Who does the NRA really represent, overzealous gun owners, or gun manufacturers?

[Debaser]

@John_Mace

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.

You are reading a whole lot of constitutional stuff into the cake analogy that just isn’t there.

[John_Mace]

@Debaser

You are reading a whole lot of constitutional stuff into the cake analogy that just isn’t there.

Your analogy starts thusly:

Let’s say I have this cake. It is a very nice cake, with “GUN RIGHTS” written across the top in lovely floral icing. Along you come and say, “Give me that cake.”

Emphasis added. As soon as you invoke “rights” you are in Constitution-land. Sorry, but you just are.

[Chronos]

Quoth ChickenLegs:

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.

A couple of friends of mine back in Montana did. They both enjoyed shooting, and wanted to join a local shooting range. The fee for joining the range included a non-optional membership fee in the NRA. Neither of them actually wanted to join the NRA, because they disagree with its politics, but had no choice if they wanted to shoot at the local rifle range.

As for those covers of America’s First Freedom, the ones I’m really baffled about are the ones concerning the Fast and Furious “scandal”. So far as I can tell, that “scandal” consisted of “The administration allowed brown people to buy guns”. Isn’t the NRA in favor of everyone, brown or not, being allowed to buy guns?

[XT]

[QUOTE=Chronos]
As for those covers of America’s First Freedom, the ones I’m really baffled about are the ones concerning the Fast and Furious “scandal”. So far as I can tell, that “scandal” consisted of “The administration allowed brown people to buy guns”. Isn’t the NRA in favor of everyone, brown or not, being allowed to buy guns?
[/QUOTE]

Seriously? It’s stuff like this that makes it so hard to take anti-gun people seriously. Either you really don’t know anything about it, in which case it’s easy enough to educate yourself, or you do and this is a ridiculous spin on what happened.

“Gunwalking”, or “letting guns walk”, was a tactic of the Arizona Field Office of the United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). They ran a series of “gunwalking” sting operations[2][3] between 2006[4] and 2011[2][5] in the Tucson and Phoenix area where the ATF “purposely allowed licensed firearms dealers to sell weapons to illegal straw buyers, hoping to track the guns to Mexican drug cartel leaders.”[6] These operations were done under the umbrella of Project Gunrunner, a project intended to stem the flow of firearms into Mexico by interdicting straw purchasers and gun traffickers within the United States.[7]

The stated goal of allowing these purchases was to continue to track the firearms as they were transferred to higher-level traffickers and key figures in Mexican cartels, with the expectation that this would lead to their arrests and the dismantling of the cartels.[6][8][9] The tactic was questioned during the operations by a number of people, including ATF field agents and cooperating licensed gun dealers.[10][11][12][13][14] During Operation Fast and Furious, by far the largest “gunwalking” probe, the ATF monitored the sale of about 2,000[1]:203[15] firearms, of which only 710 were recovered as of February 2012.[1]:203 A number of straw purchasers have been arrested and indicted; however, as of October 2011, none of the targeted high-level cartel figures have been arrested.[6]

Guns tracked by the ATF have been found at crime scenes on both sides of the Mexico–United States border, and the scene where United States Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was killed. The “gunwalking” operations became public in the aftermath of Terry’s murder.[2] Dissenting ATF agents came forward to Congress in response.[16][17] According to Humberto Benítez Treviño, former Mexican Attorney General and chair of the justice committee in the Chamber of Deputies, related firearms have been found at numerous crime scenes in Mexico where at least 150 Mexican civilians were maimed and killed.[18] Revelations of “gunwalking” led to controversy in both countries, and diplomatic relations were damaged.[2]

As a result of a dispute over the release of Justice Department documents related to the scandal, Attorney General Eric Holder became the first sitting member of the Cabinet of the United States to be held in contempt of Congress on June 28, 2012.[19][20] Earlier that month, President Obama had invoked executive privilege for the first time in his presidency over the same documents.[21][22]

[Debaser]

@John_Mace

Your analogy starts thusly:

Emphasis added. As soon as you invoke “rights” you are in Constitution-land. Sorry, but you just are.

And since the SCOTUS decides what our rights under the constitution are, there’s no point discussing it, right? We should all meekly accept whatever they decide.

Did you accidentally log on as John Mace, Bricker?

I repeat my question about abortion: If the SCOTUS decided abortion was illegal tomorrow, would pro-life people be correct to say their abortion rights were taken away?

If I have the right to do something, and then someone decides that I don’t, it’s accurate to say that right has been “taken” from me. This is accurate regardless if the group doing the taking was a court, a democratic body or a monarch.

[Debaser]

@Chronos

As for those covers of America’s First Freedom, the ones I’m really baffled about are the ones concerning the Fast and Furious “scandal”. So far as I can tell, that “scandal” consisted of “The administration allowed brown people to buy guns”. Isn’t the NRA in favor of everyone, brown or not, being allowed to buy guns?

Read up on it and educate yourself. It’s a scandal and this interpretation of it is just silly.

Is this even serious?

[John_Mace]

@Debaser

And since the SCOTUS decides what our rights under the constitution are, there’s no point discussing it, right? We should all meekly accept whatever they decide.

Not necessarily. That is why I asked in my first post on this subject which specific rights do you think have been taken away?

[Bone]

@John_Mace

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?

The analogy only works if you try to make it not work. I see it more like, you can’t compromise with a person whose goal it is to kill you. They want you dead, you don’t want to be dead. There really isn’t much middle ground. I’m not saying that gun control advocates want anyone dead or anything like that, but I recognize that there are areas where no compromise is possible.

It’s also not a compromise if only one side is actually conceding anything. That is a better summation of the cake analogy.

[artemis]

@Chronos

A couple of friends of mine back in Montana did. They both enjoyed shooting, and wanted to join a local shooting range. The fee for joining the range included a non-optional membership fee in the NRA. Neither of them actually wanted to join the NRA, because they disagree with its politics, but had no choice if they wanted to shoot at the local rifle range.

My local outdoor range also requires NRA membership. My understanding is that the NRA helps subsidize the cost of insurance for many ranges, hence the membership requirement.

[Chronos]

OK, someone explain to me how I’m misinterpreting F&F. Doesn’t the NRA want all guns to “walk”? Couldn’t the same people have gotten their guns from gun shows or Craigslist?

[XT]

@Chronos

OK, someone explain to me how I’m misinterpreting F&F. Doesn’t the NRA want all guns to “walk”? Couldn’t the same people have gotten their guns from gun shows or Craigslist?

I can’t tell if you are being serious or not. Regardless, your spin is ridiculous. The scandal was the failed sting operations where 2000 guns were sold to known criminals in the hopes of getting something on them, thus allowing gun runners and drug dealers (not ‘brown people’) to get the guns, a number of which were, unsurprisingly later used in committing crimes. The NRA isn’t big on drug dealers and gun runners getting more access to guns, again unsurprisingly. Why this is so hard to grasp is beyond me, assuming you are being serious. I mean, I even cut and pasted out the relevant parts of the wiki link to make it easier.

The stated goal of allowing these purchases was to continue to track the firearms as they were transferred to higher-level traffickers and key figures in Mexican cartels, with the expectation that this would lead to their arrests and the dismantling of the cartels.[6][8][9] The tactic was questioned during the operations by a number of people, including ATF field agents and cooperating licensed gun dealers.[10][11][12][13][14] During Operation Fast and Furious, by far the largest “gunwalking” probe, the ATF monitored the sale of about 2,000[1]:203[15] firearms, of which only 710 were recovered as of February 2012.[1]:203 A number of straw purchasers have been arrested and indicted; however, as of October 2011, none of the targeted high-level cartel figures have been arrested.[6]

[XT]

Sorry for the multiple posts, but missed this part:

[QUOTE= Chronos]
Couldn’t the same people have gotten their guns from gun shows or Craigslist?
[/QUOTE]

Why would you think that drug cartels would buy, one gun at a time, guns from gun shows or off of Craigslist? Do you have a cite that either is a major source of illegal guns used by drug cartels in Mexico…or in the US for that matter? Or is this along the same lines as “The administration allowed brown people to buy guns” as your reasonable take on the F&F scandal?

[BigT]

@Debaser

I guess it’s good that you at least recognize that you have a problem.

Of course gun owners see gun deaths as a problem. That’s why we want to enforce the existing laws on the books.

All laws that the NRA made impotent by limiting funding. That’s gets us back to the OP. You say gun owners see gun deaths as a problem, but the NRA doesn’t. They deliberately cripple organizations that could enforce said laws.

So they aren’t working for the gun owners but for the corporations who don’t care as long as they sell guns.

And the fact that the average NRA member doesn’t realize this is why I don’t trust them to stop paying an organization they disagree with. The NRA puts on a good front, and most of these people won’t actually do the research necessary to get anything other than their spin.

I mean, even you are citing their own magazine that they control.

[Debaser]

@BigT

All laws that the NRA made impotent by limiting funding. That’s gets us back to the OP. You say gun owners see gun deaths as a problem, but the NRA doesn’t. They deliberately cripple organizations that could enforce said laws.

Bullshit. The NRA wants to see existing laws enforced. They repeatedly call for that.

So they aren’t working for the gun owners but for the corporations who don’t care as long as they sell guns.

As has been pointed out by so many others in this thread, this is simply false. The NRA has beaten corporations into submission when they step out of line.

And the fact that the average NRA member doesn’t realize this is why I don’t trust them to stop paying an organization they disagree with. The NRA puts on a good front, and most of these people won’t actually do the research necessary to get anything other than their spin.

I mean, even you are citing their own magazine that they control.

I cited details from a magazine who someone else cited the cover without bothering to actually read it.

The cite I posted was entirely reasonable and there has yet to be any facts in in that have been disputed.

Do you have any evidence that the article I quoted is inaccurate or misleading? If so, put up or shut up.

[Debaser]

@XT

I can’t tell if you are being serious or not. Regardless, your spin is ridiculous.

You are treating him way more seriously than he deserves.

[elucidator]

@Debaser

You are treating him way more seriously than he deserves.

We are generous and forgiving to the cognitively challenged. Be grateful.

[Chronos]

Quoth XT:

The NRA isn’t big on drug dealers and gun runners getting more access to guns, again unsurprisingly. Why this is so hard to grasp is beyond me, assuming you are being serious.

It’s so hard to grasp because the current NRA so consistently and vehemently opposes any and all attempts to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

[XT]

@Chronos

It’s so hard to grasp because the current NRA so consistently and vehemently opposes any and all attempts to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

And it’s clear that the left is trying to keep guns out of the hands of everyone EXCEPT the criminals. Aren’t these ridiculously broad brush arguments fun and enlightening?

I guess Debaser was right…you obviously don’t want to have an actual discussion, just throw out silly and meaningless attacks, so no point in continuing this with you. If you have anything meaningful to say besides hyperbolic and demonstrably inaccurate horseshit, let me know.

[tomndebb]

@elucidator

We are generous and forgiving to the cognitively challenged. Be grateful.

Take direct insults to The BBQ Pit.

Knock it off.

[ /Moderating ]

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@XT

And it’s clear that the left is trying to keep guns out of the hands of everyone EXCEPT the criminals. Aren’t these ridiculously broad brush arguments fun and enlightening?

I guess Debaser was right…you obviously don’t want to have an actual discussion, just throw out silly and meaningless attacks, so no point in continuing this with you. If you have anything meaningful to say besides hyperbolic and demonstrably inaccurate horseshit, let me know.

+1