But in this case, it’s not about the past/present, but the past and… four years later. So it’s not a case of a completely different set of people (and ideologies) driving the organization, but one faction within it gaining more control.
Granted, that faction ultimately pushed everyone else out.
IIRC 8 years after the Mumford act is when the leadership changed. My point is 52 years after the Mumford act, neither the vast majority of 2nd Amendment supporters, nor the NRA, would support something that outlawed open carry.
You’re right in the past both the NRA and 2nd Amendment supporters (or some of them) did support the Mumford Act. But that doesn’t reflect today’s landscape. So while I’m unsure the reasoning for bringing up the past, I am just stating the fact that the attitudes are different than from 1967 as far as which laws are acceptable.
They started taking some hard-line positions in '71, so I guess the “new” NRA wasn’t even due to the leadership change…
I bring up events of the distance past (i.e. 1967) because in that respect, nothing’s really changed - despite hard-line views, the NRA are still remarkably silent about gun rights when it comes to brown people (especially when they come into conflict with law enforcement).
They are using the ‘emergency’ card here, just like someone else that we know. Courtney has also said that if put to the Senate, he doesn’t have the democratic votes to pass it. Maybe he’s lying, but all it would have taken was 1 additional no vote from the Dem side to kill it, so it seems likely that he’s telling the truth.
Seems like the best place to go would be an Indian reservation. They have casinos, hotel rooms, and a buffet. I’m not sure of this, but I would think that they’d also be untouchable there unless they committed a crime.
I would think that would be like crawling into a grizzly’s den, if you ask me. That is, if they were recognized as GOP reps by Native Americans.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
