Five Hypocrisies of the NRA

[SecularMotion]

The NRA's extreme political views can be infuriating to even sensible supporters of the Second Amendment, particularly when they reek of hypocrisy. Here's a handful of examples that show how the organization's stances don't often line up:

1. Defending the "Rights" of the Dangerous

This week, Thomas King, a board member for the NRA as well as the president of the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, said that he didn't want to attend a pro-gun rally in his state because he considered the event "contentious and threatening."

"I just don't want to be a party to anything that may happen," King said ominously. Despite feeling that his safety is in jeopardy for being around these gun owners, he plays a major role in preventing any restrictions from being placed on his comrades' right to bear arms. Does he not see the irony there?

2. Blame Hollywood!

After every tragic mass shooting in this country, NRA spokespeople have insisted that guns are not the problem, the problem is movies that glamorize gun violence.

http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/22867-five-hypocrisies-of-the-nra

[gejohnston]

1. So awful, I couldn't resist.

is an opinion based on dishonesty really an honest opinion? Intellectual dishonesty is not a liberal value.

1) he got the quote from TPM who got it from NY Daily news. NY Daily News is somewhere between the Daily Tattler and WND in journalistic integrity.

The blame "violent video game" app is someone at a shooting range shooting paper targets.

The NRA touts itself as an organization that promotes safe and responsible gun ownership, yet when it comes to one of the most divisive gun laws to gain attention in the past couple of years, the organization places itself squarely opposed to reason and common decency.

In response to the outrage over Stand Your Ground laws, the NRA instituted Stand Your Ground insurance to cover the potential legal costs of alleged murderers.

You mean the outrage created by disinformation put out by PR firms and MAIG? No, actually the insurance is for would be assault victims to defend themselves from malicious prosecution by either by DA with the same mentality of the writer or because of media and political pressure even when the evidence doesn't warrant it.

The implication is that rather than protecting potential innocent victims, the NRA is interested in protecting trigger-happy gun owners and their right to shoot first and get away with it later.

The implication is that everyone is innocent until proven guilty, and his understanding of SYG is complete bullshit.

[ErikGuard1]

2. Agreed

I think the so called "stand your ground" insurance is actually a great benefit. If you have the unfortunate necessity of having to use a weapon to defend either yourself or your family from a violent attacker you shouldn't have go bankrupt defending yourself from overzealous prosecution.

Erik

[CreekDog]

3. insurance doesn't protect you from criminal charges

what a baffling response.

[gejohnston]

4. but it does help provide a fair trial

should you have to defend yourself from the Angela Coreys of the world.

[SQUEE]

5. Really, i found it concise and clear....

He ....
oh, nevermind. it was quite clear.

[hack89]

7. They only pay out if the defendant is found innocent

which is proper - an innocent person should not have to bankrupt themselves to prove their innocence.

[NYC_SKP]

6. I read these this morning. Weak sauce, I thought. If presented in high school, I'd give it a C-

There's a lot of trashy articles being posted here lately.