Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 55

Thread: The NRA is Evil

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Eagle River, Alaska, USA
    Posts
    584

    Post imported post


    Who created the NRA? Weapons manufacturers. Who profits from the NRA’s determination to sell multiple guns to every single person in the US? Weapons manufacturers.
    This was posted by an idiot on http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.c...or-a-sideshow/ in the comment section.

    I am so tired of people who don't understand and are unwilling to hear the truth.
    Now this person has several issues as you can see he fears guns represented by the NRA but also includes his fear of corporations as well, represented by gun manufacturers similar to some on these boards who fear Government to the point of believing outlandish conspiracy theories.

    This person doesn't know that the NRA was established to preserve America's traditoin of exceptoinal marksmanship during a time when die hards were wanting more rapid firing weapons (such as repeaters), thinking more towards lead output than accuracy.

    It seems a lot of people and politicians these days are using the NRA as an excuse for not being able to pass gun restrictions so they can ignore ordinary people like you and me. I'm am really tired of this demonization and misinformation about the NRA.




  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    303

    Post imported post

    The NRA IS evil, just not for that reason.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    , Virginia, USA
    Posts
    29

    Post imported post

    Il_Duce wrote:
    The NRA IS evil, just not for that reason.
    Agreed, their endorsement of John 'Gun Show Loophole' McCain proved that to me. I'd rather fight the Obama administration in the open than get stabbed in the back by a RINO and the quick-to-compromise NRA.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Eden, Utopian States Assembled, ,
    Posts
    24

    Post imported post

    Like the NRA is going to approve your application for their mandatory gun carrier training. (That is sarcastic irony, for the unlettered.)

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Walton County, Georgia, ,
    Posts
    475

    Post imported post

    I have two conflicting ideas about the NRA. One is that they served their purpose of helping to preserve firearm rights in the political and legal arenas, but now they are too soft on the issues and too willing to compromise. The other idea is that they've not done much good at all, under their watch we've seen the NFA of 1934, GCA of 1968, 1994 AWB, as well as numerous other additions to the gun control laws, and worst of all the tyranny of the ATF has been left largely unchecked.

    I lean to the latter usually.

  6. #6
    Regular Member MSC 45ACP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,845

    Post imported post

    The only problem:

    If you want to participate in the National Matches, you have to be an NRA member. Same with shooting in Conventional Bullseye & High Power Rifle. There may be other disciplines of competitive shooting you can get into without NRA membership, but you won't get far without an NRA membership number on your entry form...
    "If I know that I am headed for a fight, I want something larger with more power, preferably crew-served.
    However, like most of us, as I go through my daily life, I carry something a bit more compact, with a lot less power."
    (unknown 'gun~writer')

    Remington 1911 R1 (Back to Basics)
    SERPA retention or concealed...

    "Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not." ~Thomas Jefferson
    (Borrowed from "The Perfect Day" by LTC Dave Grossman)

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    The south land
    Posts
    1,230

    Post imported post

    FunkTrooper wrote:
    Who created the NRA? Weapons manufacturers. Who profits from the NRA’s determination to sell multiple guns to every single person in the US? Weapons manufacturers.
    This was posted by an idiot on http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.c...or-a-sideshow/ in the comment section.

    I am so tired of people who don't understand and are unwilling to hear the truth.
    Now this person has several issues as you can see he fears guns represented by the NRA but also includes his fear of corporations as well, represented by gun manufacturers similar to some on these boards who fear Government to the point of believing outlandish conspiracy theories.

    This person doesn't know that the NRA was established to preserve America's traditoin of exceptoinal marksmanship during a time when die hards were wanting more rapid firing weapons (such as repeaters), thinking more towards lead output than accuracy.

    It seems a lot of people and politicians these days are using the NRA as an excuse for not being able to pass gun restrictions so they can ignore ordinary people like you and me. I'm am really tired of this demonization and misinformation about the NRA.

    words fail me....not because I have anything against the NRA--I'm not a member, nor do I intend to be. Words fail me because of some of the liberal, anti-2A, Constitution hating socialists who posted, and who wrote in on that blog...

    there is a saying--I think it is appropriate in this situation: "you can't fix stupid"...

  8. #8
    Regular Member MSC 45ACP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,845

    Post imported post

    How about this one? SIMPLYFUGGINAMAZING!
    "If I know that I am headed for a fight, I want something larger with more power, preferably crew-served.
    However, like most of us, as I go through my daily life, I carry something a bit more compact, with a lot less power."
    (unknown 'gun~writer')

    Remington 1911 R1 (Back to Basics)
    SERPA retention or concealed...

    "Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not." ~Thomas Jefferson
    (Borrowed from "The Perfect Day" by LTC Dave Grossman)

  9. #9
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    N00blet45 wrote:
    I have two conflicting ideas about the NRA. One is that they served their purpose of helping to preserve firearm rights in the political and legal arenas, but now they are too soft on the issues and too willing to compromise.
    This one is not supported by the facts. The trend is and has been toward relaxation of gun ownership and especially carry regulation. Even in the face of considerable liberal public opinion in blue states/cities which is seriously anti-gun, anti-carry, anti-ownership.

    Without the NRA, we would all be in much worse shape than we are.

    Heck, the National Parks ban just got repealed--even in the face ofa massiveDemocratic takeover of all the big levers that effect gun regulation.

    The NRA is the most successful special interest group in American history. OK, maybe the tobacco guys probablyhave a claim at that...



  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , , Zimbabwe
    Posts
    114

    Post imported post

    AFL-CIO UAW, Teamsters, NEA, AFT, moveon.org

  11. #11
    Regular Member Washintonian_For_Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Mercer Island, Washington, USA
    Posts
    922

    Post imported post

    The NRA is moving in the right direction... Wayne LaPierre sticking it too CNN for lying...

    *snip*

    PHILLIPS: Now we give you the other side from the executive vice president of the National Rifle Association, Wayne LaPierre

    Wayne, thanks for being with us.

    WAYNE LAPIERRE, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, NRA: Hi, Kyra. Good to be with you.

    PHILLIPS: Well, if the ban on assault weapons expires, what kind of weapons would be legal?

    LAPIERRE: Kyra, let me say this to start: I'm glad you ran the story because apparently the only difference between "The New York Times" and CNN is that when a reporter for "The New York Times" fakes a story, he's fired, and at CNN he's not.

    Your bureau chief, John Zarrella, deliberately faked the story yesterday and intending to show that the performance characteristics of banned firearms on the list are somehow different from the performance characteristics of firearms not on the banned list. He was -- he was implying that these were machine guns or fully automatic guns. That's not true.

    PHILLIPS: Mr. LaPierre, I have to stop you there. No one fakes stories at CNN and John Zarrella definitely did not fake a story at CNN. You're very off base. I'm going to let you say your opinion, and let's have a conversation, but don't accuse our reporter of faking any stories, sir.

    LAPIERRE: Let me say it again. In front of the whole country, your reporter faked that story yesterday. It deliberately misread...

    PHILLIPS: All right, we're going...

    LAPIERRE: There's no way it could be true and I challenge CNN to defend it.

    PHILLIPS: Well, we're not going to continue this interview because our reporter did not fake...

    LAPIERRE: Because you don't want the truth. The truth you don't want out there.

    PHILLIPS: OK, that is not true. We did not a fake a story.

    LAPIERRE: You ought to register your -- you ought to fill out a lobby form and register.

    PHILLIPS: Why don't we ask another question? What are the uses for an assault weapon? Tell me what the uses are for this.

    LAPIERRE: Why can't you accept the truth? There is no difference, Kyra, in the performance characteristics of the guns on the banned list and the guns not on the banned list. They don't shoot any faster, they're not more powerful, they're not machine guns, they don't make any bigger holes, all which your reporter, John Zarrella, implied in that story.

    PHILLIPS: Let's talk about the ammunition. Folks had problem with the ammunition. We've heard a lot in the last 24 hours from viewers who made the point that it's not the weapons who do the damage, it's the ammo. OK? Can legally be bought, ammunition. Now does this do -- do just as much damage than an illegal weapon?

    LAPIERRE: Kyra, they all fire the same ammunition. Why can't you accept the truth? There is no difference in the guns on the banned list and the guns not on the banned list.

    Your reporter's story was deliberately misleading the viewers. Bill Clinton deliberately misrepresented the House and the facts to the House of Representatives in the Congress and I don't believe this House of Representatives is going to fall and have the wool pulled over their eyes the way what happened did in '94.

    The truth matters. The public needs to hear the truth and the truth is every police officer on the street knows it. There's not a dime worth of difference between the guns on the banned list and the guns off the banned list in terms of their performance characteristics and I challenge CNN again to defend that story to its viewers because it's not true.

    *snip*

    This was awesome and so was this...

    In 1995, former President George H. W. Bush resigned his lifelong membership in the NRA after LaPierre called federal firearms agents, who were involved in the Ruby Ridge, Idaho and Waco, Texas assaults, "jackbooted thugs." It is worth noting that the US government paid $2,480,000 settlement to the survivors attacked at Ruby Ridge and that the Director of the FBI later testified that the attack was over reaching on the part of federal law enforcement.

    LaPierre is doing what he can to advance gun rights in this country... do you not think that the NRA had anything to do with how many bans and restrictions have been lifted since the 1980s?

    The NRA while flawed like any large organization, does more good than bad.
    Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company. ~ George Washington

  12. #12
    Regular Member MSC 45ACP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,845

    Post imported post

    +1
    "If I know that I am headed for a fight, I want something larger with more power, preferably crew-served.
    However, like most of us, as I go through my daily life, I carry something a bit more compact, with a lot less power."
    (unknown 'gun~writer')

    Remington 1911 R1 (Back to Basics)
    SERPA retention or concealed...

    "Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not." ~Thomas Jefferson
    (Borrowed from "The Perfect Day" by LTC Dave Grossman)

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Virginia, , USA
    Posts
    311

    Post imported post

    The NRA is not perfect, but there is simply one fact that no one can ignore:

    If there was no NRA, there would be no Second Amendment left to defend.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Rio Rancho, New Mexico, United States
    Posts
    348

    Post imported post

    OK this will be one and only post on this subject for all of you that think the NRA is no good look what happened in England and Australia that did not have a group like the NRA they had there gun taken away and now only the criminals have then
    A gun Owner Is A Citizen
    Anyone Else is a Subject

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580

    Post imported post

    N00blet45 wrote:
    I have two conflicting ideas about the NRA. One is that they served their purpose of helping to preserve firearm rights in the political and legal arenas, but now they are too soft on the issues and too willing to compromise. The other idea is that they've not done much good at all, under their watch we've seen the NFA of 1934, GCA of 1968, 1994 AWB, as well as numerous other additions to the gun control laws, and worst of all the tyranny of the ATF has been left largely unchecked.

    I lean to the latter usually.
    So your main beef with the NRA is that laws were passed during the time they were (and are) an organization? Do you really feel they should be omnipotent?
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Walton County, Georgia, ,
    Posts
    475

    Post imported post

    I won't ignore it, I'll dispute it.

    First on the basis that if the right to arms is so important and ingrained in such a large portion of the American people then someone else and some other group would step up.

    Second on the basis that very few of the gun control laws that have been passed, at least on the national level, have been rescinded by efforts of the NRA. Heller v DC was the last major reversal of a gun control law and it wasn't because of the NRA. The '94 AWB ended because it expired and was not resigned, not because of the NRA.

    We've had a steady increase in firearm restrictions, not a decline. If the NRA is the biggest lobby and the best we have then we might as well buy the lube now because we're not going to escape the reaming that's coming our way. 70 years of the largest lobby in Congress has produced the NFA of 1934, the GCA of 1968, the ATF, the 1994 AWB, and numerous state/local violations of the 2nd amendment.

    In my opinion the NRA is more concerned with hunting and sporting when it comes to firearms. I'll give my cash to groups who take a more hardline approach on the issue (GOA & JPFO). Compromise has brought us more regulation not less. As Europe learned from WW2 we should learn from the NRA, appeasement does not work.

    wrightme wrote:
    N00blet45 wrote:
    I have two conflicting ideas about the NRA. One is that they served their purpose of helping to preserve firearm rights in the political and legal arenas, but now they are too soft on the issues and too willing to compromise. The other idea is that they've not done much good at all, under their watch we've seen the NFA of 1934, GCA of 1968, 1994 AWB, as well as numerous other additions to the gun control laws, and worst of all the tyranny of the ATF has been left largely unchecked.

    I lean to the latter usually.
    So your main beef with the NRA is that laws were passed during the time they were (and are) an organization? Do you really feel they should be omnipotent?
    Not omnipotent, but I would like to see some progress, some gun control laws repealed or reversed. Something besides just hope.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580

    Post imported post

    N00blet45 wrote:
    I won't ignore it, I'll dispute it.

    First on the basis that if the right to arms is so important and ingrained in such a large portion of the American people then someone else and some other group would step up.
    It is important enough that several other groups HAVE stepped up. You named several.



    N00blet45 wrote:
    Second on the basis that very few of the gun control laws that have been passed, at least on the national level, have been rescinded by efforts of the NRA. Heller v DC was the last major reversal of a gun control law and it wasn't because of the NRA. The '94 AWB ended because it expired and was not resigned, not because of the NRA.
    What do you believe the NRA failed to do that did not allow the repeal of the AWB earlier? What do you believe would have happened had there been no NRA, or any of the other groups you mentioned (that you prefer)?


    N00blet45 wrote:
    We've had a steady increase in firearm restrictions, not a decline. If the NRA is the biggest lobby and the best we have then we might as well buy the lube now because we're not going to escape the reaming that's coming our way. 70 years of the largest lobby in Congress has produced the NFA of 1934, the GCA of 1968, the ATF, the 1994 AWB, and numerous state/local violations of the 2nd amendment.
    And there will continue to be such. We cannot avoid it. We CAN be aware and attempt to counter it at every turn. Unless EACH voting American Citizen (or at least a solid majority) owns a firearm and fully believes in the 2nd Amendment Rights of the individual, it will continue to be this way. Placing blame on the NRA for this is patently false.
    You do understand that where you seem to feel that the NRA is a "compromise" gun lobby, the antis like the Brady Bunch feel that the NRA is the "Great Satan" that wants to arm all criminals with their "no compromise" stance?

    N00blet45 wrote:
    In my opinion the NRA is more concerned with hunting and sporting when it comes to firearms. I'll give my cash to groups who take a more hardline approach on the issue (GOA & JPFO). Compromise has brought us more regulation not less. As Europe learned from WW2 we should learn from the NRA, appeasement does not work.

    Not omnipotent, but I would like to see some progress, some gun control laws repealed or reversed. Something besides just hope.
    I give my cash to the NRA, as I see in that organization the wisdom to pick their battles. As I have mentioned in other threads on similar topics, a "no compromise" statement sure sounds solid and worth supporting. The reality is that in politics, a "no compromise" approach easily results in "no communication" and "no input" into the regulation. Whether we like it or not, compromise is the name of the game in our law-making bodies. I don't like it either, but I do understand that such is the reality. Until that reality changes, compromise is where the money is best placed. "No compromise" will be most likely to get "no result."
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Walton County, Georgia, ,
    Posts
    475

    Post imported post

    It is important enough that several other groups HAVE stepped up. You named several.
    What I meant was that other groups would have replaced the NRA. It's a misconception that people have when referring to past events and what would have happened if this person or this thing didn't exist. If Patton wasn't the general in charge of the 3rd Army would the 3rd Army just cease to exist? Probably not, someone else would have stepped up. Whether they would have been better or worse, no one knows that for sure.

    What do you believe the NRA failed to do that did not allow the repeal of the AWB earlier? What do you believe would have happened had there been no NRA, or any of the other groups you mentioned (that you prefer)?
    My beef is more with it being allowed to pass in the first place. If they have so much power as a lobby why couldn't they stop it from ever being passed? Either they are impotent or they're apathetic.

    And there will continue to be such. We cannot avoid it. We CAN be aware and attempt to counter it at every turn. Unless EACH voting American Citizen (or at least a solid majority) owns a firearm and fully believes in the 2nd Amendment Rights of the individual, it will continue to be this way. Placing blame on the NRA for this is patently false.
    You do understand that where you seem to feel that the NRA is a "compromise" gun lobby, the antis like the Brady Bunch feel that the NRA is the "Great Satan" that wants to arm all criminals with their "no compromise" stance?

    I give my cash to the NRA, as I see in that organization the wisdom to pick their battles. As I have mentioned in other threads on similar topics, a "no compromise" statement sure sounds solid and worth supporting. The reality is that in politics, a "no compromise" approach easily results in "no communication" and "no input" into the regulation. Whether we like it or not, compromise is the name of the game in our law-making bodies. I don't like it either, but I do understand that such is the reality. Until that reality changes, compromise is where the money is best placed. "No compromise" will be most likely to get "no result."
    "No compromise" doesn't mean you throw out a monumental bill that does away with all the anti-gun legislation at once. It just means that you don't give an inch. How exactly do we gain anything by giving in to more anti-gun legislation? The gun grabbers didn't come out the first day and say, "No guns." They do it a little at a time. First it's licenses, then registration, then confiscation. First it's limit the barrel, then the action, then the grip, then the magazine, then whole models, then whole categories, then all of them.

    Don't get me wrong, the NRA is better than nothing but they could do much better.

  19. #19
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    N00blet45 wrote:
    What do you believe the NRA failed to do that did not allow the repeal of the AWB earlier? What do you believe would have happened had there been no NRA, or any of the other groups you mentioned (that you prefer)?
    My beef is more with it being allowed to pass in the first place. If they have so much power as a lobby why couldn't they stop it from ever being passed? Either they are impotent or they're apathetic.

    Do you have any idea how many guns are in the U.S.?

    The published estimates are from 220 to 270 million, as of about a year ago.

    That's more guns than any country in the history of the world.

    That's in the face of virtually all other industrialized countries drastically reducing their popullation of citizen-held guns, sometimes outlawing them completely.

    Thatresults inthe highest per capita ratioof any country in the history of the world.

    That's coincident with 2 to 3 million more new guns annually produced for the U.S. market.

    That runs with the increase in carry of guns, with over 4.5 million carry permits in effect today.

    That runs with therelaxation of priorstate laws regarding carry of guns, with 40 or 41 states being "shall issue" states.

    That is in a time when more guns and more ammunition is being sold to citizens today than at any time in the history of the world.

    All of this, and more, in a society where 10,000-11,000 people are shot to death annually with guns and annually, 16,000 people shoot and kill themselves. Both of these societal costs being obvious and powerful motives for regulators and banners.

    Yet, you think that NRA is impotent?

    That the NRA is apathetic?

    You actually think that a test of effectiveness for the NRA is to have no gun regulatory law to be passed at all?

    You actually believe that the AWB was some kind of powerful gun prohibition law and not a politically expedient Potemkin-inspired sham of regulation filled with loopholes and weaknesses?

    If you do, you have an interesting take on things.

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , , Zimbabwe
    Posts
    114

    Post imported post

    HenriettaTG, NRA fun girl, speaks

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580

    Post imported post


    N00blet45 wrote:
    My beef is more with it being allowed to pass in the first place. If they have so much power as a lobby why couldn't they stop it from ever being passed? Either they are impotent or they're apathetic.
    What did you expect the NRA to be able to do to prevent such passage? Do you understand that the real power of any group such as the NRA is that wielded by all of the members of the group?

    N00blet45 wrote:
    "No compromise" doesn't mean you throw out a monumental bill that does away with all the anti-gun legislation at once. It just means that you don't give an inch. How exactly do we gain anything by giving in to more anti-gun legislation? The gun grabbers didn't come out the first day and say, "No guns." They do it a little at a time. First it's licenses, then registration, then confiscation. First it's limit the barrel, then the action, then the grip, then the magazine, then whole models, then whole categories, then all of them.

    Don't get me wrong, the NRA is better than nothing but they could do much better.
    If the NRA goes against a bill with a "no compromise" attitude, it is most likely that such bill will pass in original form. If the NRA, or any other group is not willing to "give an inch" sometimes, they will be impotent; unless the membership constitutes a majority, AND those Senators and Representatives who support the NRA viewpoint constitute a majority. Until that balance shifts decisively, it will be the way it currently is.

    The bare reality is that a "no compromise" attitude of "not giving an inch" isn't effective in the political system. If the majority of our lawmakers wish a law to be enacted, it will be enacted without change in the face of a "no compromise" special interest group such as the NRA. That is the system we have.

    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  22. #22
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    No1 wrote:
    HankT wrote:
    N00blet45 wrote:
    What do you believe the NRA failed to do that did not allow the repeal of the AWB earlier? What do you believe would have happened had there been no NRA, or any of the other groups you mentioned (that you prefer)?
    My beef is more with it being allowed to pass in the first place. If they have so much power as a lobby why couldn't they stop it from ever being passed? Either they are impotent or they're apathetic.

    Do you have any idea how many guns are in the U.S.?

    The published estimates are from 220 to 270 million, as of about a year ago.

    That's more guns than any country in the history of the world.

    That's in the face of virtually all other industrialized countries drastically reducing their popullation of citizen-held guns, sometimes outlawing them completely.

    Thatresults inthe highest per capita ratioof any country in the history of the world.

    That's coincident with 2 to 3 million more new guns annually produced for the U.S. market.

    That runs with the increase in carry of guns, with over 4.5 million carry permits in effect today.

    That runs with therelaxation of priorstate laws regarding carry of guns, with 40 or 41 states being "shall issue" states.

    That is in a time when more guns and more ammunition is being sold to citizens today than at any time in the history of the world.

    All of this, and more, in a society where 10,000-11,000 people are shot to death annually with guns and annually, 16,000 people shoot and kill themselves. Both of these societal costs being obvious and powerful motives for regulators and banners.

    Yet, you think that NRA is impotent?

    That the NRA is apathetic?

    You actually think that a test of effectiveness for the NRA is to have no gun regulatory law to be passed at all?

    You actually believe that the AWB was some kind of powerful gun prohibition law and not a politically expedient Potemkin-inspired sham of regulation filled with loopholes and weaknesses?

    If you do, you have an interesting take on things.
    HenriettaTG, NRA fun girl, speaks
    No1, can you make any substantive reply to the points in the subject post?

    Can you make any meaningful comment or intelligent contribution in the discussion here?

    I'd love to read your reasonings. Got any?



  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Walton County, Georgia, ,
    Posts
    475

    Post imported post

    If the majority of our lawmakers wish a law to be enacted, it will be enacted without change in the face of a "no compromise" special interest group such as the NRA.


    If that is true then why lobby at all? If the Congress will do whatever they want and they have then perhaps your money is better spent on buying more ammo or a plane ticket to another country.

    Do you have any idea how many guns are in the U.S.?

    The published estimates are from 220 to 270 million, as of about a year ago.

    That's more guns than any country in the history of the world.

    That's in the face of virtually all other industrialized countries drastically reducing their popullation of citizen-held guns, sometimes outlawing them completely.

    Thatresults inthe highest per capita ratioof any country in the history of the world.

    That's coincident with 2 to 3 million more new guns annually produced for the U.S. market.

    That runs with the increase in carry of guns, with over 4.5 million carry permits in effect today.

    That runs with therelaxation of priorstate laws regarding carry of guns, with 40 or 41 states being "shall issue" states.

    That is in a time when more guns and more ammunition is being sold to citizens today than at any time in the history of the world.

    All of this, and more, in a society where 10,000-11,000 people are shot to death annually with guns and annually, 16,000 people shoot and kill themselves. Both of these societal costs being obvious and powerful motives for regulators and banners.

    Yet, you think that NRA is impotent?

    That the NRA is apathetic?

    You actually think that a test of effectiveness for the NRA is to have no gun regulatory law to be passed at all?

    You actually believe that the AWB was some kind of powerful gun prohibition law and not a politically expedient Potemkin-inspired sham of regulation filled with loopholes and weaknesses?

    If you do, you have an interesting take on things.
    And you think the NRA is responsible for all of that? I don't think that the only test of the NRA's effectiveness is no new gun laws. I also consider the repeal of previous gun laws an effective test. One that they have failed.

  24. #24
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    N00blet45 wrote:
    Do you have any idea how many guns are in the U.S.?

    The published estimates are from 220 to 270 million, as of about a year ago.

    That's more guns than any country in the history of the world.

    That's in the face of virtually all other industrialized countries drastically reducing their popullation of citizen-held guns, sometimes outlawing them completely.

    Thatresults inthe highest per capita ratioof any country in the history of the world.

    That's coincident with 2 to 3 million more new guns annually produced for the U.S. market.

    That runs with the increase in carry of guns, with over 4.5 million carry permits in effect today.

    That runs with therelaxation of priorstate laws regarding carry of guns, with 40 or 41 states being "shall issue" states.

    That is in a time when more guns and more ammunition is being sold to citizens today than at any time in the history of the world.

    All of this, and more, in a society where 10,000-11,000 people are shot to death annually with guns and annually, 16,000 people shoot and kill themselves. Both of these societal costs being obvious and powerful motives for regulators and banners.

    Yet, you think that NRA is impotent?

    That the NRA is apathetic?

    You actually think that a test of effectiveness for the NRA is to have no gun regulatory law to be passed at all?

    You actually believe that the AWB was some kind of powerful gun prohibition law and not a politically expedient Potemkin-inspired sham of regulation filled with loopholes and weaknesses?

    If you do, you have an interesting take on things.
    And you think the NRA is responsible for all of that? I don't think that the only test of the NRA's effectiveness is no new gun laws. I also consider the repeal of previous gun laws an effective test. One that they have failed.
    Uh, mostly. Yeah. Have you been reading any newspapers in the last 25 years?

    1. Which law regulating guns do you think has been passed in the last 25 years that you do not blame the NRA for allowing to be passed? (Since you admit that the "no new gun law" criterion is not one you believe in.)

    2. Which existing gun law do you feel that the NRA has not been successful in repealing that you think should have been repealed?

    Back your opinion up with some details and logic, won't you?

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580

    Post imported post

    N00blet45 wrote:
    If the majority of our lawmakers wish a law to be enacted, it will be enacted without change in the face of a "no compromise" special interest group such as the NRA.


    If that is true then why lobby at all? If the Congress will do whatever they want and they have then perhaps your money is better spent on buying more ammo or a plane ticket to another country.
    Absent voter input, Congress will do what the majority decides. Lobbying is part of the equation. Input from us is another part.



    N00blet45 wrote
    And you think the NRA is responsible for all of that? I don't think that the only test of the NRA's effectiveness is no new gun laws. I also consider the repeal of previous gun laws an effective test. One that they have failed.
    So you do not measure them by laws enacted, yet you belabored the NRA by citing laws that were enacted? Which is it?

    If the NRA and its members cannot prevent a law from being passed, how do you subsequently hold them to task for not getting a law repealed?

    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •