And it is possible for that viewpoint to be overzealous. And in the NRA’s case, it is.
Batshit crazy is subjective. I’m sure that someone as anti-gun as BrainGlutton thinks anyone who is pro-gun is some degree of crazy.
But liar isn’t. That is something he should be able to prove.
And “anti-gun” is a crisply defined parameter, with clear objective standards?
It’s not quite as clear as “liar” but, yes, if I accused a public figure of being “anti-gun” I would like to think I would be able to produce a cite backing up my claim if asked.
BrainGlutton is calling Wayne LaPierre a liar. Let’s see a cite that backs up this claim.
Do you have some kind of a point?
Nope, you are right…but my point was, in a poll where they aren’t looking for a nuanced answer, you might very well see the numbers Measure for Measure was trying to use to make his point. MY point was simply that the conclusions he was drawing were ridiculous, not to mention his hyperbolic language. I’m militantly unsurprised that BobLibDem’s comments didn’t even draw a mod caution on this subject.
You have it a little backwards. The NRA is an issue based civil rights organization. Their memebrship joins them because they support the NRA’s views, the NRA doesn’t test the winds and try to represent their membership. They don’t ask gun manufacturers what positions they should take, gun manufacturers try to walk the line with the NRA positions.
I am a current NRA member and IMHO, NRA members are about as over zealous in their support of the second amendment as anti-gun folks are in their opposition to the second amendment.
I think he is saying that what is possible changes with the passage of time and events. What was possible in January after Newtown and the stupid response by the NRA is different than what was possible after Obama handed the reins to Feinstein and she pushed for an AWB. When gun owners realized that the anti-gun folks were fighting stupid with even MORE stupid, they dug in their heels.
If Obama had started by talking about Newtown in the context of gun violence generally and the need to reduce gun violence. I think there was at least some chance of a grand bargain on licensing, registration, federal pre-emption of gun laws, a national CCW and relaxation of the NFA restrictions.
The NRA isn’t a representative body. They are an issue organization. if after some horrible news event, the current and former membership of the ACLU supported the suspension of some civil rights (perhaps only with mild levels of fervor) and the ACLU continued to support those civil rights, are the ACLU members gull and tools? The NRA isn’t like a union that you join so that they can represent you and your interests. They are a civil rights organization that you join because you support that civil right.
The “voter turnout” among NRA members is pretty low.
Why? They hate guns and the NRA protects the rights of gun owners. Whats not to hate?
A lot of anti-gun nuts also can’t fathom that anyone could possibly reach the conclusion that guns AREN’T evil so it must be because the NRA is mind controlling them.
AFAICT, its not to figure out if you’re a bad guy, its an informal registry. If the cops find a gun at the scene of a crime, they trace the gun to the FFL that sold the gun. The FFL dealer looks up who they sold the gun to and they go ask THAT guy what happened to the gun. We kinda sorta have a gun registry already, its just porous, inefficient and decentralized.
A lot of places exempt CCW holders from the background check. So, we kinda sorta have a gun license program in palce already, except its voluntary and not always current.
http://www.american.com/archive/datapoint-entries/nra-popularity
I’m not so sure that everyone agrees with you. Perhaps you have lost your objectivity in this debate.
I am no fan of Wayne LaPierre but I think he believes every word he says.
nm
You are confused. You are making two claims, one that you find it absurd that people don’t think NRA members like what it is doing, and two you find it silly they think the NRA represents someone other than gun owners.
You may make the claim that people who choose to join the NRA agree with it’s position, fine, that is but a tiny fraction of Americans. However, that seems fool hardy considering polls indicate the vast majority of gun owners favor background checks. It seems foolish because joining the NRA is a requirement for many gun clubs which provide the only outlet to use said weapons. It seems foolish because even then membership is but a tiny fraction of the actual gun owning Americans who they proclaim to speak for.
So, you can say it. But it’s foolish.
I don’t have the stats but military/law enforcement contracts will always be the most lucrative aspect of firearms manufacture. And that segment of the business is largely removed from the current debate. As to manufacturers who focus on the civilian market, they would be anxious but gun manufacturers can always scale down, depending on changes in demand and regulation.
What? I’ve been shooting for over 35 years and never once have been asked for to show proof of NRA memebership to shoot. Not once. This includes indoor and outdoor private ranges, outdoor state-run ranges, and miles and miles of public land.
I rejoined the NRA in December 2012 after an absence of 10 years or so. This pretty much sums up how I feel about the new proposed background checks:
I’m done with it. No more.
During the Temperance movement of the late-nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the Drys constantly accused the opponents of Prohibition of being shills for the saloon owners and the distilleries. Same old.
And for the record, many of the other gun-rights organizations like Gun Owners of America accuse the NRA of being too timid in defending gun ownership!
The analogy fails. The people trying to “take” don’t want to keep it, they aren’t taking so that you can’t have it but they can.
And also, the cake is a lie.
Sure they are.
The “cake” is not firearms. It’s control of firearms law.
I don’t think that hair you split is as compelling as you think.
It is a thread about gun control. They often, if not always, are packed chock full of illogical claims, emotional outbursts, and invective. Laws designed to quash or make more burdensome legal firearm ownership originate in part from a fear of efective weapons in the hands of the common person. It should be no surprise that the dialogue degenerates so quickly to mudslinging and emotional appeals.
For example, consider the family members of the Newtown victims without whom Obama seemed unable to appear before the media during his push for gun control. This was clear exploitation of a tragedy for political ends, yet when anyone points it out they are accused of not caring about dead children.
Yes, it is foolish… All those words that you put in my mouth that I didn’t say. I’m sure glad I didn’t say all that foolish stuff.
I’ve posted more than enough actual content to the thread for you to analyze and attack. Why don’t you try responding to that rather than things you’ve made up?
It’s a great analogy.
It’s quite surprising that you don’t get it. Really.
No, it’s not a good analogy. The laws were passed as part of the democratic process, and as long as the SCOTUS deems them constitutional, nothing was “taken” that wasn’t yours in the first place. The 2nd amendment creates boundaries which can’t be crossed, and inside those boundaries like your rights. What boundaries have been crossed?
Huh?
First of all the analogy accepts that the cake is being taken away by the democratic process. Secondly, just because SCOTUS says something is constitutional doesn’t mean that it can’t be said to be “taken” away from people. If SCOTUS decided that abortion was illegal tomorrow, then pro-choice people would be correct to say that their rights to abortion were “taken”, for instance.
Can you elaborate on this? I don’t know what your point is here.
Right now I can own an 18 round magazine. If a law is passed saying I no longer can, than the right to own this magazine was “taken”. How is this in any way debateable?
The constitution outlines what the government can do, and how much of your natural, unfettered freedom it can curtail. That’s what you own and what can’t be taken from you. The rest of the stuff is up to the democratic process, and you don’t “own” in the sense that you “own” rights guaranteed by the constitution.