This is why I dislike the NRA.....

[CancelMyService]

They're going to recycle the "DEMZ GONNA GRAB YUR GUNZ" nonsense on Obama.

Now I have no strong opinions on guns personally. I don't hunt, I don't have any interest in owning one, but generally I see no problem with people owning handguns and/or rifles for sport or personal protection. What I do have a strong opinion on is the NRA pretending to be a defender of second amendment rights when all they've shown to be time and again is a front group not afraid to use FUD to get GOP candidates elected to office.

It's especially ridiculous in this race since both McCain and Obama have been in favor of things that fervent gun owners would find distasteful, but the NRA is once again funding a huge campaign to smear the Democratic candidate. I have no doubt (thanks to seeing it firshand in my family) that they tipped the scales for Bush in 2000 and now they're trying it again.

In a way it's even insulting to gun owners. Why would a Democrat in office mean the end of gun ownership? We had a Dem administration for 8 years and last I checked you can still own weaponry.

[ditchdj]

Well Obama coming out and being open about being anti-gun, then retracting it as soon as he's confronted about it helps reinforce that. Historically it's been the Democrats that have been anti-gun.

[CancelMyService]

Of course being in favor of gun control =/= being "anti gun".


No politician on either side would ever call for an all out gun ban, which to me would be truly "anti gun".


*edit* also the point is that McCain isn't much different on gun issues so the NRA taking such a stand against one guy is pretty laughably transparent.

[Amethyst Hunter]

Now I have no strong opinions on guns personally. I don't hunt, I don't have any interest in owning one, but generally I see no problem with people owning handguns and/or rifles for sport or personal protection. What I do have a strong opinion on is the NRA pretending to be a defender of second amendment rights when all they've shown to be time and again is a front group not afraid to use FUD to get GOP candidates elected to office.

In a way it's even insulting to gun owners. Why would a Democrat in office mean the end of gun ownership? We had a Dem administration for 8 years and last I checked you can still own weaponry.

I agree. It's a scare tactic, nothing more. Unfortunately there will always be sheeple who believe in it.

...this reminds me, I need to renew my FOID card...

[rahmota]

Well as an NRA member I have to say that not everyone in the NRA is a sheeple either. A lot of us actually do take the time to sit down and look at the situation and weigh the pros and cons. Sorta like a lot of other organizations and its members.

I wasnt going to vote for Obama anyhow as he has enough stuff going on with him I dislike anyhow. Sad thing is McCain isnt much better and since there is no real third party candidate I'm happy with either this is not going to be an enjoyable election year for me.

[CancelMyService]

I'm not saying everyone in the NRA is a sheep, more that the NRA is pretending to be a non partisan gun rights group when they clearly are just paid shills for the GOP.

I actually wouldn't have a problem with it if they were upfront about it, the dishonesty is what bugs me. It's like when Fox News claims to be "fair and balanced", everyone knows what way they lean, why pretend?

[rahmota]

At the national leve l I'd have to agree with you cancel. At the state and local level at least from what I've seen thigns do ahve a tendency to balance out.

But then again anytime you have a large organization dealing in very public hot button issues they are going to sway one way or another. It is very very difficult to walk in the world of politics and remain neutral or unbiased.

Also why pretend? Because americans dont like to have the truth spelled out to them. They like to have the fiction at least that we are a "fair and unbiased" people. That Truth, Justice and The American Way are still about fairness and equality for all. All that bunk that died a long time ago.

[CancelMyService]

That's still no excuse for a national group that claims to be defending constitutional right to put out ads/commercials concentrated in highly contested swing states that is questionable at best and flat out FUD at worst.

But then again anytime you have a large organization dealing in very public hot button issues they are going to sway one way or another.

Here in PA, I've only ever seen them swing in one way, towards republicans. Both on the national and state/local levels, they only attack democratic candidates in most cases for no other reason than their party affiliation just to re-enforce the link in people's minds that gun owners should vote GOP.

[Rapscallion]

That's still no excuse for a national group that claims to be defending constitutional right to put out ads/commercials concentrated in highly contested swing states that is questionable at best and flat out FUD at worst.

I don't know. I'm not particularly fond of the NRA, though being not in the country where it works I'm not subject to the results of its work. However, the group will have a constitution or charter that says what it will work towards. If working towards a goal means that it has to support a particular party to represent its members' interests, then that is what it will do.

If the democrats (got the right one here? I can't keep our lot straight, never mind another country's...) went for a policy of enforced gun ownership, then the NRA would swap its alleigance. Well, I'm assuming it would...

Rapscallion

[Boozy]

If the democrats (got the right one here? I can't keep our lot straight, never mind another country's...) went for a policy of enforced gun ownership, then the NRA would swap its alleigance. Well, I'm assuming it would...

I think CancelMyService is saying that they wouldn't necessarily switch allegiance, because the NRA is a shill organization for the GOP. The Democrats would have to offer them more than a pro-gun platform to get their endorsement at this point. His complaint is that they claim that their only concern is the rights of gun owners, but there's plenty more going on in the shadows; money exchanging hands, etc.

I don't know enough about the NRA to agree or disagree either way, but I wanted to make sure I at least understood CMS's point.

[Rapscallion]

Well, if their only interest is furthering the interests of those who wish to own guns etc, then they should keep an eye on all political parties and support the one that will give their members the best deal. Of course, this is then subject to the usual problems - humans being involved and honesty.

Rapscallion

[Tanasi]

First of all I'm a life member of NRA, I'm a NRA certified firearms instructor, and I'm a TN DOT certified firearms instructor. I'm also 25+ year retired Army Officer. I've seen the elephant and have scars to show for it.
NRA supports the canidate that will best serve their cause regardless of party. I receive their American Rifleman magazine and before elections they will include a voters suggestion guide that lists all canidates and who they suggest you should vote for from a firearms perspective. Yes on a national level they tend to support more GOP canidates then Demos for the only reason the GOP are more friendly to their cause. If you think NRA won't back a Democate then talk to retired Sen. Zell Miller, GA (D). NRA backed Algore until he changed his mind, he was more than willing to take NRA's money until he changed for polictical purposes (he also changed his mind regard abortion.) I'd have to do some research but I'd say NRA backed Bill Clinton to some extent when he was govner of Arkansas (not sure).
For those that don't know, annually NRA sends out surveys in regards to firearms to all canidates. A lot are not returned from both parties. NRA uses these surveys, the canidates past legislative votes and speeches to determine a grade in regards to firearms. Some score higher than others. Those with the higher scores gets NRA's endorsement and money, those with low scores do not, and in some cases NRA doesn't endorse any canidate. I know this for fact.
The Democrat party has not always been a friend of gun owners. We have them to thank for Gun Control Act or 1934, GCA 68, AWB 94 and some others that don't come to mind. Diane Finestein (sp) said if she could get legislation passed to take all guns she would. The AWB 94 was bad and needless legislation, all the banned guns listed were still available for sale afterwords with a few cosmetic changes. The high capacity magazines that were "banned" were still legally available for inflated prices, the ammo that was banned was truely banned but it was later re-introduced under different names. So what did AWB 94 accomplish not a danged thing.
Do you know the operational difference between an AR-15 and Ruger Mini-14? Guess what not a danged thing. Both fire the same round, both use detachable magazines, and both are gas operated. The biggest differences is cosmetic the AR is considered (by some) an ugly gun and the Mini-14 isn't. Now during the AWB 94 you could still buy ARs but they could only have 2 of the following: A protruding pistol grip, a detachable magazine, a flash supressor/hider, a bayonet lug, and a folding butt stock. The pistol grip doesn't necessarily make the rifle easier to use and in some cases makes it more awkward, detachable magazine I can see some slight point but the gun doesn't know the differencene between a 9 round mag and a 200 round mag, bayonet lug??? when's the last time outside a movie have you seen or heard or someone being hurt with a rifle mounted bayonet much less killed by one? Flashed suppressor/hider guess what it doesn't make the rifle more accurate nor does it aid the shooter in firing, it's purpose is to hide the muzzle flash from your enemy at night and guess what else it doesn't work very well. A folding stock makes the rifle a little easier to conceal but for the most part it also makes the gun more awkward to fire and IMO makes the gun less accurate.
OK now to political adds: Name me one organization that runs adds that is not in it's own interest. NRA is no more guilty than NAACP, labor unions, MoveON, professional organizations, etc. Does that make it right or wrong? Who knows, it doesn't make it illegal. Of course NRA targets specific areas for specific canidates just like all the other organizations, why would they spend money on an add in East Tennessee for a canidate that's basically running unopposed when they can help out a friendly canidate in another area that is running a close race with an unfriendly canidate? Also what exactly is NRA lieing about? Be specific. I'll admit I don't agree with everything NRA does, nor the GOP, and certainly not the DNP but I have to say there is not one more effective single issue organization. NRA has around 4 million members and no one is required to be a member, NEA can't say that, AFL-CIO can't say that. NRA members are from all walks of life, from most all politcal parties, heck you can even be anti-gun and be a member as long as you pay your dues.
Will NRA have a hand in getting the next president elected? Who knows neither canidate BHO or JM are exceptionally friendly to gun owners. NRA hasn't yet endorsed anyone for president and might not but I would say they'll throw in with JM. BHO regardless of what he says now is a known quantity and is unreliable at best and hostile at worst. JM is flaky at best and worst. Basically the best NRA can hope for is JM getting elected and/or keeping a 41+ friendly senators (of both parties) in the senate.

My fingers are sore from typing so much so I'll close. I also want you to know that I hope I don't present myself as being unfriendly, I'm not. I'm very passionate about firearms, I truely believe that a man or woman with a firearm is a citizen, all else are subjects. As to who to vote for: Vote for the persons you think will do the best job as I will. Have a nice day.

[Rapscallion]

My fingers are sore from typing so much so I'll close. I also want you to know that I hope I don't present myself as being unfriendly, I'm not. I'm very passionate about firearms, I truely believe that a man or woman with a firearm is a citizen, all else are subjects. As to who to vote for: Vote for the persons you think will do the best job as I will. Have a nice day.

I don't agree with your basic premise, which I read as someone not being a real person unless they're armed, but I can't see you as being unfriendly in here. You're sticking to the points. My one regret is that I didn't see this post to approve it until now - my apologies for that.

Rapscallion

[Slytovhand]

Tanasi - I notice that you're only on 3 posts, so I'll just add to what Raps said...

Good post!! Clear cut points in the argument, and no maliciousness towards members here... no unfriendliness that I detected! (and nice 2nd last sentence )

Slyt

[Tanasi]

I don't agree with your basic premise, which I read as someone not being a real person unless they're armed, but I can't see you as being unfriendly in here. You're sticking to the points. My one regret is that I didn't see this post to approve it until now - my apologies for that.

Rapscallion

Raps in no way did I intend to that one sentence to mean that unarmed people are not persons or unequal to the armed. My premise is that the unarmed are subject to those that control "their" government. Should a populace be unarmed then the basically "their" government is free to do as it will. IMO gathering up in large crowds and protesting is useless unless you have a means to enforce your will, Lord knows governments in this world have never been known to ignore the people's will, and not eliminate those that disagree by the 10s of millions.

Tanasi - I notice that you're only on 3 posts, so I'll just add to what Raps said...

Good post!! Clear cut points in the argument, and no maliciousness towards members here... no unfriendliness that I detected! (and nice 2nd last sentence )

Slyt

Guys generally I really try to be nice, I treat this forum as being within Raps home and I would never intentionally insult him or his guests. I will admit to some teasing but that's always meant in jest. As I've said in past posts at CS I'm a big believer in the Golden Rule: Treat others as you wish to be treated. I also believe we can disagree without being disagreeable.
I'm not sure of where Slyt lives or was raised, I know that Raps is an Englishster (jk) and I would assume that Raps wasn't raised around firearms, but I believe if you don't want to own a gun then you shouldn't be forced to own one, I just ask that you don't interfere with me. You have nothing to fear from me I would never intentionally harm anyone that hasn't first harmed me or mine.

As far as being late to post my response I did figure that you had overlooked it until Raps rebuke at CS then I was beginning to wonder. I really had intended to just lurk from now on and I probably will at CS as some are more sensitive that I'm used to. So I hope there's no hard feelings I certainly have none towards you all.

I still want to know what Cancelmyservice thought NRA lied about.