wrightme
Regular Member
imported post
Many interesting points have been raised in this thread, but there is a critical element missing. For the premise to be valid, the prior action (or words) of the NRA must be known. In other words, what did the NRA do during the passage of the legislation that caused the premise to be valid?
Some of the posts that speak against the NRA present the point of "go along to get along," or "compromise." The arena that the NRA plays in is the political arena, and those are de riguer for success in that arena. Failing at that will disarm the NRA in the political arena, whether we like it or not.
I have seen the NRA blamed for allowing specific laws to be passed, or for allowing a President to be elected! In other words, the NRA continually gets blamed for "allowing" such events. The NRA represents gun owners, but the reality is that the "clout" is most likely based on the membership number of ~4,000,000. With the US Population currently at ~307,000,000 some people expect a group the size of 4/300th of the population to be able to truly effect change without compromise.
It ain't gonna happen. "No compromise" can be replaced with "no effect." In politics, unless operating with a clear majority, compromise is the only way to effect change.
To answer the question accurately, we must first know "how did we get there?' Many responses are more accurately presented as the answer to the "how did we get there" question, concerning actions by the NRA to "compromise" on regulation, but the ensuing compromise would invalidate the OP premise of regulation.
Other than the obvious anti-NRA troll nature of the OP premise and question, I would see a different question as proper:
Without the reported political clout wielded by the NRA, where would we already be with firearms regulations?
Many interesting points have been raised in this thread, but there is a critical element missing. For the premise to be valid, the prior action (or words) of the NRA must be known. In other words, what did the NRA do during the passage of the legislation that caused the premise to be valid?
Some of the posts that speak against the NRA present the point of "go along to get along," or "compromise." The arena that the NRA plays in is the political arena, and those are de riguer for success in that arena. Failing at that will disarm the NRA in the political arena, whether we like it or not.
I have seen the NRA blamed for allowing specific laws to be passed, or for allowing a President to be elected! In other words, the NRA continually gets blamed for "allowing" such events. The NRA represents gun owners, but the reality is that the "clout" is most likely based on the membership number of ~4,000,000. With the US Population currently at ~307,000,000 some people expect a group the size of 4/300th of the population to be able to truly effect change without compromise.
It ain't gonna happen. "No compromise" can be replaced with "no effect." In politics, unless operating with a clear majority, compromise is the only way to effect change.
To answer the question accurately, we must first know "how did we get there?' Many responses are more accurately presented as the answer to the "how did we get there" question, concerning actions by the NRA to "compromise" on regulation, but the ensuing compromise would invalidate the OP premise of regulation.
Other than the obvious anti-NRA troll nature of the OP premise and question, I would see a different question as proper:
Without the reported political clout wielded by the NRA, where would we already be with firearms regulations?
