Hadn’t thought of that. Shouldn’t have jumped the gun, might turn out I shot a blank.
They got to much money and time on their hands, that’s how/why things like this get developed.
And it is a good thing too; because this sort of thing is the basis for Letterman/Leno monologues.
I personally want to thank whoever said “somebody doesn’t like Sara Lee”
Thank you.
The NRA is responsible for huge amounts of firearms safety education, including courses offered at shooting ranges around the country, training and certifying instructors in firearms safety, and protecting kids from firearms accidents with the Eddie Eagle program (in which children never ever touch a gun.)
Unfortunately a lot of what the non-member public sees is the ‘cold dead hands’ type of out of context sound byte in which Charleton Heston is holding up a valuable antique and hypoerbolizing what it means to him - and that sort of thing is easily and understandably not interpreted well by the general public. They are also more apt to see the areas in which the NRA is in opposition to some group that favors stronger restriction because compromise and agreement doesn’t make news but conflict does. Very, very little will be seen on CNN or FoxNews or MSNBC about the NRA’s wholehearted support of Project Exile and that of the NICS backround check system. Some of this is the fault of the NRA, and some the fault of a sound-byte media that is only interested in what will get the most ratings.
Quite honestly, there are few times that I will actually go out of my way to ensure that a company does not get my money, and in one of those cases it was the Citigroup corporation. Not because someone at Citigroup supported strong restriction of firearms, but because they blatantly refused to issue credit to a business on the basis of that business selling firearms. It had nothing to do with the credit rating, and in fact was stated by Citigroup in a letter in which they cancelled this proprietor’s account that their reason for doing so was that they never should have opened an account with someone who sells firearms. If Citigroup doesn’t want to do business with a law-abiding firearms dealer, I don’t want to do business with them. If they didn’t want to do business with a woman, I wouldn’t want to do business with them. IOW, if they are basing their credit decisions on something other than how good a credit risk a person is, they are not my kind of company.
Now, for me to ‘vote with my money’, the situation has to be pretty severe. I don’t put money into the coffers of RIAA because I do not support what I see as their price-goughing near monopolistic hold on the record industry, and I tend to stay away from doing business with people or companies that lobby to take away Constitutional rights. If, for a wild-assed example, New Balance shoes decided that they were going to start a campaign against the personal ownership of web servers because it allowed people to express their opinions to the masses just a little too freely, you can bet that New Balance wouldn’t be getting my money anymore. Nike lost a customer when the whole fiasco happened with the customer who wanted to put “Sweatshop” on his personalized shoes to recognize the fact that Nike benefits from cheap overseas child labor.
But at the same time, while I don’t support the actions of PETA, I have no problem watching an Alicia Silverstone movie (Clueless being quite a favorite.) and I don’t boycott everything with Martin Sheen in it because of his views on gun control. Not everyone draws their lines in the sand in the same place, and there’s no problem with knowing exactly where someone else stands on issues that are important to you. I have no problem with the NRA publishing that factual information regarding companies or associations and their views on gun control because it simply allows the individual to decide whether or not they want to do business with those companies. And it also does not mean that every member of the AMA or the NOW is of the same opinion on the gun control issue, rather like not every member of the NRA has exactly the same opinion of it.
There’s no way an organization 8 million or more people in number will be in 100% total agreement about everything. My doctor is a member of the AMA, and I go to him because he is a good doctor. The only way I’d stop is if he were to attempt to push whatever philosophical views (in any area) that he holds onto me.
(That was kind of rambling. Hope it makes sense.)
If those organizations give sums of money to anti-gun folks, no matter how wide ranging a group it may be, how is that 'ridiculous?
Would they ( NRA ) not be in court if their claims were false defending those claims?
It is ridiculous to think that LARG organizations give to the anti-gun folks and the membership at large is not fully aware of that fact? :smack:
IANA Gun owner/liker, but where does it say enemies exactly. I can’t see it. Please point out what words it’s near. In my old age, I sometimes miss things.
beagledave has very clearly said that the list doesn’t actually use the word “enemies.”
So let’s see, we’ve got a list of people and organizations who are “anti-gun.” These are entities who are “not friends” of the NRA.
Why has the NRA produced this list? One would assume, to inform its membership about who the “anti-gun” people are. So that their members may… what, exactly? Maybe not do business with them, not support their organizations, not go to the movies they appear in, maybe even work actively to harm their interests.
Sure sounds like an “enemies list” to me. If it will make you happy, let’s call it an “implied enemies list.”
But, of course, this is all irrelevant, inasmuch as beagledave’s point got lost in the emotions a long time ago. His point was a simple one: that the length and diversity of the NRA’s list of “anti-gun” groups and people make it clear that the NRA can’t possibly continue to claim to represent the mainstream.
First, the list isn’t about forgiveness. It’s apparently an objective list of the supporters of anti-gun causes.
Second, the AMA is trying to push bullshit onto doctors to encourage them to discourage firearms ownership in the home as a potential medical risk, and such. It’s clearly a non-medical issue, but the AMA has decided that doctors should try to pester people about it. As such, it seems it would be inappropriate to leave them off an anti-gun supporter list.
Well, it IS an issue of civil rights, first off. Second - for many people who take responsibility for their safety and that of their family, firearms are a critical tool that they may one day have to stake their lives on. Do you really think that it’s unreasonable to feel strongly about something like that?
It appears to be a list of those who indirectly or directly support anti-gun causes - by donations to anti-gun organizations and such. Would it be appropriate to pick and choose which organizations who support anti-gun causes should appear on the list, as to look more mainstream? It seems perfectly reasonable to include anti-gun supporters on a list of anti-gun supporters.
I mean, really - they set out to create a list of organizations that supported anti-gun issues. They apparently went to lengths to make it fairly detailed and encompassing. For that, they’re to be ridiculed? As if it would be better to cherry pick the data.
I am not sure where the term "unreasonable? comes in–are you perhaps confusing my message with that of another poster. I never expressed the opinion that it’s “unreasonable” to feel that way and I apologize if my writing implied otherwise.
In a nutshell, I’d recap it by saying I’m a lazy shit and it takes a pretty huge cause for me to start changing the way I live, eat, and work. When I personally think of the causes that would inspire my sorry ass to do it, they tend to be stuff that I consider life-and-death and/or having serious consequences for quality of life. Not everyone is as lazy as me (thank god) but most of the boycotts that seem to get press (and results) and engage a lot of people seem to be of this same general serious calibre.
Since I hope that gun rights will not ever be a life-or-death issue for most Americans, and being able to own a gun with limited restrictions does not have much of an impact on my quality of life personally or that of the gun owners in my immediate family, it is hard for me, personally, to grok on why some gun owners feel differently. That’s all I’m saying.
And yes, I am aware that there are some people who do believe their lives are in peril if they don’t have full gun ownership rights. That’s probably a different argument–I’d have to see some convincing statistics before I’d concede their point.
I, like Cranky, have very much enjoyed catsix’s posts. Thank you. Exactly what these boards are for.
The rest of those posting on the pro-gun side of the debate are coming out like reactionary assholes. And its just that kind of rhetoric that I think cat’s showing is so damaging. Anger gets in the way of thinking for oneself. Guns aren’t the single problem or solution to what’s going on in our society.
I’m anti-guns/pro-gun-control myself, but I will say, I know a few people who actually have guns, and they do not fit the stereotypical heat-packing image. They’re gentle, knowledgeable of the laws, respectful, thoughtful, and responsible. I try to think of them, not the false poster-child of evil, when I’m thinking about these issues.
Still, the NRA reminds me a bit of PETA or the ACLU or any [extremist lobby group of choice] that makes me cringe, and I offer a quote from Jon Stewart. “You’re right. But you’re a dick.”
Glad I’m not the only one. 
Actually, it struck me as just the opposite. To me, the list of organizations and people that support/have supported anti-gun causes demonstrates that a large number of people and organizations who have zero credentials for speaking on the subject have come out with a position on gun ownership. Can someone enlighten me as to what experties B’nai B’rith, The National Council of Negro Women or The United Methodist Church have to speak authoratively on gun ownership? The fact that groups that have absolutely no credibility on the issue are taking an anti gun stance tells me that they are most likely simply basing their position on a Mr Mackey like “guns are bad, M’kay?” knee jerk reaction, and that IS something that I think the average “mainstream” citizen should be aware of: Are anti gun positions being supported by these organizations because they have carefully weighed the facts and made a decision, or are they being put fourth simply because it’s easier to say “guns are bad” than it is to address the real problems that underlie most of the gun violence in this country?
So if these bullets were never available for sale to the general public in the first place, then why did the NRA raise a big ruckus when people wanted to make sure it stayed that way?
It takes two to make a ruckus, after all: legislation that everyone agrees on, like declaring National Sweet Potato Week, sails right through Congress without a ripple in the papers all the time.
If the type of bullet under discussion was badly defined, then the NRA could have surely lent its expertise to fix that flaw in the legislation, and worked with the gun-control types to keep armor-piercing handgun rounds unavailable for public purchase, without any major hoopla.
Maybe it doesn’t look quite so clearly a non-medical issue to them when they’re patching up a bullet hole. Just a guess.
That’s what it always comes down to: “they’re coming to take away our guns.” This is why I don’t often waste my time in these threads.
I have taken many more of my friends and relatives to the hospital for chainsaw injuries (3) than gunshot wounds (0). Doctors don’t see fit to browbeat me on chainsaw safety, though.
And the legislation that would have banned “cop killer bullets” was a big deal because it would have protected exactly zero cops, while banning the ammo for my deer rifle. That makes it a stupid law, opposed for that reason.
Why does this not surprise me?
If they’re already unavailable and illegal, why does one need a law to make them double-illegal?
The reason the NRA opposed the ban was because it basically banned all rifle ammunition bigger than .22 LR. All of it. It would’ve essentially banned the use of rifles for any purpose. I guess the NRA should’ve let that one slide, though, if it made “cop killer bullets” double-illegal.
“Teflon coated” cop killer bullets, by the way, is a complete mischaracterization. They’re not made to pierce armor - they’re inferior for armor piercing than normal rounds. The teflon is used to protect the barrel from the open head of the round.
It’s a non-medical issue when they’re pestering a person about something they have no particular expert knowledge in. Is a doctor fit to judge, on some basis, whether or not someone is fit to own a firearm?
Sure, there’s a remote chance that gun ownership could lead to medical problems - but you could connect a lot of things to some possible future injury.
Doctors have no business telling a reasonable, responsible adult that they shouldn’t own a gun in their home. That’s not a medical issue in the same way eating twinkies 15 times a day is a medical issue. They’re going out of their way to try to push their politics onto people, and that’s not appropriate for a doctor.
**
Oh please, spare me. He indicated that he had no idea why people might feel passionate about the gun issue to the extent of supporting a boycott, so I gave a reason. Guns are far more concrete and important to some people than animal product testing, or what have you.
**
My mistake, then.
You’d said that you couldn’t understand why someone would take it so seriously, and that implied to me that you thought it was unreasonable - but it seems you just meant that you personally didn’t understand it.
**
Understandable. I was trying to say that to some people, it is indeed a life-or-death issue in a way. Not me, personally - as I’m a fairly big guy, and I don’t have a family to look after - but I could understand why people would feel that way. I tend to stand with them on general principle more than personal interest.
**
That’s fine - different people, different priorities. It just seems - given the examples you gave - the gun issue is a lot more concrete and “life or death” than, say, child labor.
Well, “believe their lives are in peril” gives a connotation of a paranoid nutcase - at least it often does. One doesn’t have to live in a constant state of paranoia to realize that shit happens, and there are people out there that prey on other people. In that case, being able to respond to violence is important, even if they have very little expectation of it actually happening to them.
It’s not a matter of statistics - there’s no statistical threshold at which you can say “ok, you’re justified in taking responsibility for defending yourself.” Some people feel differently about it than others. If you don’t feel the same way, that’s fine - I was wrong in assuming you were implying that such a stance was unreasonable.
Kinda like Michael Moore said, a culture/society of “fear”, and when you live in that culture, well, guns are necessary. (Not to shoot people with, but to know that you can shoot someone if you want to)
Right, because no one ever harms anyone else unless one lives in a culture of fear.