I just got the wackiest call from the NRA

[eggplant]

It had a great recorded message from Wayne LaPierre about how the UN is going to come and take away all of our guns and that the best way to stop this is to make Obama a one term president. It asked how I felt about the UN coming to American soil and trying to take away our guns.

It was so completely over the top I had to stifle my laughter when a human came on at the end to solicit me. Instead, I had a friendly, very one-sided conversation with her. I made it clear that while I am concerned about any real threat to take away my guns, could she name any point in time where the current administration had made any effort of any kind to restrict my 2nd amendment rights? And then when she tried to get back on point about the UN being a big evil orgnaization, I said that the UN is free to do whatever they want, and we simply don't have to sign the treaty. Moreover, that the *STATES* have to ratify the terms and that it isn't up to the president whether we sign the treaty or not.

She spluttered for a bit and went on about how she wasn't allowed to comment about her own personal views, so I went on about how I think that if the threat is actually real, then it is a serious thing, but that when someone tells me there is a boogyman out there, I'd like to see some evidence that the boogyman really exists before I give my money and my vote.


Wow, just wow. the NRA is really over the top on this one.

[obxhead]

1. They called me a few months ago.

Obama is going to take your guns message followed by a real person.

I did the same thing as you essentially. Told him I was concerned about our firearm ownership laws etc.

Then I asked him if he could give me one solid example of Obama saying he wanted to take away our guns so I could inform my friends and family with solid evidence.

He promptly thanked me for my time and hung up on me.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[eggplant]

2. I know it isn't true about the states ratifying it...

...but she didn't know that...

It is a fair argument to make, though -- the Senate has to sign off, and senators represent their individual states -- but it doesn't make the call any less outrageous.

[LAGC]

3. It's shit like that that makes me very reluctant to join the NRA.

I'm very pro-gun and agree with most of their legal actions trying to defend and expand our rights, but some of their scare-mongering and paranoia for fund-raising is just way over the top, especially considering that Obama hasn't done shit to curtail our rights, except arguably appointing two anti-gun justices to the SCOTUS.

The problem with the NRA is they are a one-issue organization. They'll support the devil himself if he happens to be pro-gun. I take a broader view of our civil rights, and heavily support the ACLU. While I'm disappointed the ACLU doesn't stand up for the Second Amendment as it does for all the other parts of the Bill of Rights, its not like the ACLU actively supports or promotes anti-gun politicians, they just remain neutral on the topic. But the NRA, on the other hand, they'll support all sorts of asshole anti-gay, anti-women, freedom-hating Republicans and not think twice.

Sometimes you need to step back and look at the broader picture. It's not worth sacrificing a bunch of other rights just to save one.

[murielm99]

14. Your post could have been my post,

or my husband's. Thanks for saying it.

We have debated about joining, and then we get crazy phone calls, or hear their leadership spouting nonsense. I got this phone call yesterday.

[newspeak]

18. a long time ago, my family belonged to the NRA and

the family is all democrats. The NRA has gone over the bend. I laugh when these nuts, like the nuts in utah think that the UN is going to take us over. I'd say they need to be more worried of global corporations taking us over. When you no longer have a voice when they build a nuclear reactor or drill in your back yard, when you no longer have a voice after they've contaminated your water, when you no longer have a voice, but the corporations do, then this country will be in total fascism mode.

And these same wingnuts who think the un is gonna take them over are the same who have that corporate love affair.

[spin]

34. The NRA does a lot of good for shooting sports but the NRA-ILA wing ...

spreads a lot of propaganda to generate contributions just like the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun violence does.

Therefore I pay my yearly NRA membership fee and throw any literature from the NRA-ILA that arrives in the mail in the trash unopened. I call screen all incoming phone calls and ignore any from the NRA. I've talked to a lot of shooters that have canceled their membership because of the unending solicitations over the phone and through the mail.

NRA, ILA And The NRA Political Victory Fund

The Institute receives some funding from NRA member dues, but its main source of revenue is derived from member contributions designated for legislative activity. ILA is not associated with any firearms or ammunition manufacturers.

All NRA members know the benefits they receive from being part of the pre-eminent grassroots lobbying organization in America. At the same time, many are unaware of some of the important regulations and restrictions that govern NRA’s legislative and political activities, particularly those relating to the segregated nature of fund-raising activities.

The fund-raising that sustains NRA’s legislative activities is conducted by ILA. Federal and many state election laws dictate that funds used to assist candidates for office must be raised separately, and that is the task of NRA’s political action committee—the NRA Political Victory Fund (NRA-PVF). Neither NRA member dues nor contributions to ILA can be used directly for the election or defeat of candidates.

Because of these clearly defined parameters, and because only a small fraction of ILA’s operating budget comes from regular NRA membership dues, both ILA and NRA-PVF must continuously raise the funds needed to sustain NRA’s legislative and political activities. The resources expended in these arenas come from the generous contributions of NRA members—above and beyond their regular dues. emphasis added
http://www.nraila.org/About/PoliticalVictoryFund/

Of course if there ever is a serious threat to my right to own firearms, I will contribute generously to the NRA-ILA.

You can view the programs the NRA sponsors at:
http://www.nra.org/programs.aspx

[tularetom]

4. Now they're pissed off because Obama ISN'T trying to take away anybody's guns

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/nra-claims-massive-obama-conspiracy-not-ban-

I got the same phone call but I never stuck around long enough to talk to the real person..

But your response is exactly what I would have said. I've been hearing this same bullshit from the NRA for 40 years and nobody has ever made a single effort to take even one gun away from me.

Of course I'd be very unhappy if I did but I don't lose a lot of sleep that it's gonna happen.

[Tejas]

11. Don't look now, but...

As a Junior Senator in Illinois, Obama voted against a bill that would allow citizens to possess a handgun to defend their loved ones in their own homes.

Though Obama voted against it, the bill passed, but Governor Rod Blagojevich didn't think folks should be able to defend their lives or the lives of their children in their own homes either so he vetoed it.

The Senate voted to override the veto by Blagojevich, this time a few more senators voted for the bill and it again passed. Sadly, Obama voted against it (again) and was on the losing team (again).

http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/barack_obama_gun_control.htm



Now I know you used the word "isn't" (ie: currently, the present), but please remind me...
when did Obama change his mind about gun conrol?

[Moosepoop]

28. Nice spin, but no.

The bill that Obama voted against did not "allow citizens to possess a handgun to defend their loved ones in their own homes." It would have allowed people who violated a municipality's local gun ordinance requiring registration of handguns to escape prosecution for the illegal gun if they got caught with it by way of using it in defense at their home or business.

http://factcheck.org/2008/09/nra-targets-obama/

The NRA bases this overheated claim on a vote Obama cast on March 24, 2004, in the Illinois state Senate. He was one of 20 who opposed SB 2165. That bill, which passed 38 – 20 and became law, did not make it a crime to use firearms for self-defense, however. Rather, it created a loophole for persons caught violating local gun registration laws.

It states that in any Illinois municipality where a gun ban is in effect, it shall be an "affirmative defense" if the person accused of violating the ban can show that the weapon was used "in an act of self-defense or defense of another … when on his or her land or in his or her abode or fixed place of business."

Letting the owner of a banned firearm escape a municipality's penalty is one thing, but it's another thing entirely to make it a crime to use any firearm – registered or not – in self-defense. The bill came about after Hale DeMar, of Wilmette, Ill., shot a burglar who had invaded his home. At the time, Wilmette had an ordinance that prohibited owning handguns.

Clarification: To avoid any confusion, we've modified this section to make clear the bill would have pertained to municipalities with local gun bans.

The NRA's "overheated claim" referenced in the first sentence of the above excerpt is the claim that Obama plans to "ban use of firearms for home self defense" -- in other words, the same claim you are making now.

[Tejas]

36. His voting record as a Senator stands.

[LanternWaste]

50. And yet I imagine people will interpret that very same voting record...

And yet I imagine people will interpret that very same voting record to better validate their own opinions that "my guns will be taken away..."

[Tejas]

51. So what is the President's take on the UN Treaty?

The UN pretty much used pressure to shut down exports from South Africa and others, will they do the same with the US? Concerning exports, what will Obama do if presented with the same conditions? If he were to go along with the UN, what next?

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

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

[Logical]

6. I have my CCW license and own guns, but the NRA is a right-wing, wacky...

organization. They are extreme right because their membership would RUN AWAY if they started trying to recruit Dems.

They want you scared of Obama because they raise huge amounts of money off the right wing gun nuts.

[Shagbark Hickory]

7. G, G & G.

Never fails.

[Bozita]

8. The USA has one of the five permanent vetoes at the UN

US, China, UK, Russia, and France iirc.

The US could simply veto any such bullshit.

[aikoaiko]

9. At some point the NRA decided to use hyberbole to the same extent as the anti-gun organizations.

And ever since its been an arms race of fear mongering hyperbole.

[Tejas]

10. Senator Jon Tester stays informed, maybe you should try doing so too.

The NRA not withstanding...


Would you deny that the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty exists? Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT) has expressed concern over the threaty, and rightly so.

[eggplant]

12. Yes, I would. At this time, it really *doesn't* exist.

It is something under discussion at this point.

I would also note that "as of September 14 2011, 58 US Senators (45 Republicans and 13 Democrats) have expressed their opposition to the Treaty. This makes ratification of the Treaty in the United States impossible." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_Trade_Treaty)

"The UN General Assumbly resolution starting the process on the Arms Trade Treaty explicitly states that it is “the exclusive right of States to regulate internal transfers of arms and national ownership, including through constitutional protections on private ownership.” No ATT can therefore infringe on that exclusive right." (http://politicsofpoverty.oxfamamerica.org/index.php/2011/07/21/separating-fact-from-fiction-on-the-arms-trade-treaty/)


You'll note that up to this point, I have been careful to avoid expressing my own personal opinion about gun ownership rights, in order to avoid sidetracking the issue. The issue under discussion was the NRA's current absurd "Obama wants to take your guns away" meme.

That notwithstanding, I'll be happy to express my personal opinion (not subject to debate) that the 2nd amendment refers to a collective right, not an individual right -- that we as a a collective people, have the right to defend ourselves. I don't believe that the 2nd amendment explicitly conveys individual gun ownership rights. I think that other, lesser laws, define that right and the rules that regulate it. I think that if the 2nd amendment really was about individual rights, laws which bar felons from gun ownership would be overturned as unconstitutional. And I really would have a problem with that.

[Tejas]

43. For the record, Obama views the 2nd as an individual right.

Not familiar with this website but for what it's worth:

"As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right."
April 16, 2008, Democratic Primary Debate, National Constitution Center in Philadelphia

http://2012.presidential-candidates.org/Obama/Gun-Control.php



As far as convicted felons losing the RKBA (and the rest of their rights), if they're that dangerous then why let them out of prison to begin with? Violent felons yes, others not so much.

[irisblue]

13. me too

i got the same call last year maybe....when the human got on the line i asked her when the United States gave up it's sovereign status? and she knew d%^m good and well she was spouting scare tactics. she hung up on me

[Viking12]

15. I got that call to. Northeast WI.

I too held for the operator and blasted her for the pack of lies. Nothing but fear-mongering for fund-raising.

[lindysalsagal]

16. I saw NRA on my caller ID and laughed, and didn't pick up. I wondered

what that was about!

[JoeyT]

17. Obama's refusal to take your gun is

really a double super secret plan to take your gun according to LaPierre. It doesn't really make sense to me either.

I also didn't bother to educate, since I don't think they're interested in being educated. I just rambled the craziest shit I could make up to see how far I could go before the woman stopped agreeing with me. I ran out of crazy before she ran out of agreement.

[pinboy3niner]

19. You're just in denial about the UN black helicopters that are coming for us next

:sarcasm:

:rofl:

[JoeyT]

22. Oh I mentioned them.

I thought "I've grown up around paranoid right wingers, surely I can come up with something too crazy to agree with.". I thought wrong.

The only time she pulled back from encouraging me was when I insisted that I'd love to give them money, but that's how "they" track you. After all, if the government is going to seize guns that don't need to be registered, a list of NRA donors seems like a pretty easy way to track them down.

[Scruffy1]

20. The NRA is a gun manufacturers lobby and a right wing front group.

Amazing how they dupe gun owners into paying for their lobby. I quit many years ago over the lead shot issue. Month after month they ran articles against switching to steel shot but never used any facts, just unsupported claims. Anyone who gives them a nickel is supporting the likes of Bachmann and Perry. Oh, and you get a really crappy magazine for your dues and the national officers and attorneys get a Mercedes.

[hack89]

21. They support a lot of Democrats

I am a member because they fight for a civil right that is important to me.

If Obama would come.to his senses concerning guns they would.support him too.

[Major Nikon]

23. Poppa Bush was right about the NRA

Just sayin'

[hack89]

27. They protect a valuable civil right - just saying. nt

[Major Nikon]

29. No they don't

Kinda hard to call something a "civil right" that infringes heavily on others' civil rights.

Just sayin'

[hack89]

32. Too bad the Bill of Rights is not ala carte.

what other enumerated rights does it infringe?

[Major Nikon]

33. I see you must subscribe to the Antonin Scalia school of Constitutional law

I don't.

[hack89]

35. So you have problems with the Bill of Rights? nt

[Major Nikon]

37. Since when does your buddy Scalia care about the Bill of Rights?

You're also cornfused about what is and isn't a civil right. Even if you and your buddy Scalia are right about the 2nd amendment (and you aren't) this still wouldn't make it a civil right. Might want to brush up on that next time.

Enjoy!

[hack89]

38. What kind of rights does the Bill of Rights contain?

freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, right to a jury are not civil rights? Really?

So tell me - in the US legal system, where precisely are our civil rights detailed?

BTW - you do understand that in Heller, all nine justices said that the right to bear arms was an individual right? The the dissenters simply disagreed about the degree to which government could regulate the use of guns. But no justice rejected the notion of the 2nd amendment being an individual right.

[Major Nikon]

40. Do you really think misrepresenting what I said enhances your credibility?

Quite the reverse is true, actually.

Even if a right is enumerated in the Bill of Rights, that doesn't make it a "civil right", it simply makes it a legal right (which may or may not be a civil right). Most of the amendments in the Bill of Rights have nothing to do with civil rights. If you want to see a list of civil rights, try reading the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and you'll find some good examples. If you want the easy way out, just check the definition.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/civil%20rights

And no, I don't understand that in Heller, "all nine justices said that the right to bear arms was an individual right" because that's not what happened. Try actually reading the Steven's dissent and the Breyer dissent instead of letting someone else do your thinking for you. You might be enlightened (but somehow I doubt it).

Enjoy!

[hack89]

42. You are right - the proper term is human right

which are made up of civil and political rights. They both serve the same purpose of protecting us from the government.

So the Second Amendment is an individual political right that makes up part of my human rights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_and_political_rights


Why do you think that right in the middle of a list of individual rights, the writers of the Constitution decided to stick a government power? We know that states don't have rights. We also know that the BoR was added specifically to address fears that the government would restrict what were seen as historic rights - they were intended as a limit on government power. So why is it the only non-individual right in the BoR? Why didn't they simply put it in the body of the Constitution where the rest of the the government's powers were listed?

[Major Nikon]

44. A better question is...

Whose opinion you value more, Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, most of whom have been cornerstones of the USSC for many years, or do you value the opinions of Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito, and Kennedy, all of which were appointed by Republican presidents and all but one were appointed with the specific intent of politicizing the USSC? That's not a hard choice for me to make, YMMV.

[hack89]

46. Everyone I admire is also human and capable of mistakes

like this one.

I don't see is as that big a deal as it is hard to see any harm to society coming from it. Secondly, I generally resist the notion that cities and states should have the right to restrict fundamental rights at a local level. Not only did it give us things like the poll tax and other abuses (which led to the resulting FEDERAL Civil Rights legislation) but "states rights" is the preferred method to attack abortion rights and marriage equality. As an American, I feel my Constitutional rights should not differ depending on where I live. Is this really an unreasonable expectation?

[Major Nikon]

54. Wow! 4 of the most respected judges on the court all making the same "mistake" eh?

Sorry, doesn't pass the BS test.

[hack89]

56. OK nt

[newspeak]

25. it's too bad they don't fight for all civil rights

I didn't see them protesting the patriot act-oh, but they can still have guns, so it makes it okay. Habeas corpus, posse comitatus-nothing to see here, I still got me a gun. And with the technology they have today to neutralize crowds, what good are guns unless you're shooting people who don't agree with you? I'm not saying I'm against gun ownership, but for the right reasons. If they believe in some big government or UN conspiracy, we've got technology now that can disable anyone with a gun. The NRA panders to paranoia, which to me, is very dangerous.

[hack89]

26. The right reason for any civil right is "because."

I don't have to justify exercising a civil right. If the government wants to restrict it, they have first justify their restriction and then make sure they can pass Supreme Court strict scrutiny standards.

The NRA is a single issue group. I count on other groups like.the ACLU to protect my other rights

[Major Nikon]

30. So why are they attacking the UN?

Do you actually think taking the position that the UN is going to take everyone's guns away is reasonable, or even sane?

[hack89]

48. It is actually a shot across the bows of US politicians

the treaty has yet to be negotiated and the US will be the key player due to their dominant role in the production and export of small arms. Implementation of the UN treaty will call for certain standards for member state in regards to domestic production, record keeping and tracking. The NRA is simply warning the negotiators to stay in the box and don't implement any rules that touch on domestic sales and registration of civilian guns - they are forging a club to beat any US politician that gets stupid on the issue.

[Major Nikon]

53. That's not within a cab ride of what they are saying

Here it is, right from the creme-de-la-batshit-crazy LaPierre himself:

"So, after we are disarmed, the U.N. wants us demobilized and reintegrated," says the NRA's executive vice president, Wayne LaPierre, according to the Economist magazine. "I can hear it now: 'Step right this way for your reprogramming, sir. Once we confiscate your guns, we can demobilize your aggressive instincts and reintegrate you into civil society.' No thanks."
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_10/012395.php

This same loon wrote a book on the subject, no doubt filled with equally psychotic bullshit.
http://www.amazon.com/Global-War-Your-Guns-Destroy/dp/1595550410

It's a simple straightforward question with a yes or no answer, and I'll keep asking until you answer it.

Do you actually think taking the position that the UN is going to take everyone's guns away is reasonable, or even sane?

[hack89]

57. I personally don't think the UN will take our guns

I personally don't think the UN will take our guns - fortunately the UN is weak and powerless. I am certain many US gun grabbers will try to use the treaty to implement domestic gun control measures.

It is unfortunate in many respects that people like LaPierre are the face of gun rights. But the NRA is the only effective organization for protecting my 2nd Amendment rights. The fact that they routinely endorse Democrats allows me to look past LaPierre's rhetoric - I wish that there was a left leaning civil rights group that didn't feel that some rights are less important then others but there isn't. They are also the largest gun safety organization in the country whose programs are responsible for significantly reducing the number of gun and hunting accidents. I also feel that it would be hypocritical for me to blast the NRA yet take advantage of their work.

[Major Nikon]

58. Thanks for an honest answer

[Major Nikon]

24. Once the UN gets your guns, they'll be after your bibles

[_ed_]

31. NRA = corporate front backed by stupid gun nuts

NRA membership is tantamount to watching for black helicopters or thinking the UN is coming to take your guns away. NRA members are just selfish gun nuts who simply don't give a shit about anyone else.

[AndrewP]

47. Ding ding

You've got it

[Tejas]

52. Please control your ignorance, the NRA endorsed the Brady Act.

[BiggJawn]

39. I like "American Rifleman"

But after trying to read Wayne LaPierre's columns in a few back issues I picked up at a garage sale, all I can say is that boy needs to be locked in a room with padded walls and supplied with Thorazine like tic-tacs.

I'd like to get back into the sport, but I'm afraid somebody would "accidentally" plug me at the range if they found out I was a Liberal.

[spin]

41. Wrong. You might take a lot of razing ...

but shooters who regularly frequent ranges are very friendly and welcome other shooters despite their political views or their race.

Yes, the majority are conservative. That in it no way means they hate liberals. They welcome all shooters to enjoy their hobby and will be more than willing to help you become proficient at shooting if you show some interest and are not totally obnoxious. They may disagree with your views but they are happy that you support the right to keep and bear arms.

Of course, my experience has been limited to the ranges that I have shot at in the Tampa Bay area of Florida. Other areas of the nation may differ, but I doubt it.

I've met a large number of very well educated and intelligent individuals at the range. Many are professionals and hold responsible positions in a variety of occupations or run their own businesses. Many have college degrees or advanced technical education.

Most are not fond of the very liberal members of our party who would impose draconian gun laws or ban and confiscate firearms. This is understandable as such people enjoy shooting as a hobby and many have a considerable amount of money invested in their gun collections. But many also are upset at the Republican party as they often favor the rich and the big corporations.

If you are serious about getting back in the sport, I would suggest you do so. You might find some of the humor of the people who attend the ranges on a regular basis offensive as well as their views on Obama, but you have absolutely no reason to fear that anyone would "plug" you at the range. That is a merely a myth generated by some liberals who love to call all shooters red necked conservative mouth breathing racist fools in order to further their agenda. That concept is totally false in my experience.

I'm sure that some people who do own firearms are indeed racist and ultra religious as well as ultra conservative. However, the shooters that I have met on the range who enjoy and participate in shooting sports have been far different. They come from a broad spectrum of society and some are rich and some are poor, They have one thing in common, their love of the sport of shooting. You might be surprised that the fact that you are interested in shooting is enough to overcome any political views that you hold in the opinion of other regular shooters.

We welcome everyone to our sport and yes, we have an ulterior motive. The more people we can convince that the hobby of shooting is acceptable, the better chance we have of finding political support for our hobby. Shooters are often a one issue voting block. If you enjoy and support the right of civilians to own and use firearms for legitimate reasons such as hunting, target shooting or self defense, we really do not care what other views you hold.

While it is true that some of us would do away with all restrictions on firearm ownership, the majority support truly reasonable restrictions such as already exist in states like Florida. We do support enforcing and improving existing laws.

[slackmaster]

45. Strange. Just a year ago their position was that there was no threat of that happening.

Here's their current POV:

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=7004

[DainBramaged]

49. They own guns, what do you expect......

[saras]

55. I got that call - I couldn't stop laughing enough to notice a person on the other end.

I would not have been nearly so nice had I found a human at the other end of that call. I would have held them personally responsible for everything they're working for, and treated any ignorance of it on their part as the same sort of stupidity as when a burglar, arrested with stolen property inside a broken-into business, claims he didn't know he was breaking the law.

There is stuff that you are morally obligated to refuse to do for a living.