Senate Republicans are trying to screw Veterans for political points

[the_spaniard]

No you can't convince me of anything. I don't believe anything that you say because you are a liberal with an agenda. You will twist and contort to facts of what ever political issue you are rambling on about to suit your left wing agenda. There will not be a word of truth in it. You can't convince me of anything because I don't believe anything that liberals say. They lie. They have to lie to get what they want because if liberals ever came right out and said what they really want the country would never support them.

 

 

PS I sent off a check to NRA-ILA this morning. Your welcome.

 

 

LOL If I'm a conservative extremist than you must be Joseph Stalin.

 

While I feel that you sending the NRA a check vindicates David Hannum, you certainly have the right to spend your money as you see fit. As for your posts throughout this discussion (including the ones above) I think your own words provide a far more interesting characterization than I ever could.

 

Signed,

 

 

Урок заканчивается здесь.

Edited March 7, 2014 by the_spaniard

[BlackHorse]

I'm sorry did you have a point to make Joseph?

[Langston Hughes]

I'm sorry I couldn't understand the point of that post because you still haven't figured out how to use the words your and you're properly. It is very difficult to have an intelligent conversation with someone who is intellectually absent. Come back after you have completed the sixth grade.

Awww, poor grammar Nazi, no one thinks he's as great as he thinks of himself.

 

You do know that your stated beliefs precludes any "intelligent conversations" right? Given your post about how us liberals are all liars and all the rest it becomes obvious that you aren't interested in conversations. Arguments would be a better term and since you want an argument I don't really think my grammar is anything to worry about.

[BlackHorse]

Awww, poor grammar Nazi, no one thinks he's as great as he thinks of himself.

 

You do know that your stated beliefs precludes any "intelligent conversations" right? Given your post about how us liberals are all liars and all the rest it becomes obvious that you aren't interested in conversations. Arguments would be a better term and since you want an argument I don't really think my grammar is anything to worry about.

 

 

Why start worrying about your grammar now? You've never bothered before. Probably just best to keep posting misspelled words and poor punctuation to make your points. That really gives everyone a good grasp of your intellectual level.

 

As for the fact that liberals lie that is never more true than as we get closer and closer to election time and you see liberal politicians one after another all moving to the right. They distance themselves from the President and his left wing agenda. Just the other day seven of them broke ranks with their liberal party to reject the cop killer lawyer from the DOJ position because they knew it would not sit well with the voting public. They start talking about reducing taxes and spending less money, both of which are bedrock conservative platforms. Its all a lie though because just as they have done time and again they will make all of these promises during the campaign and once safely back in office they will go right back to their hardcore left wing way of ruining the country.

Edited March 10, 2014 by BlackHorse

[Langston Hughes]

I'm not worrying about my grammar. You have better grammar but don't bother to think in any critical manner so it all works out.

By the way, 7 democrats were chicken shit. It's up to them, but I think they were wrong. Damn, there I go criticizing Democrats again.

 

And your distorting what actually happened. Debo Adegbile took over a dept. of the NAACP that was representing Mumia Abu-Jamal on appeals. And that shouldn't preclude him from any position as he was merely ensuring that his legal rights were upheld. If doing such would preclude a person from government service than we would not have had John Adams, nor our current Chief Justice John Roberts who did pro bono work for a mass murderer.

Edited March 10, 2014 by Langston Hughes

[grbeck]

Tell me, does the ACLU receive overwhelming funding from the largest manufacturers of products in a single industry? Apples and oranges. What sales of what products skyrocket when the ACLU takes a point on an issue?

 

 

 

This is false. The NRA does not receive the majority of its funds from the manufacturers of firearms and ammunition.

 

Dues from members still represent the majority of the NRA's income. In its 2010 tax return, the NRA reported total revenue of $227.8 million, with $100.5 million coming from membership dues and $71.1 million from the category titled, "Contributions, Gifts, Grants and Other Similar Amounts." (The latter category includes the funds received from firearms manufacturers.)

 

Since 2010, NRA membership has been increasing. We can therefore deduce that the amount of money it receives in the form of dues paid by members has been INCREASING, as well. (NRA membership increased in 2013 in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre and discussion about renewed gun control efforts. This is from a Huffington Post story, not an NRA press release.)

 

Also ask yourself this - how do manufacturers firearms and ammunitions generate the money that is given to the NRA in the first place?

 

By selling their products at a profit.

 

Who buys those products?

 

Sarah Brady?

 

Piers Morgan?

 

Senator Dianne Feinstein?

 

Most likely...people who support the NRA's goals, given that they regularly purchase firearms and/or ammunition. So they aren't going to be that upset over a firearms or ammunition manufacturer giving money to the NRA. If anything, they probably support it.

 

In other words, you certainly haven't uncovered any horrible, evil smoking gun (pardon the pun), and you haven't discredited the NRA.

 

I've heard this often - a particular lobbying group or organization is really just a corporate front, and not advancing the true interests of dues-paying members. This is really because some people cannot accept that large numbers of Americans have the gall to disagree with them on a contentious issue, and it's not because they have received their marching orders from Corporate America.

 

I saw this during the debate over the effort to repeal the national 55 mph speed limit. Joan Claybrook, Ralph Nader, and the other "safety advocates" squawked that it was those awful auto makers pushing the effort. No, they weren't. They were neutral. The main effort was spearheaded by the National Motorists Association, which was a true grassroots lobby organization. (Meanwhile, opposing the repeal was the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, an insurance industry lobbying group, but Nader and Claybrook conveniently overlooked that fact).

 

Demonizing the evil gun makers, and, by extension, the NRA, can't distract from the fact that there are lots of people opposed to additional gun control. A majority of Americans oppose efforts to disarm law-abiding citizens, and also support efforts to liberalize the granting of concealed carry permits. (Over 30 states have liberalized the process by which a person can obtain a concealed carry permit since the early 1990. During that same time period, crime rates and murder rates have dramatically fallen. Now, I understand that correlation is not the same as causation. But that is the exact opposite of what gun control advocates said would happen. So they have egg on their faces...again. Just like the Chicken Littles who squawked that abolishing the national speed limit and allowing states to raise their limits to 70 or 75 mph would unleash Automotive Armageddon. Oops, that didn't happen, either...the roads are safer than ever.)

 

Edited March 10, 2014 by grbeck

[Langston Hughes]

While I believe that NRA members are happy to support gun manufacturer lobbying, it doesn't change my feelings that the NRA is primarily a manufacturer lobby through and through. If want to help fund it that is their choice.

[grbeck]

There is no proof that the NRA is not representing the wishes of its members, which is what ultimately matters. The NRA had better represent their wishes, given that their dues provide the majority of its resources.

 

Also note that it isn't only NRA members who oppose various gun control measures. There are plenty of people who oppose laws that cannot be enforced, or simply want the option to own a gun, if that is their choice. Just as many people who have never had an abortion, and are past the age of needing one, don't believe that banning it is a good idea.

Edited March 10, 2014 by grbeck

[the_spaniard]

I'll cede to your point on NRA funding if that includes the NRA, NRA-ILA, and the NRA Foundation (All part of the NRA)? Still, so less than 50% of their funding comes from membership dues.

 

Since 2010, NRA membership has been increasing. We can therefore deduce that the amount of money it receives in the form of dues paid by members has been INCREASING, as well. (NRA membership increased in 2013 in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre and discussion about renewed gun control efforts. This is from a Huffington Post story, not an NRA press release.)

 

 

And there is the NRA-manufactured assault on your freedoms. Sandy Hook is a prime example. After a mass shooting, "the government is coming to take away your guns." No one is trying to disarm American people. It's a fiction manufactured by the NRA to promote gun sales...and they use mass shootings to boost those sales. NRA really cashed in on suckers with the "Obama is coming to get your guns" line of ridiculous rhetoric. Laughed all the way to the bank. Thats why the number of gun owners has not increased significantly, but the number of guns each one owns has. I'm not trying to discredit the NRA, you don't have to. Like the tobacco industry, listen to their own rhetoric and just follow the money. People act as if the NRA didn't exist we wouldn't have 2nd Amendment rights.

 

Despite that polls show, time and time again that the majority of gun owners want common-sense regulation that the NRA ardently opposes. The last attempt to limit high-capacity magazines was thwarted by an influx of lobbying money and support by the NRA. Who is NRA's largest contributor? MidwayUSA, the manufacturer of high-capacity magazines. Is that really that hard to see that conflict of interest for a group supposedly dedicated to preserving your constitutional rights?

 

I've heard this often - a particular lobbying group or organization is really just a corporate front, and not advancing the true interests of dues-paying members. This is really because some people cannot accept that large numbers of Americans have the gall to disagree with them on a contentious issue, and it's not because they have received their marching orders from Corporate America.

 

 

If I thought the NRA was really about protecting my gun freedoms I wouldn't have an issue. If they weren't receiving large amounts of cash from manufacturers I wouldn't have an issue. That creates a serious conflict of interest for a group supposedly only concerned with my rights.

 

What you have not shown is that most Americans or even most gun owners support the NRA when polls and their membership say otherwise. Despite growth last year, they still have not hit 10%. Their number of 8% was questionable then. When you aren't 10% of the population how can you say the majority of Americans support it?

 

Most likely...people who support the NRA's goals, given that they regularly purchase firearms and/or ammunition. So they aren't going to be that upset over a firearms or ammunition manufacturer giving money to the NRA. If anything, they probably support it.

 

 

Pretty big assumption there.

 

Tell me, if I don't want to support the NRA but I still want to buy a firearm manufactured by the most well-known manufacturers how do I go about doing that in this country? That's right, you cant. That is the problem. If you don't like the NRA or their policies and you buy a handgun from a major manufacturer then you are supporting them anyway. Nice "automatic" support there. It isn't an evil conspiracy, but it is a rigged game.

Edited March 10, 2014 by the_spaniard

[BlackHorse]

While I believe that NRA members are happy to support gun manufacturer lobbying

 

 

You might actually believe that but it doesn't matter and it surely is not the case. People join the NRA to support their Second Amendment rights, not because they have some burning desire to support the firearms manufacturing lobby. Anyone with a modicum of common sense knows this. If both parties are pursuing the same goal, so much the better.

[the_spaniard]

There is no proof that the NRA is not representing the wishes of its members, which is what ultimately matters. The NRA had better represent their wishes, given that their dues provide the majority of its resources.

 

Also note that it isn't only NRA members who oppose various gun control measures. There are plenty of people who oppose laws that cannot be enforced, or simply want the option to own a gun, if that is their choice. Just as many people who have never had an abortion, and are past the age of needing one, don't believe that banning it is a good idea.

 

I don't have a problem with the NRA supporting it's members, that was never mentioned as a point in my arguments here. I have a problem when they put corporate profits ahead of what the majority of the public (the people) want. I have a problem when because of their support from gun manufacturers they can outspend an opposing voice at a ratio of 71:1. If the people are that opposing voice (and they may very well be according to polls) they don't have a chance against that.

 

I understand that non-NRA members may be for their policies. But they don't actively fund the suppression of other views (unless they buy guns from the manufacturers that support the NRA).

Edited March 10, 2014 by the_spaniard

[grbeck]

And there is the NRA-manufactured assault on your freedoms. Sandy Hook is a prime example. After a mass shooting, "the government is coming to take away your guns." No one is trying to disarm American people. It's a fiction manufactured by the NRA to promote gun sales...and they use mass shootings to boost those sales. NRA really cashed in on suckers with the "Obama is coming to get your guns" line of ridiculous rhetoric. Laughed all the way to the bank. Thats why the number of gun owners has not increased significantly, but the number of guns each one owns has. I'm not trying to discredit the NRA, you don't have to. Like the tobacco industry, listen to their own rhetoric and just follow the money. People act as if the NRA didn't exist we wouldn't have 2nd Amendment rights.

 

Please show me where the NRA is "assaulting" anyone's freedoms. Unless you are saying that, by protecting the right of law-abiding citizens to own and carry firearms, the NRA is somehow crimping the freedom of others. Or encouraged Adam Lanza to commit his crime. (Even before the Sandy Hook massacre, Connecticut had already enacted some of the toughest gun control legislation in the country.)

 

Do you also realize that studies have shown that strict gun control does not correlate with lower crime rates or even a reduced rate of deaths from firearms? This is from Harvard University, which I seriously doubt is in the thrall of the NRA:

 

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/08/27/Harvard-Study-Shows-No-Correlation-Between-Strict-Gun-Control-And-Less-Crime-Violence

 

The simple fact is that people who possess a valid concealed carry permit commit crimes at a LOWER rate than the general population. And we must also consider that, whenever bans on the private possession or ownership have been enacted, as they were in Washington, D.C., and Chicago, they failed to reduce crime in general, or even firearm-related crime in particular.

 

As for your contention that no one is seriously considering a total gun ban, you have not been paying close attention. There have been plenty of groups have been wanted to enact complete bans. They have been soft-pedaling their views, because too many politicians keep losing elections when they are associated with them.

 

Here is what the director of the Violence Policy Center said in 1999:

 

"A gun-control movement worthy of the name would insist that President Clinton move beyond his proposals for controls -- such as expanding background checks at gun shows and stopping the import of high-capacity magazines -- and immediately call on Congress to pass far-reaching industry regulation like the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act introduced by Senator Robert Torricelli, Democrat of New Jersey, and Representative Patrick Kennedy, Democrat of Rhode Island. Their measure would give the Treasury Department health and safety authority over the gun industry, and any rational regulator with that authority would ban handguns."

 

The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence was originally called the Coalition to Ban Handguns. It changed its name because it didn't believe that banning handguns was enough:

 

"In that year [1989], the National Coalition to Ban Handguns changed its name to Coalition to Stop Gun Violence to reflect its view that assault rifles, as well as handguns, should be outlawed."

 

In New Jersey, Governor Christie recently vetoed legislation that would have completely banned .50 caliber rifles within the state:

 

But Christie said the prohibition on .50-caliber rifles would outlaw a weapon that had never been used in a crime in New Jersey.

 

"Tellingly, the legislature points to no instance of this class of firearms being used by even a single criminal in New Jersey," he said. "The wide scope of this total ban, therefore, will not further public safety, but only interfere with lawful recreational pastimes."

 

 

 

the_spaniardDespite that polls show, time and time again that the majority of gun owners want common-sense regulation that the NRA ardently opposes. The last attempt to limit high-capacity magazines was thwarted by an influx of lobbying money and support by the NRA. Who is NRA's largest contributor? MidwayUSA, the manufacturer of high-capacity magazines. Is that really that hard to see that conflict of interest for a group supposedly dedicated to preserving your constitutional rights?

 

When pollsters actually took the time to explain what was entailed with those proposed regulations, the support quickly evaporated. At any rate, support for gun control measures has been steadily dropping since the Sandy Hook massacre:

 

http://reason.com/poll/2013/05/29/poll-two-thirds-of-americans-want-senate

 

 

Edited March 10, 2014 by grbeck

[grbeck]

 

I don't have a problem with the NRA supporting it's members, that was never mentioned as a point in my arguments here. I have a problem when they put corporate profits ahead of what the majority of the public (the people) want. I have a problem when because of their support from gun manufacturers they can outspend an opposing voice at a ratio of 71:1. If the people are that opposing voice (and they may very well be according to polls) they don't have a chance against that.

 

I understand that non-NRA members may be for their policies. But they don't actively fund the suppression of other views (unless they buy guns from the manufacturers that support the NRA).

Please show me where the NRA is "suppressing" the opposing viewpoint. More likely they are effectively countering it with superior arguments. And it's not as though the NRA has been treated gingerly by the mainstream media or gun control advocates. Quite the opposite.

 

And please note that, despite the pro-gun control forces outspending the NRA on the order of 7-1 in the recent recall elections in Colorado, the NRA still won: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/12/12/Gun-Control-Groups-Outspent-NRA-GOA-7-To-1-On-Advertising-Since-Sandy-Hook

 

Perhaps the headline should have read, "Gun Control Foes, NRA Heavily Outspent by Recall Gun Control Advocates; but Win Because Voters Agree With Their Position."

 

Instead of blaming loses on that evil NRA money, perhaps one should just accept that plenty of people don't think your side is addressing the real issues, and don't believe that encumbering law-abiding citizens with more restrictions is the answer. Just as we didn't listen to the Chicken Littles who predicted gloom-and-doom if we were permitted to drive 75 mph on limited access highways.

Edited March 10, 2014 by grbeck

[Langston Hughes]

You might actually believe that but it doesn't matter and it surely is not the case. People join the NRA to support their Second Amendment rights, not because they have some burning desire to support the firearms manufacturing lobby. Anyone with a modicum of common sense knows this. If both parties are pursuing the same goal, so much the better.

You are aware that I didn't say they joined to support them only that they are seemingly happy too. Actually reading and commenting on what I post and not on what you imagined I did would help.

[BlackHorse]

You are aware that I didn't say they joined to support them only that they are seemingly happy too. Actually reading and commenting on what I post and not on what you imagined I did would help.

 

I read what you said. It was the same old left wing dribble so I admit it was boring, incorrect and uninspired, but I read it anyway.

[the_spaniard]

 

Please show me where the NRA is "assaulting" anyone's freedoms. Unless you are saying that, by protecting the right of law-abiding citizens to own and carry firearms, the NRA is somehow crimping the freedom of others. Or encouraged Adam Lanza to commit his crime. (Even before the Sandy Hook massacre, Connecticut had already enacted some of the toughest gun control legislation in the country.)

 

You completely missed my point. The NRA does not assault anyones freedoms. The do convince the simple masses that the government is assaulting their 2nd amendment freedoms. They say that Obama will get your guns, and simple people everywhere in this country rush to buy up all the guns and ammo they can. As a result, manufacturers sales increase (wasn't it like 150% after Sandy Hook?) They manufacture crisis after crisis to promote sales, laughing all the way to the bank.

 

Do you also realize that studies have shown that strict gun control does not correlate with lower crime rates or even a reduced rate of deaths from firearms? This is from Harvard University, which I seriously doubt is in the thrall of the NRA:

 

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/08/27/Harvard-Study-Shows-No-Correlation-Between-Strict-Gun-Control-And-Less-Crime-Violence

 

And in the words of the above original researchers, "Our study could not determine cause-and-effect relationships."

 

I am not arguing the merits of gun control, good or bad. I am arguing that the NRA does not give the people a choice. They outspend their opponents with money from manufacturers. I have demonstrated how this is a conflict of interest, and no one here has explained how that isn't a conflict. If I were arguing the above, there are also studies that show that crime reduced in certain areas after more strict gun laws. It doesn't mean anything.

 

As for your contention that no one is seriously considering a total gun ban, you have not been paying close attention. There have been plenty of groups have been wanted to enact complete bans. They have been soft-pedaling their views, because too many politicians keep losing elections when they are associated with them.

 

Here is what the director of the Violence Policy Center said in 1999:

 

"A gun-control movement worthy of the name would insist that President Clinton move beyond his proposals for controls -- such as expanding background checks at gun shows and stopping the import of high-capacity magazines -- and immediately call on Congress to pass far-reaching industry regulation like the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act introduced by Senator Robert Torricelli, Democrat of New Jersey, and Representative Patrick Kennedy, Democrat of Rhode Island. Their measure would give the Treasury Department health and safety authority over the gun industry, and any rational regulator with that authority would ban handguns."

 

The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence was originally called the Coalition to Ban Handguns. It changed its name because it didn't believe that banning handguns was enough:

 

"In that year [1989], the National Coalition to Ban Handguns changed its name to Coalition to Stop Gun Violence to reflect its view that assault rifles, as well as handguns, should be outlawed."

 

In New Jersey, Governor Christie recently vetoed legislation that would have completely banned .50 caliber rifles within the state:

 

But Christie said the prohibition on .50-caliber rifles would outlaw a weapon that had never been used in a crime in New Jersey.

 

"Tellingly, the legislature points to no instance of this class of firearms being used by even a single criminal in New Jersey," he said. "The wide scope of this total ban, therefore, will not further public safety, but only interfere with lawful recreational pastimes."

 

And please instruct me on how any of these groups has ever come close to causing any significant change to our 2nd amendment rights. How many votes as an outright ban on firearms gotten? How many times has it even been proposed? How about the elimination of the 2nd amendment? Independent of NRA, a gun ban would likely never pass in this country.

 

You can have a group that supports anything in this country. That does not mean it would ever influence legislation. Ask NAMBLA.

 

Banning a .50 caliber snipers rifle that costs $7000-15000 that has likely not killed a single person in this country is not quite the same a banning high-capacity magazines. One of those makes a little more sense, though I would like to see the research on both.

 

 

When pollsters actually took the time to explain what was entailed with those proposed regulations, the support quickly evaporated.

 

Really? Care to source that claim?

 

 

At any rate, support for gun control measures has been steadily dropping since the Sandy Hook massacre:

 

http://reason.com/poll/2013/05/29/poll-two-thirds-of-americans-want-senate

 

I would think that other issues might take precedence, given we are recovering from the worst economic crisis since the great depression, and a congress with a bargain basement approval rating.

 

The poll does not show people do not want gun control. It shows there are bigger fish to fry right now. With the country going down the financial tubes, I think people have more important things to think about. That being said if we see multiple polls this year that support a change to relaxed gun legislation, it will support the study above. I'll certainly admit I was wrong at that point. Given the high rates reported last year, I am curious to see multiple polls to see if the trends change.

 

My contention is that the NRA will likely never support any common-sense legislation if there was a Sandy-Hook shooting every week and 99% of the people saw a significant need for change.

 

Edited March 11, 2014 by the_spaniard

[the_spaniard]

Please show me where the NRA is "suppressing" the opposing viewpoint. More likely they are effectively countering it with superior arguments. And it's not as though the NRA has been treated gingerly by the mainstream media or gun control advocates. Quite the opposite.

 

And please note that, despite the pro-gun control forces outspending the NRA on the order of 7-1 in the recent recall elections in Colorado, the NRA still won: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/12/12/Gun-Control-Groups-Outspent-NRA-GOA-7-To-1-On-Advertising-Since-Sandy-Hook

 

Perhaps the headline should have read, "Gun Control Foes, NRA Heavily Outspent by Recall Gun Control Advocates; but Win Because Voters Agree With Their Position."

 

Instead of blaming loses on that evil NRA money, perhaps one should just accept that plenty of people don't think your side is addressing the real issues, and don't believe that encumbering law-abiding citizens with more restrictions is the answer. Just as we didn't listen to the Chicken Littles who predicted gloom-and-doom if we were permitted to drive 75 mph on limited access highways.

 

If you have 71 times the money of your opponent in lobbying, how is that NOT suppression of one side? Tell you what, lets see a president get elected when his opponent outspends him with that ratio.

 

Until pro-gun control groups have the financial clout to threaten representatives that do not support their views (the way the NRA threatens republican representatives that don't get a good "grade"), they have no hope of opposing the corporate-funded NRA.

 

Perhaps the headline should have read, "Gun Control Foes, NRA Heavily Outspent by Recall Gun Control Advocates; but Win Because Voters Agree With Their Position."

 

 

If that was actually the case, which polls suggested it was not...at least on a national level.

Edited March 11, 2014 by the_spaniard

[BlackHorse]

 

If you have 71 times the money of your opponent in lobbying, how is that NOT suppression of one side? Tell you what, lets see a president get elected when his opponent outspends him with that ratio.

 

Until pro-gun control groups have the financial clout to threaten representatives that do not support their views (the way the NRA threatens republican representatives that don't get a good "grade"), they have no hope of opposing the corporate-funded NRA.

 

 

 

 

 

WARNING! WARNING! LIBERAL BS TALKING POINTS HAVE JUST BEEN POSTED ABOVE!!!

 

 

Now for some reality. The NRA issues "grades" to every member of Congress regardless of party and they do the same at the state level regardless of party. It is not something that is just reserved for the Republicans as you have tried to assert and it is not some sort of intimidation effort. If legislators have to be intimidated to uphold the Second Amendment than this country has a lot bigger problems than some grade issued by the NRA. Stop with your liberal BS talking points. The reality is that there are plenty of Democrats who do not support the anti-gun agenda crowd. Some of them don't support it because they honestly believe in the Second Amendment and some of them don't support it because they remember all to well what happened to the Democrat party when they actually did take steps to seriously curtail the rights of Americans to keep and bare arms. The Brady Bill got a whole bunch of them voted out of office in 1994 and the Republicans took control of Congress. Ever since then the Democrat party has done a great job of either avoiding challenging the Second Amendment or they try back door efforts to bring it down like the recent EPA banning lead in bullets bullshit. But make no mistake, if a Congressman gets a bad grade from the NRA there is a good reason for it.

Edited March 11, 2014 by BlackHorse

[rn4]

The EPA was not trying to ban lead in bullets.

[Langston Hughes]

 

I read what you said. It was the same old left wing dribble so I admit it was boring, incorrect and uninspired, but I read it anyway.

So you're saying that you didn't read it fully then? Ok, that's what I thought. Because either you read it and purposely distorted it or your grammar is exponentially better than your comprehension.

[cal50]

Simply put show one ( 1 ) example of the NRA directly supporting , advocating or taking the side of irresponsible or criminal misuse of a firearm ?

 

A person or group can have a ton of money and still not have their message heard loud and clear by the masses. The major broadcast networks routinely deny advertising spots that the NRA has tried to purchase.

Many newspapers also reject advertising which is their right because its usually opposite their supposed "neutral" view on issues.

 

Money helps get a message out but its no guarantee of the intended results.

Lots of money has been spent promoting Obamacare and people initially believed it. Now for the money spent opinion is drastically shifted the opposite way.

 

So much for the argument of money alone makes people believers.

[grbeck]

the_spaniard: You completely missed my point. The NRA does not assault anyones freedoms. The do convince the simple masses that the government is assaulting their 2nd amendment freedoms. They say that Obama will get your guns, and simple people everywhere in this country rush to buy up all the guns and ammo they can. As a result, manufacturers sales increase (wasn't it like 150% after Sandy Hook?) They manufacture crisis after crisis to promote sales, laughing all the way to the bank.

 

Are you backtracking on that point? Because yesterday, you posted this:

 

And there is the NRA-manufactured assault on your freedoms.

 

Yesterday you said that the NRA is leading an "assault on our freedoms," and now you say that it doesn't.

 

I would also suggest that you drop any reference to the "simple" masses. It doesn't pay to be condescending towards those who disagree with you on this issue. My experience has been that people opposed to gun control efforts are much better informed on current federal and state laws covering the ownership, possession and transfer of firearms, as well as the differences between firearms (for example, what really constitutes an "assault weapon").

 

Those "simple" masses apparently have a superior memory regarding the various statements of groups in favor of greater control. Those groups are on the record as favoring steps to ban guns completely.

 

As for President Obama, he is from a city that had instituted a city-wide ban on gun ownership, and he is on the record as supporting that ban. He also supported Washington, D.C.'s ban on private firearms ownership, and said so during a 2008 interview at a Washington, D.C. television station during the 2008 campaign:

 

News Anchor: "One other issue that’s of great importance here in the district as well is gun control … but you support the D.C. handgun ban.”

 

Candidate Obama: “Right.”

 

News Anchor: “And you’ve said that it’s constitutional."

 

Candidate Obama: "Right."

 

Don't confuse "what he can achieve in the present political climate" with "what he would like to achieve if he could have his own way." The President has been supportive of ordinances and legislation that would forbid individuals from owning a firearm - even in their own home. He is on the record as being supportive of these laws. When he was presented the opportunity to vote for such measures, or express support for them in various public forums, he did so. This is not the result of NRA-stoked paranoia. This is a fact.

 

 

 

the_spaniard: And in the words of the above original researchers, "Our study could not determine cause-and-effect relationships."

 

They weren't looking for a cause-and-effect relationship. They were trying to find whether strict gun control measures can shown to reduce crime. Based on a study by Harvard University, such measures do not have this effect.

 

 

 

the_spaniard: I am not arguing the merits of gun control, good or bad. I am arguing that the NRA does not give the people a choice. They outspend their opponents with money from manufacturers.

 

Please explain how the NRA is taking away choices from people. It is protecting the choice of people to own a gun. If it lobbied for legislation requiring everyone to own a gun, or face criminal or civil penalties, then you can say that it is restricting choice. But it is not doing that.

 

Also note, as I've shown above, the majority of the NRA's money comes from membership dues. If said members were not happy with the NRA's lobbying efforts, they would drop their membership, and stop paying dues. This is not happening (membership has been increasing).

 

 

 

the_spaniard: I have demonstrated how this is a conflict of interest, and no one here has explained how that isn't a conflict.

 

You haven't explained how there is a conflict. You have shown that the NRA receives some money from firearms manufacturers. It is not unusual for any advocacy organization to receive funds from its associated industry. This happens regularly. This source of funds does not even constitute the majority of the NRA's annual income.

 

You need to prove that the NRA's position is being driven by any donations it receives from weapons manufacturers. The fact that it is receiving such donations is not, in and of itself, proof of this. The NRA's position on various issues has been the same over the years. (If any changes have been occurring, it is because of the increasingly aggressive gun control lobby.)

 

If there were a conflict of interest between the interests of individual members and manufacturers, the former would be leaving the organization, as they are free to do. There is no requirement that everyone who owns a firearm also take out an NRA membership, as you've pointed out in your posts. Membership is entirely voluntary.

 

 

 

the_spaniard: If I were arguing the above, there are also studies that show that crime reduced in certain areas after more strict gun laws. It doesn't mean anything.

 

The problem is that the decades-long examples of Chicago and Washington, D.C., are out there punching a big hole in that one. And there are also studies that show a reduction in crime after the adoption of more liberal concealed-carry laws.

 

One possible conclusion - gun control efforts target the wrong people (i.e., law-abiding citizens), so they are an ineffective method of combatting crime.

 

 

 

the_spaniard: And please instruct me on how any of these groups has ever come close to causing any significant change to our 2nd amendment rights. How many votes as an outright ban on firearms gotten? How many times has it even been proposed? How about the elimination of the 2nd amendment? Independent of NRA, a gun ban would likely never pass in this country.

 

Are you forgetting the examples of Chicago and Washington, D.C.? They did pass bans on private ownership of firearms. Such a ban does not have to be national in scope.

 

 

 

the_spaniard: Really? Care to source that claim?

 

Polls can be slanted by carefully worded questions to achieve any desired outcome. It is a fact that most people do not know what laws currently exist; thus, it is meaningless to assert that people favor "stricter" laws when they do not know how "strict" the laws are in the first place. For example, our local paper carried a letter to the editor complaining about the unreasonable opposition to the NRA regarding background checks. Only problem is that virtually all sales are already subject to a background check, which the letter writer conveniently forgot, or didn't know.

 

Here is one article:

 

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2013/12/04/why-newtown-didnt-lead-to-gun-control/

 

An excerpt from that article:

 

Liberals counted on a wave of emotion in the wake of Newtown to help bulldoze both Congress and the public into adopting their long-cherished dream to restrict gun ownership and make it more difficult to legally purchase weapons. In the first weeks after the massacre, they seemed to be right and polls reflected a surge in support for more gun laws. But after the nation started to look at the facts, the numbers changed.

 

As CNN writes on their website:

 

Though the president and many in the media did their best to exploit the bloodshed, once it became apparent that the remedies proposed by the president had nothing to do with the crime, their momentum was stalled. No amount of rhetorical excess from President Obama or the pundits could cover up the fact that even if every item on his gun-control laundry list had been passed prior to the shooting, none of them would have prevented Adam Lanza from stealing weapons from his mother before killing her and then heading to the school where he committed senseless slaughter.

 

 

The survey indicates that the intensity of opinion on the issue of gun control, once an advantage for gun control advocates, no longer benefits either side. In January 37% of all Americans strongly favored stricter gun laws, with 27% strongly opposed to them. Now that 10-point difference has completely disappeared, with the number who strongly oppose and strongly favor stricter gun control at essentially the same level.

 

 

 

the_spaniard: My contention is that the NRA will likely never support any common-sense legislation if there was a Sandy-Hook shooting every week and 99% of the people saw a significant need for change.

 

Public opinion isn't always a reliable indicator of whether a measure will be effective (let alone constitutional). A majority of Americans originally supported Prohibition, the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II and the national 55-mph speed limit.

Edited March 11, 2014 by grbeck

[grbeck]

 

If you have 71 times the money of your opponent in lobbying, how is that NOT suppression of one side? Tell you what, lets see a president get elected when his opponent outspends him with that ratio.

 

Until pro-gun control groups have the financial clout to threaten representatives that do not support their views (the way the NRA threatens republican representatives that don't get a good "grade"), they have no hope of opposing the corporate-funded NRA.

 

You are confusing "money" with "influence." Contrary to your belief, the two are not synonymous. As I've shown by the above real-world example, the NRA was heavily outspent in the Colorado recall elections, and still won. All of the money in the world won't make an unpopular or unworkable idea appealing.

 

The reason various legislators don't support many measures is because they are afraid of their CONSTITUENTS, not the NRA. They know that there is a core of constituents who feel passionately about the issue and will vote accordingly. NRA money isn't changing that fact. As you've pointed out, not every gun owner is an NRA member. Yet the vote totals show that it isn't just NRA members voting a particular way. Apparently, these people are able to make up their minds on their own.

 

You also ignore that most mainstream media outlets are opposed to the NRA and gun ownership in general, and are therefore selective in the stories they run, how they report them and what sources they quote. Said media outlets haven't exactly treated the NRA, or even gun owners in general, in a gingerly manner. They referred to with outright derision and ridicule.

Edited March 11, 2014 by grbeck

[BlackHorse]

The EPA was not trying to ban lead in bullets.

 

 

Sure they weren't. It's just by pure chance that it happened that way right? Whatever. Their goal is to make bullets more costly. They would love it if bullets became so costly that people didn't buy them at all thus destroying the Second Amendment in a roundabout way. But they always fail to remember that necessity is the mother of ingenuity.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/12/21/end-line-for-lead-bullet-regulations-bans-force-switch-to-green-ammo/

[Langston Hughes]

Sure they weren't. It's just by pure chance that it happened that way right? Whatever. Their goal is to make bullets more costly. They would love it if bullets became so costly that people didn't buy them at all thus destroying the Second Amendment in a roundabout way. But they always fail to remember that necessity is the mother of ingenuity.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/12/21/end-line-for-lead-bullet-regulations-bans-force-switch-to-green-ammo/

Yeah, years of pollution, emissions levels higher than allowed, contamination of the local area have nothing to do with it. It's all about the bullets.

 

And offering up a Faux news conspiracy theory link doesn't help your cause.