This is why I dislike the NRA..... [Archive]

CancelMyService

07-01-2008, 11:24 PM

They're going to recycle the "DEMZ GONNA GRAB YUR GUNZ" (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/01/politics/politico/main4222168.shtml) nonsense on Obama.

Now I have no strong opinions on guns personally. I don't hunt, I don't have any interest in owning one, but generally I see no problem with people owning handguns and/or rifles for sport or personal protection. What I do have a strong opinion on is the NRA pretending to be a defender of second amendment rights when all they've shown to be time and again is a front group not afraid to use FUD to get GOP candidates elected to office.

It's especially ridiculous in this race since both McCain and Obama have been in favor of things that fervent gun owners would find distasteful, but the NRA is once again funding a huge campaign to smear the Democratic candidate. I have no doubt (thanks to seeing it firshand in my family) that they tipped the scales for Bush in 2000 and now they're trying it again.

In a way it's even insulting to gun owners. Why would a Democrat in office mean the end of gun ownership? We had a Dem administration for 8 years and last I checked you can still own weaponry.

ditchdj

07-01-2008, 11:48 PM

Well Obama coming out and being open about being anti-gun, then retracting it as soon as he's confronted about it helps reinforce that. Historically it's been the Democrats that have been anti-gun.

CancelMyService

07-01-2008, 11:59 PM

Of course being in favor of gun control =/= being "anti gun".

No politician on either side would ever call for an all out gun ban, which to me would be truly "anti gun".

*edit* also the point is that McCain isn't much different on gun issues so the NRA taking such a stand against one guy is pretty laughably transparent.

Amethyst Hunter

07-02-2008, 04:39 AM

Now I have no strong opinions on guns personally. I don't hunt, I don't have any interest in owning one, but generally I see no problem with people owning handguns and/or rifles for sport or personal protection. What I do have a strong opinion on is the NRA pretending to be a defender of second amendment rights when all they've shown to be time and again is a front group not afraid to use FUD to get GOP candidates elected to office.

In a way it's even insulting to gun owners. Why would a Democrat in office mean the end of gun ownership? We had a Dem administration for 8 years and last I checked you can still own weaponry.

I agree. It's a scare tactic, nothing more. Unfortunately there will always be sheeple who believe in it.

...this reminds me, I need to renew my FOID card... :D

rahmota

07-02-2008, 06:29 AM

Well as an NRA member I have to say that not everyone in the NRA is a sheeple either. A lot of us actually do take the time to sit down and look at the situation and weigh the pros and cons. Sorta like a lot of other organizations and its members.

I wasnt going to vote for Obama anyhow as he has enough stuff going on with him I dislike anyhow. Sad thing is McCain isnt much better and since there is no real third party candidate I'm happy with either this is not going to be an enjoyable election year for me.

CancelMyService

07-03-2008, 01:53 AM

I'm not saying everyone in the NRA is a sheep, more that the NRA is pretending to be a non partisan gun rights group when they clearly are just paid shills for the GOP.

I actually wouldn't have a problem with it if they were upfront about it, the dishonesty is what bugs me. It's like when Fox News claims to be "fair and balanced", everyone knows what way they lean, why pretend?

rahmota

07-03-2008, 06:35 AM

At the national leve l I'd have to agree with you cancel. At the state and local level at least from what I've seen thigns do ahve a tendency to balance out.

But then again anytime you have a large organization dealing in very public hot button issues they are going to sway one way or another. It is very very difficult to walk in the world of politics and remain neutral or unbiased.

Also why pretend? Because americans dont like to have the truth spelled out to them. They like to have the fiction at least that we are a "fair and unbiased" people. That Truth, Justice and The American Way are still about fairness and equality for all. All that bunk that died a long time ago.

CancelMyService

07-04-2008, 08:38 AM

That's still no excuse for a national group that claims to be defending constitutional right to put out ads/commercials concentrated in highly contested swing states that is questionable at best and flat out FUD at worst.

But then again anytime you have a large organization dealing in very public hot button issues they are going to sway one way or another.

Here in PA, I've only ever seen them swing in one way, towards republicans. Both on the national and state/local levels, they only attack democratic candidates in most cases for no other reason than their party affiliation just to re-enforce the link in people's minds that gun owners should vote GOP.

Rapscallion

07-04-2008, 05:02 PM

That's still no excuse for a national group that claims to be defending constitutional right to put out ads/commercials concentrated in highly contested swing states that is questionable at best and flat out FUD at worst.

I don't know. I'm not particularly fond of the NRA, though being not in the country where it works I'm not subject to the results of its work. However, the group will have a constitution or charter that says what it will work towards. If working towards a goal means that it has to support a particular party to represent its members' interests, then that is what it will do.

If the democrats (got the right one here? I can't keep our lot straight, never mind another country's...) went for a policy of enforced gun ownership, then the NRA would swap its alleigance. Well, I'm assuming it would...

Rapscallion

Boozy

07-04-2008, 05:10 PM

If the democrats (got the right one here? I can't keep our lot straight, never mind another country's...) went for a policy of enforced gun ownership, then the NRA would swap its alleigance. Well, I'm assuming it would...

I think CancelMyService is saying that they wouldn't necessarily switch allegiance, because the NRA is a shill organization for the GOP. The Democrats would have to offer them more than a pro-gun platform to get their endorsement at this point. His complaint is that they claim that their only concern is the rights of gun owners, but there's plenty more going on in the shadows; money exchanging hands, etc.

I don't know enough about the NRA to agree or disagree either way, but I wanted to make sure I at least understood CMS's point.

Rapscallion

07-04-2008, 08:03 PM

Well, if their only interest is furthering the interests of those who wish to own guns etc, then they should keep an eye on all political parties and support the one that will give their members the best deal. Of course, this is then subject to the usual problems - humans being involved and honesty.

Rapscallion

Tanasi

07-11-2008, 08:43 PM

First of all I'm a life member of NRA, I'm a NRA certified firearms instructor, and I'm a TN DOT certified firearms instructor. I'm also 25+ year retired Army Officer. I've seen the elephant and have scars to show for it.
NRA supports the canidate that will best serve their cause regardless of party. I receive their American Rifleman magazine and before elections they will include a voters suggestion guide that lists all canidates and who they suggest you should vote for from a firearms perspective. Yes on a national level they tend to support more GOP canidates then Demos for the only reason the GOP are more friendly to their cause. If you think NRA won't back a Democate then talk to retired Sen. Zell Miller, GA (D). NRA backed Algore until he changed his mind, he was more than willing to take NRA's money until he changed for polictical purposes (he also changed his mind regard abortion.) I'd have to do some research but I'd say NRA backed Bill Clinton to some extent when he was govner of Arkansas (not sure).
For those that don't know, annually NRA sends out surveys in regards to firearms to all canidates. A lot are not returned from both parties. NRA uses these surveys, the canidates past legislative votes and speeches to determine a grade in regards to firearms. Some score higher than others. Those with the higher scores gets NRA's endorsement and money, those with low scores do not, and in some cases NRA doesn't endorse any canidate. I know this for fact.
The Democrat party has not always been a friend of gun owners. We have them to thank for Gun Control Act or 1934, GCA 68, AWB 94 and some others that don't come to mind. Diane Finestein (sp) said if she could get legislation passed to take all guns she would. The AWB 94 was bad and needless legislation, all the banned guns listed were still available for sale afterwords with a few cosmetic changes. The high capacity magazines that were "banned" were still legally available for inflated prices, the ammo that was banned was truely banned but it was later re-introduced under different names. So what did AWB 94 accomplish not a danged thing.
Do you know the operational difference between an AR-15 and Ruger Mini-14? Guess what not a danged thing. Both fire the same round, both use detachable magazines, and both are gas operated. The biggest differences is cosmetic the AR is considered (by some) an ugly gun and the Mini-14 isn't. Now during the AWB 94 you could still buy ARs but they could only have 2 of the following: A protruding pistol grip, a detachable magazine, a flash supressor/hider, a bayonet lug, and a folding butt stock. The pistol grip doesn't necessarily make the rifle easier to use and in some cases makes it more awkward, detachable magazine I can see some slight point but the gun doesn't know the differencene between a 9 round mag and a 200 round mag, bayonet lug??? when's the last time outside a movie have you seen or heard or someone being hurt with a rifle mounted bayonet much less killed by one? Flashed suppressor/hider guess what it doesn't make the rifle more accurate nor does it aid the shooter in firing, it's purpose is to hide the muzzle flash from your enemy at night and guess what else it doesn't work very well. A folding stock makes the rifle a little easier to conceal but for the most part it also makes the gun more awkward to fire and IMO makes the gun less accurate.
OK now to political adds: Name me one organization that runs adds that is not in it's own interest. NRA is no more guilty than NAACP, labor unions, MoveON, professional organizations, etc. Does that make it right or wrong? Who knows, it doesn't make it illegal. Of course NRA targets specific areas for specific canidates just like all the other organizations, why would they spend money on an add in East Tennessee for a canidate that's basically running unopposed when they can help out a friendly canidate in another area that is running a close race with an unfriendly canidate? Also what exactly is NRA lieing about? Be specific. I'll admit I don't agree with everything NRA does, nor the GOP, and certainly not the DNP but I have to say there is not one more effective single issue organization. NRA has around 4 million members and no one is required to be a member, NEA can't say that, AFL-CIO can't say that. NRA members are from all walks of life, from most all politcal parties, heck you can even be anti-gun and be a member as long as you pay your dues.
Will NRA have a hand in getting the next president elected? Who knows neither canidate BHO or JM are exceptionally friendly to gun owners. NRA hasn't yet endorsed anyone for president and might not but I would say they'll throw in with JM. BHO regardless of what he says now is a known quantity and is unreliable at best and hostile at worst. JM is flaky at best and worst. Basically the best NRA can hope for is JM getting elected and/or keeping a 41+ friendly senators (of both parties) in the senate.

My fingers are sore from typing so much so I'll close. I also want you to know that I hope I don't present myself as being unfriendly, I'm not. I'm very passionate about firearms, I truely believe that a man or woman with a firearm is a citizen, all else are subjects. As to who to vote for: Vote for the persons you think will do the best job as I will. Have a nice day.

Rapscallion

07-16-2008, 07:09 AM

My fingers are sore from typing so much so I'll close. I also want you to know that I hope I don't present myself as being unfriendly, I'm not. I'm very passionate about firearms, I truely believe that a man or woman with a firearm is a citizen, all else are subjects. As to who to vote for: Vote for the persons you think will do the best job as I will. Have a nice day.

I don't agree with your basic premise, which I read as someone not being a real person unless they're armed, but I can't see you as being unfriendly in here. You're sticking to the points. My one regret is that I didn't see this post to approve it until now - my apologies for that.

Rapscallion

Slytovhand

07-18-2008, 07:18 PM

Tanasi - I notice that you're only on 3 posts, so I'll just add to what Raps said...

Good post!! Clear cut points in the argument, and no maliciousness towards members here... no unfriendliness that I detected! (and nice 2nd last sentence :D)

Slyt

Tanasi

07-24-2008, 08:22 PM

I don't agree with your basic premise, which I read as someone not being a real person unless they're armed, but I can't see you as being unfriendly in here. You're sticking to the points. My one regret is that I didn't see this post to approve it until now - my apologies for that.

Rapscallion

Raps in no way did I intend to that one sentence to mean that unarmed people are not persons or unequal to the armed. My premise is that the unarmed are subject to those that control "their" government. Should a populace be unarmed then the basically "their" government is free to do as it will. IMO gathering up in large crowds and protesting is useless unless you have a means to enforce your will, Lord knows governments in this world have never been known to ignore the people's will, and not eliminate those that disagree by the 10s of millions.

Tanasi - I notice that you're only on 3 posts, so I'll just add to what Raps said...

Good post!! Clear cut points in the argument, and no maliciousness towards members here... no unfriendliness that I detected! (and nice 2nd last sentence :D)

Slyt

Guys generally I really try to be nice, I treat this forum as being within Raps home and I would never intentionally insult him or his guests. I will admit to some teasing but that's always meant in jest. As I've said in past posts at CS I'm a big believer in the Golden Rule: Treat others as you wish to be treated. I also believe we can disagree without being disagreeable.
I'm not sure of where Slyt lives or was raised, I know that Raps is an Englishster (jk) and I would assume that Raps wasn't raised around firearms, but I believe if you don't want to own a gun then you shouldn't be forced to own one, I just ask that you don't interfere with me. You have nothing to fear from me I would never intentionally harm anyone that hasn't first harmed me or mine.

As far as being late to post my response I did figure that you had overlooked it until Raps rebuke at CS then I was beginning to wonder. I really had intended to just lurk from now on and I probably will at CS as some are more sensitive that I'm used to. So I hope there's no hard feelings I certainly have none towards you all.

I still want to know what Cancelmyservice thought NRA lied about.

Rapscallion

07-24-2008, 08:56 PM

Raps in no way did I intend to that one sentence to mean that unarmed people are not persons or unequal to the armed. My premise is that the unarmed are subject to those that control "their" government. Should a populace be unarmed then the basically "their" government is free to do as it will. IMO gathering up in large crowds and protesting is useless unless you have a means to enforce your will, Lord knows governments in this world have never been known to ignore the people's will, and not eliminate those that disagree by the 10s of millions.

The means to enforce your will, as far as the UK is concerned, is that every so often you get to vote out the people you disagree with and vote in the people you will disagree with. The US is pretty much the same, save for fixed four-year terms (ours are variable - up to five years). The armed forces of the countries involved are subject to the legal orders of the government, but theoretically they will not obey illegal orders to keep the government of the time in power. The fact that the governments in both countries have to face re-election every so often helps to keep them in line.

So, with a large percentage of the country able to bear arms - does it stop your government from making shitty decisions from time to time, usually when there is a significant percentage of their term left for the majority of the populace to forget about it before the next poll?

Has the US populace had an armed uprising over a government decision in the last hundred years or so?

As far as being late to post my response I did figure that you had overlooked it until Raps rebuke at CS then I was beginning to wonder. I really had intended to just lurk from now on and I probably will at CS as some are more sensitive that I'm used to. So I hope there's no hard feelings I certainly have none towards you all.

We don't get notification in our mail etc of moderated posts - we have to actively look for a section to see them. This place had a different moderation system to CS, and since we don't get the same number of new members and we only recently brought it in here to prevent spam, we've not got into the habit of checking regularly. Such debates are the meat and drink of this site, so feel free to go for it here.

Rapscallion

Sportsmom

07-25-2008, 04:45 AM

CancelMyService

07-25-2008, 05:06 AM

Tanasi, are you really going to use Zell Miller as an example of a Democrat? The same Zell who spoke at the GOP convention and is the very epitome of "In Name Only" when it comes to party affiliation?

NRA is no more guilty than NAACP, labor unions, MoveON, professional organizations, etc.

The other groups you mentioned don't pretend to be constitutional rights advocates either. My basic premise is that the NRA is being intellectually dishonest since it's fairly clear to anyone who pays attention that in the last 3 election cycles at least their main focus has been electing Republican politicans.

I still want to know what Cancelmyservice thought NRA lied about.

See above. It's not so much that they lie, it's like with Fox News insisting they are fair and balanced when it's clear they have an agenda. I don't have a problem with agendas, but be upfront about them. Also the sheer volume of FUD they sent out in 2000 tipped more than a few key swing states to Bush, setting up the wonderful BS fiesta that election turned out to be.

NRA hasn't yet endorsed anyone for president and might not but I would say they'll throw in with JM. BHO regardless of what he says now is a known quantity and is unreliable at best and hostile at worst.

Hard to say they haven't endorsed anyone when the very item that prompted my inital post was an article discussing the millions the NRA is investing in attack ads.

ditchdj

07-25-2008, 05:35 PM

AFPheonix

07-25-2008, 06:28 PM

More people in malls and schools, and they'll make more of a splash. Also school campuses that one lives at, malls in one's community, and other familiar places are more accessible than police stations that perhaps someone has never seen the inside of, and gun shows are temporal things.

Tanasi

07-25-2008, 07:29 PM

The means to enforce your will, as far as the UK is concerned, is that every so often you get to vote out the people you disagree with and vote in the people you will disagree with. The US is pretty much the same, save for fixed four-year terms (ours are variable - up to five years). The armed forces of the countries involved are subject to the legal orders of the government, but theoretically they will not obey illegal orders to keep the government of the time in power. The fact that the governments in both countries have to face re-election every so often helps to keep them in line.

So, with a large percentage of the country able to bear arms - does it stop your government from making shitty decisions from time to time, usually when there is a significant percentage of their term left for the majority of the populace to forget about it before the next poll?

Has the US populace had an armed uprising over a government decision in the last hundred years or so?

We don't get notification in our mail etc of moderated posts - we have to actively look for a section to see them. This place had a different moderation system to CS, and since we don't get the same number of new members and we only recently brought it in here to prevent spam, we've not got into the habit of checking regularly. Such debates are the meat and drink of this site, so feel free to go for it here.

Rapscallion

Raps, I guess some might think me parinoid because I don't trust the government, any government as all have agendas. History and experience have taught me when dealing with the government you're gonna get screwed. Part of my ancestors have fought the white man for over 500 years just to maintain our existance, another part ran your ancestors out of this country, and yet others fought a loosing war for freedom from damnyankees. I guess I'm a born rebel.
Voting is only enforcable when you have the means of enforcing the vote. How many elected politicians have changed the rules and laws to keep their office and oppress their opposition (Chavez in Venazula comes to mind)?
My family history tells us when someone comes to your door and says "I'm from the government and I'm here to help" it's best to not let that sob return from whence he came. The whole idea behind our Second admendment is to put the fear into our politicans, and you're correct being armed doesn't stop politicians from making bad decisions but if they make a bad enough one it could. I don't believe our armed forces would obey an illegal order to fire upon the populace but then again you never know, in that regards I'd rather be safe than sorry.
In reference to your last question the answer is yes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_%281946%29) and it happened within 15 miles of my home town and a little over 60 years ago.

Tanasi

07-25-2008, 08:40 PM

I don't have a problem with the NRA in general, what I have a problem with are the people who insist that their right to own guns that could take down a city block of people in under 30 seconds is more important than my right to be safe from some maniac with a gun that can mow down a city block of people in under 30 seconds. I'm not saying that everyone who owns a gun like that is a maniac, but I also know that guns can be stolen, or go through private sales that do not involve a background check, and I do not understand the need to own one.

Not be to a smart ass but exactly what firearm that is legal for the general populace to own is capable of taking down a city block of people in under 30 seconds? The reason I ask is that I don't know and you obviously know something that I don't. If such a firearm exists and the person that wants to own said firearm is honest and passes the current background checks then why shouldn't she be allowed to own it? If it's your fear then that's your problem. Is it because it might be stolen then that's a somewhat legitimate fear but the person owning said firearm would most likely store it in a secured area to try to prevent the theft. BTW weapons a lot more dangerous have walked out of secured areas guarded by our military and law enforcement.
Private sales otherwise known as the "Gun Show loophole" that is a bug-a-boo. In my state all I'm required to do is make sure (via an official ID like a DL) the person is old enough to buy the firearm. If I wanted to do more I can't because there's no means of doing the background check and it's illegal for me to use my state's TIC check and there's also no means of me using the FBI's NIC check. If I could conduct such a check using the information from the person's DL then I would and either eat the cost myself or pass it along but as it is?????
The need to own a firearm??? Let me answer that question with this "An armed person is a citizen all else are subjects" and please refer to my previous post to Raps.

I'm from Virginia, several years ago the government in that state passed a law stating that unless you were a firearms dealer you were restricted to buying one gun a month. You would have thought that the governor said he was going to personally drive to each and every gun owners' house and remove the guns from their homes. So, can someone please explain to me why you would need to purchase more than one gun in a month? I don't even think the start of hunting season is a good excuse, plan ahead if you need a couple of new rifles or shotguns.

OK look at it like this what if VA decided that you could only buy one newspaper or magazine a month and you had be be approved for that purchase? A right restricted is a right denied. A few months ago I bought not one but six firearms at once on the same day a mixture of handguns and rifles, why because I found a deal I didn't want to pass up. I've done nothing illegal so why should my rights be restricted? The idea as I understand it behind the VA 1GAM was some folks were buying mutliple handguns and then selling them to folks from NYC. That's called straw purchasing and that's already against the law and was already in place before VA's law was passed. Why not go after the straw purchaser's instead of restricting the honest folks?

There's another thing. Hunting. I truly believe that regulated hunting in an actual outdoor "wildlife" (as opposed to staged hunt which are nothing short of animal cruelty, but that's another topic)situation is a good thing. It controls populations, helps stem the spread of disease and starvation in remaining populations and helps feed families. I will also say that I believe that hunting should be done for the purpose of food, and not just for a trophy to hang on the wall. You go kill a deer because you are going to keep the venison to feed your family and possibly others, fine. You go kill a bear just because you want to have him mounted, too bad, so sad, you fail at being a compassionate human being.

I don't trophy hunt and all the critters I kill are consumed either by myself, my family, my critters or someone I give the game. I don't agree with trophy hunting but I don't condemn it as long as the meat is used other wise according to my state's law that is an unlawful offense. I also think those canned hunts are not at all sporting but currently they're not against my state's law.

Wow, I kind of got off on a tangent, but my main point is gun control is not a bad thing, nor is owning guns. It is all about responsibility. If you want to own guns, fine. Just do so responsibly please. You want to have some gun control in place, fine, just be intelligent about it and use some damned common sense.
The NRA is like every other interest group, they can get so caught up in their own wants that they forget that their might just be another side to the story.

I guess we'll have to disagree on gun control being a bad thing, why is restricting a honest person a good thing? I think felons and the insane shouldn't be allowed to own firearms, I also think foreigner shouldn't be allowed to own until they have been throughly checked out. I agree and NRA agrees that gun ownership is all about responsibility but why punish those that are responsible for the acts of the unresponsible? Remember one person's common sense is anothers nonsense.

Rapscallion

07-25-2008, 09:06 PM

I don't see the second amendment as being to put the fear into politicians - I thought it was more to keep the Brits out of the US.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Free state - considering the phrase was written just after the US had won independence, I can't see that it was written with the politicians of the day in mind. I'd have thought they would primarily have been the war heroes being voted in, though my knowledge of the era is limited. I don't see that it was designed to keep the place free from avaricious politicians, though apparently in a very small number of cases that's what it's become (interesting link, by the way).

So, just how bad would a decision have to be for a group of people to take up arms against their goverment? I'm quite happy to have responses for both local, national, and federal levels.

How many politicians have changed the rules to stay in power? Not that many - it's a bugger when it happens, but the military culture in the UK and (I hope) the US says that the military would not go along with it. I'd contend that once a culture gets to a certain level, such things become unnecessary. Corrupt police/army states rarely last more than a few years without being overthrown by similar types intent on their own bit of power. I'm sure anyone could name a few exceptions, but the point is that they are relatively few and far between.

Rapscallion

Boozy

07-25-2008, 09:13 PM

The idea as I understand it behind the VA 1GAM was some folks were buying mutliple handguns and then selling them to folks from NYC. That's called straw purchasing and that's already against the law and was already in place before VA's law was passed. Why not go after the straw purchaser's instead of restricting the honest folks?

I don't understand your argument. The "one handgun a month" law is aimed at preventing straw purchasing. Who other than illegal gun dealers do you know who need to purchase more than one handgun a month?

Tanasi

07-25-2008, 09:30 PM

Tanasi, are you really going to use Zell Miller as an example of a Democrat? The same Zell who spoke at the GOP convention and is the very epitome of "In Name Only" when it comes to party affiliation?

Yes that same Zell Miller does his disagreement with that particular plank in the Democrats platform make him any less of a Democat? What about Rep. Heath Shular, NC (D)? There are several others that I will have to research in order to name. Like wise there are republicans that are very much for gun control. You failed to mention Algore he was more than willing to take NRA's money until he decided to run for national office at which time he changed his mind, does that also make him a DINO?

The other groups you mentioned don't pretend to be constitutional rights advocates either. My basic premise is that the NRA is being intellectually dishonest since it's fairly clear to anyone who pays attention that in the last 3 election cycles at least their main focus has been electing Republican politicans.

Who is being intellectually dishonest here? NAACP and labor unions are all about consititutional rights specifically civil rights and rights to control their labor. NRA gets behind the canidate that is the most friendly to their cause regardless of party. How many GOP canidates has the NAACP or the Teamsters backed? Neither one supported JC Watts but NRA did. I will do some more research to find other Democrat canidates that NRA supported.
BTW what is wrong with supporting the canidate that supports your cause? Where is the intellectual dishonesty?

See above. It's not so much that they lie, it's like with Fox News insisting they are fair and balanced when it's clear they have an agenda. I don't have a problem with agendas, but be upfront about them. Also the sheer volume of FUD they sent out in 2000 tipped more than a few key swing states to Bush, setting up the wonderful BS fiesta that election turned out to be.

Yes NRA does have an agenda, they do not want more restrictions on firearms for honest citizens. NRA does not want it's right to free speech restricted. Currently those are the only two rights they're activily involved with. NRA is upfront with their agenda I don't know how it could be more clear.
I don't care for Fox News "fair and balanced" line I preferred the "We report you decide" that seemed to be more accurate. While we're pointing fingers what's ABC's, CBS's, NBC's, CNN's, MSNBC's agenda? If you think they don't have one then you're very nieve.
What's wrong with NRA's volumn of what they send out, did they do something illegal or you just didn't like the outcome of that election and are blaming NRA? BTW tipping the scales is the idea behind it all. If Algore had won his home state then those other states would have been a moot point. NRA rightly pointed out that Algore had a pattern of voting that was unfriendly to the guns rights folks.

Hard to say they haven't endorsed anyone when the very item that prompted my inital post was an article discussing the millions the NRA is investing in attack ads.

Again NRA endorses those that agree with their cause (no different that any other organization). As far as I know NRA hasn't endorsed anyone for president. Will they? Most likely. Who? Maybe MacCain maybe no one. Will NAACP endorse anyone for president? I'll let you answer that question.
NRA is disliked because NRA is effective. Politics is unfortuately taking up more and more of NRA's money and I don't like that, but if they're going to try and protect my right to keep and bear then I won't stand it their way and will support them. Until 1968 NRA's sole purpose was to educate folks about firearms, the GCA of 1968 changed that because you can't trust politicans to do what they say and you have to hold their feet to the fire, and that fire is stoked with money.

Tanasi

07-25-2008, 09:37 PM

One thing that I've noticed that nobody seems to have an legit answer for is that how come ALL these mass-murders committed by guns ONLY take place in "Gun-Free-Zones" like malls, university campuses, schools and churches. How come they NEVER happen in places like police stations or gun shows or shooting ranges or hunting areas????? :D Why not? Afraid someone might...........errrrrrrr..................

shoot back????? :confused:

More people in malls and schools, and they'll make more of a splash. Also school campuses that one lives at, malls in one's community, and other familiar places are more accessible than police stations that perhaps someone has never seen the inside of, and gun shows are temporal things.

If I was going to shoot up a joint I certainly wouldn't shoot up a place that allowed people to legally carry you could get shot.
For the life of me I don't understand why anti gun folks can't understand that laws only apply to the honest, criminals by definition are not honest.

AFPheonix

07-25-2008, 09:48 PM

If I was going to shoot up a joint I certainly wouldn't shoot up a place that allowed people to legally carry you could get shot.
For the life of me I don't understand why anti gun folks can't understand that laws only apply to the honest, criminals by definition are not honest.

Couldn't one say that of any law though? Or that only honest people obey the law. The law is not negated by people who break it.

Boozy

07-25-2008, 10:14 PM

The law is not negated by people who break it.

Amen.

I see this argument a lot when it comes to gun control debates. Laws are supposed represent the values of their society. Just because something is difficult to enforce doesn't mean that it's not necessary.

CancelMyService

07-26-2008, 05:11 AM

Also, and not to stir up any more hornet's nests, the same logic never seems to apply to drug laws. The more stringent and punative the better it seems.

Slytovhand

07-26-2008, 07:54 PM

Oooh - my turn :D

While a stack of this stuff comes up in the Gun Control debate, I'll still add a couple of things here, cos this is where it's reposted...

An armed person is a citizen all else are subjects
Hmmm - nice bit of emotive propaganda - it's not even remotely close to an intelligent debating point... especially if a person actually chooses to look at the rest of the planet. Sure - in third world countries, and maybe even in second world countries... but today in a 1st world country?? Yes - it's a bit paranoid to think that the government is going to start taking shots at its own citizens and completely override it's normal politica process (by force of arms... not by rigging the election in Fl... oh - sorry :p). I mean, seriously - take a look at the rest of the planet - Europe, Australia, North America (incl Canada - remember them??) an armed population does not guarantee the government doesn't overstep it's mark, and damn good cases can be made that say, at least by example, that it's quite the reverse (ie - Aus, UK, Canada, Europe have some pretty liberal laws - the US, on the other hand, has just written up a stack that really restricts a lot of freedoms and walks all over a pile of rights). Living in a country where you are in fear of what your government might do isn't a healthy way to live.

I strongly suspect that a large reason the US has some of the problems it does that stem from government action or inaction, is due to nono-compulsory voting. I believe that less than 1/3 of your eligible voters actually show up?? We have a lot closer to 100%. Sure - we don't get it right still - but at least our politicians know they have to pander to a lot more people - not just one or 2 devoted groups.

As I posted elsewhere - what would you do if a referendum was put in place in which 70% of US citizens all decided to ban access to guns for the general public? (yes - it's a hypothetical - but relevant. Is this about 'my' rights, or the 'will of the people'?? If 70% of the people are scared by what guns do, does that mean they have to tolerate the repercussions?
Ok - everyone has laws that curtail individual 'rights', and also many of your liberties and privacies...why is this one such a problem? Especially given it's potential (and, unfortunately, actual) consequences?

I, too, would like to know exactly how far a person needs to be pushed before that armed militia starts making itself felt (see also the debate on Why Pedersen shouldn't own his own battleship..)

But as for the OP... yeah the NRA has it's own agenda.. so what? As Tanasi said, so does everyone. And I don't have a problem with that either (which is why you'll notice my arguments here aren't against them, but only the stock standard gun control ones...),

I'm not sure where you guys stand (other than non-criminals or the insane), but what really is the problem of stricter gun control, but still purchaseable?? We've got that here, and it doesn't give us headaches (and, as I said elsewhere, we got gold medals in the Olympics in shooting shortly after real strict gun laws came in!!)

Boozy

07-26-2008, 08:56 PM

I believe that less than 1/3 of your eligible voters actually show up?

In the US, I think it's more like 50%. I haven't looked for any numbers, so I might be wrong.

Canadian federal elections usually get about 65% (we do not have compulsory voting). Not disastrously bad, but still...

CancelMyService

07-28-2008, 05:53 AM

Here's the thing about agendas: The NRA claims to be all about gun rights and doing whatever it takes to defend the constitution. OK fine, I'm cool with that.

However, the man they helped elected did more damage to the consitiution and civil rights than pretty much any other President in history, yet in 2004 they went to bat for the guy again only because he said the right things re: guns.

It doesn't matter that every other Amendment was at risk at some point in the last 8 years, as long as the 2nd one isn't messed with the NRA will continue to carry water for the GOP and that is what bugs me.

the_std

07-28-2008, 06:00 AM

CancelMyService

07-28-2008, 06:12 AM

In 2000, that would be a fair argument. However they saw what a mistake Bush was and pushed for the guy again in 2004.

I don't buy the argument that any Democrat in office will go on some mad campaign to ban all guns, not only would it be political suicide but also there would always be enough resistance in Congress to stop it. The vast majority of folks are ok with everyone having access to firearms with reasonable gun control in place, yet the NRA continues to spend millions upon millions on these "THEY GONNA TAKE YER GUNZ!@!@!~!eleventy~!" campaigns to get people to vote against their interests in many cases just because of the positions on one issue.

Anyone who will willingly campaign/vote for someone they know will do huge damage to the country just because of thier stand on one issue is someone who needs to look at if that one issue is really worth everything else you'd get with that person.

It's like my mom, who informed me that she's voting McCain just because she feels Obama will only be "for the blacks". It doesn't matter that McCain is 100% opposite everything she stands for and would continue the policies she's been very much against the last 8 years. She's going to pull that lever based on that one thing alone. That's how I see the NRA and people who vote strictly on someone's opinions on guns.

anriana

07-28-2008, 07:01 AM

Anyone who will willingly campaign/vote for someone they know will do huge damage to the country just because of thier stand on one issue is someone who needs to look at if that one issue is really worth everything else you'd get with that person.

While I personally agree with you (and am quite angered at your mother's opinions), do you really think the NRA thought Bush would do huge damage to the country? You and I might see it that way but I doubt they or most of their supporters did.

Boozy

07-28-2008, 11:47 AM

While I personally agree with you (and am quite angered at your mother's opinions), do you really think the NRA thought Bush would do huge damage to the country? You and I might see it that way but I doubt they or most of their supporters did.

They supported Bush in 2004, and I truly believe that anyone who did so had their heads in the sand. In 2004, the economy was already circling the drain, the Iraq war was going badly, civil liberties were being lost, and the Bush administration basically promised more of the same.

Here's the thing: the NRA leadership knows damned well that they have a very large following of people who will vote for whoever they tell them to. Other than perhaps AARP, they're one of the most powerful lobbies in the country. As such, I think they have a responsibility to educate themselves on all the issues. The Democrats weren't going to take anyone's guns. With everything else in the shitter, gun control was barely on the agenda in 2004. Yet still the NRA endorsed a party that didn't represent the economic interests of their membership.

I suppose the blame really lies on the shoulders of anyone who blindly votes for whoever someone else tells them to.

protege

07-28-2008, 05:46 PM

I suppose the blame really lies on the shoulders of anyone who blindly votes for whoever someone else tells them to.

Exactly--how is the NRA different from the AARP or any other "special interest" group? The AARP has instilled fear in many older people. Specifically, if they vote for certain candidates, that their taxes will go up, along with the prices on anything...including their prescriptions. In short, they get scared--mention anything about a tax increase, and in some areas you've pretty much lost the election. That's why some towns in Florida, which have a *huge* amount of senior-citizens are having trouble with funding. They simply can't get the tax dollars...since any increase is usually defeated.

As to losing civil liberties, what, exactly have we lost? All of these supposed losses were just propaganda. Other than the Patriot Act (which only means you have to fill out additional forms for certain types of banking), nobody's trying to take our rights away--we still have freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, et al.

AFPheonix

07-29-2008, 12:10 AM

Warrantless searches and wiretaps were and are not propaganda.
Locking up a US citizen in Guantanamo indefinitely without charges was not propaganda.

There are many more examples. Sorry, this administration is scary as all hell.

protege

07-29-2008, 01:04 AM

I'll give you that one...but didn't that get legalized by Congress (in which the Democrats hold a majority in both houses) in 2007? If so, to put all the blame on Bush is a bit much.

Also, I agree with you about the detainees--they should be charged with their crimes, and put on trial. If found guilty, they should be dealt with accordingly. If innocent, why not send them home? We've already dealt with the "American Taliban" notably J.W. Lindh and Yaser Esam Hamdi. Lindh is currently serving a 20-year sentence, and Hamdi was sent to Saudi Arabia and stripped of his US citizenship. Jose Pedilla (also imprisoned) was sentenced to 17 years.

AFPheonix

07-29-2008, 05:41 AM

It did, unfortunately, at the strong urging of Bush. I'm extremely disappointed in Congress for letting that one go through. Part of it was that although the Democrats have a slight majority, it is not enough to block vetoes. However, those democrats that rolled over and voted for it need to have a pretty strong message sent to them by their voting blocks.
Our Democratic senator from my state voted against it, bless Wyden's bald little head. He can be Senator for life as far as I'm concerned. Our other senator is up for reelection this year, and while I'm not super crazy about his opponent (I liked the other guy that got beaten in the primaries better), I'm still going to vote for him over Gordon Smith. Smith has just done too many stupid things and voted on the party line to the detriment of our state a few times too many. Sorry bucko.
I wrote him and let him know, too.

CancelMyService

09-24-2008, 01:59 AM

Somewhat old of a thread to bump, but it goes to the original topic.

Shockingly the NRA is airing more ads falsely accusing Obama of wanting to take people's guns away. (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/23/fact-check-does-obama-want-to-ban-guns-and-rifles/#more-20006)

Spoiler Alert: CNN calls the ad "misleading" which IMO is generous at best.

Again I'm left asking why a group like the NRA is reduced to fear mongering FUD. They really must think their membership is dumb that they need to be catered to in such a manner.

I'm not holding my breath for anyone to call them out on it though.

Greenday

09-24-2008, 02:36 AM

CMS, as long as people keep believing that crap, they'll keep giving it to them.

Fashion Lad!

09-26-2008, 07:01 AM

I think CancelMyService is saying that they wouldn't necessarily switch allegiance, because the NRA is a shill organization for the GOP.

The NRA has the second amendment as their main concern. They've even blasted John McCain for his stances on gun control. I don't think that anyone (well, I can't say that entirely) feels that we need absolutely no gun control, but we don't need as much as we think we need.

Tim Walz a democrat from Minnesota has been endorsed by the NRA.

Now, Obama seems to be quite ridiculous when it comes to answering questions about gun control. http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm

And about personal responsibility that we all like to talk about on CS.com, that's all thrown out the window with Obama and guns. He would actually allow people to sue the gun manufacturers.

What's wrong with the NRA pointing this out? They keep close tabs on voting records. And if you're subscribed to their magazine, it's obviously an important issue for you.

Slytovhand

09-26-2008, 03:17 PM

I just read your link, FashionLad, and to be honest, all I read of that bit is just how well a politician won't answer a question.

There was nothing specific about anything he said, just a stack of waffle!

But, I'm perhaps cynical enough to think that what was posted on that particular site wasn't, and hasn't been, the be all and end all of what Mr. Obama has had to say on the issue for all of his political career. (not to mention, it wouldnt be particularly unreasonable to think that a person could change their opinion after the various shootings that have occured). After all, he's been in politics for how long now??

crazylegs

09-26-2008, 06:58 PM

Gravekeeper

09-27-2008, 12:26 AM

Honestly, gun control is a wedge issue/scare issue just like terrorists orgay marriage. Its something they trot out whenever they need to take attention away from more serious issues. Sad as it is there are a significant number of what I will generously call one issue voters. They don't know or care about the whole picture, just convince them the government is gonna take their guns, let gays run wild in streets and Walmart is going to be blown up by brown people and you have their vote.

Its the same with all this patriotism flagpin bullshit. Its not important in any way shape or form but there are seriously people that really sit there and think "HE DON'T LOVE AMERKA~#~!" because someone's going "Psst, he doesn't have a flag pin and an American flag clenched between his buttcheeks"

Fashion Lad!

09-27-2008, 06:31 AM

I think that's the point, didn't Obama respond to one question (at some point) with 'That's above my paygrade'?

You're entirely right. I said "Now, Obama seems to be quite ridiculous when it comes to answering questions about gun control." Ridiculous hardly means articulate or even straight-forward.

Slytovhand

09-27-2008, 02:40 PM

Just to clarify 1 point.. the last one listed in the link you posted.

So, Obama reckons that if I sell a gun to someone who I know is going to commit a crime using that gun, that I also should be charged (or at least, should be liable to civil suits).

This might be a stupid question - but what's wrong with that???

(assuming I read it right)

Slyt

Fashion Lad!

09-27-2008, 03:44 PM

There is nothing wrong with that. What is that in reference to? I am concerned that Obama is going to allow these gun manufactures be sued because someone got shot... Especially since any manufacturer that I know of rarely sells directly to the end user. And ethical people won't sell knowing someone is going to commit a crime. So... It's kind of like if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. Why should the maker of the gun be sued, all they did was make a product. Like when people commit manslaughter with a car, should the maker of that car be sued? No. Obama basically wants to run these gun manufactures into the ground because he's opposed to them.

Sorry for any typos, I'm typing this on my iPod.

Slytovhand

09-27-2008, 05:26 PM

I got that from the link provided. That final bill that was voted on included that as one of the options...

A bill to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others. Voting YES would:

Exempt lawsuits brought against individuals who knowingly transfer a firearm that will be used to commit a violent or drug-trafficking crime

Exempt lawsuits against actions that result in death, physical injury or property damage due solely to a product defect

Call for the dismissal of all qualified civil liability actions pending on the date of enactment by the court in which the action was brought

Prohibit the manufacture, import, sale or delivery of armor piercing ammunition, and sets a minimum prison term of 15 years for violations

Require all licensed importers, manufacturers and dealers who engage in the transfer of handguns to provide secure gun storage or safety devices

Thus, throwing it in with the others actually made that bill a minefield... from my brief read, suing the manufacturer was the only part of that bill that seemed even remotely dodgey (except for the situation where a safety doesn't work).

And out of curiosity (since I presume you are pro-gun), what does an individual need armour-piercing rounds for??