Once again, NRA stabs us in the back

View · by **FJ540** on Tue Mar 12, 2013 4:43 pm

NRA won't oppose background check deal – if Democrats cede tough records fight

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013 ... fight?lite

So much for their help...

View · by **NMRMN** on Tue Mar 12, 2013 5:05 pm

Why I wouldn't consider being a life member...

But anyway:

The NRA denies being part of any agreement. "We do not take positions on hypotheticals. We will make our position known if and when legislation is introduced," said Chris Cox, the group's top lobbyist.
The NRA is still adamantly opposed to expanding background checks to private sales. "To be clear, the National Rifle Association does not support legislation that would criminalize otherwise lawful transfers of firearms between law abiding Americans," Cox said.

View · by **FJ540** on Tue Mar 12, 2013 5:21 pm

Yet, they say they wouldn't use votes on the matter in their rating system = condoning a vote in favor without any repercussions.

View · by **NMRMN** on Tue Mar 12, 2013 5:25 pm

FJ540 wrote:Yet, they say they wouldn't use votes on the matter in their rating system = condoning a vote in favor without any repercussions.

true

View · by **FJ540** on Tue Mar 12, 2013 5:27 pm

And "provided the legislation does not require private gun sellers to maintain records of the checks" - not an issue, as the feds will do that with their end of the process.

View · by **NRA80** on Tue Mar 12, 2013 5:42 pm

I think you should read the article -- rather than the headline.

It would probably be prudent to review the bill that you're talking about as well -- before believing a story from an anti-gun publication. You may recall a recent story saying that NSSF was splitting from the NRA on this issue -- turned out to be false as well.

View · by **FJ540** on Tue Mar 12, 2013 5:58 pm

I did, and have been quoting it.

Sure, the head lobbyist guy denies it, sort of...

View · by **NRA80** on Tue Mar 12, 2013 6:00 pm

FJ540 wrote:I did, and have been quoting it.

Sure, the head lobbyist guy denies it, sort of...

Check the statement I just put up -- we haven't changed our position in Minnesota or Washington DC.

View · by **FJ540** on Tue Mar 12, 2013 6:09 pm

Yeah, so firmly set against it that it can easily be construed to be condoning the legislation.

How about "No effen background checks. Period." That's taking a stand.

View · by **aht_six** on Wed Mar 13, 2013 4:47 am

Statement from Chris W. Cox, NRA-ILA Executive Director, regarding inaccurate NBC story alleging that NRA won’t oppose background check bill

http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/news-from-nra-ila/2013/3/statement-from-chris-w-cox-nra-ila-executive-director-regarding-inaccurate-nbc-story-alleging-that-nra-wont-oppose-background-check-bill.aspx

View · by **photogpat** on Wed Mar 13, 2013 5:29 am

The anti-gunners are trying to divide the opposition again just like they tried to drive a wedge between hunters and "modern" gunnies.

Don't believe the hype, no one has sold anyone out, and the fight is THAT WAY! ------->

Not amongst ourselves.

View · by **darkwolf45** on Wed Mar 13, 2013 6:11 am

photogpat wrote:The anti-gunners are trying to divide the opposition again just like they tried to drive a wedge between hunters and "modern" gunnies.

Don't believe the hype, no one has sold anyone out, and the fight is THAT WAY! ------->

Not amongst ourselves.

Well said. We are not in a position where we can push away potential allies.

View · by **FJ540** on Wed Mar 13, 2013 6:53 am

Because keeping Harry Reid in office is so good for us.

View · by **darkwolf45** on Wed Mar 13, 2013 7:22 am

I dont know what to say man. If i had a vote on the matter, i would vote against Reid, but I don't.

View · by **FJ540** on Wed Mar 13, 2013 7:25 am

NRA funds him every time. See my issue now?