Jump to content

Gun Control: The Tree Of Liberty Must Be Refreshed From Time To Time With The Blood Of Children And Innocents


Recommended Posts

32 minutes ago, mormont said:

You can't have it both ways here: first you say (effectively) that it's disappointingly predictable that critics attack the NRA as a corporate shill because it's easier than attacking gun owners, then you say that it's disappointingly predictable when someone does the reverse. 

Your position more honestly appears to be 'I'm tired of hearing the NRA criticised'. Which is your right. But these criticisms are valid, and if they're made often, it's because nothing is done to address them. The NRA's current efforts at PR appear based on antagonising and threatening people, rather than projecting an image of those they represent (or gun owners in general, which is not at all the same thing) as responsible, upstanding members of society. 

Your time would be better spent writing to the NRA and asking them to behave like adults. 

The disappointingly predictable part was how larry (the random, yet site-representative, respondent in this case) would label the average NRA member in the most outrageous way possible, in his knee jerk attempt to have a witty response to my point.The name calling is childish, and for every insult he can throw at a gun rights proponent, they can throw one right back.

But by all means, label the average gun owner in that fashion. I'm all for it, precisely because of the ridiculous hyperbole. The problem is that this will not play as well politically as does blaming the NRA for pandering to the "greedy corporations". Hence the regular repetition of the latter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, no response on the issue of how the NRA are carrying on in public? 

Because, to reiterate, so long as that's true, larry's predictability seems a perfectly reasonable response, not something for which he should be criticised. The issue is, you're tired of hearing the same old criticisms. Well, we're pretty tired of making them. The issue here is not the NRA's critics refusing to change the record. The issue is the NRA responding to tragedy with bellicose rhetoric and blocking any change. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mormont said:

So, no response on the issue of how the NRA are carrying on in public? 

Because, to reiterate, so long as that's true, larry's predictability seems a perfectly reasonable response, not something for which he should be criticised. The issue is, you're tired of hearing the same old criticisms. Well, we're pretty tired of making them. The issue here is not the NRA's critics refusing to change the record. The issue is the NRA responding to tragedy with bellicose rhetoric and blocking any change. 

Seems like we're talking past each other. I'm not debating the gun rights issue. I think it is well established by now that we stand on opposite sides of that divide, so not much to be gained there.

I raised the point that it is incorrect to suggest that the NRA is primarily motivated by protecting the interests of gun manufacturers, because, well, that is not the case. Sure, the gun manufacterers are one of the interests they represent. But that is not what gives them their power. Their power comes from the passionate, grassroots support of their millions of ordinary members. And that is the group they primarily strive to represent.

Labelling it otherwise is incorrect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Seems like we're talking past each other. I'm not debating the gun rights issue. I think it is well established by now that we stand on opposite sides of that divide, so not much to be gained there.

I raised the point that it is incorrect to suggest that the NRA is primarily motivated by protecting the interests of gun manufacturers, because, well, that is not the case. Sure, the gun manufacterers are one of the interests they represent. But that is not what gives them their power. Their power comes from the passionate, grassroots support of their millions of ordinary members. And that is the group they primarily strive to represent.

Labelling it otherwise is incorrect.

Thanks for regurgitating that press release, Mr. LaPierre.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The NRA is only interested in protecting your right to own a gun so the manufacturers can continue selling you more guns and ammo.  The fact that school shootings have been economic windfalls for the manufacturers is disgusting.  It's not surprising at all that the NRA's only solution is MORE GUNS.  They can continue to sell guns to both schools shooters and security guards and get rich while the bodies pile up.  If you think they give a fuck about you, you are dreaming.  They care about their bottom line, which depends on you being able to buy a gun.  Where are they on police brutality against responsible gun owners like Philando Castille?  No where.  Guess why?  1. He can't buy any more guns because he's dead.  2.  He was black.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Seems like we're talking past each other. I'm not debating the gun rights issue. I think it is well established by now that we stand on opposite sides of that divide, so not much to be gained there.

I raised the point that it is incorrect to suggest that the NRA is primarily motivated by protecting the interests of gun manufacturers, because, well, that is not the case. Sure, the gun manufacterers are one of the interests they represent. But that is not what gives them their power. Their power comes from the passionate, grassroots support of their millions of ordinary members. And that is the group they primarily strive to represent.

Labelling it otherwise is incorrect.

no, it is in fact 100% correct. granted the rank and file memebers are a large source of the nra’s power, but that power is wielded in no uncertain terms for the benefit of firearm manufacturers, marketers, and other attendant industry parasites. this is not difficult to see or understand

eta: or basically what larry said

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Basic misunderstandings flourishing here I see. As pointed out before, for a better understanding of the truth, go and read up on any of the many articles that have been published on the breakdown of the NRA's revenue sources. It is publicly available information. Contributions from the gun industry don't come close to the revenue from the contributions from ordinary members.

There is an ideologically induced inability among many of you, which apparently does not allow you to accept that gun rights are a passion among many, and it is that cause that drives the power of the NRA, rather than the cynical pursuit of gun industry profits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Basic misunderstandings flourishing here I see. As pointed out before, for a better understanding of the truth, go and read up on any of the many articles that have been published on the breakdown of the NRA's revenue sources. It is publicly available information. Contributions from the gun industry don't come close to the revenue from the contributions from ordinary members.

There is an ideologically induced inability among many of you, which apparently does not allow you to accept that gun rights are a passion among many, and it is that cause that drives the power of the NRA, rather than the cynical pursuit of gun industry profits.

You're barking up the wrong tree here, pal.  My mom was a member of the women's pistol team at the local fish and game.  My Wednesday nights as a child were spent at the range with her.  A large portion of her social circle were 'gun friends'.  

I grew up shooting guns and have owned guns in the past.  I have friends and neighbors who feel as strongly as you do.  There is no inability to accept this passion .  I am, however, unwilling to believe that your passion for guns supercedes others' right to live.  So when you have an organization like the NRA, who (regardless of the source of their funding) refuses to consider any sensible gun legislation, 'grades' politicians on a scale that weighs party membership over actual gun policy, and prioritizes a fucking hobby over piles of dead kids in schools, I have nothing but bombastic rhetoric for them.  

It's not an ideologically induced inability to accept that people lurv their gunz.  It's a refusal to judge that love as more important than other people's right not to be easily murdered or accidentally killed.  The inability here, is for you to acknowledge that these deaths are a predictable side-effect of your passion.  Or if you do acknowledge that, at least be like some of my co-workers and say 'hey, I know these school shootings will continue to happen if we do nothing. But I'm so afraid that my gins will be taken away from me, and I like them so much, that I don't even care.'

Or is there something I'm missing here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

You're barking up the wrong tree here, pal.  My mom was a member of the women's pistol team at the local fish and game.  My Wednesday nights as a child were spent at the range with her.  A large portion of her social circle were 'gun friends'.  

I grew up shooting guns and have owned guns in the past.  I have friends and neighbors who feel as strongly as you do.  There is no inability to accept this passion .  I am, however, unwilling to believe that your passion for guns supercedes others' right to live.  So when you have an organization like the NRA, who (regardless of the source of their funding) refuses to consider any sensible gun legislation, 'grades' politicians on a scale that weighs party membership over actual gun policy, and prioritizes a fucking hobby over piles of dead kids in schools, I have nothing but bombastic rhetoric for them.  

It's not an ideologically induced inability to accept that people lurv their gunz.  It's a refusal to judge that love as more important than other people's right not to be easily murdered or accidentally killed.  The inability here, is for you to acknowledge that these deaths are a predictable side-effect of your passion.  Or if you do acknowledge that, at least be like some of my co-workers and say 'hey, I know these school shootings will continue to happen if we do nothing. But I'm so afraid that my gins will be taken away from me, and I like them so much, that I don't even care.'

Or is there something I'm missing here?

You aren't missing a thing.  The people who have a passion for gunz can't understand that other people have a passion for both women's reproductive autonomy and rights and a passion to keep their children safe from being killed by their gunz.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, unpaid comintern said:

lmao that’s like saying cigarettes couldn’t possibly dangerous because tobacco companies get most of their revenue from their customers, so must have their best interests at heart... 

No no no no no, it's even better, it's like saying the tobacco lobby has the interests of the smokers at heart.  And lungs.  And hardened plaquey arteries.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

You're barking up the wrong tree here, pal.  My mom was a member of the women's pistol team at the local fish and game.  My Wednesday nights as a child were spent at the range with her.  A large portion of her social circle were 'gun friends'.  

I grew up shooting guns and have owned guns in the past.  I have friends and neighbors who feel as strongly as you do.  There is no inability to accept this passion .  I am, however, unwilling to believe that your passion for guns supercedes others' right to live.  So when you have an organization like the NRA, who (regardless of the source of their funding) refuses to consider any sensible gun legislation, 'grades' politicians on a scale that weighs party membership over actual gun policy, and prioritizes a fucking hobby over piles of dead kids in schools, I have nothing but bombastic rhetoric for them.  

It's not an ideologically induced inability to accept that people lurv their gunz.  It's a refusal to judge that love as more important than other people's right not to be easily murdered or accidentally killed.  The inability here, is for you to acknowledge that these deaths are a predictable side-effect of your passion.  Or if you do acknowledge that, at least be like some of my co-workers and say 'hey, I know these school shootings will continue to happen if we do nothing. But I'm so afraid that my gins will be taken away from me, and I like them so much, that I don't even care.'

Or is there something I'm missing here?

Just read my posts again. I wasn't engaging in the rights and wrongs of the gun debate. That would be pointless. I was telling you that the NRA is driven primarily by the interests of its members, and those members are overwhelmingly, both from a numbers and cumulative revenue contribution perspective, ordinary gun owners. Not big corporations.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Ah, the perpetual myth that the NRA primarily serves the interests of gun manufacturers, rather than gun owners. Because it is easier to demonize them then. "Protecting the big bad corporations!" sounds so much more villainous than "Protecting the rights of millions of ordinary gun owning Americans."

 

If the NRA’s primary interest is serving gun owners, and not gun manufacturers, then why don’t they fight for policies that a majority of gun owners and NRA members support?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Just read my posts again. I wasn't engaging in the rights and wrongs of the gun debate. That would be pointless. I was telling you that the NRA is driven primarily by the interests of its members, and those members are overwhelmingly, both from a numbers and cumulative revenue contribution perspective, ordinary gun owners. Not big corporations.

 

So, it’s the ordinary gun owners who don’t want any government studies on gun violence? That’s like a big worry among Joe Six-Shooters? Because, honestly, that’d be worse. Corporations pursuing official ignorance a la Big Tobacco at least makes corporate sense. Citizens not wanting to know is just insanely selfish. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, lessthanluke said:

Why are Americans so scared in their every day lives compared to people from other nations?

One thing that I think plays a role is a fear of retaliation for past grievances, based largely along racial lines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Basic misunderstandings flourishing here I see. As pointed out before, for a better understanding of the truth, go and read up on any of the many articles that have been published on the breakdown of the NRA's revenue sources. It is publicly available information. Contributions from the gun industry don't come close to the revenue from the contributions from ordinary members.

There is an ideologically induced inability among many of you, which apparently does not allow you to accept that gun rights are a passion among many, and it is that cause that drives the power of the NRA, rather than the cynical pursuit of gun industry profits.

http://www.businessinsider.com/gun-industry-funds-nra-2013-1 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association#Finances
 

Quote

In 2010, the NRA reported revenue of $227.8 million and expenses of $243.5 million, with revenue including roughly $115 million generated from fundraising, sales, advertising and royalties, and most of the rest from membership dues.Less than half of the NRA's income is from membership dues and program fees; the majority is from contributions, grants, royalties, and advertising.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Basic misunderstandings flourishing here I see. As pointed out before, for a better understanding of the truth, go and read up on any of the many articles that have been published on the breakdown of the NRA's revenue sources. It is publicly available information. Contributions from the gun industry don't come close to the revenue from the contributions from ordinary members.

There is an ideologically induced inability among many of you, which apparently does not allow you to accept that gun rights are a passion among many, and it is that cause that drives the power of the NRA, rather than the cynical pursuit of gun industry profits.

The biggest misunderstanding I see in your posts is that you equate ‘the average NRA’ member with ‘the average American gun-owner’ when they are not one and the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, unpaid comintern said:

You should not have stopped quoting where you did. If you continued just a paragraph further, you would have read that:

"Corporate donors include a variety of companies such as outdoors supply, sporting goods companies, and firearm manufacturers.[143][158][159][161] From 2005 through 2011, the NRA received at least $14.8 million from more than 50 firearms-related firms.[158] An April 2011 Violence Policy Center presentation said that the NRA had received between $14.7 million and $38.9 million from the firearms industry since 2005."

So taking the maximum estimate there, that's $39 million from the firearms industry over a 6-year period. That's a measly $7 million average per year over that period. Compared to total annual revenue of $227 million dollars. That's what, about 3% of their revenue from the gun industry. To be frank, I thought it would be 10 times higher.

You've just proven my point to a greater extent than I thought was the case.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, unpaid comintern said:

Also from that article, when you buy a Taurus handgun, they buy you an NRA membership.  A bunch of other industry companies give a percentage of each sale or a percentage of certain product sales to the NRA.  

Curious about where the NRA leadership comes from?  Are they random firearm enthusiasts or are they industry people.  I mean Wayne LaPierre wasn't even a gun dude till he got the NRA gig.  He's a hired gun shilling guns to the public.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...