catsix, that was a wonderful and reasonable explanation for why the NRA or an individual would have an objection to that particular proposal. That sort of thing is why I love the boards. I think a thoughtful, reasonable person would be glad to hear stuff like that. The NRA doesn’t get a lot of credit for being informative or reasonable. That may be warranted, I don’t know.
As for your comment about voting with your $$, it makes sense to me and its a time-honored method of advocacy. However, I confess I’m taken aback that some people feel so incredibly strongly about gun rights that this is the issue that use to shape their buying decisions. I’ve heard of boycotts over third-world-labor issues, and infant nutrition, and civil rights, and animal rights. While those causes aren’t my own (or aren’t enough for me to participate in a boycott), I can understand why some people feel so strongly about them. It’s less clear to me why the gun-rights issue is so fundamentally important to gun owners. It’s a lack of understanding on my part, I realize. It just seems to have fewer of the “anti-cruelty,” “Humaneness,” or “quality of life” ingredients that other boycotts thrive on.
Then again, maybe you could take a look at the full list again, and see what kind of bullshit you’re talking about. Among the “companies” on the list are such organizations as…
Oh, and the actual businesses? Such diversely offensive establishments as Blue Cross/Blue Shield (hope you don’t need insurance!), AMC theatres (hope you don’t like movies!), Hallmark (stop buying those greeting cards!), and Sara Lee (no cheesecake for you!).
Wake up and smell what you’re shovelling. This is not just about buying decisions or “voting with your money.”
If you don’t see that this list shows that the NRA is marginalizing itself increasingly, even alienating itself from many of its paying members, then you’re blind to the meaning behind this list. It’s not an “enemies” list, you say… then what is it? A “friends” list? A “let’s just all get along” list? No… it is, by the NRA website’s own description, a list of “National Organizations With Anti-Gun Policies.” Such organizations would, pretty much by definition, be enemies of the NRA, which exists for the sole purpose of defending the use of firearms in America.
You know, I respect those who advocate for gun ownership rights, and I support them. I do not, myself, choose to own a gun, but I also have never (and will never) sought to ban guns from use in America, or anywhere else. In that very broad sense, I support the NRA. However, when they make up a list like this, made up of such diverse and far-reaching groups and companies as those I have listed above (and many, many others), I have to question the premises the NRA acts upon.
The list itself is simply stupid. Nobody in their right mind can say that the NRA isn’t completely out of touch with mainstream America, or even a large segment of its own membership, after reading that list.
And since this thread is about the NRA specifically, perhaps you can show us where the NRA advocates what you imply they do. You cannot. Because they don’t. They don’t support the notion that “every variety of ordnance” is acceptable, they don’t support sale to the public of “cop killer” bullets (whatever ill-defined object that may be), nor do they claim that gun locks aren’t useful.
gun control supported by the NRA
Right. The list could also be used by gun rights activists for lobbying efforts and letter-writing campaigns. There are many uses; not all of them nefarious.
Ya know, I’m no longer a particularly strong supporter of the NRA, because, I do find that some of their tactics to be underhanded and not entirely honest, but the demonization in which some of you are engaging, I find absurd. So what if the NRA has a list of organizations that oppose their principles? I’ll bet the pope has one, too.
And as for reprehensibility, let’s take a look at this page from the VPC site: http://www.vpc.org/linksndx.htm Look down there under the heading “Pro-Gun Special Interests.” What’s with trying to link gun rights organizations with those fucking assholes at stormfront?
It’s a fact sheet. It wasn’t a press release. It wasn’t sent to NRA members as a boycott list. It’s not even a link on the NRA’s main page. It exists as information that you can do with as you will.
I wager that the only way beagledave found out about this 4 month old list was from a New York Times OpEd piece by Bob Herbert.
Hey, look! You guys can repeat the entities on the list. Great, I’m glad you have an outlet for your typing skills. Now how about addressing the substantive issues?
Maybe another use of that list would be to let union members who are also NRA members, to know exactly what the officials in their organization support, and attempt to educate and change their viewpoint.
Maybe the idea of that list is to let bar members who are also NRA members know exactly what their organzation supports. Some of those members might be surprised to find that the bar association favors gun bans.
And the same goes for the rest of those organizations you point to as ludicrous examples. After all, if one doesn’t know who opposes one’s view, one doesn’t know whom to engage.
Out of curiosity, where did you find it? I somehow doubt it was from perusing through the NRA’s fact sheet archive.
Jeff, you might be right. However, since there are plenty of people and groups (see list, ha!) always throwing mud at the NRA to see what will stick, I don’t think they’re too worried about it.
Look, I am very much “pro-gun”, but making a monumentaly stupid statement like this in response to an analogy and then setting up the “blame the rope” strawman is not helping the cause of facts and reason, in fact it makes you look like an imbicile. If all your responses are going to be written through the haze of pain from your knee jerking into your forehead at 90 MPH, please find another cause to support, OK? There’s enough lunatics out there arguing the “pro gun” cause as it is. Common sense, facts and the law are on the side of those who support the right of citizens to keep and bear arms, vocal idiots who think reason is candy from Europe are what gives the anti-gun crowd much of it’s ammunition and legitimacy.
We’ll the AMA might be high on the list because of what the new AMA prez had to say during his inaugural address. The actual text of the speech has now been removed from the AMA site.
I shoot with three doc’s, one oncologist, one surgeon, and one pediatrician and they’ve all bailed on their memberships in the last two years because of these policies.
Refering to me as a lunatic is pretty asinine of you, dave. Comparing the NRA to supremacist groups is old hat for hoplophobes. Just look at the VPC link that Unc posted. Even so, I’ll admit that I could have misinterpreted Apos’ analogy. Hardly cause to get foamy at the mouth.
