@firefly,
firefly wrote:We would like to believe that the N.R.A., the most influential opponent of sensible gun-control policies, will do as it says, but we have little faith that it will offer any substantial reforms. The association presents itself as a grass-roots organization, but it has become increasingly clear in recent years that it represents gun makers.
Hardly. The gun manufacturers have no objection to assault weapons bans.
They only pay lip service to the NRA because we will boycott them into bankruptcy if they don't.
firefly wrote:The industry has, in turn, been a big supporter of the N.R.A.
Self preservation. The gun manufacturers know what will happen to them if they cross us. It's hard for them to forget because they have nightmares about it every night.
firefly wrote:Officials from the N.R.A. have repeatedly said their main goal is to protect the Second Amendment rights of rank-and-file members who like to hunt or want guns for protection. But that claim is at odds with surveys that show a majority of N.R.A. members and a majority of American gun owners often support restrictions on gun sales and ownership that the N.R.A. has bitterly fought.
For instance, a 2009 poll commissioned by Mayors Against Illegal Guns found that 69 percent of N.R.A. members would support requiring all sellers at gun shows to conduct background checks of prospective buyers, which they do not have to do now and which the N.R.A. has steadfastly argued against. If lawful gun owners are willing to subject themselves to background checks, why is the association resisting?
That's a lie. The NRA has pushed legislation before that would have instituted background checks for all sales at gun shows.
It was the Democrats who opposed the measure.
They opposed it first because they were not allowed to load it down with a bunch of other gun legislation. And second, because the law would have required the government to conduct the background check within 24 hours (the primary goal of these background checks is to hassle gun buyers by making them needlessly wait).
firefly wrote:Businesses and special-interest groups often cloak their profit motives in the garb of constitutional rights — think Big Tobacco and its opposition to restrictions on smoking in public places and bold warnings on cigarette packages. The Supreme Court has made clear that the right to bear arms is not absolute and is subject to regulations and controls. Yet the N.R.A. clings to its groundless arguments that tough regulations violate the Second Amendment.
Hardly groundless. Banning harmless cosmetic features would violate Rational Basis Review (to say nothing of sterner standards of scrutiny that might be applied by the courts).
firefly wrote:The NRA has the blood of innocent victims of gun violence all over it's hands.
Hardly.
