The NRA has become a hack political organization

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Rogifan, Apr 26, 2019.

  1. Rogifan macrumors Core

    Rogifan

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2011
    #1
    The NRA has become a total political hack organization. What do trucks and plastic straws have to do with the right to keep and bear arms? This is just generic us vs them fear mongering. And who is “they” anyway? People that live in big cities? Liberal politicians in DC? I find it amusing that the guy whining about what others think says he doesn’t care what they think.

    The worst thing to come from the age of Trump is this whole us vs. them mentality. My tribe is good. Everyone else is scary and people we should be afraid of. Sadly organizations that should be non-partisan (there is nothing liberal or conservative about the constitution or the Bible) are now just flying the flag of whatever political tribe their leader belongs to.
     
  2. jkcerda macrumors 6502a

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #2
    NRA lost plenty when they supported bump stock bans, that said they are just pointing out the fact liberals love to ban things just for the hell of it .
     
  3. lowendlinux Contributor

    lowendlinux

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2014
    Location:
    North Country (way upstate NY)
    #3
    And the other side doesn't much care what he thinks...so we're at an impasse
     
  4. NT1440 macrumors G5

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    #4
    Uh, few decades late on this new discovery...
     
  5. Rogifan thread starter macrumors Core

    Rogifan

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2011
    #5
    Trump’s speech to the NRA is just a standard political speech bashing Democrats. Newsflash not every member of the NRA (or every gun owner for that matter) is a Republican. Also 2018 exit polls show that guns aren’t the most important issue to voters but for ones where it is they voted overwhelmingly for Democrats.

    I don’t doubt that for hard core MAGA supporters guns might be their #1 issue (or co-#1 with immigration) but they’re not enough to get Trump re-elected.
     
  6. ucfgrad93 macrumors P6

    ucfgrad93

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
    #6
    I think the NRA is trying to illustrate that if liberals ban silly things like straws they won’t hesitate to try and ban guns if given half a chance.
     
  7. ericgtr12 macrumors 65816

    ericgtr12

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2015
    #7
    They'll never gain credibility as an organization when they come across as partisan, bitter and out of control, particularly over such a controversial subject. Sure, they'll placate the radicals in the Republican party (see post above) but they'll never appeal to anyone seeking the middle ground.
     
  8. Rogifan thread starter macrumors Core

    Rogifan

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2011
    #8
    So the NRA is admitting it’s a political organization. So the “us” is Republicans and the “them” is Democrats.
     
  9. jerwin macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    #9
    the nra has got problems

    https://www.newyorker.com/podcast/political-scene/the-nras-financial-mess

    https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/secrecy-self-dealing-and-greed-at-the-nra
     
  10. ericgtr12 macrumors 65816

    ericgtr12

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2015
    #10
    Which alienates a lot of pro-gun Democrats.
     
  11. LordVic macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2011
    #11

    What a slippery slope fallacious argument.

    As many US gun supporters constantly point out, All the time, no matter what the context. '2a rights'

    your straws aren't a constitutionally protected item. Now, whether or not guns should be a constitutionally protected item is a completely different argument entirely. But to make the claim that baning straws means they'll ban guns next is complete and utter nonsense fallacy in order to setup a faulty and bad faith argument.
     
  12. cube macrumors P6

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    #12
    You can shoot spitballs with a straw.
     
  13. LordVic macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2011
    #13
    TIL, Straws are protected under the 2a ;)
     
  14. Chew Toy McCoy macrumors regular

    Chew Toy McCoy

    Joined:
    May 13, 2016
    #14
    The NRA is one of the first loudmouthed relatively tiny organizations that claims to speak for way more people than they should. Now I’ve lost count of how many similar organizations (or individuals, for that matter) that either claim unsubstantiated support numbers or get painted as representative of a lot more people than they should.
     
  15. cube macrumors P6

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    #15
    But maybe they are assault straws if made of plastic.
     
  16. linuxcooldude macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2010
    #16
    The only problem I have with the NRA is they are too divisive. If they didn't come off as so abrasive, such as a change in image, being more approachable by any political party or some other, would help them out the most.

    They DO provide important service for Americans. Obviously 2A rights, gun training & safety and responsible gun ownership ( Which I'm taking right now. ) Informing gun owners about complying with gun laws they not be aware about. Prosecution or lawsuits that might infringe on their rights. Not a complete list, maybe others.
     
  17. jkcerda macrumors 6502a

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #17
    guessing you are not aware of the Clinton gun ban?
     
  18. Zenithal macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2009
    #18
    I stopped being a member and donating money to their efforts years and years ago. What has the NRA done for me personally to warrant my support nowadays? It's not that I care what other gun owners aside from myself think, but what do I get from them myself? I want more than assurances and goals. I want to gain personally from any politically motivated donation.
     
  19. Huntn, Apr 27, 2019
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2019

    Huntn macrumors P6

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #19
    The NRA Wasn't Always Against Gun Restrictions
    https://www.npr.org/2017/10/10/556578593/the-nra-wasnt-always-against-gun-restrictions

    The NRA wasn't always staunchly opposed to gun restrictions

    Many are surprised to learn that the NRA of past generations worked with the federal government to limit the traffic in guns — for example, where ex-convicts or mental patients were involved.

    When handguns became the focus, the NRA spawned a subgroup devoted to them and supported state-level permit requirements for concealed weapons.

    In the Prohibition Era, the conversation changed again with the urban use of shotguns and the fully automatic Thompson gun.

    These lurid hallmarks of bank robbers and warring gangsters became a target for lawmakers. In the legislating beehive of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal, the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1938 regulated such guns, banned some buyers and made gun dealers register with the government.


    The NRA worked with Congress and the White House on those acts and supported their enforcement. The same was true when these restrictions were extended and tightened following the 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy, and again by a 1968 gun bill responding to the assassinations of Martin Luther King Jr. and Sen. Robert Kennedy.

    But in the late 1960s, there was also widespread concern about rising crime rates and the deadly riots that flared in the nation's major cities. Citizens were concerned about their safety and turned to gun purchases for their personal protection. And many NRA members wanted their organization to get out in front of that.


    5 Reasons The NRA Is Wrong
    https://www.sandersinstitute.com/blog/5-reasons-the-nra-is-wrong

    The next time you hear someone repeating pro-gun NRA propaganda, respond with these five points:

    1. Gun laws save lives. Consider the federal assault weapons ban. After it became law in 1994, gun massacres – defined as instances of gun violence in which six or more people were shot and killed – fell by 37 percent. The number of people dying from mass shootings fell by 43 percent. But when Republicans in Congress let the ban lapse in 2004, gun massacres more than doubled.

    2. The Second Amendment was never intended to permit mass slaughter. When the Constitution was written more than 200 years ago, the framers’ goal was permit a “well-regulated militia,” not to enable Americans to terrorize their communities.

    3. More guns have not, and will not, make us safer.More than 30 studies show that guns are linked to an increased risk for violence and homicide. In 1996, Australia initiated a mandatory buyback program to reduce `the number of guns in private ownership. Their firearm homicide rate fell 42 percent in the seven years that followed.

    4. The vast majority of Americans want stronger gun safety laws. According to Gallup, 96 percent of Americans support universal background checks, 75 percent support a 30-day waiting period for all gun sales, and 70 percent favor requiring all privately owned guns to be registered with the police. Even the vast majority of gun owners are in favor of common-sense gun safety laws.

    5. The National Rifle Association is a special interest group with a stranglehold on the Republican Party. In 2016, the group spent a record $55 million on elections. Their real goal is to protect a few big gun manufacturers who want to enlarge their profits.
     
  20. A.Goldberg, Apr 27, 2019
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2019

    A.Goldberg macrumors 68020

    A.Goldberg

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2015
    Location:
    Boston
    #20
    While I don’t disagree with some of what this article is saying, I agree there needs to be more reform around guns, this articles cited references are a bit misleading.

    1) I suspect “Gun massacres” with a metric of “six or more killed” is a new one for me. Usually it’s 3-4+ for mass murder. I suspect this number is used because it distorts the data to obscure the actual information. Extreme example to illustrate: saying the number of people killed with blue houses with more than 2 children decreased. Gun homicides as a whole went down substantially from 1993 to 2004 (almost 40%), prior to the ban. Also, it doesn’t cite how many of these massacres were actually committed with assault weapons during time period mentioned. For all we know the increase could have all been committed with muskets.

    It can be argued guns prevent crimes that would have otherwise happened. That said, cases of accidental discharge are definitely instances where guns are more dangerous than no guns.

    2) I’m not sure anyone has ever suggested the second amendment “was intended to permit mass slaughter”. I think you could argue it was to prevent mass slaughter.

    3) If I remember correctly Australia already had a decreasing gun deaths/murders well before 1996, also experienced in the US. In the early 2000’s their homocide rate was back to 1996 levels. To further complicate things, armed robbery rates didn’t decrease at the same rate and other violent crimes skyrocketed. The average number of deaths in mass homicides have remained the same or even increased overall.

    4) I don’t dispute most Americans want more regulations around guns. Apparently even most NRA members despite their official position.

    5) The NRA spent $55m, only $1m were direct contributions. About 4m went to lobbying. This is very little when you look at other organizations. This is also kind of the chicken or the egg argument. I find believe their donations influence politicians stance on guns, rather they give money to politicians who support gun rights.
     
  21. Huntn macrumors P6

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #21
    We frequently see threads in this forum pushed by local representatives of the gun lobby about the good thing someone did their gun, defending themselves. But, I bet if you look seriously at the numbers involved in gun violence, for every good dead, I mean deed killing someone, there are easily 100 (1000?) or more incidents where bad things are done with guns, not even counting the convenience of using a gun for suicide. :(
     
  22. linuxcooldude macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2010
    #22

    Knives have more death rates than rifles. Assault weapon ban did very little, as handgun deaths are primarily the cause of death using firearms.

    https://dailycaller.com/2018/02/19/knives-gun-control-fbi-statistics/

    Arguable, not going into this as its been talked to death. But we have the right to self defense.

    300k-3 millon lives saved by use of firearms annually.
     
  23. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #23
    How can knives possibly have a higher death rate than guns when there are 10s of billions of knives in the world. I must own 25 or so.
     
  24. linuxcooldude macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2010
    #24
    Ask the FBI, it's using their statistic.
     
  25. Altis macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2013
    #25
    I don't think it's a deaths per gun vs deaths per knife.

    More likely the more useful and relevant, deaths by gun vs deaths by knife. There's also the likelihood of surviving a stabbing vs a shooting.
     

Share This Page

83 April 26, 2019