Stand Up to Bullies of the NRA

[Starboard Tack]

Obama observed last week that "bullying can have destructive consequences for our young people." It can also have destructive consequences for politicians. The president could set a good example by standing up to the bullies of the NRA.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/03/17/stand_up_to_bullies_of_the_nra.html

[rrneck]

1. He needs to stand up to the bullies

in his own party or he'll be unemployed in 2013.

[Starboard Tack]

6. Correct. If they support the bullies of the NRA.

Bullying is wrong, period. And if he cows to it just to get re-elected, then he deserves to be unemployed. If pro assault weapon/high capacity clip/ over the top dems want to defect over this then good riddance

[rrneck]

42. You've been around here long enough to know better

but let's just look at that.

An "assault weapon" is just a scary looking semi automatic rifle. Generally speaking they are less powerful than your grandfather's deer gun.

Any effort to regulate the capacity of pistol magazines that were designed to allow the user to reload quickly is an exercise in futility.

Anybody that has ever held a gun or even given the matter serious consideration will see through this kind of legislation for the bullshit that it is. If they own a firearm, (as about eighty million Americans do), any political party that shows such arrogance and disdain toward its constituents will promptly drive them across the aisle right into the arms of an organization like the NRA.

There are over four million members of the NRA. Add to that the people who share their views but who are not members you just said "good riddance" to about twenty or thirty million voters. The vast majority of whom are not millionaires pushing an ideology for profit. As robber baron Jay Gould once said, "You can always hire one half of the poor to kill the other half." They don't call it a wedge issue for nothing.

Pissing people off for no good reason is no way to build a coalition.

[Starboard Tack]

68. There is an ethical line that every individual sets for himself

If he chooses to cross it for political expedience, then he loses credibility with himself as well as others.
You want him to cave in to these fools?
http://www.gunbanobama.com/

[rrneck]

69. That's fine if

one's ethics are something more than self serving sanctimony.

"You want him to cave in to these fools?"

I want him to win back the constituency the Democratic party lost to them because they enacted unworkable, self serving, sanctimonious legislation.

[Starboard Tack]

80. And I want him to win by not backing down to bullies.

Because if he does, they'll kick him with greater glee for being a wuss.

[gejohnston]

82. OK

But Helmke and his crowd are the bullies.

[Starboard Tack]

104. Wanting to stop gun violence is bullying?

Sounds like a moderate Republican to me. Some of them are OK you know. Just a little conservative. I don't mind it when Rebublicans espouse liberal causes. What gets me is when so-called Democrats side with right wing bullies.

[gejohnston]

142. Can you explain

why the states that have gun control laws that are stricter than most European countries are relative blood baths? New Guinea should be Japan light. But violence is so out of hand in the island country that after an epidemic of home invasion murders, their parliament repealed their gun ban to allow people to defend themselves and asked for Australia to send their federal police to help patrol the streets of Port Morsbey. You will not stop gun or any other violence if you call these solutions. There is no scientific evidence. In fact, objective peer reviewed research carried out by professional criminologists show that the best you can hope for is a one for one cancellation. If lawful responsible gun ownership causes crime, then Finland should have a higher murder rate. They (like Norway, France, and New Zealand) anyone can buy a silencer off the shelf. That is not to say that we should repeal part of the National Firearms of 1934, simply making a statement of fact. The current federal regulations are sane and reasonable for the most part.
Brady, HCI and their allies know this as well as I do. They also know, as science has pointed out, that their belief that not resisting rapists or other violent attackers is more likely to get you hurt or killed than resisting. Yet they put nonresistance in their propaganda. Why? Civil rights lawyer and Criminologist Don Kates put it this way in a speech to the ACLU:


The failure of anti-gun advocates to recognize the vast corpus of contrary scholarship reflects the fact that the "great American gun war" is really a culture conflict. It is less about criminology than about ideology and morality. In saying this, I do not mean to deny that most Americans, including most gun owners, support numerous moderate controls which the gun lobby opposes. But, this broad popular support is based on a desire to mitigate the social harms associated with firearms. Such pragmatic concerns are largely tangential to the cultural and moral concerns that motivate the anti-gun movement of organizations like Handgun Control, Inc. (HCI) or the former National Coalition to Ban Handguns (NCBH), now the Coalition Against Gun Violence.

The anti-gun movement is motivated by an ethical/cultural imperative that its adherents believe will lead to a better and more civilized nation. Epitomizing this ethical/cultural imperative are denunciations of "the fear we have of each other." This fear represents "the worst instincts in the human character" and is illustrated by "the need that some homeowners and shopkeepers believe they have for weapons to defend themselves." It follows, therefore, that banning the barbarism of defensive firearms ownership is a crucial step in the "civilizing process." Given their essentially non-pragmatic, noncriminological perspective, anti-gun advocates naturally have little interest in the pragmatic questions of whether prohibitory gun policies will disarm criminals or actually reduce violence. To them, these concerns are irrelevant and unimportant because their purpose for outlawing defensive firearms ownership is moral, cultural, and symbolic. They seek laws to affirm symbolically their moral vision while simultaneously rejecting and condemning the contrary moral vision of gun owners. A law banning defensive gun ownership will inculcate their views that: "'he only reason for guns in civilian hands is for sporting purposes;'" that personal self-defense and the ownership of arms for protection of home and family is morally wrong; and that defensive gun ownership is a form of vigilantism,<12> "anarchy, not order under law," a usurpation of an exclusive function of the state.

The non-pragmatically ethical, rather than criminological, focus of anti-gun ideology is epitomized by liberal sociologist Laurence Ross' review of the definitive criminological text on firearms in American life: Professor Gary Kleck's Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America. As a social scientist, Ross commends Kleck's meticulous clarification of the exaggerations and falsehoods that constantly obfuscate the issues. For example, "fewer than 1% of all guns, and fewer than 2% even of handguns will ever be used in a violent crime" and "more people are killed in swimming pool accidents than firearms accidents." Also, Ross does not quarrel with Kleck's finding that handguns are more often used by the law-abiding to repel crimes than by felons in committing them. Thus, Ross does not deny (though neither does he dwell on) the fact that handguns save far more innocent lives than criminals misusing them take each year.

[rrneck]

83. Look.

The "principles" to which you so breathlessly cling but are unable to articulate are clearly in variance with the principles of millions of voters who disagree with you. The NRA is not some evil cabal of mind control aliens. They are capitalists making money off the absurdity of your "principles". Just like the capitalists at the VPC.

I don't have much use for either bunch, and wrangling about it just makes the rich richer. The membership of the NRA is just a bunch of Democrats who don't know it yet. Adding heat without light to the debate just makes matters worse.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x393601

(Note response #20)

[gejohnston]

70. So are you saying

one should stick to a policy even when new information tells you that it is a bad idea? Gee that sounds so unthoughtful or kind of like.........GW Bush

[Starboard Tack]

77. Policy is your word. I said PRINCIPLE. Huge difference.

Policy requires accommodation.

[rrneck]

79. Principles divorced from reality

are a pernicious form of dogma. It takes a bully to make people conform to it.

[Starboard Tack]

86. Principles are about personal integrity and honesty.

They are not about conforming to others ideas and have nothing to do with dogma. You can't make people conform to a principle. You either have it or not. Has nothing to do with politics. Tough paradox, being a politician and holding to one's principles and it rarely succeeds. Check Jimmy Carter and Jesus Christ. Neither one got re-elected, but they kept their personal integrity. It ain't all about being POTUS. You still have to live with yourself after the curtain comes down. Look at Nixon. Look at Dubya. Lots of policy, no principles.

[rrneck]

88. What are your principles? nt

[gejohnston]

81. The only principle I want

aside from following the Constitution etc. I want is policy based on science and logic with the best information in hand at the time. Instead of just inviting Helmke and Wayne, she should have included criminologists who studies and have peer reviewed papers on the gun issue, privacy law experts, NICS administrators, in short people who know what they are talking about. We had eight years of what you are describing as principle. The phrase "stay the course" comes to mind.

[rrneck]

91. Actually,

a lot of that research could be done at the meeting itself without a high priced brain trust.

President: "So what about this hi cap magazine thingy?"

Presidential aide: "We've allocated three million to study it."

President: "What? Are you out of your mind? Is there a secret service agent around here?"

Presidential aide: "Yes sir. Right outside".

President: "Get him in here."

SSA: "Yes sir?"

President: "You got a service weapon?"

SSA: "Yes Mr. President."

President: "What kind is it?"

SSA: "Glock 19 semi automatic pistol sir."

President: "How many bullets does it hold?"

SSA: "Fifteen sir with one in the chamber."

President: "How fast can you reload it?"

SSA: "My best time is 1.3 seconds sir."

President: "Thank you, as you were."
"Do you idiots want me to support bullshit legislation to limit magazine capacity when a pistol can be reloaded in under two seconds!? With a bunch of foaming at the mouth Republicans intent on cockblocking me at every turn? Are you fucking kidding me? I don't have time for this shit! Get the hell out of here!"

That's how you stand up to a bully.

[PavePusher]

123. Yeah, I have dreams like that.

I also dream about winning the Lotto. Unfortunately, I think the Lotto is more likely... sigh.

[AtheistCrusader]

151. Translation: I didn't want that senate majority anyway.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

40. He is presuming bullying by the NRA is fact

Many here and elsewhere do not see it that way.

[rrneck]

49. I'm not too sure bullying government is such a bad thing.

Government should be afraid of the people, not the other way around. Given the number of guns and gun owners in this country the term "mandate" doesn't seem out of place.

[gejohnston]

53. but

Since when were grassroots organizations of over 4 million members and 40 percent of the population "bullies"? and how an astro turf groups ran and funded by a couple of chruches and rich guys who depend on hysteria, lies and deception to carry out their moral crusade "of the people"? Sorry, not buying it.

[rrneck]

55. I think you replied to the wrong post pardnuh.

Welcome to DU! :hi:

[gejohnston]

57. my bad

[rrneck]

61. no worries nt

[Lurks Often]

2. Why do you want the Republicans to win in 2012?

because that is far more likely to happen if the President does what you want.

[Starboard Tack]

9. Why would that happen?

Sounds like politics of fear to me. Give up your principles and we'll vote for you. Not my vote

[X_Digger]

12. Wishing for a repeat of '96?

"Just before the House vote (on the crime bill), Speaker Tom Foley and majority leader Dick Gephardt had made a last-ditch appeal to me to remove the assault weapons ban from the bill. They argued that many Democrats who represented closely divided districts had already...defied the NRA once on the Brady bill vote. They said that if we made them walk the plank again on the assault weapons ban, the overall bill might not pass, and that if it did, many Democrats who voted for it would not survive the election in November. Jack Brooks, the House Judiciary Committee chairman from Texas, told me the same thing...Jack was convinced that if we didn't drop the ban, the NRA would beat a lot of Democrats by terrifying gun owners....Foley, Gephardt, and Brooks were right and I was wrong. The price...would be heavy casualties among its defenders." (Pages 611-612)

"On November 8, we got the living daylights beat out of us, losing eight Senate races and fifty-four House seats, the largest defeat for our party since 1946....The NRA had a great night. They beat both Speaker Tom Foley and Jack Brooks, two of the ablest members of Congress, who had warned me this would happen. Foley was the first Speaker to be defeated in more than a century. Jack Brooks had supported the NRA for years and had led the fight against the assault weapons ban in the House, but as chairman of the Judiciary Committee he had voted for the overall crime bill even after the ban was put into it. The NRA was an unforgiving master: one strike and you're out. The gun lobby claimed to have defeated nineteen of the twenty-four members on its hit list. They did at least that much damage...." (Pages 629-630)

"One Saturday morning, I went to a diner in Manchester full of men who were deer hunters and NRA members. In impromptu remarks, I told them that I knew they had defeated their Democratic congressman, Dick Swett, in 1994 because he voted for the Brady bill and the assault weapons ban. Several of them nodded in agreement." (Page 699)

--William J. Clinton, My Life

[Starboard Tack]

20. So succumbing to the bullies is the answer?

Often bullying takes place in the presence of a large group of relatively uninvolved bystanders. In many cases, it is the bully's ability to create the illusion that he or she has the support of the majority present, that instills the fear of 'speaking out' in protestation of the bullying activities being observed by the group. Unless the 'bully mentality' is effectively challenged in any given group in its earlier stages, often the 'bully mentality' becomes an accepted norm within the group.

[X_Digger]

29. It's listening to the people..

http://www.gallup.com/poll/144887/continuing-record-low-support-stricter-gun-control.aspx



Enough people have 'spoken out' --- against your position.

Feel free to piss into the wind, just don't ask me for a towel when it flies back in your face.

[Starboard Tack]

34. So the 12% who want less strict laws should be allowed to bully

the rest of us? Not me and hopefully not this president.
I'm a sailor. We never piss into the wind, but we know how to tack uphill, so we don't always have to go the way it's blowing.

[rl6214]

37. You are ignoring the 42% that want the laws kept the same

On purpose?

[X_Digger]

38. No, the 54% who want the same or less get to decide.

Gallup hasn't updated their graph, but it's swung even more..

Next, I'm going to read a list of actions Congress could take this year. Please say whether you strongly favor, favor, oppose or strongly oppose Congress doing each of the following this year. How about -- ?


Pass stronger gun control laws.....Strongly favor.....Favor.....Oppose.....Strongly oppose.....No opinion
2011 Jan 14-16................................26%.......23%........23%.................27%.............2%

More people oppose stronger gun control than endorse it.

eta: source- http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/Guns.aspx

[Starboard Tack]

46. You like Gallup Polls. Check this one

http://www.gallup.com/poll/145757/Americans-Link-Gun-Laws-Mental-Health-Mass-Shootings.aspx

[X_Digger]

47. See you and raise you..

http://www.gallup.com/poll/145556/Doubt-Political-Rhetoric-Major-Factor-Ariz-Shootings.aspx

[ProgressiveProfessor]

41. Your claims of bullying are as of yet unproven.

[Hangingon]

45. Let's not get carried away with the latest buzz word.

The NRA is a single interest lobby. They have their views and express them. It is a stretch to call legitimate representation "bullying". They have a membership of 4 million but represent the interests of 65 to 80 million.

[rl6214]

16. So you are willing to let happen to Pres Obama the same

as what happened to the Democrat party after the AWB debacle in 94?

You're willing to take that chance?

[Starboard Tack]

19. Absolutely

[rl6214]

23. You are willing to toss the presidency, house and senate

to the Reps for the next 10-20 years?

Really?

[Starboard Tack]

25. Bystanders to bullying activities

are often unable to recognize the true cost that silence regarding the bullying activities has to both the individual and to the group. A certain inability to fully empathize is also usually present in the typical bystander, but to a lesser degree than in the bully.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

43. You assert facts not in evidence nor agreed to. What bullying?

[Starboard Tack]

97. Did you miss the other posts?

I understand. It takes me a while sometimes too. I have these senior moments.

[X_Digger]

107. What other post? You've dodged repeatedly. n/t

[ProgressiveProfessor]

139. Read them all

and my statement stands

[provis99]

99. no one votes for reps based on gun issue stances.

Except for the fanatics in the NRA and DU gungeon.

[rl6214]

100. Actually they do

all you have to do is look at history to see what happened after the AWB was passed, listen to Bill Clintons own words. But you knew this and chose to ignore it anyway.

Why is that, unless you are an anti gun fanatic.

[Bold Lib]

140. no one votes for reps based on abortion issue stances.

Except for the fanatics. . .

[gejohnston]

54. For what?

If you are thinking to save lives and lower crime, science and history is not on your side. Because of your irrational fear or regional bigotry, you are starting to sound like the bully.

[Upton]

22. Rural America..

and that includes many swing districts like the one I live in, isn't interested in further restrictions upon their 2nd Amendment rights.

The more those like yourself in the party push for gun control, the further you're pushing those voters away..

[Starboard Tack]

28. This has nothing to do with 2A rights

It's about standing up to bullies

[rl6214]

33. That's a load of crap

[Starboard Tack]

27. So we just lie down and take it?

Siding with the bullies is not the answer. If we do that we may as well tear up the constitution and embrace the mob mentality.

[ileus]

3. He needs to embrace the NRA

[damntexdem]

5. He should support the NRA -- the way a rope supports a hanging man.

Embracing? Don't make me vomit.

[lawodevolution]

4. Who is bullying the NRA?

[X_Digger]

7. Poor little EJ.. so out of touch, so behind..

EJ.. 1994 is calling, they want their talking points back.

[rl6214]

8. E J Dionne has written extensively in support of gun control

I don't think he wants anything to do with "common sense" gun laws.

From the article:

"It was a bolder Obama who said in 2001: "I know that the NRA believes people should be unimpeded and unregulated on gun ownership. I disagree." Crisp, clear, and right.

"Assault weapons are not for hunting," Obama said in 2004. "They are the weapons of choice for gang-bangers, drug dealers and terrorists." Right again.

Yet in his op-ed, the president wrote: "Some will say that anything short of the most sweeping anti-gun legislation is a capitulation to the gun lobby. Others will predictably cast any discussion as the opening salvo in a wild-eyed scheme to take away everybody's guns."

The first statement is a wild distortion of the position of actual advocates of sane gun laws. They are not seeking "sweeping anti-gun legislation." They are pushing tame steps LaPierre and his lobbyists reject -- thorough background checks and a ban on those big magazines. Yes, restoring the highly effective ban on assault weapons would also be good. But that's Obama's own position. Isn't it?

[speltwon]

13. That;'s a complete and total lie

The NRA does NOT want people to be "unimpeded and unregulated on gun ownership". NRA has supported legislation in regards to age restrictions, mental health restrictions, convicted felon restriction, etc. etc. on gun ownership.

It is also irrelevant that "assault weapons are not for hunting". Even given the ridiculous concept of "assault weapons" which regulates largely cosmetics, the 2nd amendment is not a hunting amendment. It's a right to keep and bear arms - for self defense as well as hunting.

There is no evidence that the assault weapons ban was "effective". Crime has continued to drop MARKEDLY since the assault weapons ban was repealed. And there is no noticeable difference in the rate of its drop from before it was imposed to after. It was a useless piece of legislation, it was classist (it significantly raised the price of grandfathered "assault weapons" etc. such that they were more difficult for the poor to own but no problem for the rich), and it is a good thing it is gone

[ProgressiveProfessor]

15. Mostly poorly and incorrectly.

[PavePusher]

51. With hunting-legal magazine, you can hunt just fine with so-called "assault weapons".

In fact, they come in a variety of calibers that are ideal for hunting various game.

What's the problem?

[rl6214]

63. Bold are Dionne's quotes

I guess I should have made that clear(er)

[PavePusher]

66. Oops, my bad. I think I'm also trying to do many things at once.

I can multi-task up to three seperate items, after that, I start to lose detail...

Edit: And I hadn't actually looked at the O.P. referenced article yet. All clear now. Dionne's an idiot.

[gejohnston]

67. wrong on all counts

But he was wrong, most likely given bad information. Current laws are common sense
The NRA does not nor have they believed in unimpeded and unregulated. They supported most of the federal gun control laws on the books including National Firearms Act of 1934, Federal Firearms Act of 1938, and Gun Control Act of 1968.

The statement is demonstrably false.
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/Abstract.aspx?id=158081
http://www.law.nyu.edu/ecm_dlv2/groups/public/@nyu_law_website__journals__journal_of_legislation_and_public_policy/documents/documents/ecm_pro_060716.pdf

"Assault weapon" is a propaganda buzz word created by Josh Sugarmann so people will confuse semi automatic rifles with machine guns. His quote:
Assault weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully-automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons –anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun– can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. — Josh Sugarmann

Here is another one:
"In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea . . . . Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation." Charles Krauthammer

The goal of the leaders HCI and Brady do want bans, but stopped publicly saying that when they figured out that it is not politically feasible.

We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily -- given the political realities -- going to be very modest. . . .we'll have to start working again to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen the next law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we'd be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal -- total control of handguns in the United States -- is going to take time. . . . The first problem is to slow down the number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition-except for the military, police, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors-totally illegal.

Pete Shields, founder of Handgun Control, Inc. which is now the brady campaign

"Brady Bill is "the minimum step" that Congress should take to control handguns. "We need much stricter gun control, and eventually we should bar the ownership of handguns except in a few cases,"

Rep. William L. Clay D-St. Louis, Mo

I think you have to do it a step at a time and I think that is what the NRA is most concerned about, is that it will happen one very small step at a time, so that by the time people have "woken up" to what's happened, it's gone farther than what they feel the consensus of American citizens would be. But it does have to go one step at a time and the beginning of the banning of semi-assault military weapons, that are military weapons, not "household" weapons, is the first step."

Stockton, California Mayor Barbara Fass

"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal." U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, December 1993

"I am one who believes that as a first step the U.S. should move expeditiously to disarm the civilian population, other than police and security officers, of all handguns, pistols and revolvers ...no one should have a right to anonymous ownership or use of a gun." Dean Morris

[rl6214]

75. who is wrong on what counts

Not quite clear from your post what you are trying to do.

[gejohnston]

85. Still on first coffee cup

and forgot to follow the map. To answer your question, whoever thinks Dione is correct.

[DissedByBush]

120. How many lies can there be in a few paragraphs? n/t

[benEzra]

143. Rifles are the least misused class of weapon in the United States. Period.

From the FBI (UCR 2009, Table 20, Murder, by State and Type of Weapon):

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_20.html

Total murders...........................13,636.....100.00%
Handguns.................................6,452......47.32%
Firearms (type unknown)..................1,928......14.14%
Other weapons (non-firearm, non-edged)...1,864......13.67%
Edged weapons............................1,825......13.38%
Hands, feet, etc...........................801.......5.87%
Shotguns...................................418.......3.07%
Rifles.....................................348.......2.55%

And that's for all rifles combined, not just the small-caliber modern-looking ones.

As to magazine capacity, over-10-round magazines have been common since the 1860's and 1870's. Outlawing standard factory magazines for the most popular civilian pistols and rifles in the United States is hardly a modest proposal; you are talking about banning and/or confiscating a quarter-billion highly prized items owned by roughly 40 million likely voters. You'd have a far easier time outlawing hunting, which would only affect 13 to 16 million...

[DonP]

10. OK, which of the 4.4 million members do you want to beat up?

Above all else, the NRA is it's membership. Right now it's between 4.3 and 4.4 million voters, not counting their extended families that are usually like minded.

Now, which of them do you want to bully next year and piss off again?

That worked so well for us in '94 listening to a loudmouthed, proudly ignorant tiny group that pushed congressional Dems into barely passing a so called assault weapons ban, when the majority had no idea what they hell they were even voting for. Their ignorance of the issues cost us dearly.

A big chunk of them weren't around to vote on anything after that. Thanks to that handful of loudmouths we lost control of both houses for over a decade. What's your brilliant fucking plan this time?

Besides, the President recently agreed with NRA on the correct interpretation of the 2nd amendment in his Op Ed. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for a big round of gun control initiatives from him.

You're barking up the wrong tree sparky.

[VoteProgressive]

18. I imagine 80% are extreme right wing, but NRA does not release stats. nt

[rl6214]

21. That's because I don't think they care

I have NEVER seen, in any of the literature they have sent me, any questions asking what my political affiliations are.

Do they have a political arm of their organization? Most definately do.


Attached is one of their questionaires.

http://www.redcounty.com/content/patricia-lighner-releases-nra-questionnaire-survey-answers-reveal-strong-views-support-2nd-a

[Bold Lib]

141. Interesting questionnaire. Thanks for the link. n/t

[Upton]

11. Yawn...

more authoritarian bullshit..

What about the Democrats who belong to the NRA, or Democrats running for office that are endorsed by the NRA...are they all "bullies" too?

You want to stand up for something? Try standing up for the Bill of Rights..the ENTIRE Bill of Rights..

[Starboard Tack]

24. What does the Bill of Rights have to do with bullying?

[Upton]

26. The only bullying going on..

is in the imaginations of you and E.J. Dionne...who btw is about as relevant as a 60 yr old turd.

[rrneck]

30. It keeps the government from becoming a bully. nt

[Starboard Tack]

31. What does that have to do with NRA bullying?

[rrneck]

44. Exactly how is the NRA bullying anybody? nt

[X_Digger]

32. Not giving poor EJ what he wants is bullying?

[hack89]

35. "Resonable" gun control that infringes on the 2nd Amendment

is the issue here. The NRA is supporting civil rights.

[Starboard Tack]

56. Yes, and Mussolini eradicated malaria by draining mosquito swamps

And Hitler built the autobahns. Even bullies sometimes pose as benefactors. That's how they suck in the bystanders and turn them into backslappers and sycophants.

[Glassunion]

60. Aaaaaand..... Godwin's law. Fin!

[Starboard Tack]

64. Nice try. Not even close to Godwin's Law

I'm pointing out that even bad people sometimes do good things. I am not impugning anyone's beliefs or comparing the NRA to Nazi Germany. I am making analogies about the tactics of bullies and bullying.

[rrneck]

65. You haven't established

that the NRA is doing any bullying yet.

edit for clarity

[Starboard Tack]

73. Did you check this NRA propaganda site

http://www.gunbanobama.com/
I think it speaks for itself. If you have trouble correlating this with bullying, then I suggest you research it.
Bullying is when a person or group repeatedly tries to harm someone who is weaker or who they think is weaker. Sometimes it involves direct attacks such as hitting, name calling, teasing or taunting. Sometimes it is indirect, such as spreading rumors or trying to make others reject someone.

[rrneck]

76. Who is being bullied? nt

[one-eyed fat man]

115. How about this Obama site?

http://obama.3cdn.net/84b2062fc4a5114715_ftxamv9ot.pdf

"As a long-time resident and elected official of Chicago, Barack Obama has seen the impact of fully automatic weapons in the hands of criminals. Thus, Senator Obama supports making permanent the expired federal Assault Weapon Ban."

Read that again, "FULLY AUTOMATIC WEAPONS in the hands of criminals" are a problem he proposes to solve by banning guns that are not fully automatic and not in the hands of criminals.

Again, how much more directly or more plainly can he say he wants to reinstate a ban on semiautomatic weapons by implying they are machine guns?

There can only be two explanations for making that statement. It was a deliberate attempt to deceive people who don't know the difference. Or he is inept and doesn't know the difference himself. Deceit or dumb-ass, take your pick!

"Having seen the impact of apples in the hands of criminals he supports a ban on oranges."

You have to wonder about the sincerity his recent conversion, "Now, like the majority of Americans, I believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. And the courts have settled that as the law of the land."

That's a far cry from the desperate damage control in Pennsylvania after his closed door remarks to a bunch of rich West coast donors in 2008 became public. Many were left with the impression that he had accused people in rural places and small towns of being "bitter" people who "cling to guns."

[Glassunion]

71. Closer than you would think...

"The NRA is supporting civil rights."

To which you compared...

"Yes, and Mussolini eradicated malaria by draining mosquito swamps"
and
"And Hitler built the autobahns."

"Even bullies(NRA, Mussolini and Hitler) sometimes pose(supporting, eradicated and built) as benefactors(civil rights, malaria and autobahns). That's how they(NRA, Mussolini and Hitler) suck in the bystanders and turn them into backslappers and sycophants(fascists and Nazis)."

A+B+C = Godwin's Law

[Upton]

62. You've been asked several times..

but as far as I can tell, you have yet to provide any proof of bullying.

The NRA is doing nothing but representing their constituency, which includes Democrats as well as Repubs,..you have a problem with that?

[hack89]

96. So who exactly are they bullying? And how? nt

[Abq_Sarah]

114. Thank you

It's a sad day when anyone who defends the BOR is characterized as a "bully" to score political points.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

14. Even inside the beltway E.J. Dionne is not taken seriously

He is a classic example of the dinosaur media clanging away and claiming they are relevant

[Starboard Tack]

36. Oh no! Not taken seriously inside the beltway?

Let's inform the Washington Post.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

39. They are already well aware of it...look at it's financial statements and retrenchments

[Starboard Tack]

59. You certainly live up to your sigline

[ProgressiveProfessor]

101. Now if you would only do the same

[Starboard Tack]

103. Oh, I do! That's why I put it there

[VoteProgressive]

17. The NRA is a right-wing group that need to reach out to dems! na

[Starboard Tack]

48. Why would they want to do that if they are right wing?

Their bullying tactics are anathema to Democrats. They totally embrace and promote the politics of fear.

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[gejohnston]

72. Brady does't?

Please, don't make me laugh. That is all they do.

[rl6214]

78. Same old tired shtick

YUP

YUP

YUP

[X_Digger]

94. Like Brady tried to bully starbucks?

*snort*

[DonP]

50. Disagree, the NRA is a 2nd amendment group that reaches out to anyone that supports it

The problem is not with the NRA, they have shown support for local and state office candidates with a D behind their name. You don't write that many checks for 5 figures to that many candidates just to "look fair" if you really oppose them electorally.

The problem is IMHO, we don't have any strong "D" supporters at the national level for them to embrace. No one is strong enough to take on that challenge yet. The president's recent Op Ed was a start., but only a first step.

We have a lot of people here that think the party and its principles began the day they decided they were liberal/progressive. Years ago (40's - '60's) the party was not for gun control. It wasn't even on the radar. Roosevelt, Truman, had no interest in it, Kennedy was an NRA life member IIRC. Hell, Eleanor Roosevelt had a CCW. Gun control is a relatively recent concept. Once in a while we get people in the party that are dead wrong on something, like the old racist "Dixiecrats" that thankfully finally gave up on the rest of us and became the Southern branch of the GOP.

We've had a bunch of people down here make specious claims for years that the NRA wants everyone to have a gun anywhere etc. When we've challenged them asking for a single cite, from any original NRA source, showing us the actual NRA positions we get crap like; "Well, they never say that kind of thing out loud in public, they do that in secret at lobbying lunches". (I'm not making that up, we actually had someone claim they do all their real work in secret. But if its that secret how do they know about it?)

[gejohnston]

74. when the subject come up

before the 1960s, it was from the right. In fact, the founders and management of Brady et al are right of center.

[VoteProgressive]

98. Wow, I have to repeat this 1000 times here....

You do not have keynote speakers of Cheaney, Palin and Huckabee unless you WANT to piss off Dems. No respectable would attend a NRa national meeting with those asswipes speaking.

I am new to this forum and pro-gun but too many here are brainwashed by the NRA.

[DonP]

110. I'm more concerned with the money candidates can use to reach voters ...

... than I am about who they get as a speaker at an event.

Keynote speakers, at least in my opinion, aren't as big a deal as what $20,000 from the NRA can buy in terms of ads or printing for a candidate in their own district. That money used at the grass roots is what puts people in office. Speakers get applause, not votes.

Or are you suggesting that no Dem should accept any money from the NRA-ILA because of who they have speak at a meeting?

[VoteProgressive]

133. No, but if the NRA had a dem pro-ccw speaker I think there would be a revolt! na

[DonP]

146. IIRC they had Zell Miller and John Dingle as speakers a few years back and there was no revolt

Miller had just retired or was about to retire and I know there are a lot of people that don't think he was a "real" Dem, but that's what he ran as very successfully for decades.

They have had John Dingle at a few meetings as well (MI -15th) at one point I think Dingle was either on the board or considering running for it.

I don't think there would be a revolt, that's stereotyping too many gun owners that belong. We just still have major party figures that think gun control is still a winning issue. A high profile Dem at an NRA meeting or in an article supporting CCW on a national basis would more likely get a standing ovation. (Of course around here they would be instantly villified for it by people that don't know better).

The NRA does support more GOP than Dems now, but that's because of the public stance they take and/or their actual voting records on the 2nd amendment not their party.

If they were really "party based" in their support they wouldn't support any Dem. In each of the past few elections, the number of Dems they support, with cash, has gotten bigger as we get farther from the failed AWB. I may be a cockeyed optimist, but I think that trend will continue. As more of our newer people gain power I think there will be a shift away from the old, and now failed, gun control policies and we may get back to where we were in the 60's where gun control was more of a GOP idea to keep "those people" in their place.

[VoteProgressive]

147. But the choice of such extreme right speakers mean they are not making any....

attempt to attract Dems. I would never attend their meeting with those asswipes speaking.

[DonP]

149. I guess I never thought of Dingle as "extreme right" but YMMV

Anyway their goal is not to attract, or repel, Dems. It's too attract people that agree with them on the 2nd amendment and that alone, be they D, R, G or I.

[VoteProgressive]

150. I disagree. If you want wide level of support, you reach out to others.....

If the ACLU wanted GOP supporters you do not invite Michael Moore or Nancy Pelosi.

There has to be a guy like Jim Webb who would help the NRA cause.

[Atypical Liberal]

52. Good luck.

I'm a member of the NRA. They are the largest, most powerful firearm-rights organization around. They also represent Democrats. In the last election, all of my Democratic candidates except one received high marks from the NRA. Three of them were the NRA-endorsed candidate. You can see my ballot in my sig.

The simple fact of the matter is this: Even if every single violent crime were committed by a gun owner every year, firearm-related or not, it would still mean that 97.5% or more of firearm owners aren't involved. They can't be. There aren't enough violent crimes to go around the 40-80 million firearm owners.

People are just not going to tolerate attempts to stop firearm-related violence by doing things that infringe on the rights of the 97.5%. We are not going to allow the actions of criminals to be used as an excuse to curtail the rights of everyone else.

If you think you can fight the NRA on this, you're wrong.

Since 1986 we've gone from hardly any states allowing concealed carry to now all but two, and soon Wisconsin is going to allow it also. It's only a matter of time before Illinois follows the rest of the nation.

Since 2008 we have had two landmark Supreme Court cases, DC. vs. Heller and Chicago vs. McDonald that have affirmed that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, and it has been incorporated to the States under the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment. This means the States can't abrogate the right.

Laws are pending right now that will ease restrictions on where and how people are allowed to carry concealed firearms.

The winds of change are blowing hard, and they are blowing against you.

Now let's look at the article:

"What Obama endorsed were, well, baby steps toward strengthening background checks to keep guns out of the hands of "dangerous criminals and fugitives" and those who are "unbalanced." That's a fine idea, though his specific proposals -- "enforcing laws that are already on the books," "reward the states that provide the best data," "make the system faster and nimbler" -- were hardly the stuff of political courage."

Interestingly, this is precisely what the NRA endorses - keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals and mentally-ill people. The NRA is simply going to insist that you do these things without restricting the rights of everyone else.

"And the president's tender approach was promptly met with a slap in the face from the National Rifle Association's Wayne LaPierre: "Why should I or the NRA go sit down with a group of people that have spent a lifetime trying to destroy the Second Amendment in the United States?""

Well of course. Do you think the NRA is going to help craft legislation to curtail the rights of firearm owners? Given the track record of President Obama and his top advisers?

"Excuse me, but gun-safety advocates don't "need" to accept that most gun owners are responsible. We always have, as the president sort of acknowledges later in his piece.

Well if "gun-safety advocates" accept that most gun owners are responsible, and always have, then why do they want to pass laws that affect them?!?

This, right here, betrays the true motivations of the "gun-safety advocates" like Dionne. The simple fact is that they don't care if most people who own firearms use them responsibly. They want to restrict firearm ownership for everyone in an attempt to stop those who use firearms illegally. It's just that simple: They are very very willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater. In fact, they want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Well, that's why you will continue running up against people like me who pay dues to the NRA.

"It was a bolder Obama who said in 2001: "I know that the NRA believes people should be unimpeded and unregulated on gun ownership. I disagree." Crisp, clear, and right."

Except it's not right. The NRA has always held that neither criminals nor the insane should have access to firearms. We just aren't going to allow you to restrict the rights of everyone else in an attempt to restrict the rights of criminals and insane people.

""Assault weapons are not for hunting," Obama said in 2004. "They are the weapons of choice for gang-bangers, drug dealers and terrorists." Right again."

Except for being a weapon of choice for such people, each year, according to the FBI's UCR data, more people are killed each year from hands and feet than from all rifles combined, let alone assault rifles. Rifles, especially assault rifles, are hardly ever used in crime.

But this is beside the point. The second amendment is not about hunting. It's about having a civilian population armed with small arms appropriate for infantry use. Civilian assault weapons are precisely the kind of weapon the second amendment is designed to protect.

"The first statement is a wild distortion of the position of actual advocates of sane gun laws. They are not seeking "sweeping anti-gun legislation." They are pushing tame steps LaPierre and his lobbyists reject -- thorough background checks and a ban on those big magazines. Yes, restoring the highly effective ban on assault weapons would also be good. But that's Obama's own position. Isn't it?"

Sorry, Mr. Dionne, but any legislation that affects the 97.5% of law-abiding firearm owners, the ones that you agree are responsible firearm owners, is, by definition, "sweeping anti-gun legislation". If you try and pass legislation that affects everyone just for the sake of a few, that is "sweeping" legislation, and I'm not going to stand for it.

[Starboard Tack]

102. Sounds like you've totally bought into their garbage

The NRA does not represent Democrats. They are fear mongers and hate mongers and have no interest in seeing Obama or any liberal in the White House. They hate Obama. He could offer them free ammo for life and they'd still kick him.
The NRA poses as a single issue organization to suck people in. We can keep our guns without buying their bullshit. Selling fear, untruths, gossip, innuendo, finger pointing are all tactics of bullies and their toadies.

[rl6214]

105. The NRA represents gun owners

They only object to a liberal in the WH because of the traditional anti-gun stance the liberals take.

"The NRA poses as a single issue organization"

The NRA IS a single issue organization, hence the RIFLE in their name.

NRA=bullies...The new shtick of the anti crowd?

[Starboard Tack]

108. First of all, I am not part of any crowd, pro or anti

I have no problem with hunting rifles or shotguns. Handguns are debatable and definitely unacceptable in certain environments, like classrooms. I keep 2 at home, where they belong, for emergencies
Bullying, on the other hand, is very real and when used by people or groups for political purposes is insidious. It has been used over the centuries to incite fear and hatred of those who do not kowtow to their dicta.

[rl6214]

109. So any group or organization that uses political pressure

to achieve the stated goals of their organization, are by your definition, bullies?

[Starboard Tack]

116. If they sell irrational fear by lies and intimidation to achieve any goal - YES

BTW the stated goals of the NRA are here
http://www.gunbanobama.com/Default.aspx?NavGuid=99ac1df3-2e0b-454c-a039-dffd66849533&SiteGuid=c63367a2-996a-422c-9afd-0d6f49a0ca86

[rl6214]

118. Please tell me which of these are lies and which are intimidation

•“Do you support state legislation to … ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes.” (Independent Voters of Illinois/Independent Precinct Organization general candidate questionnaire, Sept. 9, 1996
•“I’m consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry.” (Chicago Tribune, April 27, 2004)
•“I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities and that our leaders must say so in the face of the gun manufacturers lobby.” Barack Obama, The Audacity of Hope (2006).



•Obama voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sports shooting. (United States Senate, vote no. 217, S. 397, July 29, 2005)
•Obama voted to uphold local gun bans and the criminal prosecution of people who use firearms in self-defense. (Illinois Senate, SB 2165, vote 20, March 25, 2004)
•In his only two votes on confirming Supreme Court nominees, Obama voted against two of the five justices (Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito) who later affirmed an individual right to keep and bear arms in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller.

[Starboard Tack]

128. If you support what the NRA is doing I have nothing more to say to you

Vote for the guy or gal you want in the WH. That is your right.
I

[rl6214]

131. Uh Huh

That's what I thought.

Have a good one.

[Starboard Tack]

135. U2 nite nite. You guys are tough. I'm exhausted.

But as Arnold said, "I'll be back!"

[GreenStormCloud]

137. You ducked the question.

First you accused the NRA of lying. Then when the NRA accusations were backed up with Obama's own statements and voting record your ran away. Haven't you learned by now that we on the pro-gun side KNOW what we are talking about and are ready with the facts to rebut your accusations. That's why we are winning so often. We have facts. You only have emotions and moral pretense.

[beevul]

145. You'd think they'd have learned by now, wouldn't you?

"Haven't you learned by now that we on the pro-gun side KNOW what we are talking about and are ready with the facts to rebut your accusations."

You'd think they'd have learned by now, wouldn't you?

But they haven't. And they don't. And they wont.

Note how they all blame the right wing, or those on the ussc who are right wing.

Then its the nra "bullying" ...whomever.


Examine their history, rhetoric, methodology, etc, and it becomes clear as glass - they are incapable of self examination where this issue is concerned.

Every time.


Ever seen the movie "kung pow: enter the fist"?

Remember the "my face to your fist" technique that wimp-lo employed against the chosen one?

Thats the ant-gun lobby M.O., and SOP right there.

[Atypical Liberal]

106. I guess you missed this part.

The NRA does not represent Democrats. They are fear mongers and hate mongers and have no interest in seeing Obama or any liberal in the White House. They hate Obama. He could offer them free ammo for life and they'd still kick him.

I guess you missed this part of my post:

In the last election, all of my Democratic candidates except one received high marks from the NRA. Three of them were the NRA-endorsed candidate. You can see my ballot in my sig.

The NRA poses as a single issue organization to suck people in.

The NRA is a single-issue organization! The reason the oppose President Obama is because of his past record concerning firearms rights. Yes, fortunately he has been quite silent on the issue since he took office. No doubt he realizes the political damage that supporting restrictions on the second amendment will cause. No doubt he has been briefed about how since he was elected firearm and ammunition sales have skyrocketed.

But there is no disputing his past record on 2A issues, nor his stance on the assault weapons ban while he was running for office, nor the record of his top advisers. Very few people believe that President Obama has had a change of heart concerning the 2A. He simply finds it politically impossible to act against it.

I'm curious which facts I posted that you disagree with.

[Starboard Tack]

111. I'm not here to defend Democratic candidates who were endorsed by a

right wing organization. I can only assume it was politics as usual and they opted to back slap the bullies. We all know how that goes. I don't vote for those guys. Obama is our president and IMO a damned good one who is trying to get this country back on it's feet, against all odds. And I find it inconceivable that any Dem would support a fascist organization, like the NRA has become; an organization that wants to stop him being elected at all costs. You can't be on both sides of this issue.

[Atypical Liberal]

148. More on the NRA

I'm not here to defend Democratic candidates who were endorsed by a right wing organization. I can only assume it was politics as usual and they opted to back slap the bullies.

I don't know what "back slap the bullies" means.

The NRA endorses candidates, including Democratic candidates, who support the right to keep and bear arms. It is that simple.

I don't vote for those guys.

Well I do.

Obama is our president and IMO a damned good one who is trying to get this country back on it's feet, against all odds.

I voted for Obama because I believed in his message of hope and change. Change from the Republicans who are deeply in bed with corporate interests, who talk a good game on firearm freedom on one hand while suspending habeus corpus on the other, while engaging in extraordinary renditions, while engaging in pervasive domestic surveillance, declaring people to be enemy combatants, and more.

Sadly, as it turns out President Obama has not followed through on much of the hope and change many of us were hoping to see. He has continued many of the Bush-era polices that we hoped to see done away with. Frankly at this point I'm pretty disillusioned with him. I am left thinking either he was lying all along or when he got into office he found that the corporate entrenchment is so deep that he could not fight against it. Still, we are probably better off than we would be under a Republican president with now a Republican congress, who could have totally run off to the right unopposed.

I figured that the second amendment would not be an issue for Obama, and thus far it has not been - it is an issue he cannot afford to touch.

And I find it inconceivable that any Dem would support a fascist organization, like the NRA has become;

I fail to see how an organization that stands up for a Constitutional right can be considered "fascist". Unless, of course, you consider our Constitution itself to be fascist.

an organization that wants to stop him being elected at all costs. You can't be on both sides of this issue.

Sure I can. I vote for Democrats with high marks from the NRA where I can. I'll vote against anyone with low marks from the NRA where I can. I voted for President Obama in spite of his NRA rating because the alternatives are worse, and because I don't think he can touch the second amendment.

[PavePusher]

125. Cite your evidence...

or for fucks sake quit whinging.

[GreenStormCloud]

84. That article had a load of lies. Let's look at some of them:

large gun magazines, which would almost certainly have saved lives on that January day in Tucson
That extended capacity magazine that he used caused a jam after the 31st round, which enable him to be jumped as he was clearing the jam. If he had used standard capacity magazines he could have reloaded in less than two seconds. The VT killer and the Luby's killer both reloaded several times. E.J. stupidly thinks that once the magazine is empty that the shooter is done.

I know that the NRA believes people should be unimpeded and unregulated on gun ownership. I disagree."
It is sad that Obama said that, because it isn't so. The NRA help craft the current NICS system and supports it being made more effective. The NRA supports keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, mentally unfit, and other undesirable categories.

Assault weapons are not for hunting," Obama said in 2004. "They are the weapons of choice for gang-bangers, drug dealers and terrorists."
Again sad that Obama said that. AR-15 pattern guns in more powerful hunting calibers are popular with hunters. Gang-bangers, and such don't really care for so-called assault weapons because they are too big to easily conceal. In fact more people are killed by hands & feet than by so-called assault weapons.

They are not seeking "sweeping anti-gun legislation."
Total bullcrap. That is exactly what they are seeking. We have seen the legislation that that were going to try for after the '94 AWB. We have seen H.R. 1022.

restoring the highly effective ban on assault weapons
It was completely ineffective. The only thing that got banned was some cosmetic features on some guns. The gun makers simply changed the cosmetics to comply with the new law and continued to sell the same guns. The gun-banners went nuts screaming that the gun makers, by complying with the letter of the law exactly, were in fact evading the law.

Neither is the NRA a bunch of bullies. They are an organization of voluntary members who have united for the purpose of protecting their 2nd Amendment rights. Being effective in that exercise of democracy is not being a bully. In election after election voters have spoken and they have spoken against greater gun control and for expanded rights for gun owners.

BTW - Obama's expansion of gun rights was only as a rider to a must-pass credit card reform bill. To get the reform he had to accept the guns in parks. Now he is trying to crow about it.

[Atypical Liberal]

89. This is an excellent point. ORGANIZING IS NOT BULLYING!

Neither is the NRA a bunch of bullies. They are an organization of voluntary members who have united for the purpose of protecting their 2nd Amendment rights. Being effective in that exercise of democracy is not being a bully.

This is a fantastic point. Organizing and Unity, whether for labor or for legislative action, is not bullying. It is the RIGHT of the people to organize and unite themselves into groups that enable them to speak more powerfully than they could as individuals. That is the whole POINT of organizing and forming unions.

The right to organize to influence policy is an extremely progressive value.

[GreenStormCloud]

87. Do you feel that anybody that effectively disagrees with you is a bully?

Do you believe that anybody that beats you in election after election does so only because they are bullies? Face it. Your position of greater gun control is not accepted by most people of most states. Look at the map of the spread of shall-issue states. Those states have gone shall-issue because the VOTERS of those states demanded it, and retired politicians that opposed them.

[Starboard Tack]

90. Well thanks guys!

I guess you made my point once again. Off for a cup of tea now. Chat among yourselves for a while.

[rrneck]

92. Feel free to flee. nt

[rl6214]

93. No "point" was made

Exactly the opposite.

[GreenStormCloud]

121. Because we posted FACTS you accuse us of being bullies?

The article you posts had numerous lies. We exposed those lies. So you accuse us of being bullies for exposing the lies. Sounds like you have a problem with the truth.

[krispos42]

95. Are the bullies the pro-gun or the anti-gun side?

Because I see the anti-gun side has having a gun-free ideal that lacks popular support and is in significant part an open attack on freedoms and constitutional rights.

[Starboard Tack]

112. This thread is about NRA bullying

not about pro or anti gun. It's about a fascist organization that wants to take down our president over a single issue. That's what fascists do. They gather around a single issue to dominate others by bullying, fear mongering, intimidating others and embracing tools of violence. The don't use weapons as a last resort. They wear them as a badge of honor. They don't respect weapons as most on this forum do. They flaunt them.
Why would anybody with a sense of decency defend this organization?

[rrneck]

113. This thread may or may not be about bullying

but the NRA is about making money. Just like the VPC.

Washington runs on money and politics is a contact sport.

Your umbridge is as misplaced as are your principals.

[Starboard Tack]

117. Right

Except I don't have any principals, just principles.

[rl6214]

119. That's it, that's all you've got left

You've got to resort to correcting spellings,contractions or other grammatical errors?

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[Starboard Tack]

130. Good night and good bye! It's been fun

[GreenStormCloud]

122. Where does telling the truth fit in those principles?

That article was loaded with lies.

[rrneck]

126. And what are they?

[Starboard Tack]

129. Honesty, integrity, not giving in to bullies and not bullying others

[rrneck]

132. Beautifully elliptical

What makes you think the NRA is trying to bully you?

What makes you think groups like the VPC aren't bullies?

[Starboard Tack]

134. Nobody is bullying me

How can the VPC be considered bullies? Now you're being absurd. I thought you were one of the rational ones. Come on man, let's not go down that path. You've explained to me before why you carry. I respect your choice. Peace

[rrneck]

138. I dont carry.

What we have are two lobbying groups swinging constituencies like a club. It's not bullying,it's just politics.

Granted those kind of politics leave a lot to be desired.

The issue, at its base, is about people needing to defend themselves and millionaire's are quite content to line up and make money from that. The only bullies are the rich. It has nothing to do with guns.

[GreenStormCloud]

136. Honesty is NOT one of your principles.

If it were, you would not have posted an article so full of lies.

[GreenStormCloud]

124. The NRA does not promote any economic theory.

They have only one interest and that is the defense of 2A freedoms. They do not take a stance on any other issues. The organization is voluntary. They do respect weapons as proven by the fact that they have gun safety courses.

As for wearing them as a badge of honor. What makes you think that guns should be hidden away as if they were shamefull to own?

I defend the NRA because they defend my freedom to own guns. Without them guns would already be outlawed.

I also defend them because so many attackers, such as yourself, readily resort to untrue statements.

[krispos42]

127. Lots of groups want to see presidents go down over a single issue

That's not the point. And I think most organizations use fear-mongering; it's a handy and powerful lever to use when you want to move the electorate in one direction or another. Healthcare, taxes, torture... fear-mongering is used to influence the debate and the voting population.

And if they're single issue, then there's not a lot to bully on. "Hey, if you support this bill we're going to fight you" isn't exactly bullying if they stay on point.

Okay, if they start hiring out their NRA muscle to mobilize votes for non-gun issues (like, say, tax breaks for millionaires) then yeah, they're turning into bullies.



They're effective because the issue strongly and directly affects gun owners and weakly and indirectly affects non-gun owners. The former is likely to get very involved when laws negatively affect them, while the latter simply doesn't get that excited about how hard it is to buy a gun because... they don't own guns.

[benEzra]

144. The NRA comprises roughly 4 million gun owners out of 80 million.

Ten times that number, roughly 40 million, own so-called "high capacity" magazines. 20+ million own so-called "assault weapons", e.g. the dominant civilian target rifles and defensive carbines in the United States.

The problem is that a lot of the people calling for "taking on the NRA" want to attack U.S. gun owners across the board, including the majority who aren't NRA members. Most gun owners don't hunt; the most popular civilian guns are the nonhunting ones that the prohibitionists wish to ban.