Of course the content is sanctioned by them. The NRA should be very very ashamed about the bad rhetorical argument presented by the dude on their channel.
But this specific bad rhetorical argument does not in fact call for the dismantling of the 1st amendment in any real way. So all they are accountable for, regarding this specific thing, is just the bad rhetorical argument.
Frankly I think this bad rhetorical argument is the least of the problems I have with the NRA.
I had never heard of Mr. Noir until he showed on Joe Rogan’s show complaining about being ignored by a critic of NRA-TV. He apparently thinks that he should be seen as one of their spokesmen, and that he is a credible spokesman.
Hi, I think I should be seen as a credible spokesman for foolsguinea and I am rather sure she meant to concede that Noir is not actually a spokesman for the NRA even if he likes to think he is.
And because you’re a host on foolsguineaTV, I find your claim entirely plausible and reasonable.
ETA: Not to imply that this specific bad rhetorical argument is something worth worrying about, but claiming that a host on NRATV has nothing to do with the NRA is just stupid.
There is no foolsguineaTV but we collaborate on an influential message board.
I didn’t suggest he has nothing to do with the NRA. I myself pointed that out above.
Forget being on the same message board, I have reliable secret intel that you’re operating off the same planet. Based on that alone you are clearly qualified to speak for foolsguinea about anything, just as you can be reasonably confident that as a fellow earthling I have Trump’s authorization to say that he’s a criminal and all right-thinking (but perhaps not quick-thinking) people should brave the gauntlet of his secret service and perform a citizen’s arrest immediately.
But don’t worry, I’m sure your point was sound.
Well, on behalf of all non-NRA members, I am willing to concede that the title of this thread is a bit click-baity. Still, Swiftian satire the video is not, as the NRA has gagged the CDC, even if there is no 1st Amendment implication to that. Also, the NRA is one of the Trump administration’s biggest supporters, a guy who has tagged the press as “The enemy of the people,” and otherwise slags it at every opportunity. So, it is a cheap stunt and not funny.
And either way, pretty damn trivial compared to that feeling of mortal terror that those kids at that Texas school experienced the other day, or that the Parkland kids went through just three months ago.
For 27 of them, that mortal terror was the last feeling they ever experienced in this life. So I’m not especially concerned with the feelings of anxiety that gun owners feel when we talk about restricting guns.
ETA: This is responding to the bozo that Jackmannii is quoting, rather than Jackmannii himself. Just wanted to be clear.
Yeah, it’s like the editorial cartoon recently where there was a parent hugging their live child surrounded by dead child, with a man hugging his gun next to them.
If you’re that man in real life, you fucking suck as a human being.
If you can find examples of NRA leaders doing that, great, we can criticize that. In the example you’ve given, the analogy would be the man hugging his gun while others are hugging newspapers/devices delivering them investigative news.
The reactionary “We can’t talk about this right now!” every time there is a shooting?
Yeah, that’s hugging your damned guns after a crisis.
My point was that he’s not a spokesman for the NRA just like Van Jones isn’t a CNN spokesman. So pretty sound, yes.
That’s exactly right. Gun nuts just very, very much want their guns. Nothing else matters. Facts don’t matter. Lives don’t matter. Suppressing research on gun violence is par for the course for the NRA because at least some of the brighter ones know that facts are not their friends.
Lives especially don’t matter when they’re somebody else’s, which they usually are, although gun nuts are doing a fairly good job of killing each other off, including their own children. There’s an international comparative CDC study (I don’t think the cited one mentions it) of gun deaths among children that showed that more American children die of gunshot injuries than the total in the dozen other countries studied combined. These are among the facts that the NRA would like to suppress. That’s not a violation of the First Amendment, you understand. 
I’ve owned guns since I was a child. Literally. I currently own more than a handful. I was an NRA Benefactor member for over 20 years. I reigned my membership after too many years of watching the entire org go down the sewer of extremism.
I’m not interested in banning guns. I’m planning to surrender mine to any confiscation scheme. But the 2nd Amendment clearly states ‘well regulated militia’ and we the people have the right to put in some goddamned regulations to keep the dangerous and mentally ill from having weapons.
The one thing that pisses me off about Columbine to this very day is that they reportedly had 99 propane bombs assembled, besides their arsenal of guns. Yet zero charges were ever filed against their parents, who couldn’t possibly have zero knowledge about that many bombs and firearms. Those fuckers should still be in jail along with their kids.
And the NRA today? Treasonous extremists. The lot of them. They promote violence against their enemies. They took Russian money for propaganda and (likely,) internal payoffs. Their board contains the treasonous, the criminal, the corrupt and the insane. Fuck the NRA. They no longer represent American gun owners or the best interests of American gun owners.
Fortunately for you, the object lesson here is that guns don’t always kill everyone who owns or uses them. I’d be the first to acknowledge that it’s possible to own guns and not die. 
They just increase the odds of various intentional and unintentional gun injuries and deaths in what is generally a very poor risk/benefit tradeoff, one that is often counterintuitive.
I agree with you about the NRA, though.
Is the Straight Dope Message Board, also a fully-owned resource, responsible for each morsel of idiocy offered up here?
And yet you, and your ilk, are stymied at every turn by them.
Huh.
Dude, you’re supposed to be an attorney. You know this is a bullshit analogy.
You’re at risk of sounding just like our resident moron doorhinge who, when confronted with unassailable facts about climate change, responded with polls stating something along the lines that 9 out of 10 clueless ignoramuses didn’t believe it. Did that change the facts? Is that really the argumentative path you want to go down?
If so, I’d ask you to look around at a few things. Look at who your current president is. Look at how that stacks up against the leaders of other major countries. Think about gun laws in other major countries, and look at the outcomes. Think about the incredible carnage in the US by comparison. Think about how many ignoramuses believe, just like the president they voted for, that climate change is a hoax, and that more guns make them safer.
Above all, just think. I know you can do it.
However, that would be just Lysencoism X10
Incidentally, I’m one rare liberal guy that accepts the second amendment but I’m concluding that more restrictions are needed, or that the restrictions that are supposed to be in place are watered down so much (and the NRA is also in part responsible here) that they are useless. So it was really sad to see many conservatives just falling for creationist or climate change deniers tactics when dealing with studies from the CDC that had dealt with guns in the past.
The sad part was to see how the research from the CDC was just dismissed because of what right wing sources told the posters to think that it was, and that the researchers had been discredited. (Hence, the “reason” why the Republicans discouraged the CDC to continue)
Thing is that I bothered to check; if that was the case, that it was discredited; it would be discredited in the places were it counted; such as peer review journals or academic institutions. But what I found was that the CDC research is still pointed at and referenced by new research as still being valid; and that the main researcher was not discredited as claimed by the right wing echo chamber, but he is now the chair of the Mailman School’s Department of Epidemiology at Columbia University.