What's your opinion? Is it offensive to patriotic Americans that Al Jazeera runs opinion pieces like this?There is plenty of circumstantial evidence that the NRA's mission has nothing to do with its members, but everything to do with protecting the profits of the gun manufacturers who support the organisation with big bucks - not to mention pay the million-dollar-plus salary of the NRA's executive vice president, Wayne LaPierre.
One wonders whether these members know that not only are the views of LaPierre and the rest of his leadership team way out of touch with its membership - who overwhelmingly support universal background checks for gun buyers and stopping those on terrorist watch lists from enjoying easy access to firearms (see Part I of this series for poll numbers) - but that they are also subsidising LaPierre's lavish lifestyle.
This might explain the NRA's need for constant crisis marketing (Obama's coming with the Legion of Doom to take your guns!) to misinform the public at large and shake their members' wallets loose - the NRA's very own "We've got trouble! Right here in River City!" routine.
Please leave a comment.
"What's your opinion? Is it offensive to patriotic Americans that Al Jazeera runs opinion pieces like this?"
ReplyDeleteNo.
Otoh, to the PatriotiKKK MurKKKin Gunzboyz it's a real slap in the face. That's 'cuz the truth burns even MORE than the burning stoopit.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI don't give a darn who wrote it, it's ridiculous crap.
ReplyDeleteI firmly believe that all polls that report support for further gun control play on the ignorance of the general public. If people were properly educated as to our unalienable rights, and knew the actual success record of gun control, the only support you would get is those who just hate or fear guns, period.
...Orygunner...
The truth hurts but it does not lie. I agree with the Al Jazeera piece and go to them first when I want the whole story and not the spin of the becks and limbo types and those that follow our native terrorists goosestepping to the whims and bull shittery of corporations.
ReplyDelete"I agree with the Al Jazeera piece and go to them first when I want the whole story and not the spin..."
ReplyDeleteHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Given that 80% of the members suppiort reasonable gun regulation - including gun show background checks.http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/6762342.html
ReplyDeletethe evidence against the NRA, that it supports the manufacturers and ignores the wishes of the members, comes from multiple sources, including former NRA LOBBYISTS!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/29/AR2007102902121.html,
http://www.expressmilwaukee.com/article-4966-what-the-gun-industry-and-the-nra-donrst-want-you-to-know.html, http://www.vpc.org/press/9711eddi.htm
The usual rule applies....follow the money. The big money comes not from members, but from manufacturers. Ergo, the NRA really only represents the manufacturers, not gun owners, or their wishes.
Another good score for Al Jazeera.
The gun manufacturers have their own lobby, called the NSSF.
ReplyDeleteThe NRA is funded by dues paying members, something anti-gunners would know nothing about, since they're astroturf funded by the Joyce Foundation & Mayor Bloomberg.
Anonymous, are you foolish enough to believe that the gun manufacturers don't fund their lobbying efforts BOTH directly AND indirectly, by using the advantages offered by massively funding the NRA as well?
ReplyDeleteBecause if you are REALLY genuinely that naive, I've got this swamp land I'd like to sell you, and how about buying that wonderful, historic Brooklyn Bridge, too - real estate's a bargain right now!
dog gone:
ReplyDeleteI would rebuff your 80% figure in a few ways. First, restrictions on the enumerated individual right to keep and bear arms should not be influenced by popular opinion, especially the results of a poll funded by an anti-gun group.
Second, the questions in that poll were worded to get a certain answer. When the layperson is asked if she wants to "prohibit people on the terrorist watch list from buying a gun," the respondent will of course say yes, since nobody wants a terrorist to be armed. What she might not know is that the list is classified, that any one of us can end up on it by mistake, and there is no appeal process to be removed. If a person is so dangerous as to be on a terrorist list, why is he walking the streets at all? All in all, a bogus poll.
Also, I send my $35 to the NRA each year with the expectation that most of it will go to lobbying. I give them money because they represent my interests.
I conducted a poll last year of proven NRA members, not a manufactured poll of maybe-could be-sometimes-might be NRA members.
ReplyDeleteWhen asked: "Do you support Gun Control", 100% responded no.
When asked: "Do you support background checks on private transfers", 100% responded no.
Dog gone, I consider myself reasonable when it comes to gun rights (our hosts may disagree). I support background checks on all sales and I think it is silly to concentrate on just gun shows. I am OK with adding suspected terrorists to the NICS prohibited buyer list as well. So at the face of it, I might answer with the gun control side on those poll questions. But, I know better. I know better because I follow the gun control movement so I know the details of what they are *really* proposing. My problems lie in not *what* they are trying to accomplish on these issues, but *how* they are trying to do it. These critical details have been pointed out to the gun control side on numerous occasions: forcing transactions through FFLs rather than opening the NICS for private use, and the lack of due process for the terrorist watch list. This makes it a no-go even for us reasonable gun owners. So knowing what I know now, I would answer “No” and “Hell No” to those poll questions.
ReplyDeleteGun control can try for these issues while still preserving rights, but instead they keep pressing on with the same right violating language. At this point it can only mean an ulterior motive.
MAgunowner said...
ReplyDeletedog gone:
I would rebuff your 80% figure in a few ways. First, restrictions on the enumerated individual right to keep and bear arms should not be influenced by popular opinion, especially the results of a poll funded by an anti-gun group.
Enumerated rights or not, our SCOTUS has affirmed repeatedly that it is a right which can be modified and limited precisely to reflect popular opinion, in this case however it is about public safety and not really about popular opinion.
and he also wrote Second, the questions in that poll were worded to get a certain answer.
Regardless of who funded the poll, it was conducted by noted conservative /Republican Luntz, so if you have a problem with the wording, blame him, not the group who commissioned the poll.
and
Also, I send my $35 to the NRA each year with the expectation that most of it will go to lobbying. I give them money because they represent my interests.
They are taking your money, even directing members how to vote. What they are NOT doing is representing the interests of their members. If that works for you, keep throwing your money in their lap, but it doesn't make it smart.
TS said, "I consider myself reasonable when it comes to gun rights (our hosts may disagree)."
ReplyDeleteI don't know how Jadegold feels, but I certainly consider you extremely reasonable, at least up to a point. I don't see the big deal about opening up the NICS or making all checks go through an FFL. Either way is fine for me.
I agree the management of the terrorist watch list needs some tweaking, but I see it similar to the shall issue/may issue debate. There's a large swath of people who haven't been convicted of anything serious and must be allowed to continue walking the streets, but who are not safe to buy guns. The local police know about the ones in their areas, hence they should have a say-so in the issuing of concealed carry permits. The FBI knows about many terrorists who've been minding their manners while in the country but who we don't want buying guns.
TS, I'd say you're right in the middle between the gun control and the gun rights extremes. I respect that.
TS, I believe you are perfectly reasonable as clearly does our host here, MikeB.
ReplyDeleteI would take issue with this statement from TS - in a polite, respectful and civil disagreement -
"But, I know better. I know better because I follow the gun control movement so I know the details of what they are *really* proposing. My problems lie in not *what* they are trying to accomplish on these issues, but *how* they are trying to do it."
What they are really trying to do is to stop the wrong people - like criminals, violent domestic abusers, stalkers, dangerously crazy people, and drug addicts, and children - from getting access to guns. Also terrorists, and people shipping guns to drug cartels over the border.
If you have better wording or a better idea of how to do that, please consider joining rather than condemning those who would like to see more reasonable gun restriction to make all of us - non-gun owners, gun owners, and the various authorities (police, border patrols, ATF, FBI, DEA agents) be safer, as measured by fewer gun deaths (total, and per capita) in this country.
As a gun owner, a gun owner who acquired a quite powerful fire arm for personal safety reasons in support of a criminal restraining order, on the advice and in cooperation with police, I can tell you that I emphatically do NOT wish to see all guns banned.
ReplyDeleteI can also tell you that the attitudes expressed by many of those who are the most emphatic and extreme advocates for gun ownership, those which effectively advocate for or support illegal conduct by gun owners without understanding what the legal limitations are (as has been expressed hear, most recently in the pistol whipping in Washington post comments), those who seek gun ownership for violent overthrow of the United States (as is the case with an overwhelming majority of the para-militias, and sadly, too many tea party supporters), and those who are simply paranoid gun fetishists DO alarm me. I think they all are more or less nuts, based on their statements and attitudes, and that they have incredibly bad judgement about handling and owning firearms.
I am appalled at those who would encourage or approve of having our society all carry guns, everywhere, all the time. Among those considerations which appear to be lacking is that the resorting to weapons reduces the civility of our society. It additionally discourages important commerce (like foreign tourism).
I strongly believe my gun training was correct; you pick up a gun specifically and ONLY because you intent to use it as a weapon, and then specifically to kill (not wound). It is not EVER appropriate to rely on or use a gun of any kind as a threat or to coerce some sort of behavior from another person, regardless of how much you want that behavior or feel it is appropriate to use a gun to get it.
The current attitudes about guns I see expressed by pro-gun/ pro-2nd Amendment fans, unlike yourself TS, seem far too frequently to advocate for the wrong weapon for a specific scenario - like expecting a single hand gun to hold off a riot just because you have an expanded capacity magazine or a certain rate of fire. Or to mistakenly believe that they will, superhero-like, intervene with their magical gun and their superior human response, to stop a dangerous crime.
The fact is that even with point blank range, surprise, and victims who could not escape, the shooter in the Giffords tragedy only hit 19 people in firing a 31 bullet magazine, and a number of those were not serious wounds. While it is horrifically tragic that 6 people died, that is still a kill or effective stopping rate of around 1/5th of those who the shooter hit. In that circumstance, a second shooter would have definitely hit additional people, but the odds of hitting the intended target, the shooter, are not really very good. It was a situation where my gun training instructor would have advocated to take cover, but not to fire. That same instructor went to great lengths to teach us how not to become a statistic - either as someone who gets shot, or who tragically shoots the wrong person, or who fails to shoot the right, intended person, with as few shots as possible to do the latter (not a spray of bullets).
I find myself embarrassed, ashamed, and frankly appalled at far too many of those MikeB and his associates call gun nuts. My fervent desire is to tell those gun nuts to 'get off my side' of being a gun owner who expects to continue to be a gun owner.
What they are really trying to do is to stop the wrong people - like criminals, violent domestic abusers, stalkers, dangerously crazy people, and drug addicts, and children - from getting access to guns.
ReplyDeleteBullshit. Your end goal is civilian disarmament. You want as many people disarmed as possible. This has always been the goal of anti's and their actions prove it even while they claim they just want "reasonable regulations."
You folks are anti-rights bigots, nothing more.
My fervent desire is to tell those gun nuts to 'get off my side' of being a gun owner who expects to continue to be a gun owner.
ReplyDeleteYou are not pro gun, you do not respect my Constitutional rights, and you are NOT on my side. That's OK though, because your side is losing.
You are firmly aligned with bigots like MikeB, Demo, etc.
Dog gone, I’ll clarify further about *how* gun control is trying these issues. There is a large contingent of gun owners (even some of the extreme ones) who would actually like to see the NICS opened up for private use. I believe gun control groups know this, and they know that the best way to pass gun laws is to claim they have gun owner support (see AHSA, luntz polls, the constant effort to get hunters against “assault weapons”, etc). Yet they forge on down a path that requires transactions to go through FFLs, usually dismissing the idea as “having difficulties” (ironic since they have a “we can do it” attitude in the face of mounting adversity). It seems MikeB has come around to the point of indifference which is a start. Forcing transactions through a dealer means individuals are not allowed to sell their private property, it increases costs (devalues their entire collection), it is inconvenient (for the sake of inconvenience), and allows another squeeze point on gun owners by pressuring FFLs (my city has run every FFL out of business). Given all that, an open NICS is straight up BETTER at accomplishing the goal of background checks. If you want background checks on transfers- make it easy and cheap so that more people will actually do it. But gun control has never been about making things easy for us even if they get to accomplish their goals. And there in lies the problem.
ReplyDeleteThe terrorist angle just needs due process for it to be acceptable in my book. So we have a list of suspected terrorists, fine. If we want to search any of their homes- we need due process (as in a warrant). If we want to bug their phone- due process (and we know there is rightful outrage if that doesn’t happen). If we want to deny the right to keep and bear arms- due process. That means gathering evidence on a particular case and bringing it before a judge to be signed off on. Then we can tap their phone, search their house, AND put them on the NICS prohibited purchaser list at the same time. We can do that and still deny guns to those who Mike said the FBI knows about. All I ask is that we not suspend the justice system that we have had in place for centuries in the name of gun control. That is not asking much. The Brady Campaign might be surprised at what would happen if they drafted a bill that included due process.
MikeB: “TS, I'd say you're right in the middle between the gun control and the gun rights extremes. I respect that.”
I don’t know about that. I would much rather have Zorro writing our gun laws than you ;)
Luckily, I get Al Jazeera English free from the ASTRA 2 satellite. It makes CNN look like some kind of amateur operation and BBC is slowly sinking into the sea these days.
ReplyDeleteI agree that they are probably the most really fair and balanced news organization out there and if you really listened to their analysis, you would see that they try to present different angles and opinions on the news they cover. They also go places that other major news orgs totally ignore. It;s where i go when I want to find out about the rest of the world.
As far as Fat White Guys personal poll, did he mean to try to make us think he wasn't just talking into the mirror when he did his sampling?
"Bullshit. Your end goal is civilian disarmament.
ReplyDeleteYou folks are anti-rights bigots, nothing more.
That was the eloquent and super-intelligent Mr. Anonymous.
The fact is I'm all for the rights of people to not worry about whether or not you're safe to be around in the shopping center or at the movies. I'm for the right of people to know that if you're carrying a gun, you've been screened and trained thoroughly.
Your repeating that oft-heard silliness about the real intentions of gun control, is comical. If you really mean it, you're a paranoid nut.
@Mikeb,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote:
"The fact is I'm all for the rights of people to not worry about whether or not you're safe to be around in the shopping center or at the movies. I'm for the right of people to know that if you're carrying a gun, you've been screened and trained thoroughly."
Hmm, what rights are these, and what evidence or reasoning do you have for why these exist?
I contend that the "rights" you suggest do not really exist. We do not have a right to "not worry", but a right to take whatever measures we choose to make ourselves feel less worried. We do not have a right to know other people that choose to carry guns are screened or trained, we have a right to choose for ourselves whether we exercise our rights responsibly or not.
The right to swing our fists ends at someone else's nose. If your "rights" effect the free exercise of another person's rights, they are not really rights at all and are instead null and void.
I will even go as far as to say when your actions infringe on the rights of another, you are committing a crime. If you get the government to do it for you, then the government has just gone against the very principles it was created for - Government's primary duty is to protect individual rights of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, not infringe upon it.
...Orygunner...
Dog_gone:
ReplyDeleteRegardless of who funded the poll, it was conducted by noted conservative /Republican Luntz, so if you have a problem with the wording, blame him, not the group who commissioned the poll.
Ah, yes, Frank Luntz, and his company, "Word Doctors," which advertises not how accurate its polls are, but how they get the "desired" results:
If you need to create the language to build support for legislation, we’ll find the right words. If you need to kill a bad bill, we’ll show you how. Either take control of the debate, or the debate will take control of you.
Penn and Teller masterfully eviscerate Luntz's "polling" methods.
Orygunner, I'll tell you what rights are those. They're the ones necessary for people, in many cases, to enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
ReplyDeleteNatural human rights:
"the rights of people to not worry about whether or not you're safe to be around in the shopping center or at the movies. I'm for the right of people to know that if you're carrying a gun, you've been screened and trained thoroughly."