Happy 140th Birthday, NRA!

[Atypical Liberal]

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/11/foghorn/nra-turns-140-today/

"On November 17, 1871 the National Rifle Association was officially chartered in the state of New York. The founders, Col. William C. Church and Gen. George Wingate, formed the organization to promote marksmanship among the people of the United States as a result of the abysmal shooting abilities shown by the troops under their command during the American Civil War."

Today we are over 4 million strong, and through the power of collective effort we are working to sculpt US firearm laws more powerfully than ever.

Congrats to all of us. We are the NRA!

[Starboard Tack]

1. You must feel very proud

Like Lincoln would be proud of the Republican Party.
:puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:

[We_Have_A_Problem]

3. What is your problem with the NRA?

Is it just the fact that they support the 2nd Amendment?

[Starboard Tack]

9. No, just the fact that they distort the 2nd Amendment.

and evolved from being a healthy Rifle Shooting organization into a powerful right-wing lobby, masquerading as a fighter for civil rights.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

13. Funny thing is...

...they've ALWAYS advocated for civil rights. That's nothing new.


Guess you just want to ignore how they supported the rights of blacks to own firearms...

[Starboard Tack]

16. I don't ignore anything

Good people sometimes do bad things. Bad people sometimes do good things. The issue here is the NRA evolving into a GOP lobbying organization. Sometimes we have to pick a side. Sounds like you've picked yours.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

17. What I've picked...

...is to support my rights and the rights of everyone.

I do not appreciate the insinuation that people who support the 2nd Amendment are Republican.

I also fail to see where the NRA has distorted the 2nd Amendment. Seems their perspective on it aligns with the views of the Supreme Court and the large bulk of the US.

[Starboard Tack]

23. "I also fail to see where the NRA has distorted the 2nd Amendment."

Therein lies your problem. In the guise of 2A rights, the NRA has pushed for the proliferation of handgun ownership and the "right" to tote them everywhere. This is a long way from the original intent of 2A and you know it. SCOTUS doesn't have views, it makes Constitutional decisions, which have turned to the right since 1980, thanks to the NRA's strong lobbying for Reagan. The composition of the court would be very different today if Carter had won. Hopefully, we will get another 4 or even 8 years to swing it back to the realm of sanity, rather than Hannity.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

33. No, I don't know it.

In the 18th century, people carried firearms everywhere - including to the pub or church. The idea that a man could not be armed was unheard of.

How you figure the idea that people should be able to carry a gun anywhere they go is a long way from original intent is beyond me. Further, the very obvious intent and fact of the time was for the people to be armed at least as well as the military - and in many cases, personal arms were far better than the military used. Our military still issued smoothbores up through the Civil War when private arms were near exclusively rifles. Hell - the Army issued swords in WWI long after a private citizen gave up on that antiquated arm.

You can tell yourself Heller and McDonald went they way they did because of a right wing court, but the plain fact is, even Miller supported an individual rights model, and supported the idea of the people carrying military weapons. Miller was not arrested because he had a shotgun with him - he was arrested because the shotgun was 1/4" too short by NFA standards.

Bottom line ST is you're wrong. Nothing in history supports you.

[Starboard Tack]

38. I've got news for you. We are not in the 18th century.

The weapons in circulation today are far more lethal. Armed militias are redundant in a democratic society. The right to self-defense has never been challenged, unlike many legal claims of self-defense. The problem with the NRA and those who support it is the proliferation and glorification of handguns, not the right to own them. You may believe that the routine toting of a handgun is healthy for society. I respectfully disagree. I see it as regressive behavior and a negative indictment of the society we live in.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

40. No we arent

But you're the one who said it wasnt want the founding fathers had in mind, and it most assuredly was.

As far as weapons being more lethal, not really. A .78 caliber lead ball moving at 1500fps is going to fuck you up bad - and that's about what a musket was doing. Pistols were running somewhere around .60 caliber and moving something on the order of 700fps. MORE than enough to kill you. (Actually if you do the force equations, you'll see its pretty much on par with modern firearms in terms of power).

The NRA supports neither glorification nor proliferation of any firearm - handgun or otherwise. They support the right to keep and bear them. I'm sorry you cannot understand the difference.

You may believe someone carrying a handgun is not healthy for society, but sadly, you have no actual proof of your belief. Facts indicate otherwise in fact.

If you believe an armed populace is redundant, you're welcome to that belief. I disagree with you, and I can point to modern day examples of the value. Further, why do you believe just because a society is democratic that nothing can go wrong? That is foolish at best.

The original intent and behavior was most assuredly to have people carry whenever and wherever they damn well pleased without government interference. If you don't like that, the way to correct it is not to simply ignore the law as it exists, but to amend the Constitution. Good luck with that one though. It doesn't look like most of the country would agree with you.

Like it or not ST, the idea that by disarming yourself or the populace, all crime will cease is obviously false. There are bad people in this world who do bad things, and good people have every right in the world to protect themselves. Believing that government will never have to be forcibly curtailed is also a pretty ignorant perspective. Even the most benevolent governments have always morphed to oppressive ones.

[beevul]

63. Open mouth, insert foot.

"The problem with the NRA and those who support it is the proliferation and glorification of handguns, not the right to own them."

Seems that problem isn't just limited to the nra or people that support it:



Say, is that a brady bunch supporter there glorifying handguns?






Is that a popgun in his pants or is he just happy to see you?


What a rude toter! :rofl:

Bradys posterboy in the above images, has probably done ten times more to glorify handguns, and guns in general, that the nra could.


And yet when it comes to the "glorification of handguns", so far as can be seen here, you seem content to direct your disdain...toward the nra.


Me, I think it has nothing to do with anything except the fact the nra stands as a roadblock, to things gun related you may wish to see accomplished, and nothing more.

[Starboard Tack]

68. And what is it that you think I want to see accomplished?

And what is your point with the movie images?

[beevul]

80. What ?

I think you'd like to see the elimination of the gun lobby, and gun culture.

I think you'd like to see another "assault weapons ban".

I think you'd like to see gun shows become a thing of the past.

I think you'd like to see open and concealed carry done away with.

I think you'd like to see nationwide gun registration.


Feel free to clear up my misconceptions, if any of the above fit the definition of one.

"And what is your point with the movie images?"

I think I made my meaning pretty plain:


When I said "Bradys posterboy in the above images, has probably done ten times more to glorify handguns, and guns in general, that the nra could", my point was to take you to task for harping on the nra for "glorifying handguns" guns, while turning a blind eye to those that actually do. And you're still doing that.

Stallone is but one example of many, that go to brady functions, publicly state that handguns should be tightly controlled or all together eliminated, while making millions glorifying handguns and guns in general out of the other side of their mouth.

And Like I say, he ALONE, has done more to glorify guns in MULTIPLES, than the nra has.

Have anything to say about that, or him?

And will your words match the much higher proportion of "glorification" that can be laid at his doorstep, or will they be some token criticism?


Do you have any doubt what my point is now ?

[Starboard Tack]

97. OK, let me enlighten you, as your ESP failed

I think you'd like to see the elimination of the gun lobby, and gun culture.

I would like to see the elimination of all paid lobbyists and the consequent corruption of our political system. The whole concept of lobbying politicians needs to be revisited if we are to have a genuine system of representative democracy. Any lobbying involving corporate funding is inherently corrupt.
"Gun Culture" is a rather broad term. I have no problem with gun enthusiasts who keep guns for hunting, sport shooting and defense of the home. I do have a problem with the routine toting of guns outside the home under the pretext of self-defense and preparedness. I also have a problem with both criminals and cops routinely carrying firearms.

I think you'd like to see another "assault weapons ban".

Yes, the line has to be drawn somewhere.

I think you'd like to see gun shows become a thing of the past.

Wrong. I have no problem with gun shows.

I think you'd like to see open and concealed carry done away with.

Although I find the practice objectionable, I would prefer CC permits be issued based on demonstrable need. I would leave it to local government to decide whether they want gun-free zones. As long as SCOTUS recognizes the right to carry for personal protection, then I would prefer people do it openly. Communities should have the right to be gun free, if they so choose.

I am not a fan of either Brady or Stallone.

[PavePusher]

108. "Yes, the line has to be drawn somewhere."

Why must a line be drawn? And why there? On what postulated utility?

[PavePusher]

109. "I would prefer CC permits be issued based on demonstrable need."

Can we apply that to all Civil Rights, please? Oh, by the way... who decides?

[Starboard Tack]

115. CC permit is not a civil right

[PavePusher]

120. "keep and bear arms" is a Civil Right.

May I see your First Amendment Permit, please?

[Starboard Tack]

142. It is a Constitutional Right. For now.

CC is a right for those who qualify in States that allow it. For now.

[Starboard Tack]

151. Are you saying CC permits are unconstitutional?

[Atypical Liberal]

167. Yes.

I think CCW permits are unconstitutional.

I also think states will eventually do away with them. They are going to come to the same conclusion that some states already have - there is no societal benefit to tracking people who carry concealed firearms because they are hardly ever involved in crime.

[beevul]

117. Typical.

"Yes, the line has to be drawn somewhere."

It would be just wonderful if you'd explain WHY a line has to be drawn, AND why it has to be drawn there.

"I think you'd like to see nationwide gun registration."

I couldn't help but notice you didn't answer that. State your position please.

"Although I find the practice objectionable, I would prefer CC permits be issued based on demonstrable need."

Oh, well hey, how about voting and speech permits based on demonstrable need too.

"I would leave it to local government to decide whether they want gun-free zones."

And I'm just so certain you'd leave it to local government to decide whether they want speech-free zones, too, wouldn't you... :puke:

"Communities should have the right to be gun free, if they so choose."

Really? Communities should just be able to ignore a constitutionally protected fundamental civil right, just because...they feel like it?

Don't bother with the "it isn't a civil right" schtick. It IS a civil right, and before the fight over guns is over, you'll either concede that, or be stuck in denial, living with it.

You are fighting a losing war.


"I am not a fan of either Brady or Stallone."

Of course you aren't. :eyes:

And yet, while you'll say all kinds of vile things about the nra, justifying it because of their "glorification" of handguns amongst other things, you just can't seem to work up the effort to say more than 7 words about stallone, who really truly and actually HAS glorified handguns.

And that about says it all, right there.

[Callisto32]

124. You are funny!

Not like, "ha-ha" but...you know.

[Lurks Often]

51. If the NRA is so in bed with the GOP, why do they support Harry Reid?

From: http://reid.senate.gov/about/upload/accomplishments.pdf

Page 4:
Senator Reid Supports Nevadans’ Second Amendment Rights. Senator Reid has consistently voted to protect Nevadans’ right to bear arms. He was one of the few Democrats to vote against the assault weapons ban in 1994 and again in 2004. In 2002 Senator Reid sponsored and passed legislation that granted 2,900 acres of land in Clark County for the development of the Clark County Shooting Park. This shooting park is the finest facility in the United States, and is capable of hosting local, national, and even international events. Senator Reid has also championed legislation to restore and preserve Nevada’s rivers, lakes, and public lands so that Nevadans will always have a place to hunt and fish. As evidence of his work on these issues, NRA Vice President, Wayne LaPierre, recently celebrated Senator Reid as “a true champion of the Second Amendment.”

[Starboard Tack]

54. There are many who support 2A who despise the NRA

Politicians want to get elected. In rural America it's a no-brainer. I see nothing about Reid supporting the proliferation of handguns and concealed carry. Shooting parks have nothing to do with 2A, which does not mention hunting or sport shooting.

[Lurks Often]

85. You did see when it stated that Sen Reid voted against

assault weapons ban in 1994 and again in 2004?

[Starboard Tack]

91. Yes and your point is?

[Lurks Often]

137. The point you keep trying to ignore

is that the NRA is a one issue organization who will support, either financially or by endorsing, any candidate that supports the 2nd Amendment and the rights of law abiding gun owners.

[Starboard Tack]

140. I don't ignore it. I point it out and it disgusts me.

[Lurks Often]

147. Then your post above is incorrect

"The issue here is the NRA evolving into a GOP lobbying organization."


It is not a GOP lobbying organization as several of us have pointed out to you repeatedly. It is a Second Amendment lobbying organization that will support both Democrats and Republicans (and probably some independents) who support the Second Amendment.


And regardless of YOUR interpretation of the Second Amendment (or for that matter mine) the US Supreme Court has ruled and THEIR interpretation is the one that counts.

[Starboard Tack]

148. You are correct. The opinion of SCOTUS counts.

SCOTUS being a right leaning group at present supports another right leaning group, the NRA.

[Lurks Often]

153. Yawn. I can see that you are so deep into your incorrect, misinformed,

biased worldview that there is no point wasting my time continuing this conversation. Bye now

[Tesha]

39. They proudly and far-disproportionally support Republicans. As do most gun folks. (NT)

[fightthegoodfightnow]

174. All NRA members are members of the militia?

Not.

[gejohnston]

177. militia membership is irrelevant

There has never been a SCOTUS decision supporting the collective rights theory. It was a theory put forth in the 1930s and taken seriously by some only since the 1960s.

[SteveM]

5. And the "troops under their command" were Union or Confederate? nt

[Starboard Tack]

25. I have no idea what your point is

[SteveM]

35. Seems like the NRA was on the right side of the Civil War. Disagree? nt

[Starboard Tack]

42. The NRA was on the right side until 1980

when it went into partisan politics. Since then it has become the largest lobbying group in the country and a mouthpiece for right-wing propaganda. Many Democratic gun owners don't feel the need to make Faustian deals to protect their rights.

[SteveM]

47. Faustian deals: Most here do not make them, correct? nt

[Starboard Tack]

50. Correct. Most do not support the NRA

[Atypical Liberal]

22. I do indeed.

It is probably the most effective collective rights organization I belong to.

[Hoyt]

2. Lets say HB to all lobbyists that bribe Congress to society's detriment -- oil, banks, guns, etc.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

4. long as you remember to include...

...unions, pro-abortion groups, pro-gay groups...

All of those could be seen as detrimental to society by someone else.

[Hoyt]

8. But those aren't "detrimental" unless one is a right winger. I know you guys wouldn't want to

offend right wingers because without them, guns would be in jeopardy.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

11. The point, which you missed as usual

is that your opinion is just that - your opinion.

Rights are rights and we certainly have the right to lobby government for what we the people deem necessary. We also have the right of association.

You may not like firearms and believe that you are doing the right thing by advocating the suppression of a civil right, but don't claim the moral high ground and look down upon other groups which do the same thing you're doing.

I believe what the NRA does is largely good for society.

[Hoyt]

14. I guess the fact that the NRA endorses 3 right wingers for every Democrat is good for society.

I will bet that the only reason they endorsed most Democrats is because they were likely to win and were at least no more than mildly resistant to arming the public. That is obviously an opinion as is anything I and most others post on a political forum.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

15. They endorse pro-gun candidates

regardless of political party affiliation. Simple as that.

Whatever reason you choose to believe is simply your opinion with no basis in fact.

[Atypical Liberal]

20. Democrats could change that OVERNIGHT.

I guess the fact that the NRA endorses 3 right wingers for every Democrat is good for society.

I will bet that the only reason they endorsed most Democrats is because they were likely to win and were at least no more than mildly resistant to arming the public. That is obviously an opinion as is anything I and most others post on a political forum.

Setting aside the fact that in the last election every one of my Democratic candidates except one had high marks from the NRA, and three of them were the endorsed candidates, the simple fact is that Democrats could turn the NRA into a lobbying arm for their benefit overnight, by simply embracing the right to keep and bear arms.

Politicians ignore my right to keep and bear arms at their peril, and I enjoy paying money to make that happen.

[Hoyt]

26. I hope Democrats don't do that. I doubt most will.

Somehow having an organization dominated by TBag sympathizers embracing a few Democrat is not very comforting to me. If your Democrats get a real challenge from right wingers -- see where the NRA puts its/your money.

[burf]

30. NRA-PVF Endorsement Policy

The NRA-PVF is non-partisan in issuing its candidate grades and endorsements. We do not base our decisions on a candidate’s party affiliation, but rather on his or her record on Second Amendment issues. The NRA is a single-issue organization. The only issues on which we evaluate candidates seeking elected office are gun-related issues. While there are many issues a candidate must address with voters, and while voters evaluate a number of non-gun-related issues in factoring which candidate they will support or oppose, NRA-PVF’s sole criteria in issuing grades and endorsements is a candidate’s position on gun-related issues.

More at: http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?id=413&issue=047

Hope this helps.

[iverglas]

58. oh, it helps soooo much

It gave me my giggle for the evening.

"We do not base our decisions on a candidate’s party affiliation, but rather on his or her record on Second Amendment issues."

And lobby groups against same-sex marriage don't base their decisions on a candidate’s party affiliation, but rather on their record on same-sex marriage.

And lobby groups against legal abortion don't base their decisions on a candidate’s party affiliation, but rather on their record on abortion.

And lobby groups ... you get the picture. ;)

It's so easy to be non-partisan when your entire agenda is a sub-agenda of the right-wing agenda, isn't it?

[burf]

60. Typical

Don't let the facts get in the way of your fantasy.

[Hoyt]

61. You've never worked for a PAC or Lobby organization if you believe that BS policy.

I used to work for a organization that had a PAC -- shit, they'd give something to most candidates with a shot at winnig just to keep access open in case the other guy won. I suspect the NRA is a bit more calculating in their money and their friendships.

But, hey, if you want to believe the NRA is pure and sweet (notwithstanding their love for guns), that's your decision.

[Simo 1939_1940]

100. Folks like you CREATED the modern NRA, Hoyt. You

just don't have the self-awareness to recognize and admit it - though it's been pointed out to you countless times.

And why do Democratic politicians support gun restrictionist policy? Simply because they'd upset the uneducated knee-jerk members of their base - not because any empirical evidence supports those policies.

As to your reference to the NRA being "pure and sweet" in our eyes - purity and sweetness are in the eye of the beholder. The fact that virulent anti-gun folks depict firearm owners as mouth-breathing knuckle-draggers doesn't bother you a bit, I'm guessing.

Edited to add this:

I forgot that it's been a while since I gave you a hug for aiding our cause by undermining yours.

:pals:

[Hoyt]

110. Glad to help you guys tote without concern for society. Maybe they just don't want to hear you whine

"how can we live without our guns?"

[Simo 1939_1940]

113. And maybe a lot of other folks don't want to hear you whine

about a non-existent "threat".

The extremely low level of gun violence by CCW holders has been proven over and over again with unassailable stats from Texas and Florida in this forum.

Not that facts mean a damn thing to the factose-intolerant individuals such as yourself.

Thanks again, pal!

:pals:

[Atypical Liberal]

67. Thanks. Can't be put any more simply than that. n/t

[safeinOhio]

78. See NRA last minute

change in John Kasich's rating just before the Ohio elections. Went from F to B- in order to get the Republican elected against an A Democratic incumbent.
Kasich voted for the AWB while in congress and voted for bills that were anti hunting. Just before the election, Kasich gave lip service to the 2nd and that got him the change. At the same time Obama also said he now supports the 2nd and while in office has signed pro gun laws, yet still gets an F. Now Wayne Lapierre says that Obame has a new secret plan. By not supporting any anti gun bills and signing pro gun bills, he says it's Obama's new secret conspiracy to destroy the 2nd. This after he said Obama had a 10 point secret plan to take away your guns in 2008.

Then there are Ted Nugent and Grover Norquist on the Board of directors.

By supporting the NRA, you are supporting Wayne Lapierre, Ted Nugent and Grove Norquist and all they stand for.

[Atypical Liberal]

83. I'll take that.

By supporting the NRA, you are supporting Wayne Lapierre, Ted Nugent and Grove Norquist and all they stand for.

If I have to put up with their ilk to enjoy the successes on firearm rights we have been enjoying, I'll take that.

[Hoyt]

92. Excellent description of how they play games to advance their political agenda and fool members.

[hack89]

94. Then Democrats need to step up and give us an alternative to the NRA

I belong to the NRA for one simple reason - there is no other group willing to defend my right to bear arms.

[Hoyt]

111. Sorry, I will not bow to the almighty NRA and their gun toting members, mostly TBaggers.

[Simo 1939_1940]

114. We wouldn't expect you to bow to the NRA, Hoyt.

After all, since people like you created the NRA as we know it today, the NRA should be bowing to YOU!

[hack89]

118. I would hope not - the NRA needs people like you in order to grow. nt

[Hoyt]

127. Just what we need, more TBag toters.

[hack89]

128. Just remember you bear some of the responsibility for their increase in numbers. nt

[Hoyt]

129. No, people who can't live without guns are responsible. As are right wingers who pander to them.

[Name removed]

130. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hoyt]

131. They probably would use devious tactics to fool those who'll pay dues to anything related to guns.

[hack89]

132. No more devious than the Brady bunch. nt

[Hoyt]

133. At least they aren't for the proliferation of guns.

[hack89]

135. They just stand for the restriction of civil rights. nt

[hack89]

136. And what is the harm in that?

violent crime rates are plummeting - besides your fear, just what harm will result from more guns? History says you will be safer next year and even more safer the year after. We are heading exactly where you want to be so what's the problem?

[Simo 1939_1940]

138. Can you please get your story straight once in a while?

You have claimed that you have no problem with gun ownership, but simply oppose the "toting" of them.

:eyes:

[Logical]

74. Wow, are you naive!

Read their publications. They mention the liberal agenda all the time! They hate dems!

[fightthegoodfightnow]

175. Constitutional Right?

To carry a gun in a school?

To carry a gun in a bar?

To carry a gun in a church?

To carry a gun in my business?

To carry a gun on public transportation?

No thanks. No such right exists.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

178. I don't believe you understand the concept of a right

Do i have the right to carry in a school? If it is public, yes. Private? Depends upon the owners of the property.

Bar? Sure thing if the bar owner is OK with it.

Church? Yep can carry one there as long as the church is cool with it.

Your business? Probably not as you don't seem to be OK with it. I have no right to trespass after all. I'll take my business to your competitor who allows firearms.

Public transportation? Sure. Why not? Is it somehow a magical place that is different than being on the street? Of course not.

The right to keep and bear arms, like any other right, need not itemize all the places one has the right to carry.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

24. somehow, I doubt that 2A would be in jeopardy without rightwingers --

I know many Democrats who support 2A.

[Hoyt]

27. And a whole lot more that don't, particularly when we are talking about toting guns in public.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

28. you are entitled to opinion, of course. I reiterate that there are

more Democrats for 2A than against. Polls here on DU alone have proven it and DU is a small minority of Democrats.

[Starboard Tack]

10. Your true colors are blinding us

[We_Have_A_Problem]

12. I am pointing out...

...that to be intellectually honest, one must recognize if his argument is based in fact or opinion, logic or emotion. The arguments against the NRA and for gun control are not really any different that the positions of the groups I mentioned.

[iverglas]

99. that's just too funny

with emphasis for you, in case you missed the elephant irony in the room:

to be intellectually honest, one must recognize if his argument is based in fact or opinion, logic or emotion. The arguments against the NRA and for gun control are not really any different that the positions of the groups I mentioned.

Really, that is just too funny. A good note to end the week on!

[rfranklin]

6. Formed to help us kill our fellow man more efficiently...

and morphed into a the lobbying arm of the gun manufacturers.

Ruger Donates First "Million Gun Challenge" Donation to NRA
July 28, 2011
Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc. (NYSE: RGR) is proud to announce that it has donated $279,600.00 to the NRA as part of Ruger's "Million Gun Challenge to Benefit the NRA" campaign. Ruger is trying to make history by selling one million firearms to the commercial market in a 12-month period, and is pledging to give the NRA one dollar for every gun sold during that time period with the goal of donating $1,000,000. At the close of the first quarter of the challenge, Ruger has already achieved nearly 28% of its one million gun goal.

"We are proud to say that we are well on our way to selling one million firearms, and we are happy to be able to share this substantial donation with the NRA," said Ruger President and CEO Mike Fifer. "With the help of our loyal Ruger customers, we are helping to preserve our second amendment rights by donating up to $1,000,000 to the NRA. We appreciate the support of every gun buyer that has chosen to buy an American-made Ruger firearm; together we are making a difference in the effort to protect our right to bear arms," Fifer concluded.


http://www.ruger.com/news/2011-07-28.html

[We_Have_A_Problem]

49. Sometimes it is necessary to kill others.

It isn't always a bad thing.

Incidentally, the NRA does NOT represent gun manufacturers, at least not directly. That would be the SAAMI and AMFIRE.

Don't let facts get in the way of your fantasies though.

[rfranklin]

55. You are naive...

Read the post.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

89. No my friend it is you who is naive.

Just because Ruger gives some money to the NRA does not mean the NRA has somehow morphed into a manufacturers organization. They NRA supports gun rights - not gun makers. Simple fact whether you like it or not.

Besides, in the grand scheme of things, what Ruger gave them is a pittance. They receive far more annually from their members.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

172. So True

If gun education is their mission, they are failing. Gun accidents continue to climb.

If gun advocacy is to keep us safer than in other countries, they have failed.

If gun advocacy is to protect us from our government, then they just hate America.

[RSillsbee]

173. Gun accidents continue to climb

Got a cite?

[gejohnston]

176. safer than many countries

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

[We_Have_A_Problem]

179. You have any actual proof of any of those claims?

Lets see.. gun accidents? Nope - those are dropping as are all forms of firearms misuse. Besides, I'd call fewer than 1000 accidental deaths in a nation of 310+ million to be pretty damned good. Perfection is impossible.

Safer than other countries? Not the job of a firearms advocate. That is explicitly the job of the federal government. In fact, if an individual or organization were to attempt to actively protect the borders of this nation using force, they would be in violation of the law.

Protect us from government? No, that's not a gun advocates task - it is EVERYONE'S task. I fail to see how protecting the people from government overreach is indicative of hating America. Are you one of those who foolishly believes government only acts out of altruistic desires?

[sharp_stick]

7. It used to be a decent organization

until LaPierre and the rest of the administration turned it into a de facto fund raising arm of the Republican Party. I belonged to it for years.

Now the NRA ranks right up there with the Family Research Council and American Crossroads.... great company to keep.

on edit: it's not even a de facto fund raising arm it's a straight up fund raising arm of the Republican Party.

[Logical]

18. The NRA should not be celebrated. A bunch of right wing nuts.

[Upton]

19. The NRA endorses Democrats..

Howard Dean for example 8 consecutive times...or would you consider Dean a right wing nut?

[Logical]

31. Give it a rest. Name one they have had as a keynote speaker. Also....

Having Palin and Newt as your main speakers does not say "we want dems also"!! Most of their membership is right wing GOP supporters. And they want it that way.

[Upton]

32. A keynote speaker?

Who gives a fuck? My point is the NRA has always endorsed, Strickland over Kasich in Ohio another example, or at least assigned good grades to Democrats who support the 2nd Amendment, a point you always avoid and seem unable to address..

[We_Have_A_Problem]

34. Want to move those goal posts again?

Really - its pretty transparent. At least TRY to be a little less overt, would ya?

[Logical]

72. Nice try!

[Atypical Liberal]

66. They pander to the majority of their supporters, who happen to be right-wing.

If you had a majority of their supporters who were leftists, you'd get leftist keynote speakers. The sad fact is there are far more right-leaning people who support the right to keep and bear arms than there are left-leaning. The NRA knows this, and so it panders to those kinds of people.

This has nothing to do with the FACT that the NRA can and does give high marks to and endorses Democrats.

All of my Democratic candidates in the last election had high marks from the NRA except one. And three of them were the endorsed candidate.

Every single Democratic politician in the country could be endorsed by the NRA overnight. All they have to do is support the right to keep and bear arms with more than lip service.

[Atypical Liberal]

21. In the last election, the NRA gave all my Democratic candiates except one high marks.

And three of them were the endorsed candidate.

[Starboard Tack]

29. Interesting to see how little support you're getting here

Lots of us endorse the right to own guns. Not too many around here support the NRA. Time to blow out those candles.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

36. Most people fear what they do not understand....nt

[Starboard Tack]

43. I think most people here do understand what the NRA has become

Has nothing to do with fear.

[Walk away]

122. I understand guns. But I fear them in the hands of the type of person...

who belongs to the NRA. I have met many and they have all been disturbingly in love with their guns.

[Hoopla Phil]

41. Count me as a supporter. As has been pointed out in this thread

The lack of Democrat support from the NRA would change overnight if more Democrat reps would embrace the right to keep and bear arms. See, the NRA is blind to party affiliation - their concern is a single issue. It really is that simple.

[Starboard Tack]

44. A single issue? LOL

How did it go from improving marksmanship with rifles to advocating carrying concealed handguns in classrooms?

[Hoopla Phil]

45. Yep, firearms freedom is their single issue. Is there another

issue they are involved in that I am unaware of?

[Starboard Tack]

52. Yes! Making sure anyone who opposes their agenda doesn't get elected

by ensuring that a pro NRA candidate does get elected regardless of all other issues involving individual rights.

[Atypical Liberal]

65. So you'd best not cross the NRA and shoot yourself in the foot, then. n/t

[Hoopla Phil]

76. I take that as a "no" you cannot offer up an issue that the NRA

advocates for other than firearm freedom for law abiding members of society. Thanks for trying to deflect from the question at hand.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[iverglas]

84. endorsing candidates

is not "advocating for" an issue.

Lots of organizations rate or endorse candidates. It still isn't the same as "advocating for" an issue.

And I can't think of an organization that advocates in respect of a single progressive cause that endorses right-wing scum candidates.

http://www.naral.org/elections/winning-endorsed-candidates.html

"Congratulations to these candidates who were endorsed by NARAL Pro-Choice America PAC and won their races!"

I don't recognize many of the names, but you can check them out and get back to me if you find any right-wing scum among them.

Gabrielle Giffords, for example:

http://www.issues2000.org/House/Gabby_Giffords.htm

Ban semi-automatics; but allow concealed carry. (Nov 2000)
National cross-state standard for concealed carry. (Jan 2009)
Teach kids Eddie Eagle GunSafe's lifesaving message. (May 2010)

Ban the sale or transfer of semi-automatic guns, except those used for hunting.
Maintain and strengthen the enforcement of existing state restrictions on the purchase and possession of guns.
Allow citizens to carry concealed guns.
Require manufacturers to provide child-safety locks on guns.
Require background checks of gun buyers at gun shows.

Pretty, um, "moderate", as things go in the USofA, I'd have said. Of course, not for those who demand their way or the highway I suppose. I'd never vote for someone who took those positions in Canada, because that concealed-carry crap alone would put them on the loony far right, but if I were in the US, I'd settle without question.

Oops, even so:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabrielle_Giffords

Gun rights

Giffords supports gun rights.<96> She opposed the Washington D.C. gun ban, signing an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court to support its overturn.

Despite her stated support, gun rights groups typically give her low grades on the topic. She has a D+ rating from the National Rifle Association(NRA) and a D from the Gun Owners of America(GOA).

... html fixed ...

[We_Have_A_Problem]

163. Well that IS kinda what they exist to do...

...just like every other lobbying organization out there. NARAL works to get pro-choice candidates elected but doesn't give a damn about where they stand on other issues. Why is that acceptable, but the NRA is not?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

46. Simple

People like yourself who have no idea what they're talking about got all scared of firearms and started intentionally misrepresenting the 2nd Amendment to attempt to subvert it.

[beevul]

64. How did it go from improving marksmanship with rifles...

How did it go from improving marksmanship with rifles to advocating carrying concealed handguns in classrooms?


The anti gun side got pushy, and the pro-gun side decided to push back, thats how.


Anti gun policy makers, individuals, and the lobby which both are parts of, made the nra what it is today.

[Starboard Tack]

69. And so the pendulum swings

and it has swung just about as far as possible to the right. Get ready!

[beevul]

79. Yes, but it would be helful if you understood which direction it swings...

"it has swung just about as far as possible to the right. Get ready!"

This is where you're wrong.



"


You see at the top where it says "authoritarian"?

The pendulum is swinging AWAY from there, with a long ways to go yet.


Sorry to burst your bubble.

[Starboard Tack]

98. Look at the bottom right

[beevul]

116. And?

First, that assertion you're making when you say "Look at the bottom right", whatever it is, is yours to prove.


Second, UNLESS you can show that "gun control" as it is defined both by the direction things are going, and the direction things are going away from, inhabits the lower left part of that graph, you have no point, while mine stands.

[Straw Man]

73. Who am "us," anyway?

Lots of us endorse the right to own guns. Not too many around here support the NRA.

Are you the same person who said this?

Solution is eradicate all handguns and reinstate AWB with very stiff penalties.

-- www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=451804&mesg_id=452888

Exactly what guns do you "endorse the right to own"? Double-barrel shotguns and muzzleloaders?

[Hoopla Phil]

77. It is nice when prohibitionists are honest for the rare occasion isn't it? Of course, it

is up to us civil rights activists to remember who they are and what they said. I am very thankful for the internet and the free flow of information.

[Starboard Tack]

90. "Us" would be those who are not compulsive toters.

Yes I wrote that as a solution, distasteful as it may be to many. I think, ideally, anyone should be able to own any kind of gun. However, that is obviously not going to work because too many already decide to tote them around, either to commit crime or as a supposed self-defense tool. As occurs so often in life, a minority of fools and extremists ruin it for everyone else and their lack of self control will ultimately lead to them losing certain rights.
BTW, my belief in the right to own a gun has nothing to do with 2A, which is an anachronism.

[Straw Man]

93. Compulsive toters = those who recognize that assault doesn't only happen at home.

Yes I wrote that as a solution, distasteful as it may be to many. I think, ideally, anyone should be able to own any kind of gun. However, that is obviously not going to work because too many already decide to tote them around, either to commit crime or as a supposed self-defense tool.

So could you answer the original question, which was what guns you WOULD allow? And "supposed self-defense tool"? So do you or do you not recognize that guns are sometimes successfully used in self-defense?

As occurs so often in life, a minority of fools and extremists ruin it for everyone else and their lack of self control will ultimately lead to them losing certain rights.

Yes: Misuse of firearms should lead to the loss of certain rights, as already happens for convicted felons. Why should I be expected to forfeit my rights? I'm not a convicted felon.

You can't have it both ways: You believe in a certain right or you don't. To say that you endorse the right but condemn the exercise of it smacks of confusion. Or the "h" word. Or both.

BTW, my belief in the right to own a gun has nothing to do with 2A, which is an anachronism.

So where does it arise, in your opinion? Is it a natural right? Now we might be getting somewhere.

[Starboard Tack]

102. Compulsive toting = Irrational behavior

So could you answer the original question, which was what guns you WOULD allow? And "supposed self-defense tool"? So do you or do you not recognize that guns are sometimes successfully used in self-defense?

As I said, ideally I would impose no restrictions on ownership, but on a practical level I would support a new AWB. The rest I would allow.

Misuse of firearms should lead to the loss of certain rights, as already happens for convicted felons. Why should I be expected to forfeit my rights? I'm not a convicted felon.

You can't have it both ways: You believe in a certain right or you don't. To say that you endorse the right but condemn the exercise of it smacks of confusion. Or the "h" word. Or both.

You missed my point. I meant that the unbridled proliferation of handgun toting will eventually lead to a backlash and the forfeiting of the right to carry. Criminals don't give a damn either way. They will always have guns if they want them. The law abiding toters are the problem. We see increasing evidence of vigilantism and bogus DGU.

Is it a natural right?

Yes, and mass abuse of that right usually results in authoritarian removal of it. Such as happened in the UK after Dunblane. It would be unfortunate to see us go that way, but I think eventually it is inevitable.

[Straw Man]

106. You're trying to have it both ways again.

As I said, ideally I would impose no restrictions on ownership, but on a practical level I would support a new AWB.

Why the disconnect between ideals and practice? Is there a huge upsurge in violent acts committed with semi-auto rifles?

The rest I would allow.

So you're backing off of your call for a total handgun ban? Very sensible of you.

I meant that the unbridled proliferation of handgun toting will eventually lead to a backlash and the forfeiting of the right to carry.

Again, how can this "unbridled proliferation" be seen as anything but the exercise of the right? You're still claiming to support a right in theory that you would deny in practice.

The law abiding toters are the problem. We see increasing evidence of vigilantism and bogus DGU.

We do? Any stats for that?

Yes, and mass abuse of that right usually results in authoritarian removal of it. Such as happened in the UK after Dunblane. It would be unfortunate to see us go that way, but I think eventually it is inevitable.

Dunblane was a single incident, not "mass abuse" of a right. The government massively overreacted. If you truly believe it would be "unfortunate to see us go that way," why do you call for these bans?

[Starboard Tack]

134. I'm not trying to have it any way

Why the disconnect between ideals and practice? Is there a huge upsurge in violent acts committed with semi-auto rifles?

No disconnect. Ideals are wishes. Utopia. Being practical is dealing with reality. How big is a "huge upsurge"? Ask the family members of the Tucson shooting. How huge would it have to be for you to change your mind? Or would you stick to your guns till you breathed the last human breath on earth? There's always a line to be drawn, where and when we draw it is up to us as individuals.

So you're backing off of your call for a total handgun ban? Very sensible of you.

I offered it as a possible solution to save lives and public money and I still think it makes sense. I would much prefer not to ban the ownership, just the toting.

Again, how can this "unbridled proliferation" be seen as anything but the exercise of the right? You're still claiming to support a right in theory that you would deny in practice.

I'm not denying you the right. I think that's what toters are unwittingly bringing upon themselves. I'm just making a prediction. I could be wrong.

I don't need bogus stats to reach the conclusion of bogus DGU and vigilante attitudes. Visit any gun forum, including this one and read the posts. That's how I got into the debate, listening to the justifications given by toters for killings and brandishing where there was no present physical threat. I had no dog in this fight until I realized how far out of the reality loop some toters are.

Dunblane was a single incident, not "mass abuse" of a right. The government massively overreacted. If you truly believe it would be "unfortunate to see us go that way," why do you call for these bans?

That's exactly my point. I'm not calling for the bans. Extreme pro-gunners will bring them upon themselves. As you say, Dunblane was a single incident and caused a massive reaction. We have had many Dunblanes here, but one day we'll reach a breaking point. You think we are so different? We started 2 wars after 3,000 deaths on 9/11/2001.

[Straw Man]

143. More double-talk.

How big is a "huge upsurge"? Ask the family members of the Tucson shooting.

I believe I specified semi-auto rifles, as per the AWB. The Tucson shooting was done with a handgun.

How huge would it have to be for you to change your mind? Or would you stick to your guns till you breathed the last human breath on earth?

Is the human race on the verge of extinction through firearm violence? Not the last time I checked. Change my mind about what? Is this one of those "you could save the world, but you're just too selfish" memes?

I would much prefer not to ban the ownership, just the toting.

"You can have them, you just can't use them." What was the justification for that again? I know you had one, but it completely escapes me. Something about the right to defend one's person in the home but not in public?

I'm not denying you the right. I think that's what toters are unwittingly bringing upon themselves. I'm just making a prediction. I could be wrong.

Again, the paternalistic mantra: "You can't handle the freedom." So you're just making a prediction? Then your support for a handgun ban and the AWB stops short of actual advocacy? "It would be a good idea, but I'm not calling for it." Something along those lines?

C'mon, man; own your authoritarianism. You'll feel better.

I don't need bogus stats to reach the conclusion of bogus DGU and vigilante attitudes. Visit any gun forum, including this one and read the posts.

Don't need no stinkin' facts, eh? Internet anecdotes are sufficient basis for public policy decisions. Got it. And when did "vigilantism" morph into "vigilante attitudes"? To me, the former implies concrete action, while the latter does not. I can see the goalposts moving as we speak.

I'm not calling for the bans.

OK. Raise your right hand and say, "I am not in favor of rescinding the right to own and carry handguns in the United States, nor am I in favor of a reinstatement of the AWB." Then the above statement will be true. Otherwise, it's not.

[hack89]

119. Why an AWB?

it is harder to imagine a weapon least likely to be used in a crime than an "assault weapon".

[Starboard Tack]

145. Oh, well lets just ban "crime weapons" then

[hack89]

154. No - lets fix real problems

an AWB is a feel good measure that will not have a significant impact.

Are you aware what percentages of murders are committed by rifles of all kinds?

[Starboard Tack]

155. How much is significant?

How many lives are likely to be saved by passing an AWB?

[hack89]

164. Certainly less than a hundred - possibly much fewer.

rifles as group account for 358 murders in 2011 - but the definition of rifles includes all types of rifles not just "assault" weapons so it is hard to determine just how many were due to assault weapons.

Some fun facts:

1. 13 states had no murders due to rifles. 40 had fewer than 10.

2. 10 times as many people were murdered with knives.

3. Many more were murdered by "Hands, fists, feet, etc"

4. The only state with an AWB and some of the most restrictive gun laws had the highest number of murders due to rifles - California with 59.


http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl20.xls

Btw - the number of murders due to rifles has been steadily falling.

411 in 2000, 488 in 2002, 393 in 2004

Rifles are the least likely weapon to be used in a murder - I can easily think of 50 different causes of preventable death that kill more Americans. If saving lives is your number one concern then working for an AWB is a waste - alcohol abuse prevention or poison education for kids will save more lives. 3500 people drown every year - it kills or injures more kids than guns by an order of magnitude. Spending money on swimming lessons would save more kids than any possible gun legislation.

[Starboard Tack]

169. Thanks for the info. That's good. So all we have to worry about is handguns.

[Marengo]

161. Where does you belief in the right to own a gun originate? N/T

[We_Have_A_Problem]

165. The simple fact that I am a free man.

The right to life carries with it the right to protect said life. I am a tool using mammal and in some cases, a firearm is the most effective tool to protect my life.

This right is recognized and protected (note, i did not say granted) by the US Constitution.


Do you believe the right does not exist, and if so, from where did your belief originate?

[hack89]

95. I belong to the NRA. I am also a lifelong Democrat. nt

[Starboard Tack]

103. Good for you. I'm sure you're not alone.

Remember to sleep with one eye open.

[hack89]

105. No need to - paranoia seems to be your problem not mine. nt

[Straw Man]

112. He's doing that "dire muttering" thing again.

I'm not sure what it means.

[Starboard Tack]

141. No paranoia here, thank you.

And I don't fund right wing organizations either.

[hack89]

144. No - you just give them reasons to exist and grow

if Democrats were smart about gun control the NRA would still be what it was 50 years ago - an organization involved with gun safety.

[Starboard Tack]

146. And knowing that you continue to support it. Bravo!

[hack89]

149. Only until the Democrats get smart. nt

[Starboard Tack]

150. So the Democrats are not smart? Is that what you're saying?

We should all get in line with the NRA? What other right wing organizations should we embrace?

[hack89]

152. They are stupid as hell when it comes to gun control

how many times do they have to get shocked before they stop touching that live wire?

Just the NRA - there is nothing unreasonable about their positions on gun control - why do you think so many Democrats work hard for NRA endorsements?

[Starboard Tack]

156. Am I to assume you are not a Democrat?

You refer to Dems in the third person. Does your vote depend solely on your pro-gun stance?

[gejohnston]

157. I do think he is thinking of Democratic politicians

which is not to be confused with Democratic voter or partisan.

[Simo 1939_1940]

158. You should assume no such thing.

I'm guessing (could be wrong) that the writer used the word "they" so as not to insult those Dems who are consistent in their intellectual processes - which is to say those that base ALL of their beliefs/opinions on where empirical evidence leads them.

[Starboard Tack]

160. Hey, it's a big tent. I'm just asking based on his statements.

I'm sure he appreciates your explanation of what he actually means to say, but he can answer for himself. When he said "they" I'm sure many if not most Democrats took offense. If there truly were "empirical evidence" on gun issues, this forum would be pointless. There are instead, all kinds of stats, stories, anecdotes and opinions. None of us has the answers or a lock on the truth. We should try to learn from each other by listening to all opinions and questioning ourselves whenever we feel we are right.

[Simo 1939_1940]

168. "If there truly were "empirical evidence" on gun issues,

this forum would be pointless."

Wrong on two counts. First of all, the states of Texas and Florida keep track of the tiny percentage of gun crimes committed by concealed carry holders - and those stats qualify as your "empirical evidence". Sorry, but I don't have the time or patience to list any of a multitude of other examples that come to mind - such as the dramatic drop in the national crime rate since 1993. Secondly, empirical evidence is subject to different interpretation - hence there would still be a point to discussion of that evidence in this forum.

[hack89]

166. Staunch Democrat - very active in local politics

guns are never an election issue here so it is not a big deal. When I lived in Virginia the Democrats on my ballot were pro-2A so again it was not an issue.

I have never cast a vote based on guns - there are bigger issues. Besides, the national trend is in favor of 2A rights so I can feel comfortable lowering gun issues on my list of political priorities.

I do wish, however, that nationally Democrats would stop being stupid on gun control

[Starboard Tack]

170. OK fair enough, but I think we can honestly differ without calling each other stupid.

There are honest, intelligent people on all sides of this issue. I think one of the most "stupid" things anyone can do is be so convinced that he is right and all others are wrong. The surer one is about something, the harder one should question one's conclusions.

[Simo 1939_1940]

159. "What other right wing organizations should we embrace?"

Always with the spin - the cheap appeal to emotion.

:eyes:

[Simo 1939_1940]

37. I joined the NRA and CRPA a few years ago largely

because of all of the dishonest, hypocritical and faux-progresseive nonsense posted in this forum by the pro-restrictionists.

And they'll keep getting my support as long as Democrats allow the stinking, maggot-ridden albatross of "gun control" to dangle from their necks.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

48. I hear ya.

I don't belong to the NRA myself but I used to. I dropped my membership because I feel they do not fight hard enough.

[iverglas]

57. so

You joined the NRA because of Democrats who advocate gun control.

I assume you vote for the candidates the NRA(ILA) funds, then.

Otherwise, what would your point here be?

[gejohnston]

59. let me correct that for you

You joined the NRA because of politicians who advocate gun control.

[iverglas]

70. er, I didn't join the NRA

and I was talking to the person who said:

And they'll <NRA and CRPA, whatever that is> keep getting my support as long as Democrats allow the stinking, maggot-ridden albatross of "gun control" to dangle from their necks.

So maybe you'd like to go correct that person.


Yes, yes, I see it is the California Rifle and Pistol Association, which is presumably the local affiliate of the NRA, and seems to spend about as much of its time and its members' money on politics as ... well, as the NRA does.

http://blog.crpa.org/?page_id=56

The CRPA…
1. Represents California firearms owners.
2. Defends the right to self-defense.
3. Fights crime and violence.
4. Gets your message out.
5. Trains gun owners.
6. Promotes safe gun ownership & use.
7. Sanctions championship shooting competitions.
8. Protects the hunting and shooting sports.
9. Keeps you informed.

About half of that actually has anything to do with anything other than the right-wing agenda, I'd say.

[gejohnston]

107. OK fine, you know what I meant

He joined the NRA because of politicians who advocate gun control.
I don't see anything about
keeping corporate person-hood
regressive taxation
ignoring climate change
privatizing of services
union busting
eroding privacy rights
individual rights
empire building

nothing you listed has anything to do with right wing agenda, I'd say.

[krispos42]

53. Ooo, this will be intersting

:popcorn:

[iverglas]

56. oh, you left a bit out, dincha?

... during the American Civil War. According to a magazine written by Co. Church, they wanted to “promote and encourage rifle shooting on a scientific basis,” and to that end they established a shooting range on Long Island named Creedmoor (after the name of the farm they purchased for the range) where the first annual matches (now the National Matches at Camp Perry) were held. Today the NRA is the largest gun rights lobbying group in the United States and claims a membership of 4.3 Million Americans.

And we all know what they lobby for and who they pay.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association

Members of Congress have ranked the NRA as the most powerful lobbying organization in the country several years in a row. Opponents of the organization accuse it of unduly influencing political appointments.<14> Chris W. Cox is the NRA's chief lobbyist and principal political strategist, a position he has held since 2002.

During the 2008 presidential campaign, the NRA spent $10 million. In 2011, the organization refused an offer to discuss gun control with U.S. President Barack Obama. In response to the invitation, NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre said "Why should I or the N.R.A. go sit down with a group of people that have spent a lifetime trying to destroy the Second Amendment in the United States?" In his statement, LaPierre named Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder (both Democrats) as examples of the "people" he referred to.

They've been gunning for Holder for a long time and they still are ... right here at Democratic Underground ...

Three cheers!



html fixed

[BiggJawn]

62. Wayne LaPierre is nuts.

You don't have to read very many of his magazine columns to figure out he has an irrational hatred of Liberals.

I guess I'll have to join, under duress, since it's a requirement for membership in my local range club.

[iverglas]

71. you're the third person I've heard say that week

"it's a requirement for membership in my local range club"

Interesting phenomenon ... I wonder what kind of a kickback these clubs are getting to help inflate the membership numbers? But mostly I wonder how many of those billions served by the NRA are in exactly that situation and would never have thought of signing up otherwise.

[burf]

81. Because the shooting ranges get a bunch of benefits

for being affiliated with the NRA. Probably the most important is insurance. Liability insurance is mandatory and pretty expensive. Another is the NRA provide expert advice on range construction. They ain't cheap, but they know what the heck they are doing.

These are only a couple of instances. You can find out more at: http://www.nrahq.org/shootingrange/

[BiggJawn]

82. Yes, it's probably the insurance.

I understand the reasoning, but I'm still not happy about the enforced membership requirement.

There is another conservation club 45 minutes away that doesn't require NRA membership, or there are 2 State DNR ranges an hour-and-a-half away. The local club is 5 minute's drive from here.

[Starboard Tack]

104. It's your conscience. You have options. You don't have to hold your nose.

[aikoaiko]

75. As a member of the NRA, I'm grateful for their defense of the 2nd amendment.

As I've said before, I don't always like the way they do it with exaggerations, hyperbole, and misleading rhetoric.

The arms race between the anti-gun rights organizations and the gun rights organizations has gotten out of hand.

In another year or two, I should have voting rights and I'll be voting for directors whose rhetoric is fair.

I appreciate the pro-rkba pressure they apply to all political candidates. Sadly, more Democrats are on the wrong side of this issue than Republicans.

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Atypical Liberal]

87. The NRA supports plenty of Democrats.

In the last election, all of my Democratic candidates except one had high marks from the NRA, and 3 of them were the endorsed candidate.

You can see my ballot in my sig.

[aikoaiko]

88. I vote solid D, thank you. The NRA is a one issue org, but I am not.

Yes, its a complicated relationship.

[Callisto32]

125. And every D in every election is in line with your issues?

No, sir/madam, you ARE a one issue voter. Your issue is the party of the candidates.


Is there a lot of cognitive dissonance in here, or is it just me?

[aikoaiko]

126. I'm not sure what you're getting at so I'll assume it was a well intentioned question.

I generally vote for the candidate most on the left that has a decent chance of winning the general election. Sometimes there are specific issues that come into play. This leads me to vote Democrat.

I appreciate the NRA's pressure on all candidates to protect the civil liberty described in the 2nd amendment.

[hack89]

96. I have voted for plenty of NRA endorsed Democrats.

I am also a NRA member.

[Simo 1939_1940]

101. Thanks for waving the white flag of surrender so conspicuously.

When you have no reasoned argument - resort to slurs.

I donated MUCH more money to our President's campaign and the Democratic Party than I've given the NRA and other gun rights causes.

So thanks for aiding our cause by taking your cred down a very conspicuous notch.

:pals:

[Paladin]

121. The Figure Last Election Was 45%.

In a DU Gungeon poll leading up to the 2008 election, 45% of the respondents indicated their willingness to vote Republican over gun rights issues. If you want to talk about a conspicuous loss of cred, meditate on that for a while.....

[Name removed]

123. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Simo 1939_1940]

139. Be happy to meditate on it for a while if you can produce

citation. (a link to said poll.) Shouldn't be hard, eh?

[friendly_iconoclast]

171. You were asked five days ago for a link to this purported 'poll'. Where is it?

[ileus]

162. HBD NRA