N.R.A. Defender of Freedom or Big Business?
The N.R.A. is often characterised as defending the freedom of U.S. citizens, or defending the constitution. But the organisation happens to be funded by firearms manufactures, and its sponsors and board members are also owners of firearm suppliers, wholesalers and manufactures.
Pete Brownell - Owns Brownells "the world's largest supplier of firearms accessories and gunsmithing tools".
Corporate sponsor ($500,000 to $999,999)
N.R.A. Board member.
Larry Potterfield - Foudner of MidwayUSA (firearms wholesaler and retailer)
Coorporate sponsor ($500,000 to $999,999)
Wife is vice president of the NRA Foundation's Board of Trustees.
Beretta USA Corporation - Firearms Manufacturer
Corporate sponsor ($1,000,000 to $4,999,999)
Springfield Armory, Inc. - Firearms Manufacturer
Corporate sponsor ($1,000,000 to $4,999,999)
Benelli USA Corporation - Firearms Manufacturer
Corporate sponsor ($1,000,000 to $4,999,999)
The list goes on and on.
Yet on their website they say the N.R.A. is "not affiliated with any firearm or ammunition manufacturers or with any businesses that deal in guns and ammunition." link
First of all, that's clearly a lie. Secondly, how can the N.R.A. be considered to be defending "freedom" when it is clearly just defending the interests of people who want to sell guns? Thirdly, is it right that this one organisation be allowed to hold such influence over politicians, policy-makers and laws that affect the whole country?In this country we have decided somehow that contributions and financial support do not affect the actions or attitudes of the recipient. Were it not so we would not allow our politicians to accept gifts or campaign funds from lobbyists or special interest groups.
That's plainly a load of BS. Of course the NRA supports those companies and their goal of selling weapons.
IMHO, though, many members of the NRA (and possibly the power elite at the top) also feel they are defending citizens rights and the constitution. The two are not totally incompatible.
*edit* I missed the "third". You mean organizations like big oil, unions, WalMart or other giant companies, the banking industry and car manufacturers? If we're going to let one special interest group in seems like we should let them all lobby.Trying to prevent restrictions to high capacity clips has nothing to do with the constitution or "freedom", but everything to do with the N.R.A. protecting the profits of its corporate sponsors (and board members). It's claims are evidently false. This organisation is nothing but a corporate front for the gun industry. It's a money making machine that uses "freedom", and the constitution to keep the cash coming in.
Do you think an organisation that opposes a ban on selling firearms to people on the terrorist watch list is looking out for the interests of U.S. citizens? And that opposition is despite the fact that many N.R.A. members agree with such a restriction. How dare they talk of "defending the country". B.S. they are defending their bottom line at the expense of the country.
Many of its "corporate sponsors" are from outside the U.S. and don't give a crap about the interests of U.S. citizens. E.g. Beretta (Italian), Bellini (Italian), Arsenal (Bulgarian), Para (New Zealand), FNH (Belgium), Glock (Austria), SIG Sauer (German). These companies own the N.R.A. For them the U.S. is a market pure and simple, and the N.R.A. is the front they use to control that market. Sure some naive individuals within the organisation may think they are defending freedom and the constitution. Don't be fooled. What they are actually defending are the profits of a bunch of domestic and foreign corporations who look at a map of America and see only: $$$. Meanwhile it's American citizens and their families who pay the ultimate price.You're losing your objectivity and turning your question into a rant about the NRA with patently false statements and insinuations that are probably false as well.
The removal of any right is a reduction in freedom, whether it be the right to eat what you want, dress as you please or own a high capacity ammunition clip. The NRA is thus fighting (if they do - we'll see) for the freedom to own that clip.
The NRA may actually be nothing but a corporate gun front, but there is no indication of that that I'm aware of. Does the top management own or work for gun companies? Are the gun companies in collusion in owning the NRA? Which companies, specifically, and how much stock do they own individually? Does each one in your (unsubstantiated) list own 1% or 20%?
You don't think that removing the freedom of terrorist organizations to buy weapons is a removal of freedom? Even as you know that simply owning too much food will put you on that watch?1. Which of my statements do you claim to be false?
2. You are confusing freedom of choice with rights. A restriction in someone's freedom of choice does not always equate to a reduction of their rights. There are laws, morals, social conventions that restrict your freedom of choice every day. Such restrictions allow a society to function in a manner we call 'civilised'. It is generally accepted in civil society that people cannot do anything they choose to. The fact you cannot take something from a shop without paying (without facing negative consequences) is not an infringement of your rights. It is a restriction in your freedom of choice that helps society function. Not being able to own a high capacity ammunition clip is not an infringement of your rights.
3. "Does the top management own or work for gun companies?" Did you read what I posted at all? Pete Brownell is a member of the N.R.A. board. He is also the owner of "Brownells", the firearms retailer. Larry Potterfield is founder of MidwayUSA and a corporate sponsor. His wife Brenda is the Vice President of the NRA Foundation's Board of Trustees. A large portion of the N.R.A's funding comes from such "corporate sponsorship". Do you think those "sponsors" are likely to want the N.R.A. to do something that reduces their profits in the interests of U.S. citezens? If you do, then you are naive.
All this information is publicly accessible, including information about forighn corporate backers. For example this N.R.A. news release announcing a $1,000,000 "donation" from Beretta USA. Its parent company is the Italian company Beretta Holding, which also owns Benelli. It's all there, you just have to look for it.
4. And no too much food doesn't automatically get you on the terrorist watch list as you suggest. It's just one of a number of things the FBI suggested could be an indicator, in combination with things like making comments that "endorse the use of violence in support of a cause". Even if you did both these things, that doesn't mean you will automatically be placed on a watch list. Unless you have some further information from the FBI, in which case please feel to present it."2. You are confusing freedom of choice with rights. A restriction in someone's freedom of choice does not always equate to a reduction of their rights. There are laws, morals, social conventions that restrict your freedom of choice every day"
Absolutely true - it is not possible to live in conjunction with other people without infringing on their freedoms. That doesn't make it any less of an infringement, though - just a necessary one if we wish society to survive.
Your claim that limiting specific freedoms as a necessity means it is not a loss of freedom is incorrect. Loss of freedom is loss of freedom regardless of the reason.
So far I haven't seen anything indicating that the infringement on the freedom to own high capacity magazines will benefit society. Given that two magazines will carry the same total of rounds and that it takes only a second, 2 at the most, to swap magazines I don't see any advantage to society to limit that freedom. That it will make people feel good to see others lose that freedom is insufficient reason. That it will give a false sense of accomplishment that we're taking effective action in the wake of a tragedy isn't sufficient reason, either. IMHO.That's a misrepresentation of what I said. I actually said: "A restriction in someone's freedom of choice does not always equate to a reduction of their rights", . . . "It is a restriction in your freedom of choice that helps society function." Where is the claim that it's not a restriction of freedom? The point is that certain restrictions of freedom are not an infringement of your rights. What right does not being allowed to own a high capacity ammunition clip impinge?
Regardless, the N.R.A. seems more interested in defending the profits of its corporate backers than your rights. Many N.R.A. members favour certain gun control measures, yet the N.R.A. still lobbies against them. In a choice between what its members want and protecting it's sponsors profits, which do you think is its main priority?
Then you haven't looked hard enough. In April 1996 after a mass shooting in Australia, the Prime Minister introduced legislation banning semi-automatic and automatic rifles, and shotguns. Of course the U.S. and Australia are different countries with different cultural backgrounds, but we should at least be able to get some idea as to whether such action has a generally positive effect, negative effect, or no effect.
This study from the Australian National University, summarised by the Washington Post here, and Slate here, tells us that since the legislation, the firearms homicide rate has fallen 59 percent, and the firearm suicide rate has fallen 65 percent. And that there was no parallel increase in non-firearm homicides and suicides. Read that again, just so you are clear, there was no parallel increase in non-firearm homicides and suicides. This chart shows the change in firearm suicides per 100,000 population in Australia after the legislation was introduced.
It's also important to note there were thirteen mass shootings in Australia during the period 1979–96. During the period since stronger controls 1996–2012 there has been 0. So there is evidence that indicates restricting access to certain types of weapons benefits society. Perhaps you need to look more closely at the issue than you have."What right does not being allowed to own a high capacity ammunition clip impinge?"
The right to free association, and property rights.I don't think there's a Constitutional right to manufacture,sell or own an assault weapon or a high capacity magazine. Congress could ban the manufacture, sale or possession of these weapons tomorrow.
What is an "assault weapon?" Isn't any thing used as a weapon the means of assault?
Are you trying to be cute? I don't play that game.
It's a reasonable question, Ralph. I keep asking it too, as I don't know what it means, but haven't gotten an answer yet.
Is it any semi-automatic weapon? Then a .22 "short" pistol is an assault weapon, doubly damned because it can hold as many as a dozen rounds. Technically even a gas powered BB gun fits that definition!
It's to the point I begin to wonder if it isn't intentionally left open simply to give the opportunity later to take any (or all) guns away.Who has said anything about taking any guns away?
"Assault weapon" is a political phrase not a clearly defined thing. It is "new speak" the entire intent of which is to obfuscate not clarify. Apparently there are games in which you would be a willing participant so long as the correct political party is defining the language. Just so long as Emmanuel Goldstein is the villain.
I'm not especially interested in the constitution, I'm interested in natural property rights and right to free association. Rights are not granted by constitutions, only protected (in theory).
VERY VERY IMPRESSIVE! AND ENLIGHTENING SO THERE IS A WAY TO STOP ALL THIS MADNESS IF PEOPLE REALLY WANTED TO!
Then you haven't looked hard enough. In April 1996 after a mass shooting in Australia, the Prime Minister introduced legislation banning semi-automatic and automatic rifles, and shotguns. Of course the U.S. and Australia are different countries with different cultural backgrounds, but we should at least be able to get some idea as to whether such action has a generally positive effect, negative effect, or no effect.
This study from the Australian National University, summarized by the Washington Post here, and Slate here, tells us that since the legislation, the firearms homicide rate has fallen 59 percent, and the firearm suicide rate has fallen 65 percent. And that there was no parallel increase in non-firearm homicides and suicides. Read that again, just so you are clear, there was no parallel increase in non-firearm homicides and suicides. This chart shows the change in firearm suicides per 100,000 population in Australia after the legislation was introduced.
http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/upl … 772517.jpg
It's also important to note there were thirteen mass shootings in Australia during the period 1979–96. During the period since stronger controls 1996–2012 there has been 0. So there is evidence that indicates restricting access to certain types of weapons benefits society.How very odd. Check the graph at the top here:
http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html
It shows a near constant homicide rate from 1993 to 2003, when it began to fall somewhat.
If, as you say, gun homicides decreased 59% while overall homicide did not fall at all, it would seem to give a lie to the idea that non-gun homicides did not increase.
In addition, as the number of homicide victims decreased after 2004 slightly but the number of homicide incidents fell tremendously, it would seem to indicate there were more victims per incident; mass killings increased when guns were taken away.
At least I can see no other answer - can you (or anyone else)?
Don W.
Other activities that might make you suspected of terrorism include 'paying with cash' and 'holding anti-government views'. It's not hard to build up a combination of activities that could place you on a watch-list. It seems to me more like an 'anti-government' watch list than a 'terrorist' one, and yes, it is a restriction of rights.
You're massively confused on this issue. Laws against theft are not violations of rights because one does not have the right to steal. One does have the right to own whatever clip size you want. The act itself does not infringe on any other. If we're assuming that an individual has the right to one's self, we have to assume that they have the right to engage in any voluntary association with a willing individual, and trade with them with justly owned property. The only thing one does not have the right to do is commit an act of aggression against another, even if you're part of government. Prohibition is aggression, a violation of individual rights, and should be out of the question.Sorry but the issue is to important to use as a way of disseminating Libertarian nonsense. Being entrenched in ideology so you only see things through the lens of that ideology is an idiotic approach to any issue. A pragmatic approach is what's needed on the issue, not a childish, regurgitation of ideological dogma.
So you're coming from the perspective of ideology-less bliss are you? Is there anything especially wrong with holding to an ideology if the ideas within it are sound? Or is it only okay to have an ideology when the issue is not important?
Is there anything in my post that you can refute using logic instead of name-calling?No - the soundness of ideology is immaterial. What matters is only that yours agrees with the posters. So far that's what I've seen in all these discussions on gun control/ownership anyway.
Of course. 'Pragmatism' now means: agree with me even though it violates your values.
One of the main lessons we have learned about ideology, a lesson which draws on evidence from throughout history, is that 1) a single ideology is seldom ideal for every condition and state of affairs, and 2) when people act as though it is, ideology quickly descends into blind dogma.
I do not believe it is beneficial for groups or individuals within society to adhere to a single ideology, or to any ideology. Such adherence very quickly becomes entrenchment, which results in those same groups or individuals refusing to take action for the good of society, not on the grounds that those actions would not be beneficial, but on the grounds that they do not adhere to the principles of their ideology.
Within the process of making group decisions for the benefit of society, i.e. politics, the criteria for action must be the benefit that action brings to society. To determine what actions would be beneficial we must enlist the help of the brightest minds, the most exceptional innovators, the most gifted entrepreneurs, the most talented artists and all the other talent that exists in society. Not fall back on a formula for action, which is what ideologies are in their essence. Each action must have its own solution, not a formulaic one. At times the best solution will fit some ideology or other. At times it won't. At times the best solution will be clear. At times it wont. And that's when we must be prepared to compromise.
Entrenchment in ideology is the enemy of compromise. Not only does it blind our decision makers from seeing beneficial actions, it also reduces the political forum to a battle of ideologies that weakens our ability to make group decisions and actions for the benefit of society. The ability to make such decisions and actions is the reason d'etre of the political apparatus.
So I have nothing against ideology per se, only the blind loyalty it engenders. I care not if an idea is libertarian, or capitalist, or communist, or any other variety. I care only that it works to the good of society. But if you give me an ideology, as if its principles represent the best course of action in every situation, I will tell you that a single ideology is seldom ideal for every condition and state of affairs. You did, so I have. This issue needs ideas, not ideologies.Let’s start with definitions and keep these in mind as we address what you have said.
The Oxford English Dicitionary lists ‘Ideology’ as “1 .a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy
archaic the science of ideas; the study of their origin and nature.”
You present two ‘lessons’ about ideology:
a single ideology is seldom ideal for every condition and state of affairs”
when people act as though it is, ideology quickly descends into blind dogma.
You’re suggesting with 1. that there are numerous valid ideologies, and it’s a matter of changing them depending on the situation. First I would like to point out that later you say “this issue needs ideas, not ideologies.”, somehow arguing for and against an ideology in the same sentence. Look at the definition. An ideology is simply an application of ideas. But here and later you’re suggesting that it would be preferable not to have an ideology at all, which I will address in a second.
With 2) you’re unfairly attributing blindness to ideology instead of blindness itself. For what is wrong with an ideology that is arrived at through reason? We can, using reason, change our ideology again, if we’re open to it. Those with an emotional connection to inconsistent ideology will abandon reason to defend it, but this is not a statement on ideology, it’s about reason, and lack of it.
For how is it possible not to have an ideology? You’re displaying one yourself in your preference for “the benefit of society”. There we go, there’s your ideology: decisions must be made for the benefit of society. This is perfectly fair, but it is not always clear, so in addition, you need a framework of ideas to ascertain “the benefit of society”. You also wish to “enlist the help of the brightest minds, the most exceptional innovators, the most gifted entrepreneurs, the most talented artists and all the other talent that exists in society.”, which is also a declaration of ideology. Presumably people wish not to do these things, which is another ideology. It also requires an ideology to ascertain which of the populace are ‘the brightest minds’ and most ‘exceptional innovators’, as I’m sure we all have a different idea of which is which.
So when you are talking about “compromise”, you are really talking about the violation of ideology. I’ll explain how using the current issue:
It looks like there’s a movement to ban assault weapons with a certain size clip. To the prohibitionists, who in an ideal world would really like to ban all guns, it looks like they are making a compromise. They appear not to be in favour of repealing the 2nd amendment, so in turn it appears like the gun-owners are the ones being stubborn. This can only appear this way when you look at the anti-prohibitionist side as being gun-nuts who just like their guns. “I like guns” is not a particularly rational nor consistent ideology, so banning certain clip sizes would not violate that ideology. Libertarians, on the other hand, are against prohibition as a rule, whether its guns, drugs, prostitution or twinkies, as it is a violation of property rights and free association. Now, if they were to go ahead and allow the prohibition of assault weapons with large clips, they would not be making a ‘compromise’ but violating their values to their core. We would go from being libertarian to a prohibitionist in an instant.
And we’re not just being stubborn. There is a reason we think this way, and it’s based on reason and evidence. We see that prohibition is an act of aggression, and since the non-aggression principle is our governing one, of course we are going to be against all prohibition. Prohibition is wrong - that’s why we won’t budge. Rape is wrong. Murder is wrong. Whether these acts are done ‘for the good of the people’ is immaterial. They’re wrong in and of themselves.
I will go right out and say it: I think everyone should think like me. I do. I’m right, and the prohibitionists are wrong. There’s no two ways about it and there is no compromise that could possibly be reached. I have a very rigid ideology and unless you actually want to persuade me how I’m wrong and not batter me with “the good of the people” cliches, which I’m completely open to (believe it or not), you’re not going to persuade me of your ideology - the ideology of prohibition. There are two differences with me and the prohibitionists in this regard:
1. I have the intellectual honesty to admit I have an ideology, and not trying to give the illusion that I don’t by asking for ‘compromise’, which really means that I want people to agree with me.
2. The application of my ideology would not violate anybody’s rights
The prohibitionists want to force their ideology “Large clip sizes should not be in the hands of the average citizen” on to the population. Libertarians, even if they agreed with that statement, do not want to take the clip sizes using force. Prohibitionists cannot defend homosexual relations on private property, for instance, on the basis that even if you disagree with it you have no right to force them not to. What they need to do then is make a distinction: gay relations = good, large clip sizes=bad, which is enforcing a particular ideology on to the population, even if it is arrived at through the best minds and innovators.
But you don’t think you have an ideology, which is pretty incredible. By declaring any ‘should’, you are putting forward an ideology whether you like it or not. You're putting forward the ideology of prohibition, which is a pretty inconsistent ideology.
What exactly is this area of non-ideological bliss, as I asked in my last response? It sounds pretty similar to nihilism: I want you (I’m going to force you) to stop being ideological (to abandon your values), and make a compromise (and agree with me).Not entirely appropriate. Given the context, I think it's obvious this discussion relates to political ideology. While that definition vaguely refers to political theory and policy, it does not include some elements specific to political ideology. So, to be clear, I will be using ideology as shorthand for political ideology.
That's incorrect. I'm suggesting there are numerous valid ideas. Ideas pertain to some ideology or other. The principles of a single ideology seldom allow for all ideas
which are helpful for a given situation. Due to the initial misunderstanding, the rest of your point is a straw man argument.
That's also incorrect. I am fairly attributing blindness to ideological entrenchment, not to to ideology. Again due to the initial misunderstanding, the rest of your point is
a straw man argument.
That's a single rational principle not an ideology. One single principle does not meet the definition of ideology you yourself present. Neither does it meet the definition
of a political ideology. See OED definition of principle: "a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behaviour or for a
chain of reasoning".
No, you simply need an agreed method. That method is not based on any idealised notion. It is based on whatever has proven most effective.
No, its simply using a method that has proven to be effective. If a different method proved to be more effective, then that would be used instead. The method to be used is neither preconceived nor doctrinal.
Loaded statement. Neither the above principle nor disagreeing with it, are ideologies. While all clashes of ideology must entail a disagreement of views. Not all disagreements of view must entail a clash of ideologies.
It simply requires agreement of terms, i.e. what does "brightest" mean, etc. You and I may agree a definition, but that does not mean we have employed, or require any ideology.
Therein lies the problem. The assumption that being against prohibition will always, under every circumstance be the correct position to adopt. That rule is not based on
any proven practical merit. It is a theoretical notion, an idealised notion that has no grounding in the real world.
The problem is that some Libertarians are so attached to the idealised notions that constitute their ideology, that it becomes part of their self-identity. So compromise is not only a violation of their values, but is also felt as a betrayal of themselves. This added significance is one of the things that prevents compromise in some adherents of both religion and ideology. In the case of ideology, this is ideological entrenchment. As I said such entrenchment is the enemy of compromise, which your comment illustrates.
When in reality, both these labels are exactly that. Just labels, that should not hold any significance whatsoever.
Unless that idea comes with a multitude of caveats, and provisos, it's absurd (and potentially barbaric given some circumstances). And if it does come with a multitude of caveats and provisos, then it's not a very applicable rule.
Which is why Libertarianism has nothing useful to offer.
There is no wrong or right, i.e. correct/incorrect. Within the process of group decision making there are actions that are helpful and actions that are unhelpful in achieving whatever goals have been defined by the group (based on whatever set of parameters exist in a given scenario).
Straw man argument. The principle I've mentioned is not an ideology, therefore there is no 'illusion' and no attempt to create one.
Loaded statement. The idea to control access to certain ammunition clips and weapons is neither an ideology, nor does it violate anyone's rights.
That's not an ideology, it's an idea.
Determining what is "good" and "bad" is a matter of morality. Determining what is helpful or unhelpful in achieving a defined goal, is simply a matter of observation. It's also unlikely the so-called 'prohibitionists' share the same moral values, so an application of morality would not work.
Definition of pragmatism
noun
1 a pragmatic attitude or policy:
ideology had been tempered with pragmatism
2 Philosophy
an approach that evaluates theories or beliefs in terms of the success of their practical application.
(OED)For brevity I’ll make the general argument that I feel responds to a lot of what you’ve said: your aim is for the best people to come together to work solutions for the good of society. My view is that to ascertain “good” and “best”, which are value judgments as opposed to empirical ones, it is necessary to hold a consistent ideology, as this is the area in which morality operates. Due to this, this “agreed effective method” needs an ideological framework also. The argument from effect can never be consistently applied, because actions may have different degrees of benefits for some parties, and negatives for others. If you’re saying “benefitting most people, most of the time”, this is getting somewhere close to an ideology, but it’s still not consistent. The argument from morality is the only argument where you’re going to get close to ‘should’ and ‘should not’, which is entirely what the Libertarian anti-prohibitionist argument is: “thou shalt not commit aggression”. But you’ve revealed something that gets to the real argument we’re having here: “There is no wrong or right, i.e. correct/incorrect.”. Are you denying morality? You seem to acknowledge it in your last point but reject it for ‘helpful’ and ‘unhelpful’ actions, so I’m a tad confused.
Why deny morality in societal decisions? Slavery is a very cheap way of producing cotton - it was extremely ‘effective’ for the white majority that bought and sold it. But it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.
“The assumption that being against prohibition will always, under every circumstance be the correct position to adopt. That rule is not based on
any proven practical merit. It is a theoretical notion, an idealised notion that has no grounding in the real world.”
Practicality is not what libertarians are primarily interested in (though we believe libertarianism is infinitely more practical than statism), we’re interested in what is right. ‘Morality’, the ‘should’ and ‘should not’, is universal, the same in all circumstances, otherwise it doesn’t deserve to be called ‘morality’. Caveats and provisos can’t be part of morality, because part of the definition is ‘universal’. We don’t need to assess it using the ‘brightest minds’ or through democracy, if we’ve already arrived at that decision using reason. If you have a problem with this, then your problem is not with ideology but with morality.
“Compromise” is not something I rate when it comes to my fundamental beliefs. Compromise is good with general convenience, helping people get along without violating anybody’s rights, but not when it comes to ‘violate your values or bust!’. The biggest problem with congress is not that they don’t compromise enough, but that they compromise far too often on things that are destructive and immoral. Despite ‘many reservations’ Obama had with NDAA, he passed it to ‘make a compromise’. That’s the citizenry’s basic civil liberties violated thanks to ‘compromise’. I’m sorry, but I’m not going to compromise by letting the state have the ability to indefinitely detain citizens without trial. It’s just wrong.
“Which is why Libertarianism has nothing useful to offer.”
I don’t know what you’re referring to here. Quotes would be helpful.
In addition, I would like you to respond to my original point about prohibition violating individual rights, in particular, right to free association and property rights.
“If we're assuming that an individual has the right to one's self, we have to assume that they have the right to engage in any voluntary association with a willing individual, and trade with them with justly owned property.”
I was responding to your argument that banning certain clip sizes would not be a violation of rights. How can it not?Can't see the quotes referenced before each point? Switch to 'Chronological' view. If you are already in that view, then there is a technical issue.
I've moved the discussion to a new thread about political ideology as the topic of this thread is the N.R.A's dubious motives and shady practices.
I haven't posted your last response. Feel free to review it in light of seeing the quotes referenced, or keep as is. I leave the choice to you. Either way (re)post it on this thread:
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/107632
The candidates supported by NRA, in addition to supporting candidates who toe the NRA line, also tend to be conbsertvative on a variety of other issues. They dovetail with Grover Norquist's objectives and those of the Koch brothers and the Tea Party.
Wow, The NRA of which I am not a member is supported by gun manufacturers. I hope they support all business big and small.
Is this apple a fruit or a desert? These things are not mutually exclusive.
I AGREE 100% and these are enlightening facts to know and be aware of! Thank you!
I AGREE 100% and these are enlightening facts to know and be aware of! Thank you!
I AM REFERRING TO THE TOP POST SINCE IT DID NOT PUT MY COMMENT IN THE PROPER PLACE. THIS:::
The N.R.A. is often characterised as defending the freedom of U.S. citizens, or defending the constitution. But the organisation happens to be funded by firearms manufactures, and its sponsors and board members are also owners of firearm suppliers, wholesalers and manufactures.
Pete Brownell - Owns Brownells "the world's largest supplier of firearms accessories and gunsmithing tools".
Corporate sponsor ($500,000 to $999,999)
N.R.A. Board member.
Larry Potterfield - Foudner of MidwayUSA (firearms wholesaler and retailer)
Coorporate sponsor ($500,000 to $999,999)
Wife is vice president of the NRA Foundation's Board of Trustees.
Beretta USA Corporation - Firearms Manufacturer
Corporate sponsor ($1,000,000 to $4,999,999)
Springfield Armory, Inc. - Firearms Manufacturer
Corporate sponsor ($1,000,000 to $4,999,999)
Benelli USA Corporation - Firearms Manufacturer
Corporate sponsor ($1,000,000 to $4,999,999)
The list goes on and on.
Yet on their website they say the N.R.A. is "not affiliated with any firearm or ammunition manufacturers or with any businesses that deal in guns and ammunition." link
First of all, that's clearly a lie. Secondly, how can the N.R.A. be considered to be defending "freedom" when it is clearly just defending the interests of people who want to sell guns? Thirdly, is it right that this one organisation be allowed to hold such influence over politicians, policy-makers and laws that affect the whole country?.
- ahorsebackposted 11 years ago
0The N.R.A, has as little ,as much or more influence as ANY other P.A.C.., If you were to trace the money back from any one of these lobbyists , you would find the same thing ! The N.E.A. , the AFL-unions , the NFL. Any political action commitee ! They all influence by bullying politicians ! To demonize them over say , the national assoc. of municiple workes ,or of the organization of nuclear scientists is wrong !
BUT "A HORSE BACK " THOSE ORGANIZATIONS ARE NOT KILLING POEPLE ARE THEY??????
The NRA is not killing people. No organization is necessary for that ancient human pursuit. After all it wasn't the club that killed Able, it was Cain.
The NRA needs new leadership. Wayne LaPierre's rant proposing armed guards in every school indicates he's afflicted with what organizational behaviorialists call "trained incapacity" which is inability of a leader or executive, by virtue to his previous training or experience, to respond to changed circumstances. His rant this week wasn't what gun owners or manufacturers, no to mention the country needs, in my opinion.
KUDDOS TO THAT RALPH! I BELIEVE THAT TOO!
And Ralph , niether is the niavitee' of suggesting eliminate the guns and it will elliminate the killing ! Oh and heres something to ponder , do you really thing the gun owners would just hand them over without a civil war breaking out ?
As far as I know, there are no serious proposals that anyone be required to hand over their weapons. Senator Feinstein's proposal is prospective.
The NRA , which I belonged to for years and have since the nineties not been involved , is a PAC. thats all , and like all of them simply plays on the fears of gun owning constituants and reaps incredible profits to do this . Yes they do need a new leader ! One more effective in raising the awareness that guns arent the real issue here at all but that human nature and the complete lack of the public involvement and awareness in mental health problems ! AND to better inform the public that our legal system is in America is in a cronic failure mode ! Our court systems , penal systems and the revolving doors of justice are broken ,warn out and useless ! Senator Fienstein ! is a freak of nature in a political uniform ! Ralph ! Where do we go from here though ,really ?......:-}
Indeed. The N.R.A. are doing incredible damage to the cause of sensible gun owners. The organisations seems to serve no useful purpose other than to increase the profits of its corporate sponsors. The fact that a relatively small organisation can exert such political influence is troubling.
I agree with your logic in this Don W. Sadly however it is not such a "small" organisation. It is huge way too big and powerful with lobbyists that have unending pockets and blank checks that they use to get what they want. Just another word for bribes (in other countries).
- ahorsebackposted 11 years ago0
The simple fact alone that the elimination of guns [impossible] is the issue here shows the absolute inability of you all to act in a reasonable and real way to stop tis kind of idiot son from doing in a group of innocents ,at all ! Its also obvious that the anti gunners here have probably never even picked one up in thier hands . I have been a hunter and recreational target shoooter my entire life . I have witnessed hundreds of people firsthand , maybe thousands of men ,women and yes -even younger teens handle , shoot and enjoy guns. I have also spent thousands of hours shooting archery in tourniments , in 3/D video hunting , and at fixed targets strategicaly place on coarses through woods and field coarses , Not once have I ever witnessed anyone go off the wall and shoot anyone . Let me ask you this ! .....Why do YOU allow the armed protection of your president , govenors , congress and even mayors , your soldiers ....but not your children ?
Personally I don't believe in guns period, after living in societies where there are no guns and no need for them. People will and do find a way to kill each other without guns. However guns = money and make that BIG MONEY and GREED in America as sadly with so many other "things". I know how to shoot, learned at a private all girls summer camp that Judy Garlands "other" daughter Lorna Luft and sister of Liza Minnelli attended with me. They got us all to sign that paper to join the NRA for life. We were too young to know what we were doing or the full ramifications of it. Now I do know, have formed opinions about gun violence and I choose NOT to have a gun. Not that I am a "hothead" but too many people and things in this society in America can push your buttons no matter what they be and I'd kill some people for sure!!! Yep sure would! And I am an RN with extensive education in mental health. But the truth IS the truth. Some people do not deserve to live! Ever looked into the eyes of the man who sexually molested your child? I have; there IS evil in this world and sadly the courts do not always dish out what is the deserved outcome. Then there is the other side where too many cops shoot and kill first. Oh you don't hear about all of them on the nightly news do you! If you think only 34 people a day die in America from guns you are gullible. So you can not say only these people "should" have guns and those people should not; as there are people of all races, creeds, colours, states, locations and beliefs that should NOT have guns and sadly there is no sure way to ensure that these people do not have them except for NO ONE TO! Since life can not go back sadly for the good of mankind, due to gun=money=lobbyists=greed=more money=power; it may just "go back" to the wild wild west days where everyone had a gun and shot anyone they wanted to "faster than the next man" could shoot and kill him. It certainly seems like the NRA folks want that. I see a woman with a gun on her hip in jeans not looking very ladylike, then there are the pink guns, and I see two 16 yr. olds who were able to buy legal guns from a gun shop who killed their friend with one. Then I see two hi-way patrol police in Texas doing body cavity searches ON THE HIGHWAY of two women using the same glove for throwing a suspected marijuana cigarette out the window. If these women had not agreed to the search they so easily could have been shot. I think I have experienced it from all sides and thus have decided I am AGAINST ALL GUNS.
- ahorsebackposted 11 years ago0
So eliminate guns ! Yea go and write up a law or bill that says "there will be no more guns " and watch the crime rate explode ! And the death rate won't drop either , because as you say "some people deserve to die " ,what you gonna use your car , a bus , a tractor ? Eaugggff ! You guys will NEVER get it . Its human nature to kill another ! Not the guns nature !
Still does not make it right! I chose NOT to kill with my bare hands the man I caught who sexually molested my 8 yr. old daughter! You don't need a gun to kill but the ONLY purpose of a gun is to KILL nothing else. Case closed.
Yes "ahorseback" I am an RN with a BSN. We nurses are entitled to opinions thoughts and beliefs too. We also have experiences in life that colour our thoughts and actions but It does not mean we begin killing patients wily nilly that we don't think deserve to live or for what ever reasons the gun people kill on a daily basis with their guns however! I was HONEST in what I said. Obviously you could not handle HONESTY coming from what you view nurses to be in your mind. Real nurses do not live in Soap Operas.
- ahorsebackposted 11 years ago0
Actually I love honesty -! More so than most people by far , thats really in fact, the only reason i get into some of these forums ! I dislike it when people pick on the underdog ! And YOU are doing that in this issue ! You say you're an RN , very nice !Seriously , you chose a life that is in sevice of people . thier health , well being etc. As a RN. how many times have you seen or heard of or perhaps even been involved in filing false reports of death or accidental injuries from actual health care . I KNOW that happens , the nurses , doctors and entire health care system gets away with ' accidental homicide -accidental death - neglectful death every day in America, Here's your question -Please answer honestly - do you or have you ever "covered up ' for another in your daily R.N.reports ? ! Dont give me this crap that it never happens either . IT does ! Does that then mean we should outlaw R.N.s......? Hmmmm? Lets get real about the illusion that Guns are wiping out whole societies any more that R.Ns, are ! You like honesty !? Here's honesty
The year 2000 in The USA , deaths to children under 18 .......statistics = NCHS
National Childrens Health Studies ------
-174 accidental . firearm deaths
- 2000 children died from abuse alone .
-1236 from drowning
-1946 from fires
-1242 from gun homicides
-6466 auto accidents
-23,094 ----natural causes !!!!
-238 accident electricutions , falls , etc
-1,580 from sufficution
-1,621 from TEEN SUICIDES
-2, 523.......SIDS- alone
Now ! You and many many others here like to attack law abiding gun owners like myself , sportsman , recreational target shooters , antique appreciating replica owners, and even women who want to defend themselves! ......And you dont care about stepping on any innocent toes to get your internet forum cookies off . So answer this honestly ---how many of the above numbers of child deaths are you and your Health Care System responsible for ?....Dishonesty ? Theres plenty of that to go around too ! How about YOU ? Are you disshonest in your daily reports , have you ever contributed to the numbers above , ........because apparently your accusing me of that ! - ahorsebackposted 11 years ago0
Be nice to end the blind immature RANTS by anti- gun nuts , but then we'd have to put an end to blind immaturity as well .....I just don't have that power ..........,sorry ! I notice though that many many forum ranters don't like facts though !
Related Discussions
- 46
Do you support a universal ban on military & assault "like" weapons for non mili
by SEXYLADYDEE 11 years ago
Do you support a universal ban on military & assault "like" weapons for non military individuals?Do you believe that only the military needs assault "type" guns? And that "non military" personal use gun purchases should have access to bullet clips with a maximum of...
- 78
Is there a conspracy by Wall Street, Big Business, and Insurance
by junko 13 years ago
To cause the President to fail? Is that why Big Business is not hiring and sitting on all that money? Why is Health insurance covering less and costing more? What's more important to the Nation and American people Jobs or who's president?
- 160
Religious Freedom?
by American View 11 years ago
Ernest Istook once said “While even pornography is protected as free speech, the courts have consciously undermined religious speech and freedom of religion for years. ”Is he right, and thoughts?
- 29
Do we really have freedom of speech?
by irachx 6 years ago
Do we really have freedom of speech?
- 37
Where do Rights come from?
by ga anderson 4 years ago
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." – Preamble to the Declaration of Independence of the United...
- 107
Supreme Court Decision - Bakers Rights Upheld.Due To His Religion
by Sharlee 6 years ago
My question - In general, how do you feel about the right to religious freedom being used in this specific Supreme Court decision? Does one have the right to discriminate due to a religious belief? The Supreme Court ruled today in favor of a Colorado cake baker who refused to make a...