Quote of the day—NRA

Despite scare tactics by the bill’s opponents, concealed-carry licensees as a group have proven to be more law-abiding than the general population and even the police. We are on the eve of passing the most expansive piece of self-defense legislation in the history of Congress.

December 6, 2017
House approves concealed-carry reciprocity, gun bill faces challenge in Senate
[The first sentence is factual and verifiable. See, for example, Comparing conviction rates between police and concealed carry permit holders.

The second sentence is somewhat subjective but I am in agreement with it.—Joe]


10 thoughts on “Quote of the day—NRA

  1. Does that bill still contain the ‘poison pill’ amendments concerning NCIS?

    • It contains the “Fix NCIS” bill, but on gunfreezone.net it was argued that is ok. And at least the text I downloaded (HR4477) appears so. It mostly is about demanding that agencies do what they are required to do and report about their work twice a year. It also, amusingly, at the very end asks for reports about the number of crimes committed with bump stocks.

  2. How does “on the eve of passing” square with Blumenthal’s “dead on arrival”?

      • Of course Senator Blumenthal was referring to the Senate, but the NRA statement read “Congress”, not “House”… Congress is the House AND the Senate.

        “We are on the eve of passing the most expansive piece of self-defense legislation in the history of Congress.”

        So they meant “passing in the House”, not “passing in Congress”. Seems like a peculiar grammatical construction.

        Did they issue an identically worded statement earlier when it was the eve of passing out of the Judiciary committee?

        I’m just having a little problem keeping up with the “three dimensional chess” strategy and tactics of the NRA calling for bump stock regulation, etc.

        • I would probably have chosen “restorative” rather than “expansive”, the latter being akin to Left-Speak relating to the “expanding” of (or “playing fast and loose with”) the original intent of the second amendment, which they say is only for an organized militia (regular military and national guard). Thus, the left would say, any “granting” of a right to regular citizens to keep and bear arms arises from an “expansive” interpretation of the 2A.

          All that said, “restorative” isn’t really correct. Because there was never a national license-to-carry program, there can be no “restoring” of any such thing. On second thought then, “expansive” may be the more proper term.

          “Restorative” would be a simple declaration of intent to prosecute any and all who infringe or seek to infringe on that pre-existing right.

          • It passed in the House and they hope/think/pray it will pass in the Senate, so “on the eve of passing in Congress” fits that.
            As for restorative vs. expansive, I argue restorative. Under the Constitution, and especially given the 14th amendment, clearly the people have the right to bear arms throughout the country. From the beginning of time various layers of government have infringed on that right. The “shall issue” and “Constitutional carry” movements have made a small movement towards correcting these infringements; this new bill goes somewhat further in that correction.
            Perhaps “corrective” is better still, but I definitely would not go for “expansive” for the reasons you gave in the first paragraph.

Comments are closed.