The history of the NRA is storied. It started as a civil rights organization and stayed that way for a very long time. Sort of like the ACLU. Both have morphed.

The ACLU is now a slave to the left. Where there was a time in their history where freedom of speech and assembly meant they would defend a bunch of self proclaimed Nazi’s marching in a jewish neighborhood, today they are only interested in left leaning causes.

The NRA morphed as well. They became a “sportsmans” organization. As long as there wasn’t a threat to $2000 double barrelled shotguns and deer rifles they were ok with it. Carry laws didn’t really affect what they perceived as their base so they didn’t engage.

That changed in the 70’s with the membership takeover. The members had seen their dues go to pay for weak lobbying. They took over and demanded that the NRA fight for all gun rights. And they did.

They became a one issue organization that would fight to stop any gun control law.

They were also smart about it. If they knew they were going to lose, they did their best to create something that wasn’t a complete shit show. An example of this is the NCIS system. As originally proposed, the “background check” was a full on gun registry with built in wait periods that would become unreasonable.

Consider that a NCIS check will give you a denied, delayed, proceed in less than an hour in most cases and when things are really busy, it might take 3 or 4 hours. Then compare that to how long it takes to get permission to purchase a suppressor.

Is the background check to buy a suppressor really that much more extensive than that to buy a firearm? Not really. But they can extend the process at will. There are many stories of people begging for permission to purchase an NFA item to wait months before they get a “rejected for paperwork”. I.e. they filled out some part of the paperwork incorrectly and now they have to resubmit.

In the case of NICS, the NRA saw what was about to happen and helped to create NICS. While we don’t have to like it, the NRA made the default “proceed” if there was no answer within a given time. This required the government to do its job in a timely fashion. I.e. if they didn’t get a denial to the FFL within that time period, the person was going to be able to take possession of their firearm.

In recent time the NRA has fallen on hard times. Mostly the doing of the board. There appears to be some highly questionable financial going ons. In addition, NY State has taken aim at the NRA and is trying to sue them out of existence.

Which brings us to this article:
Good gun owners unite: A new group could help break the deadlock on firearm-safety laws

Another example of the “strange respect” that conservatives receive for five minutes when they surrender to the left. We see it all the time when some GOP senator or representative sides with the left. The left fawns all over them. Ten minutes after they are no longer needed, the bus comes roaring in to drive over them.

According to the NY Daily News, you become a good gun owner when you support “firearm-safety laws”. When you are interested in “responsible firearm laws”, when you value the right to keep and bear arms but “understand it must have sane limits, then you too can have that strange respect.

The problem with this sort of article is that they use polling data that is extremely misleading.

The overwhelming majority of gun owners are in favor of universal background checks, of raising the minimum age to buy guns to 21 and so-called “red flag” laws to remove guns from potentially dangerous people, a new NPR/Ipsos survey finds.
— npr

The poll in question:

This NPR/Ipsos Poll was conducted June 15-21, 2022, using the probability-based KnowledgePanel®. This poll was based on a nationally-representative probability sample of total American adults 18+ who are gun owners (n=1,022), Republican Americans 18+ who are gun owners (n=445), Democrat Americans 18+ who are gun owners (n=183), and Independent Americans 18+ who are gun owners (n=389).

Translation, they surveyed 1022 self reported gun owners of which 445 reported to be Republican, 183 said they were Democrats and 389 said they were Independent.

The poll can be found at Ipsos site

Q3, part k: “I own firearms because they give me a feeling of power?” is sort of interesting.
Q8: “Do you think it is more important to protect gun rights or control gun violence”

This question tells you that the poll is slanted. Unless they are asking about controlling hammer violence as well, this question is very slanted.

I’m firmly in favor of controlling criminal behaviors. Putting a stop to violent criminals as soon as possible.

Q9: Do you support or oppose Universal background checks for all gun sales, including those at private sales and at gun shows?

Interestingly democrats are at 90%+ for all options that are about restricting the rights of gun owners and are only at 53% for hardening schools (slanted rephrase of the question, by me)

It is worth looking at the original poll. There are results that don’t match what I “feel” are the correct answers.

The take away from all of this is that polls don’t always tell use what we want to hear. The media is still lying.

Spread the love

By awa

2 thoughts on “Words Have Meaning: “Good gun owners” == Gun Control”
  1. I am not disappointed the Left would consider me a bad gun owner, nor do I revel in it. I simply give zero weight to most of their opinions on firearms any more. Or most other things, in point of fact.

Only one rule: Don't be a dick.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.