the_spaniard

No, I have a hang up with organizations that claim to be grass roots defenders of our constitutional rights when they are really represent corporate interests of gun manufacturers...particularly when they manufacture political crisis after crisis to promote firearm sales all under the guise of "protecting your freedoms". They will "protect your freedoms" as long as it is profitable for them to do so. That is what the NRA has become. No, they just want to ensure convicted criminals have access to them. As I said, every warm body is a potential gun sale...public safety and financial cost be damned. Too bad their membership numbers don't back that statement up.

I can't convince you of anything if you don't believe lobbying has a an influence on legislation and the election of people that promote that legislation. The NRA actually ranks our representatives on a scale of A-F...those scoring A being those most aligned with their policies. They make no attempts at hiding this, and if you are an NRA member and supporter, you know this. Just one example: What would you say if a candidate (Todd Russ ® Oklahoma) that was ranked 92% (A-) by the NRA attempted to put forth legislation that would restore gun rights to felons in a state where a non-violent felonies encompassed drug trafficking, child pornography, bombing and abuse of a vulnerable adult? (Sources: associated press, project votesmart, followthemoney.org) There is a nice breakdown of the NRA here. Like it or not, whether you think I have shown you proof or not, the NRA provides financial support for candidates that have supported legislation to give convicted felons their gun rights back. And financial support is not all of the pie. Imagine them actively lobbying against candidates that were given poor grades. Their contributions are public record, the sponsors of the legislation are public record, and the bills are public record. Hell even the arrest records of the felons that committed firearms crimes after they had their gun rights reinstated under these laws are a matter of public record. If you don't want to check out my sources (and it seems obvious you don't) research it yourself. Or just don't believe me, the public record, or the influence of lobbying on legislation. I really don't have much more to say as I have supported my point fairly well.

Ahhhh now I get it. You want me to call out a liberal congress for passing the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986 . No problem, but you realize the massive failure and expense of the programs caused it to be de-funded in 1992? How about the NRA/republican-led attempt to re-fund it in 1995? How about the NRA/republican-led attempt to re-fund it in 1996? How about the NRA tying the entire issue up in court to this day? How about the NRA fighting for automatic reinstatement of gun rights while ex-felons were waiting to be assessed? I was wondering why you weren't getting this. You didn't read one of my original sources. You never even answered my original question - how come you have not called out republicans backing this legislation sponsored by the NRA? You just deflected back to me about how come I am not calling out the democrats, and never answered my question. You ignored the fact that attempts to restore/re-fund this legislation was led by NRA-backed republicans (even today) and instead wanted me to focus on the democratic congress that passed Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986. Very slippy, sir. Now how about my original question?

Yep, as you and everyone else can clearly see that is exactly what I did all there. As I said, you have really shown me. I think I will quit since I am so far behind. Well played, Sir. I leave the field to you.

Because you can clearly see where I said it was all the NRAs fault, right? My point was NRA spends more money lobbying than other opposing gun control group, which has an effect on elections and the passing of legislation. Do you make it a habit to alter peoples views for congruence to your own, or am I just special? Please tell me it is the latter, ya big lug.

Once again BH you really showed me. Say it with me again folks....ad hominem.

Nahh, just buy a new pistol and that money will "trickle down". We all know those membership dues are how they make their money, though. It really is a grassroots organization only interested in the preservation of your constitutional rights. I would recommend the Glock 30S if you have a CCW permit.

News flash, I'm not a liberal. So this constant insistence that I am against those bad old conservatives or that liberals can do no wrong is just silly, and why I ignore it. It doesn't fume me, or vex me, or perplex me, I find you funny and a little sad (like a clown that has lost a bet) that you just can't grasp the concept of my political affiliation. Yep, the final blame is with congress....never said it wasn't. Though I am not naive enough to believe that lobbying has no impact on legislation.

Original Deleted.

You describe this as a broad-stroke generalization, and I can see how it might be viewed that way. But if I said it was the most wasteful organization, you would be right. The simple fact is I don't have the numbers to prove it, so I didn't lay it out that way. That's my argument. You have blanket-labeled people because you have associated a cost of billions in fraud. How do you know there are billions? If you have a study that compares social program waste/fraud to military waste/fraud then please share and I'll look it over. Your whole argument is based on what numbers? I said "quite possibly"...you didn't. You know it is. Where are your numbers? How are you not seeing this?

Oh how I love the way you change my words around! Too bad, it's not really what I said. Please READ my post. I said: You think I said: See the difference there? Comparing the amount spent on these programs is not an indicator of the waste in these programs, but I'm sure you know that right? It is the reason I said "quite possibly" because I didn't go into hard numbers, as there is no objective measure of waste in total military expenses. Tell me, is there a total objective measure of waste in social programs? What is the percentage? How many able bodied people out there don't want a job, but fraudulently collect benefits? Oh, there isn't one? I guess it's a good thing I said "quite possibly" instead of "It is..." And yet you know it's more. Interesting. Please read my post before responding.

And congress is impervious to the influence of well-financed lobbying. That is quite the argument. The NRA is effective because they advocate not only for a Constitutional right but also on behalf of millions upon millions of American citizens (that constitute 8% of gun owners) and millions of dollars in gun manufacturer donations who believe in your right to buy their product. The NRA is effective because they have plenty of funding to create hysteria and appeal to a simple demographic that is blinded by misguided patriotism. The NRA is effective because they convince simple people to buy guns. Millions of Americans do believe in the 2nd Amendment, myself included. All gun owners do not support the NRA. Just because you ignore their member statistics does not mean everyone that believes in the 2nd Amendment supports the NRA, or what it does. And once again you simply choose to ignore the financial impacts of lobbying on legislation and still manage to throw in an ad-hominem attack. I'm detecting a pattern here. The law was passed. Ignoring it was spearheaded by the NRA means they had nothing to do with it? So they didn't vastly outspend the opposition in support of passing it? Declaring criticism of a bill backed by the NRA, passed by people that received financial support from the NRA is just political agenda? Wow.

I agree that the we don't need that many laws. Let's say we wiped the books clean and wanted to create simple, logical, effective gun legislation that people want. It would never happen. Lobbying groups like the NRA would never let it happen.That is the problem. They want no regulation because regulation infringes on the profit margins of their benefactors. They play this as "protection of personal rights and freedoms" when what they really mean is protection of gun sales they benefit directly from.

Holy crap. Are those boulders of ice from frozen water vapor of are their rocks beneath?

Actually Ima you bring up a good point, and one I possibly overlooked due to my own support of the draft. I think a smart downsizing is what we need, closely monitoring reserves and maintaining an acceptable level of readiness. Bear in mind too, that when I say military I wasn't thinking of just troops, but the numbers of vehicles, aircraft, bases, etc as well. Again, I am no fan of all of Coburns ideas - particularly when he talks about cutting veterans financial support, but check out some of his ideas that even the hard-left leaning Mother Jones have called "Draconian" in comparison to Obamas proposed cuts: - Shrinking the US nuclear arsenal "to levels within the START treaty limits" to save $79 billion over the next decade. - Cutting overall intelligence spending by 3 percent, then freezing it for the next decade, to save $26 billion. - Eliminating 10 percent of the Pentagon's R&D budget, a savings of $79 billion. - Taking the Army back down to pre-Iraq surge levels, a force reduction of 65,000 soldiers, or 12 percent. This would save $92 billion. If we actually had some people in office that could compromise, maybe we could get some of this done. I have to reiterate I don't like Coburn (particularly his stance on social issues, etc) but just because you don't like someone on principle doesn't mean they don't have some good ideas that you can work with. Not everyone there is what the media portrays, as not every republican is a "wing nut" nor every democrat a "tree-hugger", not TP'er an "extremist", nor independent a "fence-rider", etc. I would hope someday we could all get over the rhetoric of trying to use political affiliation as an insult. Sorry, my train of thought jumped-tracks. I would say that starvation isn't the same as malnutrition, which causes more serious medical issues in this country. And yes, I do bear in mind malnutrition can not only denote a lack of food, but plenty of food of poor quality. Doing my own quick research I couldn't find any cases where someone had actually starved to death (here in the US) that wasn't connected to secondary factors (mental illness,etc.) So yeah, you got me on that one.

Wow, you should have read the whole post. Then you may have realized that the "broad stroke" reference was not directed to the military, but your negative characterization of all people on social welfare programs. READ a post, digest it, and then respond...regardless of your personal view of the OP. If you just can't stand the OP, don't get involved with the discussion. You are far less likely to make an embarrassing mistake of misinterpreting the post, and relying on yet another ad-hominem attack as your only response. Thus endeth the lesson.

Yes despite the fact that I have showed you how these bills at the state and federal are lobbied heavily by the NRA. I also love how you consider the NRA a simple "advocacy group" and don't even acknowledge them as the leading gun lobby. In essence you are arguing that lobbyists have no impact on legislation, despite the fact that lobbyists spent $3.21 billion dollars last year for that explicit purpose. That "advocacy group" spent almost $18.6 million dollars on election spending through their SuperPAC the NRA Political Victory Fund last year, making sure the right people get/stay into office to support pro-gun legislation. After Sandy Hook the NRA spent a record-high $800,000 in federal lobbying to ensure (successfully) that expanded background checks for gun buyers failed. They also spent nearly $3 million in lobbying last year. Not bad for an "advocacy group". On the day of the vote, they released a false advertisement that stated "80% of Police say background checks will have no effect on violent crime." My point is not the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986 was passed, but that the NRA lobbies against any regulation that comes down the pipe - even common sense regulations that the public wants. And they vastly outspend opposing groups (because of their financial backing from gun manufacturers) at a rate of 73 times the leading gun control "advocacy group" The Brady Campaign for Preventing Gun Violence. When you have that kind of financial backing you can make sure only your side (the manufacturers) and not the opposing side (the actual people) gets heard.

I just looked at the latest polls which poll all Americans, and not just gun owners (as the poll above did) so it's apples-oranges. Even with the 8% drop, twice the number of Americans want stricter laws than those that do not. So what you believe and anectdotal evidence now constitutes proof? I know many people that not only want stricter gun laws that work in federal, state, and local LE departments. I even know people that are OIF vets that want stricter gun laws. What does that mean? Nothing. Very debatable.

Good, so gun manufacturers should be supportive of: - Background checks for private and gun show sales (85% of gun owners want this) - A federal database that tracks gun sales (65% of gun owners want this) - Laws enacted that prevent the mentally ill from getting guns (90% of gun owners want this) These numbers drew equal support from democrats, republicans, and independents. The NRA represents the people, and gun manufacturers want what he people want. So this should be enacted immediately, yes? (Data from the 2013 Pew Research Poll)

I love this argument. Please show me a study where it has been proven that isn't a result of social programs like SNAP. No one died of starvation? Maybe these programs DO work. See what I did there? EDIT> Langston did the numbers above. Fraud is fraud in my mind. The problem is what percentage of people are actually committing the fraud? The problem is not the fraud, but the number of people on the program. 15% of the population is another national disgrace, and NOT what it was designed for. The cost of the program increased 135% over the last 4 years (CBO numbers). Why is that? Did one in seven people in this country just decide to be leeches or are we in the worst economic downturn than the Great Depression? BH would have you believe the former and ignore the latter. BTW, what do you think of the cost of the F35? Seven years behind schedule and $167 billion over budget. That is one project that costs 25% of SNAP annual costs to taxpayers (current high of $80 billion). How much has V22 development cost? How about Ohio class boomers? I'm not saying we shouldn't have these things, but where do you draw the line at over-spending? Upon completion of the F35 (which we do need to replace our crusty F-18s, etc) will there be a congressional audit to determine why this project was so late and horribly over budget? Will there be an accounting and repercussions for wrongdoing? Seriously? How many top-level executives in the financial industry have been prosecuted for nearly destroying the entire country? And that is the attitude that is going to get us out of this mess. No sacred cows, and nothing is off the table. Military spending, taxes, social programs all need smart reforms, and all have some fat to trim. And don't get me started on our current representatives, I don't think anyone in office should stay in office with a 13% approval rating. I wouldn't last long if I had that approval rating with my clients,much less enjoy the benefits our representatives do for doing the universally shitty job they do..

I don't think that is out of the question. But the NRA wants violent felons armed as well. I would guess that is not in the best interest of the people, nor what they want.

If it were only non-violent felons, I wouldn't be so against it. It's not. It includes violent felons that have been shown to go out and commit new crimes (with firearms) and their re-established gun rights. If one law-abiding citizen is killed because a convicted violent felon got their gun rights back, the cost is too high. That is shit legislation.