What the NRA is against

[Jflem1983]

The NRA didnt kill anybody. Neither did the second ammendment

No, but the idiots who keep hiding behind one of the biggest political lobbying groups and a 227 year old piece of paper are the one's responsible for allowing madmen to legally obtain assault weapons to mow down thousands of innocent men, women and children

Attitudes such as yours have led to the murder of millions. Obviously u would have supported pinochet or polpot or any of the other great gun grabbing murderers. Stalin did the same. In fact it has played out all over the world many times. Take the weapons. Kill the people.

No Baiting

[Jack DeBear]

What will it lose?

Nothing if the NRA is able to stand tall. Beat back the evil democrats.

Well, from what I’ve read here since you posted that, and from what you just wrote, it sounds like the NRA that you belong to could actually be a postmodernist far left movement.

So how ‘bout, while you study up on that:

Explaining Postmodernism by Stephen Hicks

The book:

http://www.stephenhicks.org/wp-content/ ... inting.pdf

(I used Shaw internet McAfee to pre-scan it for you.)

The Video (Hicks reads the book out loud):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQcNjHNXnEE

Stephen Hicks’ website:

http://www.stephenhicks.org/

I’ll study up on this:

2nd Amendment US Constitution--Bearing Arms

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CONAN ... 2-10-3.pdf

NRA National Rifle Association website:

https://home.nra.org/

(I don't think It'll kill either of us.)

And we’ll meet again here in a little while.

Deal?

[Jflem1983]

I have no idea what you are going on about. I suggest if u want to learn about the NRA. Join. Sign up for a subscription to American Rifleman . Get the info you crave from them.

I suspect the NRA will come out of this stronger than ever

[Glacier]

IMO
The NRA should be disbanded as a terrorist organization for inciting murder against their fellow citizens.

Anyone whom supports citizens having military assault weapons in order to murder children, should eat their weapons.

This is the most dishonest post I've read this year. NO ONE supports the use of guns of any kind to murder children. There has never been a mass shooting committed by an NRA member, but they have stopped shootings. To imply the NRA is in any way responsible is disgusting and dishonest beyond belief.

Furthermore, you think that holding opinions you don't like should brand your opponents as terrorists. Free speech is a fundamental right in a free society. Equating it with terrorist is wrong.

Instead of calling people terrorists because you don't like their opinions, use your free speech to refute their ideas with better ideas.

In my view, the NRA's view on "assault weapons" (whatever that that means) is better than yours, but I'm open to you changing my mind. It seems to me that you're trying to take a sludge hammer to a problem that needs a scalpel. Time and time again, I see arrogant Canadians demanding the USA ban guns that they can easily own in Canada. Don't be like those people. The differences between Canada and the USA in terms of gun laws are not bans, but regulations and background checks. That's why bans won't happen in the USA. Law abiding hunters and gun collectors do not want to have their guns confiscated because the government isn't doing proper background checks.

[vegas1500]

I am not a member of the NRA nor am I up on all of their beliefs. I do however own many weapons and included in those are a few semi automatic rifles. My friends and I have enjoyed going to a range and legally shooting these weapons for many years. I do believe that if they banned the owning of semi automatic weapons tomorrow it would not solve any of the issues being discussed. It is not law abiding citizens that are the issue. If a person is properly trained, and weapons are stored properly they can be an enjoyable sport for the whole family.

[Jack DeBear]

I have no idea what you are going on about. I suggest if u want to learn about the NRA. Join. Sign up for a subscription to American Rifleman . Get the info you crave from them.

I suspect the NRA will come out of this stronger than ever

Maybe they could (see below), but do we have a deal on my earlier suggestion while I consider your own 'one-way' proposition? I'm still studying the NRA website.

How the NRA might 'come out stronger.'

I’m a follower of ‘the most dangerous man in the world,’ Jordan Peterson, who is also a friend of Stephen Hicks (please see my second post).

As it turns out, Peterson and I grew up in much the same area of Alberta, with the same style of gun culture, and it looks like our dads shared some similar values in raising us as kids (also see my first post.)

And I go along with what he says here.



(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBK1i7Dn7Rg)

Notes, but please watch the whole video:

I think it’s an important right (the freedom to bear arms). I believe the individual should be allowed or even encouraged to be dangerous, but controlled, now, so, along with that right is a responsibility, and I guess from the NRA there should be more discussion of responsibility? Is that possible? That seems to be reasonable.

So how would you answer his questions?

Also, are NRA members being shut out when they bring up questions like his (also tied in to my first post)?

[Ka-El]

I have no idea what you are going on about

No. That would have required clicking on a link and doing some reading. What is the real issue here with the NRA? What would be so terrible about improving background checks of people wanting to purchase assault rifles and other military type weapons? Are improved background checks really an affront on liberty and freedom, or would that not more accurately be considered the responsible measure? Responsible gun owners, especially those so-called “proud life-long members”, should question whether their views are properly being represented by the organization that suggests it’s speaking for them.

It’s a fair question, and not only because the N.R.A. has single-handedly dictated the shape of the debate over guns for decades. Whether they own guns or not, Americans should understand the outsize role the N.R.A. plays, not only in thwarting sensible gun safety laws but also in undermining law enforcement by abetting gun traffickers, criminal gun dealers and criminal gun users.

The N.R.A., which claims some 4.5 million members, often professes to speak for all gun owners — hunters, sportsmen, collectors and ordinary Americans who keep guns for self-defense. But on some issues, most gun owners clearly reject the party line.

In 2012, the Republican pollster Frank Luntz found that 87 percent of gun owners supported criminal background or “Brady” checks for all gun purchases. Following the December 2012 massacre of 20 children in Newtown, Conn., another poll showed that 92 percent of Americans supported background checks for all buyers, including those buying on the Internet and at gun shows.

But by April 2013, when the Senate considered a bill to do just that, the N.R.A. campaign to defeat it was in full swing. The N.R.A. tagged the bill as a top priority and made clear that senators who opposed it risked receiving a low N.R.A. rating, which many of its single-issue supporters use in deciding how to vote, or a flood of negative television ads.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/07/opin ... s-for.html

What ?!?!? Improved background checks ?!?!? What an assault on freedom and liberty !!! What are the real motives behind the fear-mongering of the NRA? As has been stated, “If we didn’t have a Second Amendment in the United States, we would still have firearms and people could still own guns, and hunt, and do all that other fun stuff. But we wouldn’t have what amounts to a religious proscription against doing anything smart when it comes to firearms.”

http://gregladen.com/blog/2011/12/20/wh ... amendment/

The NRA represents the worst in fanatical single issue ideologically extreme special interest groups. They thrive by promoting fear and paranoia. Every massacre of children increases gun sales for their donors. Today at conference, they were distracting public from talking about gun laws by blaming massacre on Hollywood, video games and instead talked about hiring more armed security guards on tax payer's money. An ideal business opportunity to boost more gun sales for their donors! The same right wing propagandizers discourage from talking about stricter gun control, funding mental health programs and ignore bullying that goes in schools and colleges that really do contribute to violence a lot more than movies
http://www.city-data.com/forum/politics ... z58AZBtNgN

So, what would be the negative consequences of improved background checks? Well, gun-selling members of the NRA wouldn’t be able to sell guns to the violently psychotic and that would decrease some sales. With less mass shootings they would not as easily be able to justify their diseased narrative that the answer to mass shootings would be to have everyone own and carry guns (thus increasing gun sales). Who falls for this crap? Well, as already noted, apparently 87 percent of gun owners support criminal background or “Brady” checks for all gun purchases, and 92 percent of Americans supported background checks for all buyers, including those buying on the Internet and at gun shows. With this type of support for change, why are Republican lawmakers so reluctant to act? Could it be they are in the pockets of the NRA (Trump alone received $30 million in donations). Only the most dull-witted dupes could buy this tripe that improved background checks would represent an assault on freedom and liberty – the same dull-witted dupes that think Trump is good for America.

[CapitalB]

I have no idea what you are going on about

No. That would have required clicking on a link and doing some reading. What is the real issue here with the NRA? What would be so terrible about improving background checks of people wanting to purchase assault rifles and other military type weapons? Are improved background checks really an affront on liberty and freedom, or would that not more accurately be considered the responsible measure? Responsible gun owners, especially those so-called “proud life-long members”, should question whether their views are properly being represented by the organization that suggests it’s speaking for them.

It’s a fair question, and not only because the N.R.A. has single-handedly dictated the shape of the debate over guns for decades. Whether they own guns or not, Americans should understand the outsize role the N.R.A. plays, not only in thwarting sensible gun safety laws but also in undermining law enforcement by abetting gun traffickers, criminal gun dealers and criminal gun users.

The N.R.A., which claims some 4.5 million members, often professes to speak for all gun owners — hunters, sportsmen, collectors and ordinary Americans who keep guns for self-defense. But on some issues, most gun owners clearly reject the party line.

In 2012, the Republican pollster Frank Luntz found that 87 percent of gun owners supported criminal background or “Brady” checks for all gun purchases. Following the December 2012 massacre of 20 children in Newtown, Conn., another poll showed that 92 percent of Americans supported background checks for all buyers, including those buying on the Internet and at gun shows.

But by April 2013, when the Senate considered a bill to do just that, the N.R.A. campaign to defeat it was in full swing. The N.R.A. tagged the bill as a top priority and made clear that senators who opposed it risked receiving a low N.R.A. rating, which many of its single-issue supporters use in deciding how to vote, or a flood of negative television ads.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/07/opin ... s-for.html

What ?!?!? Improved background checks ?!?!? What an assault on freedom and liberty !!! What are the real motives behind the fear-mongering of the NRA? As has been stated, “If we didn’t have a Second Amendment in the United States, we would still have firearms and people could still own guns, and hunt, and do all that other fun stuff. But we wouldn’t have what amounts to a religious proscription against doing anything smart when it comes to firearms.”

http://gregladen.com/blog/2011/12/20/wh ... amendment/

The NRA represents the worst in fanatical single issue ideologically extreme special interest groups. They thrive by promoting fear and paranoia. Every massacre of children increases gun sales for their donors. Today at conference, they were distracting public from talking about gun laws by blaming massacre on Hollywood, video games and instead talked about hiring more armed security guards on tax payer's money. An ideal business opportunity to boost more gun sales for their donors! The same right wing propagandizers discourage from talking about stricter gun control, funding mental health programs and ignore bullying that goes in schools and colleges that really do contribute to violence a lot more than movies
http://www.city-data.com/forum/politics ... z58AZBtNgN

So, what would be the negative consequences of improved background checks? Well, gun-selling members of the NRA wouldn’t be able to sell guns to the violently psychotic and that would decrease some sales. With less mass shootings they would not as easily be able to justify their diseased narrative that the answer to mass shootings would be to have everyone own and carry guns (thus increasing gun sales). Who falls for this crap? Well, as already noted, apparently 87 percent of gun owners support criminal background or “Brady” checks for all gun purchases, and 92 percent of Americans supported background checks for all buyers, including those buying on the Internet and at gun shows. With this type of support for change, why are Republican lawmakers so reluctant to act? Could it be they are in the pockets of the NRA (Trump alone received $30 million in donations). Only the most dull-witted dupes could buy this tripe that improved background checks would represent an assault on freedom and liberty – the same dull-witted dupes that think Trump is good for America.

I assume its because they know that a huge number of their supporters would by and large not be able to buy a gun under those kinds of laws, because a whole lot of them are aggressive, angry, abusive, violent people as shown by the openly evil republicans the NRA actively supports.

[Glacier]

I assume its because they know that a huge number of their supporters would by and large not be able to buy a gun under those kinds of laws, because a whole lot of them are aggressive, angry, abusive, violent people as shown by the openly evil republicans the NRA actively supports.

It's perfectly reasonable for the NRA to oppose bans. Basically, the NRA is an organization of hunters and other law abiding gun owners. On the other side, you have people who don't own guns, so of course, they don't understand why anyone would own scary looking guns. Then you have criminal gun owners, but gun control advocates can't tell the difference kinda like how a white person thinks all blacks look the same. To them a gun owner is a gun owner is a gun owner.

[Ka-El]

It's perfectly reasonable for the NRA to oppose bans.

Yes, but what is the motive behind opposing improved background checks?

[Dizzy1]

Attitudes such as yours have led to the murder of millions. Obviously u would have supported pinochet or polpot or any of the other great gun grabbing murderers. Stalin did the same. In fact it has played out all over the world many times. Take the weapons. Kill the people.

Wow, you really got me there Jflem - if it's that obvious to you that people who are for some sort of gun restrictions and control in order to at least help and try and save the lives of innocent vicitims are the same people who support Dictators then you just have it all figured out, don't you?

Ignorance must be bliss

[Jflem1983]

It's perfectly reasonable for the NRA to oppose bans.

Yes, but what is the motive behind opposing improved background checks?

They dont oppose that actually. The NRA suggests that current laws be enforced . Already a law or two against killing people. Lots of laws regarding sale of weapons even in usa.

[Ka-El]

They dont oppose that actually.

I know reading information that contradicts your erroneous notions is not really your thing, but maybe if I just keep on reposting certain excerpts (in smaller, easier to read snippets) it will help you to address specific points:

In 2012, the Republican pollster Frank Luntz found that 87 percent of gun owners supported criminal background or “Brady” checks for all gun purchases. Following the December 2012 massacre of 20 children in Newtown, Conn., another poll showed that 92 percent of Americans supported background checks for all buyers, including those buying on the Internet and at gun shows.

But by April 2013, when the Senate considered a bill to do just that, the N.R.A. campaign to defeat it was in full swing. The N.R.A. tagged the bill as a top priority and made clear that senators who opposed it risked receiving a low N.R.A. rating, which many of its single-issue supporters use in deciding how to vote, or a flood of negative television ads.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/07/opin ... s-for.html

Today Trump actually talked about improving background checks and better funding for mental health services. It looks like the trade-off to appease the NRA overlords is the move to arm school teachers. School boards can purchase guns instead of school supplies – oh, wait …

Ignorance must be bliss

[NotNorthAnymore]

IMO
The NRA should be disbanded as a terrorist organization for inciting murder against their fellow citizens.

Anyone whom supports citizens having military assault weapons in order to murder children, should eat their weapons.

This is the most dishonest post I've read this year. NO ONE supports the use of guns of any kind to murder children. There has never been a mass shooting committed by an NRA member, but they have stopped shootings. To imply the NRA is in any way responsible is disgusting and dishonest beyond belief.

Furthermore, you think that holding opinions you don't like should brand your opponents as terrorists. Free speech is a fundamental right in a free society. Equating it with terrorist is wrong.

Instead of calling people terrorists because you don't like their opinions, use your free speech to refute their ideas with better ideas.

In my view, the NRA's view on "assault weapons" (whatever that that means) is better than yours, but I'm open to you changing my mind. It seems to me that you're trying to take a sludge hammer to a problem that needs a scalpel. Time and time again, I see arrogant Canadians demanding the USA ban guns that they can easily own in Canada. Don't be like those people. The differences between Canada and the USA in terms of gun laws are not bans, but regulations and background checks. That's why bans won't happen in the USA. Law abiding hunters and gun collectors do not want to have their guns confiscated because the government isn't doing proper background checks.

massshootings2.png

IMO . You are dead wrong.
NO ONE should have any access at anytime to military style hardware that is only designed to kill people.
The NRA supports citizens and crazies having military weapons.
These weapons are only used to kill people.
Therefore the NRA is supporting the murder od children and citizens.

I stand by my statement that those that support having military weapons in the hands of citizens and unstable crazies, should be eating those military weapons themselves.

Don't care if you and your NRA buddies don't like my opinion.
I don't like yours.

Draw

[Glacier]

IMO . You are dead wrong.
NO ONE should have any access at anytime to military style hardware that is only designed to kill people.
The NRA supports citizens and crazies having military weapons.
These weapons are only used to kill people.
Therefore the NRA is supporting the murder od children and citizens.

I stand by my statement that those that support having military weapons in the hands of citizens and unstable crazies, should be eating those military weapons themselves.

Don't care if you and your NRA buddies don't like my opinion.
I don't like yours.

Draw

Military weapons are BANNED already in the USA. Semi-autos are not military weapons. I can go hunting with my semi-autos out near Lumby no problem.