The NRA is Evil

wrightme · Jun 2, 2009

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.

HankT · Jun 2, 2009

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)?

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.

Click to expand...

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?

N00blet45 · Jun 2, 2009

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.

HankT · Jun 2, 2009

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.

Click to expand...

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?

wrightme · Jun 2, 2009

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.

Click to expand...

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?

HankT · Jun 2, 2009

imported post

wrightme wrote:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

It's called the N00blet45 NRA nattering double jeopardy (NNNDJ) model of simplistic analysis.The core premise is that NRA is simultaneously responsible for everything and responsible for nothing.

wrightme · Jun 2, 2009

imported post

HankT wrote:

wrightme wrote:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

It's called the N00blet45 NRA nattering double jeopardy (NNNDJ) model of simplistic analysis.The core premise is that NRA is simultaneously responsible for everything and responsible for nothing.

Whew! Thanks for the confirmation.

For a while there, I thought I might have misread his intent. :lol:

Augustin · Jun 2, 2009

imported post

ElectricTurtle wrote:

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.

The NRA backed the 1968 Gun Control Act; the Brady Registration system; the Assault Weapons Ban; the Lautenberg Gun Ban, the Veterans Disarmamant Act, and literally many dozens of other gun laws !

Don’t believe these devastating facts ?

If not read the website NRA WOL – A Case Study of the NRA’s Disastrous Compromises:

[url]http://www.nrawol.net/[/url]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSGySNLyACE

The NRA’s backing of the Brady Act opened the eyes of many NRA members, but MOST ARE STILL FAST ASLEEP to the fact that the NRA has stood against gun rights time after time.

wrightme · Jun 2, 2009

imported post

Augustin wrote:

ElectricTurtle wrote:

Il_Duce wrote:

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

The NRA backed the 1968 Gun Control Act; the Brady Registration system; the Assault Weapons Ban; the Lautenberg Gun Ban, the Veterans Disarmamant Act, and literally many dozens of other gun laws !

Don’t believe these devastating facts ?

If not read the website NRA WOL – A Case Study of the NRA’s Disastrous Compromises:

[url]http://www.nrawol.net/[/url]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSGySNLyACE

The NRA’s backing of the Brady Act opened the eyes of many NRA members, but MOST ARE STILL FAST ASLEEP to the fact that the NRA has stood against gun rights time after time.

I don't believe the vitriol presented at the nrawol troll website.

Slayer of Paper · Jun 2, 2009

imported post

The NRA's endorsement and support of HR 2640 is the straw that broke the camel's back for me.

This isn't like their endorsement of John "Gun Show Loophole" McCain, as that could be passed off as endorsing the "lesser of two evils". It also isn't like trying to put in language to soften anti-gun legislation, like the sunset clause in the AWB. law bill is pure, unadulterated GUN CONTROL LEGISLATION, fully supported by the National Rifle Association AND the Brady campaign equally.

Explain this away please. I'm dying to hear the excuses.

wrightme · Jun 2, 2009

imported post

Slayer of Paper wrote:

The NRA's endorsement and support of HR 2640 is the straw that broke the camel's back for me.

This isn't like their endorsement of John "Gun Show Loophole" McCain, as that could be passed off as endorsing the "lesser of two evils". It also isn't like trying to put in language to soften anti-gun legislation, like the sunset clause in the AWB. law bill is pure, unadulterated GUN CONTROL LEGISLATION, fully supported by the National Rifle Association AND the Brady campaign equally.

Explain this away please. I'm dying to hear the excuses.

HR2640 has been discussed ad nauseum. GOA presents a 'creative' discussion of the supposed issues on it.

Consider the post by 1stfreedom in another thread on 2640 http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_topic.php?id=21681&forum_id=4&jump_to=361627#p361627

No1 · Jun 2, 2009

imported post

wrightme wrote:

I don't believe the vitriol presented at the nrawol troll website.

You can lead a fool to the answer but ya cant make him think, or use a search engine.

http://www.nrawol.net/ maintained by dudley Brown of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners rmgo.org
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=3247
http://www.patriotpages.net/nrafraud.htm
http://www.topix.com/forum/us-senate/tom-coburn/T6VIRRTNK6K3IVO35
http://gunowners.org/op9802.htm, Vin Suprynowicz

The National Rifle Association has been in support of workable, enforceable gun control legislation since its very inception in 1871." NRA Executive Vice President Franklin L. Orth, NRA's American Rifleman Magazine, March 1968, P. 22

wrightme · Jun 2, 2009

imported post

No1 wrote:

wrightme wrote:

I don't believe the vitriol presented at the nrawol troll website.

Click to expand...

You can lead a fool to the answer but ya cant make him think, or use a search engine.

http://www.nrawol.net/ maintained by dudley Brown of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners rmgo.org
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=3247
http://www.patriotpages.net/nrafraud.htm
http://www.topix.com/forum/us-senate/tom-coburn/T6VIRRTNK6K3IVO35
http://gunowners.org/op9802.htm, Vin Suprynowicz

The National Rifle Association has been in support of workable, enforceable gun control legislation since its very inception in 1871." NRA Executive Vice President Franklin L. Orth, NRA's American Rifleman Magazine, March 1968, P. 22

Click to expand...

So you self-identify, or is that an attack upon my character?

N00blet45 · Jun 2, 2009

imported post

HankT wrote:

wrightme wrote:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

It's called the N00blet45 NRA nattering double jeopardy (NNNDJ) model of simplistic analysis.The core premise is that NRA is simultaneously responsible for everything and responsible for nothing.

I never said that laws enacted wasn't a test of effectiveness. I said that another test is laws repealed as well.

My point is this, the NRA is the single largest lobby in Congress and they should have the power to effectively bring about change in some way if lobbying is how things get done in DC. I fail to see positive change in the last 50-70 years that they have been responsible for.

You say that they are responsible for us not having more restrictions, care to show which ones they prevented or removed?

wrightme · Jun 2, 2009

imported post

N00blet45 wrote:

HankT wrote:

wrightme wrote:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

It's called the N00blet45 NRA nattering double jeopardy (NNNDJ) model of simplistic analysis.The core premise is that NRA is simultaneously responsible for everything and responsible for nothing.

Click to expand...

I never said that laws enacted wasn't a test of effectiveness. I said that another test is laws repealed as well.

My point is this, the NRA is the single largest lobby in Congress and they should have the power to effectively bring about change in some way if lobbying is how things get done in DC. I fail to see positive change in the last 50-70 years that they have been responsible for.

You say that they are responsible for us not having more restrictions, care to show which ones they prevented or removed?

It should be noted that the urbanization of America during the last 100 or so years has a lot to do with public perception. Communication during much of this time was not as good as it is now. From a small town atmosphere, it looks to me like the rural areas are much more tolerant of 2nd Amendment Rights. Urban areas are less tolerant. DC is a good example of this. So is New York City.
The sad fact is that these urban metropolis areas represent a majority of our population. Unless people in these areas become more tolerant of our 2nd Amendment Rights, they will continue to be eroded. NO group the size of the NRA can prevent this. Your opinion fails to see the reality of the situation, and your most recent post still shows this failure.

What do you call to where the NRA is the single largest lobby in Congress?

Unreconstructed Confederate Polymath · Jun 2, 2009

imported post

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

From other gun rights organizations

The NRA has been criticized by other gun rights groups for doing too little to get existing restrictions repealed, and sometimes helping to draft restrictive legislation. This critique is most often voiced by gun rights organizations and libertarians who take a more comprehensive view of the Second Amendment and Bill of Rights, and are viewed as being less amenable to compromise on these issues, e.g. Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO), and Gun Owners of America. The GOA has castigated the NRA in the past for what it perceives as its willingness to compromise on legislative restrictions concerning access to firearms.[24]

The JPFO and its leadership has also criticized the NRA's political strategy on several occasions, lambasting what it views as their counterproductive focus on Capitol Hill lobbying, as well as taking the NRA and its leadership to task for not explicitly making a connection between gun control measures introduced in the United States and those implemented by the Weimar Republic and subsequently "the Nazi regime in pre-war Germany", as well as other totalitarian, or ineffectual regimes that were eventually overthrown.[25] To a certain extent, this criticism has been addressed in recent years by Wayne LaPierre, who has attempted to convince the public that the atrocities committed in Bosnia-Herzegovina during the Yugoslavian Civil War, as well as the Rwandan genocide of 1994, can be traced to a lack of institutional, individual gun rights in those countries.

The NRA has also seen internal dissent from its membership, including a prolonged series of verbal attacks and campaigns initiated by Neal Knox, a former vice-president of the organization who attempted to depose both Wayne LaPierre and Tanya Metaksa, the former executive director of the NRA's Institute For Legislative Action, in leadership elections during the late Nineties[26] which Knox described as putting down a "mutiny".[27]

In addition to the generic criticism voiced by other more absolutist gun-rights organizations and public figures, Knox and his supporters allege that the NRA has failed to protect the rights of gun-owners during debates over proposed federal gun laws. They cite the NRA's involvement in the passage of the Firearm Owners Protection Act, otherwise known as the McClure-Volkmer Act, which amended the Gun Control Act of 1968.[28][29]

Although this represented a significant liberalization of the 1968 Gun Control Act, the fact that the NRA did not seek its outright repeal led some critics, such as Knox, to assert that it had abandoned its members.

[24] http://gunowners.org/ldp2nra.htm
[25] http://www.jpfo.org/speech.htm
[26] http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,982355,00.html
[27] http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:KKPFywQEGlQJ:http://www.urban-armory.com/nealknox010199.htm+Neal+Knox+:+The+Mutiny+At+NRA&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a
[28] http://www.gunlawnews.org/FOPA-86.html
[29] http://www.guncite.com/journals/hardfopa.html

N00blet45 · Jun 2, 2009

imported post

So then the problem is not with lobbying it is with communication (advertising) of the idea? You said that no group can prevent the eventual loss of firearm ownership rights, so then would giving support to any pro-gun group be an effort in futility?

According to Fortune 500's list of the most influential lobbies the NRA is at the top. This article is from 2001, but it is apparently close to the top everytime. Also, no anti-gun group is even on the top 25.

For the first time in four years, the Power 25 has a new No. 1. The heavily Republican National Rifle Association has replaced the nonpartisan American Association of Retired Persons as the group with the most clout in the capital.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2001/05/28/303880/index.htm

MSC 45ACP · Jun 2, 2009

imported post

Blaming the NRA for silly gun laws is like blaming car manufacturers for car accidents... Just stupid.

wrightme · Jun 2, 2009

imported post

Which is it? Largest, or most influential? The claim that they are the most influential gives lie to the claims in this thread that the NRA is not effective.

"Influential" can be a big subjective issue. What I term to be "influential" is quite possibly a different measure that you term to be "influential."

Now if the NRA had the numbers of the AARP at 34.8 million........

N00blet45 wrote:

I never said that laws enacted wasn't a test of effectiveness. I said that another test is laws repealed as well.

My point is this, the NRA is the single largest lobby in Congress and they should have the power to effectively bring about change in some way if lobbying is how things get done in DC. I fail to see positive change in the last 50-70 years that they have been responsible for.

You say that they are responsible for us not having more restrictions, care to show which ones they prevented or removed?

N00blet45 wrote:

So then the problem is not with lobbying it is with communication (advertising) of the idea? You said that no group can prevent the eventual loss of firearm ownership rights, so then would giving support to any pro-gun group be an effort in futility?

According to Fortune 500's list of the most influential lobbies the NRA is at the top. This article is from 2001, but it is apparently close to the top everytime. Also, no anti-gun group is even on the top 25.

For the first time in four years, the Power 25 has a new No. 1. The heavily Republican National Rifle Association has replaced the nonpartisan American Association of Retired Persons as the group with the most clout in the capital.

Click to expand...

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2001/05/28/303880/index.htm

Citizen · Jun 2, 2009

imported post

HankT wrote:

SNIP The NRA is the most successful special interest group in American history.

(Not contradicting or criticizing. Just making an observation.)

Chuckle. Yes. After Congress and the central bankers. Funny how crooks anddespots are at the top of the list. We'll have to do something about that one of these days.

The NRA is Evil

Regular Member

State Researcher

Regular Member

State Researcher

Regular Member

State Researcher

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member