The N.R.A. controls very directly. Their power is immense. Those who shake their heads with a smirk at this assertion are just desperate to deny the truth.
I was specifically referring to bans on cosmetic features when I made the slippery slope statement.
I don’t think it applies (as much) to features that actually impact the function of the guns such as magazine size, or background checks or waiting periods. So you’ll get no argument from me on that strawman.
I don’t know how you can think this. Would you argue that gun rights would be nearly as safe if the NRA vanished tomorrow?
Wait. You are actually claiming to not be anti-gun? Good grief. Just be honest about it, man.
In the meantime, shouldn’t you defer to people who do have an idea, then?
Back it up or shut it up, scumpuppy jr.
Hm, 10 000/311 591 917 odds. Pretty damned good that I will not get shot randomly by a nut, in a crime or by accident. I will however grant you a slightly higher chance of accidental shooting mainly because we own guns therefore it would be possible for one to accidentally discharge and shoot me. [going with the 10K number, and the most recent google of US population. In other words, pulling the odds out of my ass because I actually don’t remember how to calculate odds, it has been 30+ years since I had math.]
I think I actually have better odds of either getting hit by lightening or dying of salmonella.
Piffle, that assumes no improvement was possible and it totally ignores that others nations could do it and are doing it. The main point here is though that the NRA is really irresponsible and does want to continue making sure that many irresponsible gun owners do not face retribution when they are not following on common sense ideas.
As I see it, this item add to a picture of an organization that even denies what science can do to make crimes less likely or prosecutable.
Are there any major pro-gun rights organizations that aren’t tainted the way the NRA is?
Absolutely. For one thing, there are actually other pro-gun organizations that don’t seem to exist just to enrich themselves- they just aren’t nearly as large as the NRA.
If the NRA vanished, then another pro-gun organization would likely take their place, and, unfortunately, eventually become as bloated and self-serving as the NRA- at least until gun owners started to realized that they were being preyed on, financially, due to their own anxieties (which are inflated and fanned by the NRA).
The right to bear arms is not in jeopardy- it’s as strong as it’s been in decades. The Supreme Court has struck down handgun bans in cities, a decision that President Obama expressed support for, and the worst thing likely to happen (for gun-rights advocates) in the near future would be a superficial “feel-good” law like the Brady Bill which did very little, IMO, to actually restrict the rights of gun owners (as well as very little to save lives, also IMO).
I’m not saying ignore gun rights- continue to lobby congressmen and look closely at candidates’ positions on gun control (and other issues)- but for me, if a politician is very close to the NRA, then that’s a net negative, because of their blatant conspiracy mongering, a transparent attempt to enrich themselves.
I think preying on fear for money is one of the worst things politicians and lobbyists do, and while it’s unfortunately very common, I think the NRA is one of the worst examples of this in America. I think Wayne LaPierre is one of the most disgusting opportunists in the country- and he’s become very, very rich by creating unwarranted fears and then preying on them to expand his own power and money.
I think pretty much all of the rest of them aren’t nearly as bad as the NRA is (as far as conspiracy-mongering and fear-inciting to raise money), but that just may be because the rest are pretty small. I plan to investigate further.
I have to mention that I’m on the record in favor of gun rights, and this is because the evidence on the whole shows that guns do not cause more crimes, but on the other hand it does not prevent more, so that is just a wash, what we need to concentrate is precisely on ways to prevent criminals and people with mental issues to get a hold of them.
Unfortunately even on that the NRA is just showing the nuttiness that one sees on creationists and climate change deniers. The default position is to even see serious attempts at dealing with this as to be equal to “take our guns away”
To follow on the irresponsibility of the NRA, it has to be mentioned here the appalling efforts they go to even prevent authorities from doing research to find ways to control the problems.
To me it is an effort that is surprising to see it coming from groups that also reject science as a whole.
Ahhhhhh, that time-honored old chestnut. Guns only exist to kill.
Rational adults know that guns are used for a lot more than just killing, and they also know that sometimes killing is a good thing.
But I understand, you don’t a damn that a kid got killed yesterday by a repeat drunk driver. Why don’t you call their parents and let them know that the death of their child was OK as long as people have the right to drink, and the right to drive cars. I am sure they will feel better.
But you don’t care, do you?
The Swiss put taggants in explosives, but not in powder. What nation is requiring taggants in gunpowder? How many criminals have they caught by doing it? How much did it cost to implement?
The Gun Owners of America group makes the NRA look positively docile. They got stronger when the NRA supported the instant background check system - that was seen as a horrible compromise by a the more extreme members of the gun owners.
There are some hunting groups that support firearms rights as well, mainly focused on hunting weaponry. You also have some much smaller groups like the Pink Pistols (a group focused on arming gays and lesbians for self protection), but they don’t show up much on the radar.
The NRA didn’t used to be as political, but then again firearms used to be much easier to get and own. The started getting political in the 60s when gun control started hitting on a national basis.
I wish they didn’t use as much hyperbole, but they are also responding to hyperbole as well. More of a reflection of today’s political society IMHO.
You think hyperbole is what I’m talking about? Did you bother to read the link in post #101?
As far as I can tell, the current NRA exists in order to make money for the NRA, because… well, because money.
The gun manufacturing industry likes the NRA, because they encourage folks to buy more guns. And that means… money. They like money.
To get money, the NRA engages in hyperbole, scare tactics and outright falsehoods. Then they get money, which is quite useful. Money pays large salaries, buys nice buildings and stuff. More stuff is good.
Sorry - I should have responded better. Yes, I think that they have too much of everyone is either an A or a D (like in that case). I disagree with what they did there.
The NRA has a reputation for being moderate and mild compared with the other, smaller gun rights groups such as GOAL.
Care to introduce any facts to the discussion? Do either of you have a cite for any of this? How rich is LaPierre? How much is the NRA enriching itself at the cost of its members? Is this in line with other lobbying groups?
By a razor thin margin of one vote and now Obama has four more years to appoint justices to SCOTUS.
There is no question that if not for the NRA we would not enjoy the second amendment rights that we have today. It’s only through the organization of gun owners that politicians fear taking away our right to own guns. The organization might not be perfect, and if you have any actual evidence of financial misbehavior I’m willing to listen. But there is no doubt that the NRA has been holding the line on second amendment rights.
A cite for the NRA existing for making money? Seriously?
It’s money!
I don’t know who LaPierre is and I don’t give a shit how rich he is. Why? Because money!
Is the NRA providing a benefit to members? I’m sure it is. Do they do it voluntarily, taking no salaries and working out of their homes? No they do not. Money.
In line with other lobbying groups? Who knows and who cares? They all make money. Because money.
Shit, you act like there is some noble, holy principle involved. It’s about money.