Who The NRA Really Speaks For

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Nat Turner, Oct 6, 2015.

  1. DOconTEX

    DOconTEX Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2015
    Messages:
    3,084
    Likes Received:
    397
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Right. The NYT as a source.

    The NRA speaks for me. I send them gobs of money every year to do so.

    Perhaps you haven't noticed that the President keeps referring to Australia as a model of what he would like gun control to be here. Perhaps you don't know that Australia banned ownership of many types of commonly used firearms and confiscated them from owners.

    You may be one of the "responsible gun owners" who trust the gun controllers who say they only want "commonsense" gun laws to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. But you may want to look up Josh Sugarmann and the Violence Policy Center writings that detail a 50 year plan to eliminate all privately owned firearms in the US. One little "commonsense" law followed by another "commonsense" law leading to the penultimate step of registration. The ultimate step will be confiscation of registered firearms.

    People like you in 1930's Germany didn't read Mein Kampf or didn't believe Hitler would do what he claimed he wanted to do. If you think you are a "responsible gun owner" and you trust leftists to keep their word about only wanting "commonsense" gun laws and don't want to take your guns away completely, I have a unicorn you may be interested in buying.
     
  2. 1up2down

    1up2down New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2012
    Messages:
    2,272
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    0
    its not extremist at all its fact. You can still buy machine guns. They just cost $10,000-$40,000. Unless your a criminal. Then you just get one illegally. I shoot full auto weapons once in a while as I have friends who have the money to afford them through class3 purchases. No accidents or injuries to me or anyone else.

    Honestly I dont even like shooting full auto but its just an example of how compromise and middle ground talk is Not a solution. The solution is for people to educate themselves on firearms reality and cure themselves of this immature fear of guns. compromise and finding middle ground to anti gunners is just code words for incrementalism. The purpose has nothing to do with solving actual problems.
     
  3. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,489
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Wasn't it the day after Obama held up Australia as the model that they had a shooting?
     
  4. Johnny-C

    Johnny-C Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2010
    Messages:
    34,039
    Likes Received:
    429
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    The NRA may have some redeeming aspects, but they are hardly 'clean' and 'honorable'. In light of all that America is dealing with, the following comes to mind:

    Who Benefits From A Problem - There's the Answer to Understanding It.jpg
     
  5. DOconTEX

    DOconTEX Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2015
    Messages:
    3,084
    Likes Received:
    397
    Trophy Points:
    83
    1. No it doesn't. That whole meme has been debunked over and over. Yet, like the "women are more likely to get beaten on Super Bowl Sunday" nonsense, the leftists keep repeating it.
    2. You would be the first to be hiding behind him if someone was shooting up a mall.
     
  6. 1up2down

    1up2down New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2012
    Messages:
    2,272
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Hogwash. Unlike places like planned parenthood and other liberal causes the money the NRA receives is not extorted from taxpayers for their own profit. That money is donated willingly by americans that are willing to support an organization that fights for them. You dont believe in your constitutional rights...dont donate.
     
  7. DOconTEX

    DOconTEX Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2015
    Messages:
    3,084
    Likes Received:
    397
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ummm, no it doesn't.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Why yes, yes it was. Another embarrassment for the gun control crowd.
     
  8. Johnny-C

    Johnny-C Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2010
    Messages:
    34,039
    Likes Received:
    429
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    We disagree.
     
  9. wutitiz

    wutitiz New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2015
    Messages:
    409
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Gun ownership is not a game of chance. Whatever a gun owner chooses to do w/ his/her gun is the result of deliberate and conscious choices, not "chances."

    So here is another example of how gun control proponents get the fundamental language wrong, and the result is sloppy thinking. The other day I heard a guy make the interesting observation that Pres. Obama's references to "gun safety" invariably have nothing to do with gun safety. He gets the fundamental language wrong.

    When we use words that don't mean what we think they do, we can't possibly know what we're talking about, and we can't possibly arrive at a correct conclusion.
     
  10. 1up2down

    1up2down New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2012
    Messages:
    2,272
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    0
    then you have a problem with reality and are in denial. the NRA is a volunteer membership. That is fact.
     
  11. Capitalism

    Capitalism Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2014
    Messages:
    5,129
    Likes Received:
    786
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Easy to say when you live in a nice little suburb.

    When you live in meth den central? I'd prefer to have an assault rifle in the house. (Since you know, Meth pretty makes you invincible outside of an instant kill shot)

    Do you think we shouldn't be able to defend ourselves against someone who is drugged out and never has less than 3 people with them?
     
  12. 1up2down

    1up2down New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2012
    Messages:
    2,272
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    0
    George Bush lives on a self sustaining ranch and owns properties in countries around the world, constant security, and probably has more guns than anyone I know. He is also a member of the Elite so constitutional freedoms have little concern for him. He can just buy or bully any rights he want. George could go buy an armored tank with live rounds tomorrow if he wanted and hire a full fledged security force if he wants.

    - - - Updated - - -

    they are also starting to wear body armor for these home invasions.
     
  13. vman12

    vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2015
    Messages:
    66,736
    Likes Received:
    46,539
    Trophy Points:
    113
    He has a frigging "no-fly" zone over his ranch too.....enter and you'll be eating sidewinder missiles.
     
  14. mtlhdtodd

    mtlhdtodd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2012
    Messages:
    1,187
    Likes Received:
    262
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Perfect example of the delusional liberal who presumes to know all about guns and gun owners but has never owned, fired or probably even touched a firearm in their life.
     
  15. vman12

    vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2015
    Messages:
    66,736
    Likes Received:
    46,539
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Of course it increases the chances. Something that is present will always increase the chances of something that is not present.

    Also if you noticed the study said that it increses the chances of SOMEONE being shot, not necessarily the owner.

    I've been around guns since I was a kid. Whole family owned guns. No one has ever been accidentally shot or killed. My 9 year old can field strip her 22 and perfectly understands and executes correct safety procedures every time she does it.

    The only people who get shot by their firearms either a) have a defective weapon (it can happen, and that is a valid risk) b) are drinking c) do not practice basic safety precautions.

    Elementary school children are fully capable of safely handing firearms. It is not complicated in the least.

    People that point a gun at their head and pull the trigger, even when they are 1000% sure it is unloaded, are morons. Nothing short of putting them in a rubber room will ever make them safe.
     
  16. APACHERAT

    APACHERAT Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    38,026
    Likes Received:
    16,046
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Dividing the law abiding gun owners is the strategy being used by the radical left to confiscate all guns in America. Vilify the NRA and pass gun control laws to make gun confiscation easier when that totalitarian that's screaming to get out of so many progressives and liberals happens. Turn hunters against target shooters. If Obama could outlaw private ownership of all guns he would do it just as Obama supports replacing all local, county and state law enforcement agencies and being replaced with one federal national police force.

    There is an element with in America who do want to confiscate and outlaw all private ownership of guns in America including hunting rifles and shotguns. Any time you hear some liberal / progressive or red diaper baby like Obama saying "I'm not going to rake away your guns" it just another lie, if they could get away with it they would do it. The author of the N.Y. Times opinion piece, Alan Berlow is one of those liberal wannabe totalitarian's who has been waging a war against the NRA, he want's to outlaw guns through legislation or by gun confiscation. And it's the NRA why it hasn't happened yet.
     
  17. bois darc chunk

    bois darc chunk Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2015
    Messages:
    8,625
    Likes Received:
    3,490
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I agree with the above. That is exactly what statistics say. There are those responsible owners that stay in practice with well-maintained guns, but the numbers of those responsible owners don't change the odds of being shot.

    One of the problems with the debate on whether or not any measure of gun control works effectively, is the lack of research. There is some, but most of the federal research has been blocked. This past July, Congress voted to continue the Dickey amendment- a law that in 1994 removed all funding for the Center for Disease Control to research firearm related injury.

    Hmmm, criminal behavior among people that purchase firearms legally?? Where have we heard that before? That kind of research has some implications for today. He did find a direct correlation to those with a prior misdemeanor charges.
    Since putting forth the amendment, Jay Dickey has changed his mind.

    At least he has seen the light.
     
  18. Johnny-C

    Johnny-C Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2010
    Messages:
    34,039
    Likes Received:
    429
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    So you say. If I see that you are correct eventually, I'll change my mind.

    For now, we disagree.
     
  19. DOconTEX

    DOconTEX Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2015
    Messages:
    3,084
    Likes Received:
    397
    Trophy Points:
    83
    If the history of politically motivated research done to reach a political conclusion (e.g. "global warming", various "war on women" issues) had not been so prevalent, it might be useful to honestly see what could be done that would work. However, given that history, I would never give money to government researchers who would produce "research" that reached a political conclusion during the time of Obama.

    I could write the conclusion right here and save millions in taxpayer dollars: "Guns bad, must confiscate to make people safer".

    Having known too many doofuses who improperly use firearms, get drunk in hunting camps and shoot holes in the ceiling of the building, etc, I wouldn't be opposed to a requirement for training in proper and safe and legal handling of guns. However, I don't trust government run by anti-freedom ideologues. I will take my chances that I will get shot in a mall before I will agree to any thing that will lead to government being the only legal user and owner of firearms.
     
  20. bois darc chunk

    bois darc chunk Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2015
    Messages:
    8,625
    Likes Received:
    3,490
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I appreciate you expressing your opinion. I am pro-learning. If research comes to a faulty conclusion, it will be ripped apart by the opposition and not repeatable in scientific investigation. In other words, if it is politically motivated, partisans will scream about the outcome, but scientists will invalidate it. If it passes the peer review, can be duplicated, and is done with sound scientific procedures, we have every expectation that the research is good. Good research helps us make better decisions.

    The problem with research on gun related crimes is, they have chosen to not back any kind of research, so we have little knowledge of the hows and whys we are in the situation of monthly mass shootings and other gun crimes that has left our country bloody, and our people stunned at the carnage.

    I do not advocate confiscation and never have. I am an owner. Frankly, I think at this point, it is physically impossible to confiscate all the guns in the US. There is one or more guns for every man, woman, and child in this country… legal or illegal. Besides that, there is that little amendment that says they can't.

    I think we would have a much deeper understanding of why we are having so many gun deaths, and potential solutions, if we had the research to spur legislation. However, if there is no research, there is little legislation. Even the man that sponsored the bill to remove the funding now regrets he did it. I regret he did it too.

    We are years behind where we could have been, had the funding not been cut. I just wonder how many lives might have been spared had Congress not completely cut this funding.
     
  21. Alwayssa

    Alwayssa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2012
    Messages:
    37,205
    Likes Received:
    9,650
    Trophy Points:
    113
    you have no clue what the hell you are talking about. You cannot blame the rich no more blaming a Chinese gun manufacturer for all the firearm homicides that occur in this country.

    There is a problem we have with the availability of firearms to people who are not allowed to have them by law, are too young, or are incapable to distinguish between right and wrong, aka mentally ill. But somehow you equate limiting the availability of firearms to felons and other groups that should not or cannot have firearms to someone taking your right away. That is only true unless you are a convicted felon yourself.
     
  22. Steady Pie

    Steady Pie Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    24,514
    Likes Received:
    7,251
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You have no idea how lucky you are to have an organization that defends gun freedom. The closest thing we have here is the SSAA, which the state mandates all shooters are members of, and is more often than not behind a lot of the restrictions we suffer under.

    The NRA has its share of bad positions, but they serve a very important function.

    [hr][/hr]

    No Federal legislation concerning firearms. None at all. Repeal the NFA. Repeal the 68' gun control act. End it all. Complete and total gun liberty at the Federal level.

    Why would the Feds (*)(*)(*)(*) over the two states with the lowest gun homicide rates: Vermont and New Hampshire? Both have extremely lenient gun regulation, especially Vermont. So why force one-size-fits-all policy on states where it makes no sense whatsoever?

    Because the left (and much of the right) are a bunch of tyrannical bastards. Centralized power is always the solution for them.
     
  23. Alwayssa

    Alwayssa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2012
    Messages:
    37,205
    Likes Received:
    9,650
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It really depends where. The meth den central would either be in the rural area or in the suburbs. Meth is the white man's heroin.
     
  24. Alwayssa

    Alwayssa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2012
    Messages:
    37,205
    Likes Received:
    9,650
    Trophy Points:
    113
    the organization is not defending gun freedom. They are supporting the gun manufacturer who will love to transports guns to Mexico and the cartel if the government would get out of the way and the gun survivalist group who think the government is out to get them because of Jews, Liberals, or the NWO>
     
  25. 1up2down

    1up2down New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2012
    Messages:
    2,272
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Blame the rich??????? where do you get that? I am saying there is no middle ground with you people. we tried that and you never stop and will not stop until you take away our rights or make it so expensive that only the super rich can afford it. Thats why you get no consideration or willingness to deal whatsoever from gun owners and never will. If you want to improve the safety in gun related areas your going to be the ones who need to give and work with the NRA and local groups to promote gun safety and education.

    First you need to learn something about what your talking about. I suggest finding a book on basic firearms design and spending some time learning how they operate. Then you might understand whats is and isn't safe.

    I have yet to see any of the anti crowd do that though. Instead you politicize and try to manipulate the law to push incrementalism gun banning against gun owners because they are a threat to your political ideology. You want registrations and lists of people so you can do what you wish. Your asking these people to compromise and find common ground when for the last 8 years you call them domestic terrorist threats even though they have never broken the Law. But yet you sit there and try to convince masses that gun owners need to compromise and work with your cause while at the same time insulting and falsely accusing them as being extreme. YEAH OK!

    You wont win that argument. You will never take guns away from americans. Not though incrementalism. Not through politicizing tragedy. Not through insults and attacking. Not by demonizing pro RKBA groups. Not by turning gun owners against each other. Its not going to happen. In the past you have managed to fool people enough to pass an antigun agenda and get some laws through because people didnt understand the true motives. Thats over now. The NRA is stronger than ever. More people carry concealed every day. People of all demographics and income levels are buying guns at record numbers. The industry is being flooded with future up and coming gun enthusiasts.

    My suggestion is that if you cant come to terms with the fact that guns are here to stay, high capacity is here to stay, concealed carry is here to stay etc. etc......then leave the country...move...get the hell out and you will be much happier. Yes we will have political terrorists doing things with gun that they shouldn't. We accept that. It happens everywhere. People do stupid crap sometimes with little regard for human life. Thats why you have to protect yourself.

    - - - Updated - - -

    ok, its clear your just trolling and have no concept of what the NRA actually does.
     

Share This Page