Well, they’re bought off in the sense than the low end of the bell curve that vote in Republican primaries value NRA ratings.
Also, they are bought in the sense that the NRA will support the political opponents of someone they don’t approve of.
It doesn’t have to be an envelope to influence someone. I agree that they didn’t necessarily pay people money. Although they did throw money into races.
That can be said about any piece of legislation. Just because its the NRA, it’s considered extra evil?
The point was only 41 Senators needed to be bought… No bribes or direct pay-payouts
Buying a politician’s favor is the intent and purpose of lobbyists.
So now you’re railing against lobbyists?
Here’s what the NRA says, "“President Obama and anti-gun ringleaders in Congress and the national media are waging all-out war on our gun rights, ”
I’m not calling NRA propaganda evil, however it has been quite amusing to see how gun obsessed Americans think the families of victims slain in senseless gun violence are the only emotional ones in this debate.
Just so I’m sure we’re all talking about the same Rand Paul. Is this the guy?
It’s quite cold and insensitive to put down gun violence victims’ families as props for expressing the opposing view to his ideology. They did not give up their right to lobby Congress because they just buried a child.
To call them props is disrespectng their political activism.
I can see that you don’t see it.
Look, standing next to a politician giving a speech is not political activism. No one is criticizing these parents for expressing their opinions. They are criticizing Obama and other politicians for using these people as props to manipulate the emotions of those watching their speeches. They’re not saying these people are props always and forever, but that they’re props when Obama and others use them simply as decorations at political events without allowing them to speak.
It is not as if these people get to make a speech of their own or actually express any opinions. Hell, they could oppose what Obama is saying for all anyone can tell. I’m sure their instructions were “Stand there, keep your mouth shut, look somber, don’t make any weird faces, and don’t scratch your ass while the cameras are on no matter how bad it itches.” That’s not political activism.
Your amusement must be coming from another source as many gun owners are pissed off about the whole thing. There is no lack of emotion on the pro gun side. Anyone who thinks otherwise is kidding them self.
Standing next to a politician giving a speech may not be political activism in and of itself but it’s surely a part. It’s not as if standing there for the speech was the only role these parents have played in this gun control debate. There have been myriad T.V. interviews (and various media), meetings with legislators and more.
They can lobby all they want. And so can everyone else. BUt they lost. And so did Obama. The bill was the result of an appeal to emotion, which turned out to be a dumb strategy. Maybe the can try again with less appeal to emotion and more reasoned policy analysis.
And keeping Feinstein far away from the debate and the bills. She’s poison for her own side.
The NRA’s appeal based on emotion/fear got the better of the victims rights advocates appeal based upon emotion.
The NRA is better organized at stirring up emotion at the point when it is needed. But but victims groups will catch up organizationally which is the only way reason and common sense can be brought into the discussion.
What played out this past week was another round of Republican lawmakers led by Mitch McConnell, blocking any legislation that would be seen as an Obama victory.
They are going to give Obama nothing he can take as his legacy.
A long history of disingenuous proposals makes people suspicious of such “common sense” regulation. The current NICS background system was only enacted when it was promised over and over again that it would never be used as a de facto registration scheme, specific provisions in the law stated that records could only be retained for 24 (or maybe 72 hours) for auditing purposes. But several times since then there’ve been some pretty strong pushes to ignore those provisions and keep those records anyway and turn it into a national gun registry.
It’s very difficult to compromise with people whose goal is the destruction of something you view as a fundamental human right.
I dare say that if gun control advocates didn’t have a history of trying to take a mile when given an inch, lying constantly, wasting their efforts on bullshit like the assault weapons ban rather than on good faith efforts to actually improve public safety, deliberately confuse the public on what they’re actually trying to do, you’d be more likely to come up with some sort of reasonable law you could agree on.
Alternatively, it just wasn’t a good piece of legislation. You lose. Try again with better legislation.
You offense hinges on Paul saying that the families were props, as opposed to being used as props by Obama, which is what he actually said; it’s a criticism of Obama, not the families. It’s clear that you despise Rand Paul, but at least do so honestly.
No, that is absolutely the wrong approach. More tears won’t result in more progress, the gun-control advocates need to wrench control of their side of the discussion away from dishonest fanatics and into moderate hands. So long as the conversation is dominated by people like Diane Feinstein, reason and common sense aren’t going to be a part of it.
Exactly right, the Firearm Owners Protection Act included this provision:
See this ATF publication for an overview of how the ATF is currently violating it.
“Blame the NRA” is the standard approach the gun-control advocates take when their bills fail; Obama just did exactly that. They need to start blaming one another, they are to blame for their failures. They allow the most radical and dishonest to steer their ship, and seem shocked every time it runs aground.
I should have asked you what point you were trying to make with that statement.
So, what point were you trying to make?
And what does " Ntfldbyw " mean? Newfoundland Bring Your Wallet???
Just to be clear. I understand that gun owners and non-gun owners are pissed that someone would gun down six year olds in a class room or anywhere.
The emotion I was talking about is the emotion that the pro-gun-legislation and anti-gun legislation both bring to the table, but we have anti-gun legislation players expressing that their side of the argument is reasoned and calm while their opponents are the ones operating mostly on emotion.
If Rand Paul ‘thinks’ that President Obama ‘used’ these families as props, then Rand Paul thinks that they ‘were’ props at some point in time. The only justifiable criticizm of Obama for ‘using’ them as props should come from the ‘props’ themselves. I have not heard any of them say they thought they were being “used” as props. Empahsis on the words ‘USED AS’.
Using people as props to make your case is not at all deragotory, offensive or unethical or dishonorable if the props, in this case - human beings - sincerely want and freely desire to be there.
That is why it is offensive for Rand Paul to ‘think’ that Obama has ‘used’ these grieving families as props. It is offensive to the families because there is nothing ‘dissappointing’ about the victims family’s being on the stage with their President if they ‘want’ to be there and agree with the President’s position on the issue that matters dear to them…
It is plain by his own words that Rand Paul will disparage the mother’s and fathers of slain six year old children if there is a pot shot at Obama to be had.
There was no reason to bring up ‘used as props’ in his comments about his views on gun legislation and on how he is saddened when he see these family’s testifiying and lobbying on Capital Hill.
Well, we’ve know for a long time that some people are just easily offended, and this is clearly one of those cases. Go ahead an be offended if it makes you feel good. Just don’t expect the rest of us to agree.