What's Jow Forums's opinion on the NRA?

Which battles have they picked that haven't been anything but a slow decline in the rights guranateed to you and I at birth? Curious minds desire answers.

Good organization that has been muddled with greedy bastards and softliners for a good few years. The bones of the organization are good and it's notoriety amongst grabbers is enough reason to support the NRA

>genious
This aside, bump stocks aren't the hill anyone with a brain wants to die on. They're a range toy that arguably do circumvent in a VERY roundabout way the ban on fully automatic weapons. Considering what everyone was clamoring for in the wake of Vegas, I think we got off pretty light losing something that isn't really a big deal. Absolutism doesn't really work in politics. If you think it does, there's nothing I can say that will make you see reality so in lieu of a character limit post I'll just leave it at that.

>Absolutism doesn't really work in politics.

As opposed to the incrementalism of ceding ground until we're left begging to keep bolt action rifles and revolvers.

But what did giving up bumpstocks do to better other laws?

this guy gets it

Basically every battle, in one way or another.

Yet that is not going to happen, nor has it happened.

>not being able to see the long game
Democrats control the house, thats where legislation starts. So let me lay it out for you.
>Dems push "bump stock ban law"
>popular law because normies dont like bump stocks
>insert vauge definitions re: what a bump stock is
>opening the door for califronia-style stock laws
>Republicans in marginal seats cant oppose said law because normies think it will do what is says on the box

It wont be the first time Dems have sent up a poison bill.

Compromise is the heart of democracy. It's the fundamental nature of our political system.
Refusing to make any concessions at all further cements the view of gun owners as uncaring, petulant manchildren, giving the grabbers more ammunition and motivation to whip themselves up into a big enough frenzy to get more stringent measures passed. I think it's smart to give up bump stocks in order to toss the liberals a bone, make them feel like they accomplished something. We as a community need to do a better job of interfacing with gun-negative or gun-clueless people, because if we keep collectively putting forward this image of uncaring callousness, eventually there will be a significant enough majority to amend the constitution and repeal the second amendment. That's not impossible. It's not an inalienable right, just one which is very rigorously secured legally. I think people would do well to remember that.

Again, what does this accomplish?

I don't like them.
I am a member.
I'm not so retarded as not to recognize that they are our fucking bulwark against the antis atm.

Attached: 1562187240801.jpg (1600x1066, 313K)

it's not a compromise when gun owners exclusively lose their right and gain nothing

I literally just told you. It closes a door preventing Dems from using "bump stocks" to leverage a ban on "military style stocks". It would be indescribably easy to legislatively describe bump stocks in such a way that all fold-able/collapsible stocks would be included.

Are you literally twelve? Compromise sometimes means mitigating a bad situation when you have your back to a wall. There exist no win situations, where you really just have to give something up. Mommy told you a lie when she said you can do anything if you put your mind to it. In the wake of Vegas, there was a hell of a political wave for some degree of gun control. It's a minor miracle the media ended up overplaying bump stocks, setting them up to be sacrificial lamb.

except no one tried to do that in their decade plus existence before being banned.
now it sets a precedent that the ATF can extra-legislatively ban firearms and firearms parts

cringe and boomerpilled

>except no one tried to do that in their decade plus existence before being banned.
I have no idea what you are trying to say

>now it sets a precedent that the ATF can extra-legislatively ban firearms and firearms parts
No it does not.

>Basically every battle, in one way or another.
Nice non-answer. They have won nothing. They have won back nothing. They have given money and support to those who fundamentally stand against private firearms ownership. Fuck you and your sunk-cost NRA membership.

are you 11?
the word "capitulate" is not the same as the word "compromise"
you can give any justification you like, and as bad as you like; but they're not the same word

I honestly wish I could see the world as black and white as you do.

illiterate

>grug think one word no mean other word
>u say many thing u want grug no listen because word no mean other word
berry brain

Just won the argument

>They have won nothing. They have won back nothing.
They literally just won a case against Californias mag bans. Dipshit.

Why is it that those who know the least always shout the loudest?

No, you don't, so stop lying on the internet, you little shit. It's not "black and white", it's "lost and gained". We have lost, and lost, and lost, for the last 300 years, almost every liberty and every right which we were guaranteed. We have gained nothing except welfare and maybe not dying to polio.

Dont spew broken english at me and expect me to try to decipher it.

i'm sure you've seen the animated gif illustrating which states allow for concealed carry.
assuming you have, then you know that carry rights have improved in the past two decades.
which is to say, some gun rights have gotten better in the recent past

>have lost, and lost, and lost,
>almost every liberty and every right which we were guaranteed.
You no longer have the right to purchase firearms with no associated duty to register them?

You fucking diabetic.

Yeah you're actually right, I do enjoy being able to see things in nuance. Can't help but think that life would be easier if I couldn't though. I could have been a very happily angry retard like you.

>happily angry
No, just angry that they keep getting away with it because "reasonable" little tools like you keep enabling them.

Attached: 5deeae3545063a0507b8b146091158a3737378ba3714803009337d06356dc917.jpg (720x720, 342K)

You can do all those things without government permission in Africa bro. You should go.

>the U.S. government is shitting all over the founding document of the U.S.
>if you don't like it, you should move!
Fucking bootlicker.

Attached: 1558911333857.jpg (563x720, 149K)

>makes a controversial thread
>it's actually a disguised troll thread
impressive

>Its shitting on the founding documents
Its really not though, you insane sovereign nigger.

Get the fuck outta the USA you government-dick sucking bootlicker.

>relying on laws and advocacy groups to defend your god-given right to not be gunned down in your own house by Tyrone like a pussy

Your money is best spent joining a local militia and training with your weapon.

That said, if we transfered all our memberships from nra to goa we'd be way better off.

>That said, if we transfered all our memberships from nra to goa we'd be way better off.
>its impossible to support both

Pic related, discord tranny.

Attached: 1561126899893.jpg (1022x1024, 100K)

Not him, but you're blind if you think we've been "compromising". A true compromise would have given us small, incremental things to make life easier, like silencers; as there is a serious case to be made for silencers as a safety device, and an even more serious lack of public education in what silencers can and can't do. How about stricter ID requirements? Dems fucking love to exaggerate how easy it is to get a gun, but will explode on you if you dare to suggest something that would make it harder for illegals to get them. How about a final clarification on what is, and what isn't an "assault rifle"? Because the definition changes every fucking year to fuck over those still trying desperately to stay within the law.

We've been raped nonstop, and it's going to get to the point where, like New Zealand, either we surrender all of our guns, or we all become criminals together.

100% pure unfiltered shill organization that does virtually nothing anymore to protect owners rights and is instead completely beholden to driving industry profits. They call you 50 billion times, always during dinner, and beg for money so they can throw lavish parties on yachts.

The retards here defending them are doing so to convince themselves that some egregious handout they gave them was justified, and not immediately pissed away on failed NRA-TV or some stupid shit.

NRA funders are literally so fucking stupid they should remove themselves from the gene pool IMMEDIATELY AND ABSOLUTELY DO NOT BREED

You’re dealing with autism man. He’s on the spectrum. Don’t aggravate yourself

Take your Accutane

You can support however many you want, but who will spend your money better? NRA ILA has gone to shit now that their top lawyers were fired. SAF+ GOA will end up getting my money before NRA.

I wanted to join a range near my house but they required you to have NRA membership. I bought the cheapest membership through Hikok45 and show it to the membership director. After about 8 months of having it I got RELENTLESS calls every fucking day from them trying to get me to sign up for another year despite it only being 8 months into a 1 year membership. Always the same shit "YOUR MEMBERSHIP IS ABOUT TO EXPIRE IF YOU SIGN UP NOW WE'LL GIVE YOU A FANCY PEN, A PICNIC BLANKET OR SOME OTHER THING FOR THE LOW LOW PRICE OF THE SAME THING YOU PAID LAST YEAR" Every fucking day, every single day. I actually had to block the NRA numbers they were calling from it was infuriating, I had to answer them all because I was applying for new jobs and shit and couldn't afford to miss a phone call from a company but lo' and behold I never got the job, just NRA calls. I let the membership expire, the membership director didn't care he just needed it because the range got a kick back in the form of an NRA grant.

I seriously regret signing up purely because they tried to call me every day not the massive fuck up they are politically right now.

Name 1 time the result of any of their "fights" resulted in repeal of an infringement
Easy mode: name 1 time the result resulted in NO new infringements

>losing something
>he's ok with infringements
Fuck off fudd
>this guy gets it
No, he's retarded and so are you

Lol, ok. Buy a 30rd magazine in California. You cant.

If you live in states that mandate it, Yes you are obligated and the NRA has done nothing.

Connecticut, Massachusetts and California all have defacto registrations due to their state's retarded laws on background checks. In connecticut, if you wanna buy a gun you have to call the state police and get it done, which is a huge pain in the dick because they're only open from 9-7pm and if you wanna do it outside those hours you can't. Connecticut police record every fucking thing about those 4473's including the serial numbers. Its even worse in california where they don't have a registry in law per se, but the CADOJ is collecting all the information. They know who has what guns and everything all the time. Meanwhile the NRA has done nothing.

>animated gif illustrating which states allow for concealed carry.
Nothing to do with the NRA. If things keep going their way, one day all you'll be able to conceal carry is a black powder pistol.

And yet it has everything to do with the NRA because they are supposed to be fighting these things but in reality its just a fucking political aid campaign for conservatives namely fudds and neocons

This is the same mindset as "my vote in nothing compared to all of america so i won't vote"

>NRA does not have active litigation regarding either of these examples
In the era of search engines, ignorance is no excuse.

>the roof, the roof,
>The roof is on fire
>We don't need no water
>Let the mother fucker burn
>Burn mother fucker
>Burn
youtu.be/7-1wkW8an6Q

controlled opposition

"Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have"--Saul Alinksy

Attached: 1521948887556.jpg (906x1199, 222K)

They are rage magnets for the left, who distract them from the real pro-2A protectors

Attached: 1521953975630 (1).jpg (1080x1080, 201K)

antigun faggots that are still necessary for now.

Do they want to become part of the solution, or do they want to go on being part of the problem?

Really? Cause team liberal does this and they fucking win everything

They want to keep getting money from both the Fudds and Industry

Attached: 1522335583598.jpg (451x600, 89K)

The NRA, worse than both Voldemort and Death Eaters

Attached: 1522334922745.jpg (600x450, 66K)

You raiding assholes should stop

they may be raiders, they may be trolls, but Jow Forums will endure

Attached: 1521951745515.jpg (1536x2048, 634K)

>Its really not though

>1st Amendment
"free speech" zones and the PATRIOT Act
>2nd Amendment
every single gun regulation
>3rd Amendment
Fair enough. I have yet to hear a story of the military or any police force eminently seizing somebody's home to quarter themselves. Yet.
>4th Amendment
The PATRIOT Act (once again), PRISM, PROTECT, so many other backronymous monikers that they aren't worth listing here
>5th Amendment
Being tried for the same crime in criminal and civil courts so they have the best chance to pin you for something even if they can prove nothing
>6th Amendment
The entire plea bargain scheme
>7th Amendment
cantonrep.com/article/20130512/NEWS/305129922
among others
>8th Amendment
Mandatory minimum sentencing
>9th Amendment
If you aren't following along by now at how the Fed does everything it can to invalidate the rights guaranteed to the people by proclaiming that the rights granted to the government are superior, I don't know why you even read this far down
>10th Amendment
see above

But no, user. You go on believing that the Bill of Rights and the Constitution are anything but toilet paper to your would-be rulers. Far be it from me to stop you.

>Fair enough. I have yet to hear a story of the military or any police force eminently seizing somebody's home to quarter themselves. Yet.

There was a relatively recent case where I think DOC types were trying to take over housing or something that lead to the incorporation of the 3A.

>scatter-shot argument
>composed of: because I say so
The fact that the courts have yet to rule those things as unconstitutional tells you: its not unconstitutional.

> The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it’s enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law, and no courts are bound to enforce it.
>— 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256

God I fucking hate you and all your kind so much.

This is the best answer.
Fucking FUCK! These are either young adults, or high-schoolers. When the fuck will they grow up and stop comparing politics with childrens' novels?

Attached: 1548986094424.jpg (300x168, 5K)

>When the fuck will they grow up
The ones encouraging them to think like this are "grown up", user.

Thats your rebuttal? Are you retarded?

Thats a statement re: rejection of legal positivism. The fact that the courts continue to enforce those laws tell you that they are not unconstitutional per: your own fucking citation. You played yourself, dipshit.

>The fact that courts enforce unconstitutional laws is proof that the laws are not unconstitutional even when they blatantly violate the very clear wording (SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED) of the Bill of Rights!
I don't think you have any call talking down to anyone, ever.

notice the liberals and communists have been shit flinging and scream crying about muh rights for ages and they just keep winning? maybe, just maybe, we should stop capitulating to their antics and go 100% SHALL.

Because: They arent unconstitutional. Your opinion is irrelevant.

>the liberals
Every time you call them that, you reinforce their deception that they stand for the same principles as men like Jefferson, Paine and Bastiat did. Stop enabling them. Call them what they are, leftists, authoritarians, would-be tyrants.

Time for the Harry Potter Megamix

Attached: 1522337612599.jpg (1024x1024, 405K)

"I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: 'O Lord make my enemies ridiculous.' And God granted it" -- Voltaire

Attached: 1522337629714.jpg (1024x1024, 400K)

Only problem is the money thrown at the NRA goes for LaPierre's suits and vacations

Attached: 1521947675792.jpg (500x395, 65K)

>Your opinion is irrelevant
Incorrect. As stated, it is the opinion of the courts that are irrelevant if the opinion of the courts conflicts with the wording of the Constitution. The Constitution is the highest law of the land, and no legal decision disagreeing with the rights enumerated in the Constitution can be considered legally valid or binding.

But let's be honest here. You don't really care about whether or not it's legal. All you care about is whether or not they'll shoot you dead for it. Not only are you dishonest, you're also a coward.

I thought that only happened to poorfags so I got the life membership. Now I get calls about donations...

Many minds, far greater than yours, have argued these issues before the courts. The conclusion is that the laws as they stand are not unconstitutional. The rulings are in the public domain and clear for all to see. Your argument is literally: because I say so. You have provided no detail or substance to your assertion, its nothing more than your poorly formulated and subjective opinion. Hence it is irrelevant.

>Not only are you dishonest, you're also a coward.
Talking tough on an anonymous forum? kek

>its nothing more than your poorly formulated and subjective opinion
I was not aware that I was the one who made the statement in question on unconstitutional official acts. I was under the impression that it was a fairly important section of American Jurisprudence. Guess you'll have to let them know that they should revise that section in the next edition, since the fact of courts enforcing unconstitutional statues clearly means that the people who wrote it didn't know what they were talking about. Unconstitutional statues are not unconstitutional until the court enforcing unconstitutional statutes rules said statues to be unconstitutional, after all.

>statues
*statutes
I, though, would like to see what an unconstitutional statue would look like. Lady Liberty with Uncle Sam holding a gun to the back of her head, maybe.

Trash tier, try another group. Good for catching flak though

actively hurting the cause

You need a lesson in civics?
>Congress passes [bill]
>interest groups assert [bill] is unconstitutional
>courts review the evidence
>make ruling
If a law has been challenged and has been found to be constitutional then it is constitutional. You saying "b..but its not!" is irrelevant. Because you are nobody.

rolling please mister

It happened before to other nations, what makes us invincible if we don't fight? The bill of Rights has been subverted innumerable times on other amendments besides 2, why do you think people in power and those without a brain in their head will just magically stop? Because if you haven't noticed with the pushing of dumb shit like everything after T in LGBT, they don't fucking stop

>The bill of Rights has been subverted innumerable times on other amendments besides 2
>because I say so

calm down, incel

Attached: 1562737044631.jpg (500x500, 37K)

Keeping the captive public (members) in a continual state euphoria and panic by overstating, creating and deliveratly conceding and renouncing rights to the "opposition"
They are really gun grabbers that want your money also. So they slow roll you into oblivion.

>after T
yikes