NRA Is A Week Loud Mouth Association

1. 65

   LucidDreamsposted 10 years ago

   Why fear the NRA? There is no need. They are like the bully who will cry if you actually fight back. If the NRA wants to continue to have some say in this political world, they need to straighten up and start offering up some solutions and constructive ideas or just go away for good!
   
   See video and laugh at their so called power!
   
   http://egbertowillies.com/2013/01/10/ra … nra-video/

   replyreport
   1. 82

      Don Wposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      It's only interested in the profits of its corporate sponsors. Case in point. The person the N.R.A. has put in charge of  its 'task-force' for looking into the idea of armed guards in schools, Asa Hutchinson, also happens to be a director of the private security and training company, Securitas: 
      
      "At a no-questions press conference in late December . . . Wayne LaPierre announced a bold new multibillion-dollar proposal to end school shootings: Put an armed security guard or police officer in every school in the country. LaPierre commissioned a special task force to develop the plan, and deputized Asa Hutchinson, a former Republican congressman from Arkansas and director of the Drug Enforcement Agency under President George W. Bush, to head the effort.
      
      But there's something the LaPierre didn't mention: Hutchinson sits on the board of directors of Pinkerton Government Services, a subsidiary of one of the nation's largest private security contractors, Securitas. And if the NRA's—and Hutchinson's—proposals are enacted into law, Securitas, a firm Hutchinson once lobbied for in Washington, could stand to score big."
      
      http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 … s-lobbyist

      replyreport
   2. 0

      Brenda Durhamposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I am alternately laughing and wretching at Rachel Maddow's fear of Republicans.    Sheesh.   I hope her salary allows for payment to a counselor.   She seriously needs it if she's to be taken seriously as a newswoman or commentator.   As it stands, she's simply a ranting Leftist who's scared herself and trying to scare everyone else.   She's the one who's trying to elicit fear and inject it into Americans.   Every WEEK she shows her own weakness via HER loud mouth.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Paul Wingertposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         What does that has to do with the NRA and gun control? The same can be said to the freak shows on FOX News.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Brenda Durhamposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            Hey, the title of this thread and the original post brought it into it.   My answer was right in line with that.   That's what my post has "to do with it".

            replyreport
2. 60

   Paul Wingertposted 10 years ago

   All they are interested in is protecting the intrests of gun manufacturers and dealers. Their board of directors consists of members from the firearm industry.

   replyreport
   1. 65

      LucidDreamsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Yeah, kind of sad that they are not willing to put forth some real idas that may actually help.

      replyreport
   2. 73

      rhamsonposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      One problem is that with the current media situation I have little faith either side is getting their story out there and if they are is it correctly conveied without the spin from the right or left or the media? I see the point on both sides but the answers seem to sway against the lawful gun owner. That is not to say that some things could be addressed. High volume clips might have some validity in curbing but being there are so many out there now would it make any difference to limit their sale? As far as ammunition is concerned there is no chance that you can get on top of this also. Since Obamas election records sales have been recorded that dwarf and effort to limit sales of it now.

      replyreport
      1. 65

         LucidDreamsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         I can see your point, on the other hand, even with the mass guns and amunition already in circulation, if we don't start doing something, it can only get worse. Starting somewhere is crucial.

         replyreport
3. 65

   LucidDreamsposted 10 years ago

   Good information....no surprise there eh? Kind of like saying the way to stop alchoholism is to make more booze.

   replyreport
   1. 65

      BloodRedPenposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Actually you make a good point. Study the time of Prohibition. When alcohol was illegal alcoholism and crime related to alcohol soared. When it was legalized again the society got a handle on it. Prohibition inspired the economy. People like the Kennedy family made their fortunes running rum from islands. Sounds like an interesting way to inspire the economy. If it worked with alcohol it should work with guns.

      replyreport
      1. 65

         LucidDreamsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         Whatever works and doesn't make things worse is fine by me!

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Paul Wingertposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            Alcohol and firearms are apples and oranges. During the days of prohibition, it was perfectly legal to own a fully automatic machine gun, silencer, and sawed off shot gun. You can thank guys like Al Capone for getting those things banned without special permit (you and I would not qualify for this permit). Since then, how many crimes were commited by the common street thug using a machine gun or silencer?

            replyreport
4. 65

   LucidDreamsposted 10 years ago

   Here is a thought, maybe if we consider making guns harder to get, we won't need to spend so much time defending ourselves with guns against other who have guns! Less gun equals.....harder to get guns! Doesn't mean no-one will ever use guns in crimes or for other purposes, just means it will be more difficult. Or....we could just leave things the way they are.....seems like that is working out pretty good for us!

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Paul Wingertposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Besides banning assault weapons and high capacity magazines along with universal background checks and annual firearm registrations, the government can impose high taxes on guns and especially ammunition. If a .233 round costs $10-$20 each, that would be quite a deterrent.

      replyreport
      1. 66

         Ralph Deedsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         The government could also require the purchase of insurance as in the case of cars.

         replyreport
         1. 94

            habeeposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            That's not a bad idea, Ralph, but I'm not sure how it would work in real life situations. If John purchased a gun, along with the required insurance, and the gun was stolen and used in a crime, would John's insurance cover that?
            
            Our problem isn't responsible gun owners - it's irresponsible gun owners, criminals, and the mentally/emotionally impaired. I assure you that I'll never go on a shooting spree with my guns. I could be wrong here, as I haven't researched it, but it seems like several "shooting sprees" have occurred in areas where gun ownership isn't prevalent. In my neck of the woods, everyone has a gun or two, but I've never heard of any mass shootings here. Sure, there have been murders committed with guns, but the shooter had a specific target and wasn't killing as many "random" people as possible.
            
            I grew up with guns - lots of guns. My dad was a hunter/collector/gun dealer. I was taught to respect firearms as a little kid, and it never crossed my mind to play with one. Dad took me target shooting and skeet shooting when I was a kid, and he taught me all about gun safety. Many children in the Deep South grow up in similar situations. We're used to being around guns, so the "fascination factor" usually isn't there.
            
            Dad was a lifelong member/supporter of the NRA, but I'm not sure he'd approve of today's organization. I like some of the programs provided by the NRA, like Eagle Eddie, firearms/hunting safety courses, hunting guides, and shooting competitions. BUT...I don't agree with some of the group's stands or the positions of many of its members.

            replyreport
            1. 59

               movingoutposted 10 years agoin reply to this

               We actually had 15 gun related incidents just last month alone. Guns and gangs are a problem here in the deep south. Just not reported. Last month only 2 were in the paper. Business breakins after hours are also running rampant down here.

               replyreport
      2. 61

         bBereanposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         Considering gun crimes are almost always committed with stolen guns, I doubt the perpetrators care how much the guns or ammo cost those they stole them from, nor how much red tape the legitimate owners had to go through to get them.

         replyreport
5. 0

   ahorsebackposted 10 years ago

   What is it that keeps you guys from understanding that the NRA is but a  lobbyist for sports man ?  Yes of course they too are a P.A.C. ,  surely you don't have a problem with that !  I am a gun owner  and I'm not worried in the least that my guns will be taken away from me !  Do I worry about that ......no and niether  should you !  What you SHOULD be worried about is what would happen after they did that .   Teachers have a PAC , boaters do as well ,  farmers , foresters and  the media as well ....Are you saying sportsmen alone don't deserve representation ?Hmmm?

   replyreport
   1. 82

      Don Wposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      They are a lobbyists for the firearms industry. They don't give a hoot about the constitution or public health. If they could make money by scrapping the constitution, they would be on the other side of the fence and you know it. Their motivation is $$$. Those who think otherwise are either utterly naive, completely foolish or just plain liars, in my opinion.

      replyreport
   2. 66

      Ralph Deedsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      The NRA may have begun as a "lobbyist for sportsmen," but it has since evolved as a lobbyist for gun manufacturers and dealers. It's positions have little or nothing of importance to outdoorsmen or target shooters.

      replyreport
      1. 86

         rebekahELLEposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         Have you seen this ad yet?  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CElOFx16 … r_embedded

         replyreport
         1. 60

            tammybarnetteposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            I have seen part of this on television, the end of the video where they call our POTUS an elitist is not played here...I am mortified. The NRA are obviously not patriots! They are Not Real Americans! I am so sickened that after the bitter election the far Right and all it's lobbyist continue to stir the pot of hate and division in this country...This is truly pathetic and so sad, I can not imagine the horror of the poor families that lost their loved ones...this adds insult to injury...can the bar be set any lower, how low will they go!

            replyreport
            1. 66

               Ralph Deedsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

               Last night Lawrence O'Donnell ripped NRA spokesman and board member Tom Selleck and  several billionaire gun manufacturer members. Unfortunately, O'Donnell's rant against Selleck isn't yet available on YouTube. He's been ripping NRA for a year or two. Here's one from last December:
               
               http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hxl6901i1BM
               
               And here's a list of the ___NRA board members:
               
               http://www.meetthenra.org/board-list

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  tammybarnetteposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  Good ole Grover Norquist:
                  "Americans for Tax Reform (ATR), the organization Norquist founded in 1985, has been used as a clearinghouse for conservative ideas. It publishes the “Taxpayer Protection Pledge,” which calls on lawmakers to swear to never vote for any legislation that would raises taxes, no matter how modestly. The pledge—which counted over 95% of Republican House and Senate members as signatories in the 112th Congress—is considered “a sacred covenant for virtually anyone wishing to run as a Republican” by the New York Times. U.S. Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) said that Norquist “threaten[s] all these guys here for the first time by saying he’ll send mailers, press releases and make it known to their constituents that they aren’t conservative” if they refuse to sign the pledge. ATR has a number of “special projects,” including the Alliance for Worker Freedom (AWF), an anti-labor group. While Norquist now refuses to disclose who funds ATF, in the past the organization has received money from the Koch Brothers, Phillip Morris, Pfizer and other corporate interests."
                  
                  "Norquist and his pledge played a prominent role in the 2011 debt ceiling crisis, with many commentators accusing him of preventing a bipartisan deal to resolve the crisis. Chis Cillizza of the Washington Post called Norquist “the most important person in the debt ceiling fight.” In July 2011, Republican signatories to the pledge met with Norquist and “begged” him to release them from their obligation in order to resolve the ongoing debt ceiling crisis. After the debt ceiling crisis was resolved, former Senator Alan Simpson (R-WY), co-chair of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, called Norquist “a good guy with a very bad idea.” “Grover Norquist should be examined into,” suggested Simpson. “Where does he get his money? ... Who is he slave to? ... How does he terrify people?”
                  
                  "Finally, Norquist is well known for chairing the Wednesday meetings, a weekly off-the-record, invitation-only meeting of GOP and
                  conservative operatives (including NRA operatives), lobbyists, and reporters. During the Bush presidency, attendance at the meeting numbered in the hundreds."
                  
                  Ahhh, how things add up....

                  replyreport
                  1. 66

                     Ralph Deedsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                     Norquist is on the NRA board of directors. In my mind he and David Koch are tied for the most evil man in America.

                     replyreport
                     1. 60

                        tammybarnetteposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                        +1 Ralph, It seems to me that the Conservative Party has been hijacked from Big Business. They use their ideology against them. Their only desire for small government is in order to starve the government and shift all legislative power to those powers that be, whom of course care not for the majority of Americans, or freedom, or the Constitution.

                        replyreport
   3. 65

      LucidDreamsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Ahorseback,
      
      I think that people here are only concerned with safety for fellow americans. Nobody is saying that sportsmen do not deserve a authority who represents and believes in your rights as a gun owner. The only thing is, Seems like the NRA is irresponsible in the way they do this!

      replyreport
6. 65

   LucidDreamsposted 10 years ago

   No, not saying that, would like to see them a bit more responsible though!

   replyreport
7. 0

   ahorsebackposted 10 years ago

   There is probably not a P.A.C. that is any more responsible , you should one day check out how many NRA sponsoring activities there are in the sporting world !  from the boy scouts  to the schools !  Whats with this ? We need a bad boy for the day ! In a month you can move on to another controvercy !

   replyreport
   1. 65

      LucidDreamsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I;m not that worried about moving on to another controvery.. I have always had a problem with the out of control gun killing and mis-handling in the USA. Too many idiots with guns.

      replyreport
8. 0

   ahorsebackposted 10 years ago

   My friend , "idiots with guns ", in the real world ,merely melts down the simply "Idiots " ,however  the idiosy is quite often more painfully prevailant in the those who may never understand that its the plauge  of the blinded who refuse to see reality at all costs !.....:-}

   replyreport
   1. 65

      LucidDreamsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      That may just be you. Not see reality at all cost. Anything to protect gun rights! Kind of sad to be honest!

      replyreport
      1. 53

         whoisitposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         Not gun rights, guns have no rights. We are trying to protect Constitutional rights, are you not in favor of our constitution? Are you not in favor of the protections held within it?

         replyreport
         1. 66

            Ralph Deedsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            Some, yes. Some, no.

            replyreport
            1. 53

               whoisitposted 10 years agoin reply to this

               Really, which rights do you not like? I mean aside from the second amendment that you work hard to do away with.

               replyreport
9. 0

   ahorsebackposted 10 years ago

   ............................"SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

   replyreport
10. 0

    ahorsebackposted 10 years ago

    Period !

    replyreport