Not just you.
My eagerly awaited copy of American Rifleman arrived a couple of weeks ago and I now have time and the proper mindset (super good weed helps a lot with this sort of thing) to go through it.
The shiny cover has a very pretty double barrel french rifle and the back cover has a Springfield 1911 featuring a 17 round mag.
I opened the cover to find two pages of gold ads, hmmm. Next is the table of contents along with a page of Rapide 1911s. Next pages contain more contents and the publisher info along with an ad for a Taurus .22. Next pages have more publisher info and a ad for Heckler & Koch guns and related products.
One page for the Rifleman Report and one for a Smith & Wesson 9mm. A page for the Armed Citizen (good guy with a gun saves the day) and a page for Ruger rifles. Four pages of CDC: Centers for Disinformation and Censorship - it isn’t about science but all about gun control and Pearl Seas cruise lines at the Great Lakes, a Springfield pistol and rechargeable hearing aids. The President’s Column, written by an old white guy terrified of the outsiders.
That is just the first 15 pages, my eyes hurt so I’m not going any further.
I’m guessing that I’m not really costing the NRA any money at all, all of the above mentioned ad were glossy full page and full color, not really cheap.
So, I’m going to put this up for a vote. Should I cancel my free subscription and stop adding to the landfill, or should I allow them to continue to waste a few pennies a month sending me a magazine that usually goes straight from mailbox to trash can.
If it’s not recyclable, I’d vote for cancelling the subscription. Save that tiny bit of resources that goes into your copy and its delivery.
Every canceled subscription is one less subscriber to sell to advertisers. Advertisers won’t pay as much for a smaller audience.
Even if the NRA were dissolved today, that would hardly be the end of “the gun lobby”. Other organizations like Gun Owners of America would step up to the plate, because gun owners are of necessity militantly organized. In fact a constant criticism of the NRA by the firearms community is its lackluster actual support of pro-firearms legislation. In its place GOA would for example lobby to overturn in part or in whole the 1968 Gun Control Act and the 1934 National Firearms Act. The NRA today is mainly coasting on its name recognition, of the days back when Heston was running it.
You’d think someone in this thread would have already brought this up by now.
Oh, wait:
“The only no-compromise gun lobby in Washington”
– Ron Paul
No, not every Dem wants to take away people’s guns. But a substantial portion want restrictions, and a non-negligible number want extreme restrictions. A regime as restrictive as say the U.K. is something that gun owners don’t want to happen. It ain’t BS.
Pedantic nitpick: “American” is spelled differently from “Dem.” Your post should have used the former word, not the latter. And “portion” should read “majority.”
And to follow up: the best number I could find for “extreme restrictions” is this:
It ain’t gonna happen, and fearmongering around it is driven by gun corporations wanting to maximize profits. We shouldn’t let them control our politics.
Which as a gun owner I find encouraging; but gun control/ restrictions/ bans don’t get passed because gun owners are continually fighting against it; it never ends. After the Bruen ruling it’s as if the gun control proponents stopped even pretending they just wanted “reasonable” gun regulations and started proposing laws that would more or less nullify the Second Amendment. I pay attention to these things, I have to. And as said in one well-known pro-firearms essay: “So let’s stop gaslighting gun-rights supporters as paranoid when they state what they see”.
Right; and the only people who opposed passing Prohibition were the saloon owners and distilleries. 
I wonder about the outlook of people who presume that gun rights activism couldn’t be a true grass-roots phenomenon; that opposition to gun control must be due to lobbying by well-connected monied interests. Frankly with people like Michael Bloomberg bankrolling national gun control efforts, if anything it’s the other side that’s doing that.
I too am a gun owner. I would not want all guns to be banned. But I’m also a proponent of gun control. And I see nowhere that banning all guns is gaining traction.
Here in my home state of Washington, they just passed a law banning assault weapons.
It’s the 10th state to pass a law restricting a very specific category of gun. That means there are 40 states that still allow them. I don’t see a snowball banning all guns across the country. That seems like a paranoid fantasy. If that ever happened, it would be generations from now, and I doubt it ever would in this country.
It’s an unfalsifiable belief. There isn’t anything the Democrats could say to convince some people that they do not want to ban guns but do want common sense restrictions that gun rights extremists claim to support.
In this aspect, it’s quite similar to the inchoate supposed “backlash” against “Critical Race Theory” and “woke”, although in its favor, unlike them, it does have a concrete accusation, as opposed to “I don’t know what it is, but I’m agin’ it.” But it’s similar in that, even though both gun rights advocates and anti CRT/wokists say that the Democrats should disavow these positions, there isn’t anything they could do to convince them that they did.
That ship has long since sailed. Until individuals are allowed to own nukes, the Second Amendment is already thoroughly nullified.
I mean, this is just gibberish nonsense, there’s not even a way to respond to it. It’s not “as if” that at all. What the hell are you talking about?
In fact, it’s the exact opposite. Gun control measures that are supported by overwhelming majorities of Americans are repeatedly blocked by a tiny minority of single-issue voters whose deserved irrelevance is twisted into outsized political power by the support of a huge and well-funded industry lobby.
I brought cites, y’know.
I’d try to explain it to you in short simple words, but um…
Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to (gun control), and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity.
That’s what you call an explanation? For realz?
Okey dokey.
You don’t get it because you can’t think outside of your leftist box.
Banning certain guns isn’t the only way to infringe upon the 2nd Amendment. Severly restricting the places and manner in which one can bear arms is also an infringement.
After Bruen states like New York passed draconian laws where citizens with CCW licenses could bear their arms. Certain areas of the city, certain businesses, banks, churches. Banks and churches are private institutions, under what authority does a state have to tell private institutions they cannot allow arms into/onto their private property? This is a huge infringement. Pertaining to churches it is also a violation of the First Amendment.
And of course, the criminal element is not going to obey those laws. And the criminal element is exactly why citizens want to publically bear arms in the first place.
A fine example of projection. Talk about not being able to think outside of the box you came in…
At least you’re admitting that guns are an object of worship.