The NRA is Evil

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.

Click to expand...

This was posted by an idiot on http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/22/guns-in-parks-safe-scary-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.

imported post

The NRA IS evil, just not for that reason.

imported post

Il_Duce wrote:

The NRA IS evil, just not for that reason.

Click to expand...

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.

imported post

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

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.

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...

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.

Click to expand...

This was posted by an idiot on http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/22/guns-in-parks-safe-scary-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.

Click to expand...

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"...

imported post

How about this one? SIMPLYFUGGINAMAZING!

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.

Click to expand...

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...

imported post

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

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.

imported post

+1

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.

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

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.

Click to expand...

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?

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.

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

Not omnipotent, but I would like to see some progress, some gun control laws repealed or reversed. Something besides just hope.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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."

imported post

It is important enough that several other groups HAVE stepped up. You named several.

Click to expand...

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)?

Click to expand...

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."

Click to expand...

"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.

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)?

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

imported post

HenriettaTG, NRA fun girl, speaks