Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumWhy is the NRA so powerful?
The House of Representatives voted last week to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress, for withholding documents pertaining to the “Fast and Furious” program that allegedly put guns in the hands of Mexican drug gangs. Seventeen Democrats voted for the measure after the National Rifle Association indicated future endorsements could ride on the vote. The NRA is considered by many the most powerful lobbying group in the country, despite relatively modest financial resources and just 4 million members. What makes the NRA so influential?
Focus and emotion. Groups with large constituencies often address a wide variety of issues. The AARP, for example, attempts to influence such diverse issues as Social Security, health care, energy and ballot access laws. The NRA focuses almost exclusively on gun control, which enables its leaders to doggedly pursue their legislative ends. Perhaps more important, many NRA members are as single-minded as the organization itself. Polls often show that more Americans favor tightening gun control laws than relaxing them, but gun rights advocates are much more likely to be single-issue voters than those on the other side of the question. As a result, the NRA can reliably deliver votes. Politicians also fear the activism of NRA members. They’re widely believed to be more likely to attend campaign events, ring doorbells and make phone calls to help their favored candidates — or defeat their opponents — than senior citizens, members of labor unions, or public school teachers.
For the most part, the NRA’s lobbying arm didn’t gin up the emotional fervor of firearms advocates — it resulted from it. The NRA was founded shortly after the Civil War by Union veterans who felt the Confederacy only lasted as long as it did because of the Southerners’ superior marksmanship. For nearly a century, the NRA catered to competitive shooters and merely dabbled in politics. As with so many other American cultural issues, things changed in the 1960s. Crime soared. Armed members of the Black Panthers began following police officers around American cities. Riots broke out in Newark and Detroit, and some government officials blamed easy access to guns. Assassins killed two Kennedy brothers and Martin Luther King Jr. In 1968, under pressure from terrified constituents, Congress passed the first major gun control legislation since the 1930s.
A backlash ensued, as American firearms enthusiasts feared the government planned to take their guns. They pushed the relatively apolitical NRA to lobby on their behalf. When the leadership balked in 1977, a group of activists staged a coup. The new leaders commissioned a poll, which found that lobbying was the members’ biggest priority. They turned the group into a political force, with the Second Amendment as their bible.
http://bangordailynews.com/2012/07/03/politics/why-is-the-nra-so-powerful/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)and the unconscionable sales of firearms to moneyed drug cartels, it's the NRA and ALL Republicans.
That gun-walking? It was never approved by the ATF or Project Gunrunner under Bush. NO firearms were allowed to be "walked" under any operation under Project Gunrunner. They were allowed to walk because of weak gun laws and this resulted in Agent Brian Terry's killing. The AG of Phoenix was frustrated that they couldn't stop huge gun sales to criminals through legal gun sales because of the lacks laws in this country, thanks to the GOP and NRA.
It's perfectly legal for a welfare recipient on food aid to go into any gun shop, buy hundreds of thousands worth of firearms and ammo with money from drug gangs, leave the place and drop their wares in someone else's truck and get paid a huge fee for their trouble. They can do this right in front of any ATF agent, cop, and border patrol agent because the buyer did nothing illegal! No background check for the second buyer. No fingerprinting. Nada.
This is what happened under Operation Wide Receiver and Fast and Furious, but leave it to the GOP and the NRA to blame a Democratic President and the DoJ under that president for their mistakes that resulted in the shooting of two border patrol agents and in the death of one of them. If we had a true public press/Fourth Estate, people would know where to lay the blame, but for all the finger pointing at a Democratic president and AG Holder, the true guilty is the GOP who work for the NRA, and the NRA.
Why does the NRA have this elevated status in this country? It's high time they're eviscerated completely, and a true institute is erected under the Federal government that licenses gunownership. The NRA have become nothing more than another rightwing corporation actively trying to boot all Democrats out of government, and they're lousy when it comes to gun safety.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)or offended. Sheesh. As for all your excusing, who do you believe make up those "black markets"? That's right. Americans. And these people are usually not even old enough to buy a beer, but they are buying firearms LEGALLY thanks to the lacks gun safety laws lobbied for by the superPAC, the NRA, and they're doing it by the thousands.
"Some call it the "parade of ants"; others the "river of iron." The Mexican government has estimated that 2,000 weapons are smuggled daily from the U.S. into Mexico.
The ATF is hobbled in its effort to stop this flow. No federal statute outlaws firearms trafficking, so agents must build cases using a patchwork of often toothless laws. For six years, due to Beltway politics, the bureau has gone without permanent leadership, neutered in its fight for funding and authority. The National Rifle Association has so successfully opposed a comprehensive electronic database of gun sales that the ATF's congressional appropriation explicitly prohibits establishing one.Customers can legally buy as many weapons as they want in Arizona as long as they're 18 or older and pass a criminal background check. There are no waiting periods and no need for permits, and buyers are allowed to resell the guns. "In Arizona," says Voth, "someone buying three guns is like someone buying a sandwich."
By 2009 the Sinaloa drug cartel had made Phoenix its gun supermarket and recruited young Americans as its designated shoppers or straw purchasers. Voth and his agents began investigating a group of buyers, some not even old enough to buy beer, whose members were plunking down as much as $20,000 in cash to purchase up to 20 semiautomatics at a time, and then delivering the weapons to others."
http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2012/06/27/fast-and-furious-truth/
This piece is by Katherine Eban an award-winning investigative reporter, who you might know if you didn't read propaganda from the NRA exclusively, appeared not only on MSNBC, but on CNN AND CurrentTV and writes for Vanity Fair, Fortune, and Self. It's from her that I've learned that a guy who is on food aid bought tens of thousands of dollars in firearms and ammo. Why did he do that? For his own pleasure? And where exactly did he get that kind of money?
So, how again am I not well-informed on the issue? Oh, and as every American knows, if you don't like laws, change them or draft new ones that render the ones you don't like, impotent. Isn't that the way of the NRA?
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)little people know about current federal gun control laws.
And I don't read NRA propaganda. Nor do I read Brady propaganda.
Voth is the boss of one of the whistle blowers. He is in cover his ass mode. She most likely only saw the documents Voth wanted her to see. If they had value, they would be presented before the committee and would be evidence in a trial.
So far this seems to be a standard whistle blower case. One to three individuals blow the whistle. Company retaliates and smears whistle blowers as "disgruntled rouges who whined about working weekends". The article basically accuses Dodson and other whistle blowers of perjury or lying to congress among other things.
So when Dodson the others are on trial, I'll take it with a little less salt.
I don't give a shit what the Mexican government claims. They can't track what disappears from their military and police armories. Nor, can they track what enters through the southern border.
As for the guy on welfare buying a bunch of guns, the US attorney in Arizona resigned. If the Fortune story is true, he should have been sent packing because those were slam dunk convictions for violating the Gun Control Act.
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20110209-mexicos-gun-supply-and-90-percent-myth
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-atf-guns-20110929,0,201277.story
http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2011/jul/16/fast-and-furious-gun-fiasco-unfolds-in-mexico/
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20114184-10391695.html
FWIW, Ms Attkisson's resume as an investigative reporter is better than Eban's.
The problems is not weak gun laws. The problem is the war on drugs, the US demand for drugs, and Mexico's problem with public corruption.
NewMoonTherian
(883 posts)However, I continue to support them for this simple reason: the alternative to the NRA is "a true institute under the Federal government that licenses gun ownership."
As long as there are people out there touting ideas like that, the NRA will get more powerful, because - whatever else they do - they protect gun rights, and they are very good at it.
EDIT: I also love how you support the idea of "eviscerating" a legal, private organization because you don't agree with all of their ideals or methods. How do you propose we do that, exactly?
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)Are you sure you're a Democrat?
The NRA is a political institution, lobbying for less and less sensible gun control while supporting ONLY GOP candidates in each and every election. They've gotten so powerful that they can threaten Democrats in red states that if they didn't vote to hold AG Holder in contempt for a sham they themselves created, they would rate them poorly which, translated, means they'll actively campaign against them come their re-election.
I don't trust private institutions that act like that. Fox "News" is exactly like that. I'm just amazed you appear to support them and don't want to hold them to account.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)were enacted by right wing governments before the 1960s. Florida's open carry ban, NC's handgun licensing, are two good examples. Since the NRA supported most of the current federal laws on the books........
Sorry, not sure FF being a witch hunt just yet. Holder being in the know, that I'll give you. He has been too busy coddling corporate criminals like Wall Street, Massey Energy, and BP. You should remember the last two, the ones that actually killed working people as collateral damage in the quest of corporate greed. Fuck Holder, we need a real AG instead of a corporate defense lawyer.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)And it's apparently clouding your judgment. Based on your comments to me here, as you defend the NRA, it's clear you're anti-Holder and pro-rightwing NRA; an institute that you believe with all the passion of your heart, shouldn't be held to account for anything. If we weren't on DU I would SWEAR I was discussing this topic with a Republican, because you tout the Republican meme and mantra in defense of the Republican SuperPAC, the NRA.
Yeah, I want this outfit disbanded and Federal authorities to provide licenses instead - just like American passports! It's clear the NRA are not up to the task and I'm sick and tired of their interference in sensible gun laws. Fuck the NRA. I'd rather have a REAL gun licensing institute rather than a rightwing corporate defense SuperPAC.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Where did I say I was pro NRA? The truth matters. I frankly don't like Holder or the NRA.
I am not pro anything
I am anti ideologue
I am anti authoritarian
I am anti propaganda
I am anti people assuming Cenk is an expert on anything other than business.
Actually, the NRA is not corporate, it is grassroots. Brady is the very definition of astro turf. You may not like it, but that is the reality. The NRA is not the barrier to licencing, extreme positions taken by Brady and VPC are. When it is clear gun laws will do nothing, they will whine for stricter laws. Those will not lower crime rate in either US or Mexico, they will whine about some fictional "loophole".
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)"Yeah, I want this outfit disbanded and Federal authorities to provide licenses instead"
What "license " is it that the NRA issues? Name it.
Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)The NRA doesn't issue licenses. They just propagandize against any sensible gun laws, demonize Democrats, lobby congresscritters for even weaker gun laws that result in more murders and killings every year in the states, allowing even kids not old enough to buy a can of beer - or carry one - to buy AK-47's for sum huntin' for cash. This isn't a fable. This is real shit, and it's INSANE not to want to ban assault weapons, 60 bullet magazines, and 18-year-olds buying guns to resell to figures who can't pass a background checks.
So sad that you feel you need to be "armed" livin in Texas. Really, really sad.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)done by serious social scientists that show gun laws have anything to do with changing crime rates.
Most countries allow 18 year olds to buy guns. Finland and France allow 14 and 16 year olds to buy rifles. Most allow 18 year olds to buy handguns. Canada for example. Canada also allows 12 year olds to buy ammo.
FWIW, a real AK-47 or any true military grade assault rifle can only be purchased after a six month background check with finger prints, paying a $200 tax, and the gun being registered. Has been federal law since 1934. What you are talking about are what amounts to hunting rifles that look like an AK or are based on the design.
The NRA does endorse Dems. Off the top of my head, they endorsed Strickland over Kaisch. In Vermont, the endorsed Howard Dean and (self described democratic socialist) Bernie Sanders.
DonP
(6,185 posts)"...weaker gun laws that result in more murders and killings every year in the states..."
Ummm, gun murders and violent crime with guns are at a 40 year low, according to those "right wing nuts" at the FBI. b So tell us again how "weaker" gun laws result in more murders and killings"?
I'm betting you don't even know what a so called "assault weapon" is, hint it's not any scary looking gun. (quick - google it so you don't sound quite so dumb on the subject).
"...demonize Democrats"
FWIW, my Congressional Rep got an NRA contribution to her campaign of over $35,000 in 2010 and another $40,000 from the state rifle association. Some Dems got more, some got less from the NRA.
The common thread was the Dems they support all actually see gun control for the worthless policy it is. Sorry you're Dem representatives are so far behind the times.
permatex
(1,299 posts)your talking about. How do you disband a private org.? The NRA providing licenses? 
The NRA supports only Repub.?
At this point, you have totally discredited yourself so why should anyone believe a thing you say?
I will say, you have all the Brady and VPC talking points down pat.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)and if you haven't noticed that the NRA are proRepub, then there's something wrong with you, not me. 
So I'd be careful about discrediting someone with dumbass stupid remarks as yours clearly is.
The NRA should be DISBANDED. They're nothing more than another GOP SuperPAC, and it's sad, really, truly sad, you don't (want?) to see this. And that, as a Democrat, too. Right?
permatex
(1,299 posts)You've made it quite clear you have no idea what your talking about. How do you disband the NRA? What have they done that is illegal? While some of their methods are repungnent, where have they broken the law and deserve to be disbanded?
And your wrong, I see them for what they are, I just don't want to go the route of disbanding something I don't agree with.
That's called dictatorship and I find your views very disturbing.
Maybe you should be somewhere else.
And oh, BTW, I didn't discredit you, your own words did that.
Meiko
(1,076 posts)have no objection to "disbanding"your words, all lobbying groups, including those used by Democrats? Since when does the Federal government have the right to "license" political free speech. If you want to blame the power of the NRA on something blame it on the misguided elected officials who decided an anti-second amendment stance was the way to go, both Democrats and Republicans have been involved and are to blame. It may be hard to understand but people don't like it when you start passing laws that violate the Constitution, it makes them testy.
Please give me some examples of "sensible" gun laws as you see it. Surely you can come up with some examples after all I hear this battle cry from every anti-gunner.
NewMoonTherian
(883 posts)I feel we have outrageously strict gun laws in the US, and have since 1934. If you define weak gun laws as what we have now, then my answer is yes, and I wish they were weaker. I want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, without violating the rights of innocent citizens to own them. No currently proposed gun legislation does that, and a lot of laws we have now fail miserably at it.
I am a progressive, but I'm apparently one of those oddball progressives who actually examines new ideas on their own merit rather than blindly supporting them in the name of some ill-conceived definition of progress. Draconian gun restrictions are not progressive, they are not democratic(or Democratic), and I will not support them just because others tell me that's what I have to do to be in the club.
As for the NRA, if there were another, equally effective gun-rights organization that did NOT have disturbingly right-wing tendencies, I would support it instead. For the time being, the NRA is the only viable option we have. When leading Democrats decide to drop the issue of gun control, hopefully that will change. Read the OP. The NRA didn't even become a lobby organization until its members demanded that it do so in order to combat the gun-ban madness that was taking place in the country.
And your trust of any private institution has absolutely no bearing on whether or not we can shut them down. Would you ask the government to forcibly disband them or something? On what grounds? And if we could do that, what would stop the other side from "eviscerating" Democratic-leaning groups? I would rather avoid a nationwide censorship war, even if that means failing to silence groups that offend you.
spin
(17,493 posts)you could chose to eviscerate any group that opposed your views or any corporation who you disliked. I would never wish to live in such a nation that was forced to live under the thumb of either a liberal or a conservative. Fortunately in a representative democracy with the freedom of speech such as we currently have, it is simply impossible to eliminate all those who disagree with your own personal views.
Under our system of government I feel it is valuable for citizens to know exactly what their elected officials are doing and hold them responsible for their actions.
Uncovering and revealing such information is a prime responsibility of the "public press/Fourth Estate" as you call the national news media. They are the watchdogs who should sound an alarm when they sense serious problems with how our government is conducting its policies. Freedom of the press was guaranteed under the first amendment in the Bill of Rights and was included in that first amendment as those rights within are the most important to our freedom. Many times in our history the Forth Estate has served admirably but unfortunately there have often been times when it failed that responsibility.
Your assertion that weak gun laws in our nation has led to gun smuggling into Mexico and also to the streets of our cities is valid. That doesn't excuse or explain why agencies of our government under both Republican and Democratic administrations engaged in foolish and ill conceived programs such as "Fast and Furious", "Operation Wide Receiver" and other such schemes. It's hard to say at this time what the exact motivation behind such programs were but the final result was the deaths of hundreds of innocent civilians in Mexico and the possible death of two members of our law enforcement agencies. That's why I feel a through unbiased and non political investigation is warranted. Unfortunately at this time the investigation does seem to be largely run by a Republican in order to embarrass a Democratic administration. It's difficult to actually determine what the underlying facts are when the investigation is colored by political motivations. There does appear to be some smoke and often that indicates fire.
As a American citizen who happens to be a Democrat I wish to know all the facts involved in these scandals and exactly how and why they happened. I actually hold Democrats to a higher standard than I do Republicans. One reason why I voted for Obama was that he guaranteed more transparency in his term as president than had happened under Bush the Junior. Therefore I fail to see why he isn't indeed willing to release any and all facts about "Fast and Furious." I don't believe that he had any direct involvement but someone somewhere in his administration or in the agencies under his administration did. Also since these gun running programs occurred under both Republican and Democratic administrations, someone in the previous administration bears some responsibly and should also be held accountable. Let the chips fall where they may and let's make damn sure that similar programs are never tried again.
As a gun owner I wish to make sure that as much as feasible the sale of firearms is limited to honest and sane citizens who will use their weapons responsibly for target shooting, hunting or self defense. I favor the strong enforcement of existing laws and also increasing the penalties for the straw purchase or smuggling of firearms.
Obviously it is difficult if not impossible to stop all straw purchases of firearms and all smuggling. But we can do better and we do not have to ban such weapons (which is currently politically unfeasible) or to greatly restrict gun rights in our nation to improve our efforts.
It's all too easy to blame the NRA for this scandal. I feel that it is your opinion that if the NRA didn't exist a gun ban on the ownership, manufacture and sale of all semi-auto firearms would have been enacted and you might just be right. Obviously if the civilian ownership of firearms in our nation was forbidden there would be no gun smuggling to Mexico from mom and pop gun stores in the U.S. Instead criminal gangs in Mexico would be smuggling firearms into our nation.
I enjoy the rights and freedoms that I have in our nation and that includes my right to own firearms. I will admit that without organizations like the NRA I probably would not own many of the weapons that I currently own and probably would not have a concealed weapons permit.
If you could wave a magic wand and make the NRA disappear I feel that another pro-gun organization would emerge that would be even more conservative and attract far more members than the NRA has.
Be careful of what you wish for.
permatex
(1,299 posts)Sensible, balanced, well thought out and expressed,
Keep up the good work please. 
spin
(17,493 posts)
ChairmanAgnostic
(28,017 posts)
bluedigger
(17,086 posts)AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)same as the AARP.
/also doesn't hurt that they can get the voters to turn up.
shadowrider
(4,941 posts)We were told by an anti, through a thread or two, the NRA has NO power and is useless as a political force.
Will you guys make up your minds please?
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)The NRA's leadership includes Grover Norquist; John Bolton; Teddy Nugent and worse. This group lobbies for guns and right wing causes unrelated to guns. They are powerful, and right wing legislators listen to them as long as palms are greased with cash. People who support NRA are directly supporting and endorsing right wing causes because of their love of guns and all the crap that goes with that.
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)Many of whom are gun owners and say they will never vote Democratic as long as the party is seen as the party of Gun Control / Prohibition.
In addition the idea arose in the party, that the only people that matter are those in the large urban centers. Thus they can have any and all gun laws they want, but the problem is those laws end up affecting the rest of the country, which does NOT live in the big Urban areas, and does not want Gun Control / Prohibition. This has helped drive away those in small town and rural areas.
Plus there's alienation of the Working Class in many areas because Social Issues have trumped Economic Issues.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1114&pid=451
The Dem betrayal of the working class started in 1968. The activist faction within the party became dominated by "bourgeois" upper middle class types obsessed with cultural issues who derided the values of working class Americans. This lead to the emergence of the "Reagan Democrats" and the alignment of working class white men with the Republicans. We Democrats are seen an "elitist" party of upper-middle class yuppies by a lot of working class people.
That doesn't mean gay rights, women's rights, etc. are not important, but they should not displace economic progressiveness as the central "hub".
College draft deferments was another source of working class alienation. A lot of hatred for the anti-war people by "establishment" Dems in 1968 ans 1972 came from that.
The NRA didn't become as powerful as it is today until Gun Prohibition Advocates started advocating the Prohibition of Handguns, then Semi-Automatics, and for some Gun Prohibition Advocates, all guns. Gun Prohibition Advocates sowed the wind, and reaped the whirlwind. Gun Prohibition Advocates have no one to blame but themselves.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)pretty much hit the nail on the head.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)MicaelS
(8,747 posts)Gun Prohibitionist mentality you can go look in the mirror to find out why we lost.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Would you or your buddies?
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)Because the Party is seen as advocating Gun Prohibition.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)love guns too 
sarisataka
(18,663 posts)Pro-gun liberals may simply choose not to vote? They aren't supporting Republicans but the Democratic anti-gun agenda effectively hands elections to Republicans.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)They shouldn't be toting if they are that ignorant.
shadowrider
(4,941 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)sarisataka
(18,663 posts)to give power to the right over a single issue?
Before you chime in about gun owners, how about the Democratic party compromising a bit on guns? Win over more gun owners so discussions about reasonable gun laws, that are actually reasonable, can take place and maybe even pass?
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)Once you have that figured out, why don't you announce them so the rest of us can sign up to take your loyalty oath.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)permatex
(1,299 posts)and the expansion of 2A rights.
I also support the non political side of the NRA in regards of their safety programs, training LE, and don't give me the usual junk that both sides are the same, you've been asked before to provide proof and all we ever get from you is deflection or the usual rants.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)Trunk Monkey
(950 posts)Stay home and not vote for a Democrat candidate?
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Anyone who would forsake what's best for society because of their guns, is likely more right wing than anything.
Trunk Monkey
(950 posts)When asked : Have you considered(that) Pro-gun liberals may simply choose not to vote?
You replied:
If they are that stupid, then let them sit home and play with their guns.
I can't read that any other way but you advocating that other wise Progressive voters who would have voted Democrat if not for the DNC's anti gun platform stay home and not vote because you don't agree with their stance on firearms ownership.
You might want to read the second TOS again especially the last paragraph
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)be elected because they love guns that much.
If one would sit at home and allow that because of their obsession with guns -- I'm sorry, they can't be a true Democrat or progressive.
Do you love guns so much that you'd let a Republican win? If so, you are "rooting for the other side" simply because guns have become more important to you than our country and society.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)You and only you determine who is or who isn't a true Democrat or progressive is by their stance on the 2A.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)If you support the right wing interpretation of the 2A and love guns more than anything, but will still vote for Democrats, then you might well be a Democrat (who is just mistaken about guns).
permatex
(1,299 posts)of my advocating the support of the NRA or the defeat of Pres. Obama. You are the master of twisting words or putting words in peoples mouths.
I support the Founding Fathers interpretation of the 2A.
Now you are the arbiter of what the 2A is?
You do wear alot of different hats don't you?
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)permatex
(1,299 posts)you can't provide any links or posts to what you allege I support.
Typical Hoyt.
Meiko
(1,076 posts)will vote 2A over party, you can bet on it.
permatex
(1,299 posts)because of people like you, and you blame everyone else except yourself.
Talk about cognitive disconnect.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)willing to abandon liberal causes to keep the rethugs in office to protect your beloved guns. Who do you think you are fooling?
permatex
(1,299 posts)Not fooling anyone. The state I live in has a strong pro gun Senator who is a Dem who pretty much votes progressivly.
The reason the NRA has the bat shit crazy leadership is because of people like you.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Last edited Sat Jul 7, 2012, 02:20 PM - Edit history (1)
Who suck up to NRA and other right wing gun groups.
permatex
(1,299 posts)are responsible for the NRA crazies. That's ok, those of us with an ounce of common sense know better.
Why are legislators who vote for gun rights criminals?
Wait a minute, I know why, because it goes against your preception of the 2A, amirite?
HALO141
(911 posts)you are the one willing to abandon liberal causes in order to chase your anti-gun obsession.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)but, you hold firm now, you hear. at this rate you will give them the abortion issue won't you? you are playing right into their hands with your inordinate fear of your fellow man.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)I think "fear of fellow man" is why a lot of gun culture strap on guns before venturing into public.
I suppose you'll delete all your posts at some point, per usual.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)all up in your neighbor's business. You think women with restraining orders have no business being afraid? you think that piece of paper ever stopped a man from doing harm to a woman. you think because some people put on a uniform to go to work that it is OK for them to strap on a gun before venturing out in public?
Tejas
(4,759 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)
Gman
(24,780 posts)And some to the point of violence. Liberals are weenies and get run over for being too nice.
Which is why I fear for the country.
permatex
(1,299 posts)and I won't get run over by anybody.
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)we all know how the religious are about their beliefs.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)MicaelS
(8,747 posts)Don't you know, that if all guns were banned we would at last have "Real Peace ©" . We could then sit together in the shade, holding hands, snacking on leaves, berries and nuts, while singing Kumbaya, and all would be right with the world. 
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)for their own protection, or hunting, or target practice. When they start walking around public streets with them, thereby potentially putting other people in danger, as the saying goes, your rights end where somebody elses begins. It is very much like religion. Freedom of/from religion, until it inferes with someone elses religion/lack of.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)and it is why people can be charged with vehicular manslaughter --- after the fact.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)in your home.
But the second you take it outside you are potentially going to deprive me of my right to life. So that is where your perverse fetish for personal transportation must end.
Frankly I blame Hollywood for convincing people that they must own a car (let alone two or more) and wave it around in public (probably due to a small penis). They glorified all sorts of modified race cars, even ones with performance enhancing spoilers, enlarged gas tanks, and removable roofs (why would you even need that?). They have some now that are automatic if you can believe such a thing. And they give them to kids!?!?!
Frankly it's a disease our culture is facing and the sooner we're rid of them the safer we'll all be.
SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)if guns were registered and insured like cars.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)if that wasn't something used previously and in other countries as a precursor to eliminating gun ownership rights.
shadowrider
(4,941 posts) SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)no.
Nor has banning cars been a precursor to tyranny in other nations.
Nor is the right to drive built in to our constitution.
But consider this: if after *every*single*car*accident* an extremely aggressive and politically active group of people got together and tried to push bans on cars don't you suppose some counter organization would spring up to resist that initial group?
Drunk driver kills someone: ban all cars.
Texting kid kills someone: ban all cars.
Wet cement and high speeds kill someone: ban all cars.
You think after a relentless barrage of that for decades there would exist some group dedicated to preserving the legal and safe use of cars by decent and average citizens?
SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)That is NRA propaganda.
You think after a relentless barrage of that for decades there would exist some group dedicated to preserving the legal and safe use of cars by decent and average citizens?
If the NRA was only "preserving the legal and safe use of guns by decent and average citizens" there would be no problem.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)it is an incremental strategy. Just look at California.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)Or the movements in various cities (NYC comes to mind) to restrict guns in various ways?
"If the NRA was only "preserving the legal and safe use of guns by decent and average citizens" there would be no problem."
I know the common stereotype of an NRA member on here is some backwoods militia type masturbating to the thought of shooting federal agents but you should really look in to what they actually do.
shadowrider
(4,941 posts)sarisataka
(18,663 posts)Insurance means you are planning to shoot somebody 
http://www.democraticunderground.com/117243907
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)shadowrider
(4,941 posts)4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)they have the potential for doing.
So those protesters over there are being ok right now. But they could easily riot and deprive me of my property or inflict bodily harm on me. Freedom of speech is fine and all, in your own home. But once you start walking around in public streets with signs, thereby *potentially* putting other people in danger, as the saying goes, your rights end where somebody else's begin.
sarisataka
(18,663 posts)was really to protect my rights? Hey I never looked at it that way.
Now the controllers point makes sense..., except why were we all upset about it? Something about rights... it will come to me.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)we had to deprive them of their rights . . . to prevent them from depriving us of our rights.
It's what the founders would have wanted.
/what if someone is going to plead the fifth so they can get off for a crime and go on to commit another crime. Possible against me?!?!? It's a potential outcome. You can't disprove it. Anyone who attempts to use that right is clearly trying to deprive me of the right to property/life. Arrest them!
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)and so it was that the guy punched out the other guy with his fist and thus they started
advocating that if all hands were cut off at the wrists then we would have "Real Peace ©"
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)I am sure that if Some Posters on here could have my head on a platter, they would
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)much like the "gun owners have small penises" one.
Is there some source you guys are getting this from or is it all being thought up spontaneously by dozens of people using almost the exact same wording (I find that unlikely)?
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)great minds do think alike.
More seriously, though, while most gun owners are no less normal than the rest of us, there are those who do pontificate and preach of things "known" but with little evidence, not unlike TV preachers and suspicious gurus. The anti-gun crew has its own self-serving preachers, of course, but they're not so loud and usually less offensive.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)"We're all thinking exactly the same thing and using exactly the same ad hominems because . . .great minds think alike".
Remember that next time a bunch of folks repeat verbatim the latest outrage they heard of Foxnews (great minds . . . ).
And I've noticed at least one member on here who spouts of anti-gun slogans quite loudly and frequently and has openly scoffed at the idea of providing evidence to back such claims.
Is being anti-gun a religion too?
Tejas
(4,759 posts)Or because any other media outlet that can't come up with any other news says so? Because members here say so? The NRA has some good parts, but no idea why the bad gets so much credit.
2on2u
(1,843 posts)Marinedem
(373 posts)The NRA of today is NOTHING like the NRA of yesteryear.
It was started by Union officers after the Civil who were appalled by soldiers' marksmanship.
The NRA was little more than a target shooting org until gun prohibitionists reared their ugly heads.
The NRA reacted by stepping up their game and defending the 2nd A from all attacks by radical gun grabbers.
If you want to know why the NRA is so powerful, you need look no farther than the gun prohibitionists.
If we no longer allowed gun banners to be associated with us, the NRA would be no more than a target shooting club in ten years.
sarisataka
(18,663 posts)The political movement was started at the bottom
And they keep it going by staying in close touch with their active supporters
This is why I have hope. If it started at the bottom, change can come from the bottom again.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)(particularly if it is a right enshrined in the constitution) there will be a backlash.
applegrove
(118,685 posts)the NRA. So it worked.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)For one thing, since the Dems became the Brady, the NRA had to pick someone. As far as white working class and white rural goes, George Orwell hit the nail on the head. Just go through thread comments in any progressive site to look for "hick" "trailer trash" "redneck" as a slur.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2008/05/obama_and_orwell.html?fb_ref=sm_fb_like_chunky&fb_source=timeline
That plus the 3Gs combined is the "matter with Kansas"
applegrove
(118,685 posts)That has given the NRA a bully pulpit with which to control the hearts of millions on American males, mostly non immigrants, the GOP's white, male base. All the NRA had to do was hiccup and the GOP would repeat and echo their agenda ad nauseum. What trade association, other than oil, has had that kind of free publicity over the years?
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)You are thinking of NSSF.
applegrove
(118,685 posts)trade association necessarily, has had so much free publicity from 'government' over the last 30 years and access to the gop bully pulpit?
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)and represents their interests. Trade associations don't have millions of members of different economic classes and can mobilize grassroots machines several times their membership. Kind of like AAA, which is not the trade organization of the auto industry. It also is the certifying agency for firearms instructors, including police instructors. Talking heads like to claim whatever they want. but that is the reality. True, the board of directors have some high profile assholes and lunatics, but there is nothing I can do about it. I'm not a member let alone a voting member.
The trade organization is the National Shooting Sports Foundation. It represents the industry.
Gun control organizations on the other hand, have no grassroots, depended mostly if not entirely on one corporate foundation and the deep pockets of celebrities from the left and right.
applegrove
(118,685 posts)pulpit through the GOP.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)anymore than the National Firearms Association represents the Canadian gun industry, which it does not. More importantly, it represents the interests of a good chunk of the US population. From what I understand, the NRA is at odds with the industry over the proposed UN treaty on small arms. The industry supports it.
The only reason the NRA has the GOP is because the Dems kicked them to the curb.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)DonP
(6,185 posts)... it's amazing the cartoon characters the gun control crowd cherishes so dearly.
No wonder they can't get more than 4 or 5 gun control people together at any one time and can't get jack shit done legislatively.
At some point you'd think one of them, with a functioning brain cell would notice that their smart ass, condescending attitude isn't working terribly well. Their cause is visibly shrinking every year and every election with more pro gun Dems and pro 2nd amendment court decisions.
Skittles
(153,169 posts)even so-called progressives in the gungeon are sooooo skeered someone will take away their precious guns
MotherPetrie
(3,145 posts)And yes, I said men's. This is a purely testosterone-driven organization of the very worst sort.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Looks like you've got a lot of false consciousness to counteract. You need to get busy informing them that their beliefs are erroneous.
Let us know how it works out...
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Here's just a few of the bullet points from the first article in the series...
•NRA contributions to candidates have virtually no impact on the outcome of Congressional races.
•An NRA independent expenditure (IE) campaign does not improve a candidate’s chance of winning.
•The NRA’s endorsement, so eagerly sought by so many candidates, has almost no impact on the outcome of elections; the bulk of NRA endorsements go to incumbent Republicans with almost no chance of losing.
•Despite what the NRA has long claimed, it neither delivered Congress to the Republican party in 1994 nor delivered the White House to George W. Bush in 2000.
•Gun ownership in America has been slowly but steadily declining for decades.
•While support for “gun control” in the abstract has declined in recent years as the issue has been out of the spotlight, widespread support for specific measures to restrict gun sales remains as high as ever.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/02/09/421893/the-myth-of-nra-dominance-part-i-the-nras-ineffective-spending/?mobile=nc
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)Kinda like the roman catholic church.
Clames
(2,038 posts)This guy says it's a myth...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=15392
Yet here it isn't a myth. No wonder you anti-gun nuts have such problems getting anything going, can't even agree with each other let alone anything resembling realistic gun policies.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)older article referenced here --
Why the Gun Lobby Usually Wins
By JEANNE CUMMINGS | 4/17/07 5:19 PM EDT
The National Rifle Association has money, motivated members and powerful allies in Congress. But what puts the NRA in a separate class among interest groups is its track record of defeating incumbents.
In Washington, that is real power.
Thus, calls for new gun control measures after the Virginia Tech shootings are likely to face a difficult path on Capitol Hill -- even with Democrats now in charge.
"The NRA has pretty much set the agenda for the Congress, so we'll see," said Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), a gun control advocate who represents an urban district near Chicago. "Even after Columbine, we didn't really make progress in moving forward."
more at link:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0407/3563.html