The NRA is Evil

N00blet45 · Jun 2, 2009

imported post

Apparently it would be influential. My mistake I interchanged the two. Influence does not necessarily translate into effectiveness. Obama is very influential, a lot of people have hope in him and would probably bend over backwards for him, yet does that make him effective?

I'm not blaming the NRA for all the bad gun laws (which gun laws are good?). I'm just of the opinion that they could have done more to either stop them from happening or to repeal them. It's not set in stone obviously because it's an opinion but I've yet to hear a convincing argument as to why they deserve support from gun owners over the other groups out there.

wrightme · Jun 2, 2009

imported post

N00blet45 wrote:

Apparently it would be influential. My mistake I interchanged the two. Influence does not necessarily translate into effectiveness. Obama is very influential, a lot of people have hope in him and would probably bend over backwards for him, yet does that make him effective?

I'm not blaming the NRA for all the bad gun laws (which gun laws are good?). I'm just of the opinion that they could have done more to either stop them from happening or to repeal them. It's not set in stone obviously because it's an opinion but I've yet to hear a convincing argument as to why they deserve support from gun owners over the other groups out there.

You presented that yourself. You simply do not recognize it.

Reference: "Most Influential."

Also, name one other national firearms/2nd amendment group that has a solid youth shooting sports program.

Our youth are the ones who need to understand that the 2nd Amendment should remain as a Right. The NRA works toward that goal, in addition to being the "most influential Lobby group."

N00blet45 · Jun 3, 2009

imported post

I also clarified that influence is not necessarily effectiveness. What's the point in being influential if you can't do anything with it?

I don't know of any youth shooting programs from other pro-gun groups. The JPFO does produce literature for children and parents to help them discuss the issue, not the same as a shooting program but it's the same end (education of the youth). Wouldn't the children need a parent's permission to participate in a youth shooting program? So more than likely the only children who would attend are those who're already in a household with at least one pro-gun (and probably two) parents. I seriously doubt soccer moms who faint at the sight of a gun would let their children go to a youth shooting program, no matter how much you tell them it'll keep their kids occupied and out of trouble.

wrightme · Jun 3, 2009

imported post

N00blet45 wrote:

I also clarified that influence is not necessarily effectiveness. What's the point in being influential if you can't do anything with it?

I don't know of any youth shooting programs from other pro-gun groups. The JPFO does produce literature for children and parents to help them discuss the issue, not the same as a shooting program but it's the same end (education of the youth). Wouldn't the children need a parent's permission to participate in a youth shooting program? So more than likely the only children who would attend are those who're already in a household with at least one pro-gun (and probably two) parents. I seriously doubt soccer moms who faint at the sight of a gun would let their children go to a youth shooting program, no matter how much you tell them it'll keep their kids occupied and out of trouble.

You may have clarified your point, but you have not shown "influence is not necessarily effectiveness." In spite of your innuendo to the opposite, the NRA is "doing something" with their influence. It just doesn't seem to match your expectations of what they should be accomplishing.

Youth normally need permission to participate in most youth sporting activities. So what? Other than your opinion that "soccer moms won't let their youth participate," it is really only your opinion. Do you actually have anything to base that upon?

Thundar · Jun 3, 2009

imported post

NRA is ineffective.

GOA is effective.

Neither Heller nor Nordyke were NRA suits.

NRA may have marginal political influence, but should stay out of lawsuits. Gun owners cannot afford to suffer more NRA defeats. (In what post Heller lawsuits has the NRA been the victor?)

wrightme · Jun 3, 2009

imported post

Thundar wrote:

NRA is ineffective.

GOA is effective.

Neither Heller nor Nordyke were NRA suits.

NRA may have marginal political influence, but should stay out of lawsuits. Gun owners cannot afford to suffer more NRA defeats. (In what post Heller lawsuits has the NRA been the victor?)

NRA V SF housing

also,morton grove.

What suits has GOA been effective in? What legislation has GOA been effective in?

Hopefully, the current NRA v SF will also come to good result. Maybe the GOA can file an amicus brief in support of the 2A Rights of the residents of SF.
With a little bit of searching, it is easy to find such lawsuits.

N00blet45 · Jun 3, 2009

imported post

wrightme wrote:

N00blet45 wrote:

I also clarified that influence is not necessarily effectiveness. What's the point in being influential if you can't do anything with it?

I don't know of any youth shooting programs from other pro-gun groups. The JPFO does produce literature for children and parents to help them discuss the issue, not the same as a shooting program but it's the same end (education of the youth). Wouldn't the children need a parent's permission to participate in a youth shooting program? So more than likely the only children who would attend are those who're already in a household with at least one pro-gun (and probably two) parents. I seriously doubt soccer moms who faint at the sight of a gun would let their children go to a youth shooting program, no matter how much you tell them it'll keep their kids occupied and out of trouble.

Click to expand...

You may have clarified your point, but you have not shown "influence is not necessarily effectiveness." In spite of your innuendo to the opposite, the NRA is "doing something" with their influence. It just doesn't seem to match your expectations of what they should be accomplishing.

Youth normally need permission to participate in most youth sporting activities. So what? Other than your opinion that "soccer moms won't let their youth participate," it is really only your opinion. Do you actually have anything to base that upon?

You said that there needs to be education of the ignorant in the major population centers, the ignorant who believe guns are bad are not going to just give their kids to a shooting program. Opinion or not I think it's a safe bet. If the soccer moms were so open to the idea already then why do we need to educate them?

Influence - the federal government has the influence to create and sustain a war on drugs.
Effectiveness - the feds' war on drugs has been ineffective at achieving the desired/expected result.

wrightme · Jun 3, 2009

imported post

N00blet45 wrote:

wrightme wrote:

N00blet45 wrote:

I also clarified that influence is not necessarily effectiveness. What's the point in being influential if you can't do anything with it?

I don't know of any youth shooting programs from other pro-gun groups. The JPFO does produce literature for children and parents to help them discuss the issue, not the same as a shooting program but it's the same end (education of the youth). Wouldn't the children need a parent's permission to participate in a youth shooting program? So more than likely the only children who would attend are those who're already in a household with at least one pro-gun (and probably two) parents. I seriously doubt soccer moms who faint at the sight of a gun would let their children go to a youth shooting program, no matter how much you tell them it'll keep their kids occupied and out of trouble.

Click to expand...

You may have clarified your point, but you have not shown "influence is not necessarily effectiveness." In spite of your innuendo to the opposite, the NRA is "doing something" with their influence. It just doesn't seem to match your expectations of what they should be accomplishing.

Youth normally need permission to participate in most youth sporting activities. So what? Other than your opinion that "soccer moms won't let their youth participate," it is really only your opinion. Do you actually have anything to base that upon?

Click to expand...

You said that there needs to be education of the ignorant in the major population centers, the ignorant who believe guns are bad are not going to just give their kids to a shooting program. Opinion or not I think it's a safe bet. If the soccer moms were so open to the idea already then why do we need to educate them?

Influence - the federal government has the influence to create and sustain a war on drugs.
Effectiveness - the feds' war on drugs has been ineffective at achieving the desired/expected result.

"influence' - the fed had the influence to create and sustain a war on drugs.

Their influence was effective in creating the legislation for this.

The legislation and implementation is ineffective. That is not the same as the contention of the influence/effective claim against the NRA.

In other words, your yardstick is broken.

N00blet45 · Jun 3, 2009

imported post

The problem is not a broken yardstick. It's that influence and effectiveness are highly subjective. You consider a no compromise approach ineffective, I consider it effective. If you don't think that effectiveness is subjective just look for the 'this caliber vs that caliber arguments.

Anywho, I think we must agree to disagree and leave it as such.

wrightme · Jun 3, 2009

imported post

N00blet45 wrote:

The problem is not a broken yardstick. It's that influence and effectiveness are highly subjective. You consider a no compromise approach ineffective, I consider it effective. If you don't think that effectiveness is subjective just look for the 'this caliber vs that caliber arguments.

Anywho, I think we must agree to disagree and leave it as such.

Got an instance where the GOA's "no compromise" approach was effective?

I DO think that effectiveness is subjective, as is influential.....
wrightme wrote:

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........

Whichever way you slice and dice, you seem to simply disagree with the NRA, and have no solid measure of why, except some esoteric claim that they are not a "no compromise" organization like the GOA, whether that is an effective tactic or not.

HankT · Jun 12, 2009

imported post

Thundar wrote:

NRA is ineffective.

GOA is effective.

How many members does the GOA have?

Thundar wrote:

NRA may have marginal political influence, but should stay out of lawsuits. Gun owners cannot afford to suffer more NRA defeats. (In what post Heller lawsuits has the NRA been the victor?)

May? Don't give 'em anything, eh? Good strategy. Very persuasive.

Unreconstructed Confederate Polymath · Jun 12, 2009

imported post

Pease Porridge hot, Pease Porridge cold, Pease Porridge in the Pot

Nine Days old,

Spell me that in four Letters? I will, THAT.

Dead
thread
resurrected
for nefarious
purposes.

wrightme · Jun 12, 2009

imported post

Unreconstructed Confederate Polymath wrote:

Pease Porridge hot, Pease Porridge cold, Pease Porridge in the Pot

Nine Days old,

Spell me that in four Letters? I will, THAT.

Dead
thread
resurrected
for nefarious
purposes.

Interesting. Your post content is improving and getting closer to "on topic." :quirky

Unreconstructed Confederate Polymath · Jun 12, 2009

imported post

Contrary to the same old same ol' sycophancy from Wrightme.

wrightme · Jun 12, 2009

imported post

Unreconstructed Confederate Polymath wrote:

Contrary to the same old same ol' sycophancy from Wrightme.

So you must be a sockpuppet of someone who has had past interactions from me? Seriously now, what content did you add with your recent post? Nothing except off-topic gibberish.

The NRA is Evil

N00blet45

Regular Member

wrightme

Regular Member

N00blet45

Regular Member

wrightme

Regular Member

Thundar

Regular Member

wrightme

Regular Member

N00blet45

Regular Member

wrightme

Regular Member

N00blet45

Regular Member

wrightme

Regular Member

HankT

State Researcher

Unreconstructed Confederate Polymath

Banned

wrightme

Regular Member

Unreconstructed Confederate Polymath

Banned

wrightme

Regular Member