How is the NRA a powerful-evil lobbying group

a reply to: Lab4Us

Or those of us who believe in the NRAs mission statements, the educational programs they support throughout the country, the gun safety standards they emphasis, AND those of us that thoroughly enjoy reading the four monthly journals they publish. Money well spent, just in the subscriptions alone. Of course you’d know this if you ever actually looked into becoming a member...

All of that is pointless if the very same organization uses my money and 2nd amendment right as a political tool to support Right Wingers.

Funny how a few firearm classes and some monthly subscriptions can have people dismissing their actions and agendas.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: intrptr

US arms manufacturers produce the most arms, shipping them around the world to wage aggressive war.

And who is one of the biggest protectors and defenders of the gun manufacturers?

The NRA.

Pffft... The Military Industrial Complex. 'Factories for war '.

a reply to: intrptr

The overwhelming majority of funding for the NRA comes from gun manufacturers.

I think that's pretty telling who they are most beholden too.

originally posted by: Wayfarer
a reply to: intrptr

The overwhelming majority of funding for the NRA comes from gun manufacturers.

I think that's pretty telling who they are most beholden too.

According to OpenSecrets, a site that tracks money in politics, the NRA spent $984,152 on campaign contributions during the 2014 election cycle. It also spent more than $3 million on lobbying in both 2013 and 2014.Dec 3, 2015

Thats peanuts compared to what the arms industry lobbyists 'donate' to political campaigns to favor war legislation.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: dfnj2015
And I bought my stinger on clearance so back off.

Don't threaten me.

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: dfnj2015
45 rounds a minute by what standards?

By how fast a person is able to repeatably pull the trigger. There has to be regulations on rapid fire weapons. I'm sorry you are unable to see the danger they pose.

Do you think not having rapid fire weapons legal on the street will make you any less safe? Why not have hunting rifles and handguns for protection limited to 6 rounds. It's just too dangerous in this country to have weapons with greater fire power.

Maybe limit gun's muzzle velocities and calibers to the smallest ones. It's time to seriously regulate guns in this country. In England you have to keep all your guns locked at a gun club. Maybe that's the solution. Maybe we need basic liability insurance for each gun like you have to have with your car. I think the pro-gun crowd has had it their way for too long. I think it's time for some serious public policy changes.

The police and military of course should have the best technology weapons available.

a reply to: dfnj2015


I see you siezed on teh first words and went on an emotional rant, so here is a visual aid to help drive the point home that with practice just about any gun can shoot 45 rounds a minute.



Which is why I said by what standard,

factory standard used with no modifications in a sterile setting.

Factory with no modifications in a moving course.

modified (bump stock for example) at a shooting range.

modified in a movement course.

Practice changes all the numbers for each situation, so how will you decide whats to fast?

EDIT: also what about the people that live in places like Montana, or Alaska where wildlife is a serious danger and you decide to limit muzzle velocity so that shot thatwould haveput down a bear now just pisses it off.

Remember we are a nation of nearly 10 million sq kilometers with a wide variety of animal life and terrain, in your rush to "do something" to save some people over here, you could very well be signing a death warrant for people over in another part of the country.

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: dfnj2015


I see you siezed on teh first words and went on an emotional rant, so here is a visual aid to help drive the point home that with practice just about any gun can shoot 45 rounds a minute.

Which is why I said by what standard,

factory standard used with no modifications in a sterile setting.

Factory with no modifications in a moving course.

modified (bump stock for example) at a shooting range.

modified in a movement course.

Practice changes all the numbers for each situation, so how will you decide whats to fast?

EDIT: also what about the people that live in places like Montana, or Alaska where wildlife is a serious danger and you decide to limit muzzle velocity so that shot thatwould haveput down a bear now just pisses it off.

Remember we are a nation of nearly 10 million sq kilometers with a wide variety of animal life and terrain, in your rush to "do something" to save some people over here, you could very well be signing a death warrant for people over in another part of the country.

This dude is like something out of Steven King's Gunslinger series, and probably not a fair analogy for 99.9% of shooters.

Still ridiculously impressive video though. I do love watching folks who are peerless in their respective hobbies.

a reply to: Wayfarer


No doubt it shows an extreme, but the basic point is true someone with practice will get more lead down range faster than a novice with a gun.

If you really want to get gun owners willing to deal with more red tape, you have to know the subject and be willing to be specific.

a reply to: SocratesJohnson


www.msn.com...

a reply to: Irishhaf

The more specific the thought process, the more likely you are to find agreement. Very true.

a reply to: introvert

I think you and I have had this conversation before...

I don't always like what the NRA does on a national level, but on local grassroots, they do marvelous work. Hunter safety courses. They've worked, at least here locally, with such disparate groups as Ducks Unlimited, and the Sierra Club, and a few other environmental organisations to help preserve wet land habitat. For differing reasons, maybe, but doesn't change the fact that they were there.

I'm speaking as someone who was a member, left 'em, than came back. They've warts, like any other group. But the good outweighs the bad, in my humble opinion.

The NRA has been relatively powerful since its creation after the Civil War, and is primarily responsible for most of the gun control laws that we have today. It wasn't until they got scared of the Black Panthers in 1968 and threw out their top leadership that they decided to shift their focus from education to lobbying in an effort to keep white people more armed than black people.

It all boils down to racism. Like so many stupid things.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: Irishhaf

The more specific the thought process, the more likely you are to find agreement. Very true.

But congress will never write a law with specific wording so we are stuck in a lousy situation.

a reply to: Irishhaf

Pretty much. So, given the choice, I'd rather they not do anything.

This is a state and local issue, to my mind, or at least mostly. The state and local, especially local, authorities are best able to access these issues as they arise--with the Feds on tap to help as necessary--and, hopefully, deal with them quickly and safely.

As my grandpa used to say, he was a county sheriff during the late 20's, all the 30's, and well into the 40's, and had dealings with the FBI. The Seattle and Portland offices of the G-men hated him, because he wouldn't allow them to operate in his county as they saw fit... "The Feds have no clue what is going on in local jurisdictions, and generally only serve to inflame what may already be a very sensitive situation." Not his exact words, mind you...the actual words would get me banned. He had little use for the FBI, or the SS, comes to that.

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: SocratesJohnson

Blaming the nra for gun problems is like blaming the liquor store for drinking problems.

This is like saying selling alcohol to minors is okay.

Regulations exist for a reason. No one wan'ts to ban or outlaw guns. But why are stinger missiles illegal? Don't you think banning guns capable of shooting 45 rounds per minute might be a good idea. Is it necessary to turn a deer into hamburger while hunting? How many shots in the clip is necessary for personal projection?

Maybe you think stinger missiles should be legal. Regulations exist for a reason. These numbers are sickening:

www.massshootingtracker.org...

Maybe it's time for some public policy changes to try to address this issue.

1) Minors cannot buy firearms
2) Stinger missiles are for military use only as their only purpose is to take out an aircraft. Dont want to shoot a deer with one....(and I would advise against using one on the mugger that just threatened a life)
3) Automatic rifles are for the military . Semi-auto and single shot firearms are for the public for hunting and self-defense.

Do you know how ridiculous you sounded on the Stinger missile gambit ? If you did , you would never , ever want to do that again.

Gun Control ? I keep my gun under control all the time. Per my doctor , that gets easier with age and drop in testosterone levels
I think you meant firearm control...

a reply to: Irishhaf

I bet the majority of the people would not go along with banning the AR platform. And if they do ban it, the level of civil disobedience is going to be astronomical.

originally posted by: Blue Shift
The NRA has been relatively powerful since its creation after the Civil War, and is primarily responsible for most of the gun control laws that we have today. It wasn't until they got scared of the Black Panthers in 1968 and threw out their top leadership that they decided to shift their focus from education to lobbying in an effort to keep white people more armed than black people.

It all boils down to racism. Like so many stupid things.

I guess the NRA was being racist when they helped Otis Mcdonald get his gun in the landmark decision Mcdonald vs Chicago? Name one thing the NRA has lobbied for that helped to keep guns out of blacks hands but not whites? Go ahead, I'll wait.....

No mention of the Planned Parenthood/abortion lobby?

They kill 3 mil a year, don't they?

Or is it 350,000 give or take?

And sell the parts.

Those poor babies can't even shoot a gun to defend themselves.