collins]

www.nrawol.net is all you need to know about this

[RonPaulFanInGA]

The NRA sucks... join GOA.

The thing about the GOA is no one takes them seriously. It's the NRA the media gives all the flack to.

[erowe1]

All those new members who joined the NRA during this whole scare....
Suckers.

[Lucille]

http://blog.independent.org/2013/01/24/troubling-public-opinion-trends-for-gun-rights-and-civil-liberties/


On how to respond to mass shootings and violent crime, the public opinion trends frighten me, especially when broken down by political identification. Predictably, Democrats are in favor of gun control by wider margins than Republicans. But still, 92% of Republicans favor universal background checks, which I consider as bad a proposal as any being offered. It will mean the death of gun shows as we know them. The relative freedom with which Americans private trade firearms is one of the greatest spheres of liberty in the country, something that sets the United States apart from most places. Ninety-one percent of the population want to abolish the freedom (independents being slightly more reluctant than either Democrats or Republicans to support such a measure). This would be the most significant strike against gun rights, and one of the most important violations of the Bill of Rights in general, in modern times.

[Matthew5]

And what, pray tell, would have been in the Sandy Hooks shooters backgrounds? Their two years as adults wouldn't have shown much and it's all null when you use a friend or family member's guns. :rolleyes:

My father in law is an NRA member and questioned whether I cared about gun rights when I refused to join. He almost had me subscribing, thank God I passed.

[Acala]

The article does not say that the NRA is selling out on anything. In fact, the NRA person quoted in the article says just the opposite. I'm not a member, having quit when they endorsed McShame, but let's be fair. All the article says is that one particular politician says he is talking to the NRA as he tries to work on some background check bill.

[alucard13mmfmj]

I'm mixed bag about background checks.

I think checks are necessary so violent criminals can't get them the legit way. HOWEVER, that is being naive. Violent criminal would probably steal guns anyways.

Soooo, background checks is useless in keeping guns out of criminals.

[Darguth]

Later Thursday, a spokesman for the NRA said that while the group was working with members of Congress to "address the problems with the background check system," the group would not support expanding background checks to include private transfers.

"If Sen. Manchin supports putting private transfers between law-abiding citizens under the thumb of the Obama-Holder justice department, we will vigorously oppose those efforts," said NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam.

While the first paragraph is troublesome in its vagueness, the second hardly seems to be a ringing endorsement of universal checks.

[pcosmar]

Soooo, background checks is useless in keeping guns out of criminals.

That is the bottom line.

Aside from that. most "criminals" are not violent. Violent crime is a small percentage of those in prison,,and many Felonies are non-violent.

lastly,, the 2nd Amendment does not contain the word Except.

[erowe1]

That is the bottom line.

Aside from that. most "criminals" are not violent. Violent crime is a small percentage of those in prison,,and many Felonies are non-violent.

lastly,, the 2nd Amendment does not contain the word Except.

But the 13th does.

[seapilot]

I do not see where GOA promotes education and training of firearm ownership. NRA does that. Now is NRA the most effective gun lobbying group? Probably not, but they sell out its members now it will pay in the long run. I hope GOA gets more members and I like the tenacity of the GOA on gun rights. A perfect match would be to let GOA do the lobbying and protecting the 2nd amendment while NRA promotes gun safety and ownership.

[Acala]

That is the bottom line.

Aside from that. most "criminals" are not violent. Violent crime is a small percentage of those in prison,,and many Felonies are non-violent.

lastly,, the 2nd Amendment does not contain the word Except.

True, but in the days when the 2nd amendment was written, it was not contemplated that people who had been tried and found guilty of serious violent crimes were going to be walking around in free society again. Or walking around anywhere, for that matter.

[itshappening]

The article does not say that the NRA is selling out on anything. In fact, the NRA person quoted in the article says just the opposite. I'm not a member, having quit when they endorsed McShame, but let's be fair. All the article says is that one particular politician says he is talking to the NRA as he tries to work on some background check bill.

Are you being silly ?

it means they're collaborating with this Democrat on what he says in the report - universal background checks - and if they can cobble a deal together it will pass the Senate and go to the House who will pass it on Sandy Hook hysteria and the president will sign it.

So yes, they're talking to Manchin, collaborating with him and selling out on background checks.

[phill4paul]

That is the bottom line.

Aside from that. most "criminals" are not violent. Violent crime is a small percentage of those in prison,,and many Felonies are non-violent.

lastly,, the 2nd Amendment does not contain the word Except.

And there is no recourse for NON-VIOLENT felons (Federal) to remedy the situation. It doesn't matter if they have served their time. Was outstanding in the parole process. Married and raised children. Found God and became a minister. And even be elected as a local sheriff.

[Acala]

Are you being silly ?

it means they're collaborating with this Democrat on what he says in the report - universal background checks - and if they can cobble a deal together it will pass the Senate and go to the House who will pass it on Sandy Hook hysteria and the president will sign it.

So yes, they're talking to Manchin, collaborating with him and selling out on background checks.

You may think that, and you may be correct, but none of that is in the article.

[brushfire]

The thing about the GOA is no one takes them seriously. It's the NRA the media gives all the flack to.

I've seen this somewhere before...

Almost like how the media portrayed Romney as the only formidable opponent to Obama.

Ron Paul - nobody takes him seriously...

The NRA is more like "them" (the filth in washington) - that's why they're qualified as "friend or adversary" in the controlled narrative.

I agree about GOA and SAF over NRA.
I donate to them all but after the NRA's recycled its Columbine response for Sandy Hook, I'm considering omitting the NRA from future donations.
The NRA has also stood in contention with SAF on several huge legal cases...only to show up at the last minute when victory was certain.

[Anti Federalist]

I don't care about gun shows, but screw them if they try to do this for private sales. How would that even work without being a burden? Another law to ignore.

Uh huh, just like the law WRT to Class III weapons.

I can find cheap, full auto rifles everywhere.

:rolleyes:

[Anti Federalist]

I've seen this somewhere before...

Almost like how the media portrayed Romney as the only formidable opponent to Obama.

Ron Paul - nobody takes him seriously...

The NRA is more like "them" (the filth in washington) - that's why they're qualified as "friend or adversary" in the controlled narrative.

I agree about GOA and SAF over NRA.
I donate to them all but after the NRA's recycled its Columbine response for Sandy Hook, I'm considering omitting the NRA from future donations.
The NRA has also stood in contention with SAF on several huge legal cases...only to show up at the last minute when victory was certain.

Negotiate Rights Away fought tooth and nail against Heller.

FWIW :-|

[Lucille]

Sometimes I am so afraid
http://www.backwoodshome.com/blogs/ClaireWolfe/2013/01/26/sometimes-i-am-so-afraid/


Sometimes I am so afraid.

Since Newtown, I’ve been afraid — as I suspect we all have despite our anarchic bravado — of what the hoplophobes and control freaks will try to do to us with the deeds of one hopped-up wacko as their excuse.

I’m not afraid of DiFi’s proposed “assault weapon” ban. Oh, don’t mistake me; I hate it, despise it, loathe it, and have many unspeakable thoughts about it. But I don’t fear it. It probably won’t pass. And as we know even better than the banners, even if it did, it’s all about cosmetics. We’d be losing rights but only scraps of fuctionality.

The thing I most fear is a ban on private sales.

Nothing would stop private sales, of course. It’s just that every private sale could be a threat of 10 years in prison. And we’d learn to distrust people who ought to be our peaceable trading partners: “Is this one an agent provocateur?” “Will that one snitch if they put pressure on him?”

A private-sale ban is even more fearsome because the NRA and the R-Party will go for that one (http://www.examiner.com/article/gop-nra-may-invent-distinction-between-loopholes-at-gun-shows-and-away), and the most gun-hating people in Congress (Lautenberg and McCarthy) are already customizing bills to give their alleged opponents something to “compromise” on.

Some FFLs will even be in favor of it (http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2013/01/kurt-hofmann-gop-nra-may-invent.html) because they’ll think it’s a way to use government against the competition. Or force more of us to bring them transfer and background check business.

It’ll be only a closing of the true “gun-show loophole” at first. You and I will still be able to sell our possessions privately to our neighbors and friends. The NRA will tell us what a “reasonable” compromise they helped achieve and oh by the way, send Your Great Protectors another contribution.

But when tightening the screws on gun shows doesn’t halt violent crime — and it won’t — then … well, you know.

But of course, a lot of us are not going to fall for any of this. We’ve already made up our minds not to cooperate because government must never be allowed to know where all the guns are. They must never be allowed to know.

Because once they know, the fuzzy line we’ve all argued about for years is fuzzy no more: we will have crossed from being free people to being serfs. Not to mention easy victims.

And that’s why a private sale ban is so much worse than losing the easy ability to have “a shoulder thing that goes up.” Because there will be some compliance. Too much of it. And there will be grand non-compliance (http://www.examiner.com/article/closing-the-bill-of-rights-loophole).

[Occam's Banana]

The thing about the GOA is no one takes them seriously. It's the NRA the media gives all the flack to.

That's becasue the media is the mouthpiece for the Establishment. It is also the media's job to vett all those who seek "respectability".

In order to be "respectable" and "taken seriously" by the media, you must be (1) a member in good standing of the Establishment, or (2) a trusted servant of the Establishment.

And in order to become (1) or (2), you must demonstrate a willingness to do things such as (A) make "reasonable" compromises*, and (B) avoid "extremism"**.

The NRA meets these requirements. GOA does not.

* always in the Establishment's favor, and never otherwise

** defined as a firm and unwavering commitment to principles and what you know right