Adolphus Busch IV Resigns From NRA After Gun Control Defeat In Senate

The NRA just lost wealthy backer Adolphus A. Busch IV, great-great-grandson of beer company founder Adolphus Busch. Busch IV leaves the NRA because of their "rigid new direction" and "distorted values". In his letter of resignation to NRA president David A. Keene he writes

It disturbes me greatly to see this rigid new direction of the NRA. As a starting point, one only has to ask why the NRA reversed its original position on background checks. Was it not the NRA position to support background checks when Mr LaPierre himself stated in 1999 that NRA saw checks as "reasonable"? Source

He continues

The NRA I see today has undermined the values upon which it was established. Your current strategic focus places a priority on the needs of gun and ammunition manufacturers while disregarding the opinions of your 4 million individual members.

One only has to look at the makeup of the 75-member board of directors, dominated by manufacturing interests, to confirm my point. The NRA appears to have evolved into the lobby for gun and ammunition manufactures rather than gun owners. Source

There you have it folks, the NRA does not represent its members. It represents the gun and ammunition manufacturers! It's not about the 2nd amendment, it's about selling more guns and more ammunition. Things are starting to go sideways for the NRA and also the GOP. The countdown to their extinction has started and will only speed up as the mass shootings continue, and they will.

Huffington Post

He, like all the old guard NRA members and supporters, were racist Fudds who wanted to disarm the poor and the minorities but maintain gun rights for the rich white people to hunt quail with their $10,000 shotguns.

I would not have and did not support the NRA in the past because of this.

Only now that the NRA has taken this "new" "radical" direction have I joined.

The NRA is not the sole authority in gun rights.

The American people didnt want this garbage legislation.

I find it hilarious that when anti gunners dont get their way they blame gun manufacturers and the NRA as though the American people have no vested interest in defending their right.

We already have background checks. Gun bans in place in many of the states these massacres happened didnt stop them from happening. Laws are not obeyed by those intent on doing harm.

You can kick and scream all you want about the NRA and our gun culture, but in the end nothing we do to further erode rights in this country will change the criminal element.

More freedom, not less, is the answer.

reply to post by cripmeister

There you have it folks, the NRA does not represent its members.

Way to go! You just used the extreme exception to define the rule. THAT member is unhappy, but he is just one out of 5+ MILLION members. Using the exception to define the rule is a huge logic fallacy.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Only now that the NRA has taken this "new" "radical" direction have I joined.

You want corporate interests to rule politics, good for you.

reply to post by projectvxn


I'm willing to bet that you didn't read that article all the way through.

Busch quoted that LaPierre himself was in favor of background checks at one point.

Why the about face?

Why are people opposing background checks?

Do they have something to hide? Is that what it is?

Originally posted by projectvxn

The American people didnt want this garbage legislation.

Please provide a source that shows this statement to be true.

Originally posted by cripmeister

Originally posted by projectvxn

The American people didnt want this garbage legislation.

Please provide a source that shows this statement to be true.

How about a Gallop poll that showed that only 4% of the population considered the gun bill a "major issue".

Not even the most important issue to them, just a major issue.

4%

Originally posted by cripmeister

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Only now that the NRA has taken this "new" "radical" direction have I joined.

You want corporate interests to rule politics, good for you.

As long as the corporate interests align with more liberty then fine.

The corporate end of the gun money goes to the NSSF by the way.

It's more than a little stupid to just write off "corporate" money as some evil thing. Where do you think Bloombergs crusader cash is coming from? Oh, but that's holy and righteous corporate money.

reply to post by cripmeister


Ooh I know the answer to that one..
Why background checks were ok with the NRA before?
One reason.. a ridiculous unfounded distrust and dare I say
racist attitude about Obama.

Obama changes everything.
The current OBAMA CARE is actually BOB DOLE CARE
and the hard right can't even take that when it's delivered by
a black president.

I'm tired of skating around pretending
the real reason has nothing to do with current attitudes.
Basically ,I've had it with this blatant racism.

Originally posted by cripmeister

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Only now that the NRA has taken this "new" "radical" direction have I joined.

You want corporate interests to rule politics, good for you.

Ahhhhhh.

So naturally you were against the auto, and bank bailouts? The 90 billion the green energy companies that are now bankrupt?

Originally posted by cripmeister

Originally posted by projectvxn

The American people didnt want this garbage legislation.

Please provide a source that shows this statement to be true.

I, being one of the American people did NOT want this legislation to pass. We need more freedom not more legislation. Besides, I can handle my crazy neighbor, its my Government that scares me.

reply to post by cripmeister


to answer your question, you elected Obama didn't you. He is the one percent....with his friends. The NRA is a scapegoat for the anti gun lobby. It is about lining your pockets when you get to Washington.

reply to post by cripmeister


how about the fact it was voted down. Uhm....that's proof?

Originally posted by VaterOrlaag
reply to post by projectvxn

 

I'm willing to bet that you didn't read that article all the way through.

Busch quoted that LaPierre himself was in favor of background checks at one point.

Why the about face?

Why are people opposing background checks?

Do they have something to hide? Is that what it is?

Well, because just like Obamacare the legislation was sold as something it was not.

Besides all that, there is already state and federal laws about background checks.

And finally, the government under Barack Obama and Eric Holder have prosecuted only 44 felons who attempted to buy guns out of 15,000+ failed attempts.

That's 1/10th of 1%. We don't need new background check laws..

WE NEED TO ENFORCE THE EXISTING ONES!!!!!

reply to post by sealing


racism? that boat sailed in 2008. I could say it sailed with Condi Rice who held what is the most powerful postion in the world, next to the POTUS himself.

It is not only rich old rednecks that are part of the NRA. Black people are allowed to join too...

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by cripmeister

 

how about the fact it was voted down. Uhm....that's proof?

Right??

Barack, Crazy Uncle Joe, and Harry Reid couldn't even get the Democrats all on board with these 7 bills.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by cripmeister

 

There you have it folks, the NRA does not represent its members.

Way to go! You just used the extreme exception to define the rule. THAT member is unhappy, but he is just one out of 5+ MILLION members. Using the exception to define the rule is a huge logic fallacy.

another huge logic fallacy is one who supports backround checks means that the person is anti-gun.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


If the government fails at one thing, you need to watch the other hand. That is the scary part. They have been shoving things down our throat and then...no? Revised legislation and now this sh%t in Boston and you have a recipe for the NRA to gain a large amount of members. They are a lawyer if you need it...that is about it.

Also, there are background checks and there are registries. I know which one i want.

Originally posted by jimmyx

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by cripmeister

 

There you have it folks, the NRA does not represent its members.

Way to go! You just used the extreme exception to define the rule. THAT member is unhappy, but he is just one out of 5+ MILLION members. Using the exception to define the rule is a huge logic fallacy.

another huge logic fallacy is one who supports backround checks means that the person is anti-gun.

Never learned that one in school.

What's the Latin term for that fallacy by chance?