NRA wasn't always so crazy

[Michchamp]

two major differences characterize them today: the shift to being an industry/sales lobby group instead of a sportsman/rights group and the realization that they could sell more guns by embracing the "insane, unhinged, violent loser" element of society, and these apparently occurred post-1980.

this article compiled several quotes from the NRA, from 1938 to the present.

three of the best:

1. “I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons,” said NRA President Karl T. Frederick, a 1920 Olympic gold-medal winner for marksmanship who became a lawyer, praising state gun control laws in Congress. He testified before the 1938 federal gun control law passed. “I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses.”

3. “There’s no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons,” said California Gov. Ronald Reagan in May 1967, after two dozen Black Panther Party members walked into the California Statehouse carrying rifles to protest a gun-control bill. Reagan said guns were “a ridiculous way to solve problems that have to be solved among people of good will.”
​

6. The Second Amendment “has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime,” Burger told PBS’ News Hour in late 1991, referring to the NRA’s claim that the U.S. Constitution included a personal right to own guns.
​

but don't listen to educated people... listen to jackwads on the internet who cut and paste other arguments to the contrary, logic, consistency, and statistics be damned. also, for the avoidance of doubt, Warren Burger was appointed to the Supreme Court by Richard Nixon in 1969. Hardly a liberal activist...

granted, in #3, Reagan might've felt differently if those were white card-carrying Republicans toting guns into the statehouse to protest gun control, but then again, guns are guns so that shouldn't matter, right?

 

[Michchamp]

what are some of the anti-gun control posters opinions of this?

were the NRA of the past, Ronald Reagan and Warren Burger dangerous extremists bent on seizing our weapons and ushering in UN control of our nation?

Or has our society regressed so much that we all practically live in a war zone, dodging gunfire and deadly violence on a daily basis, justifying the need for increased and unrestricted gun ownership and use, and negating the arguments posted above. personally, I do not. maybe you do though?

 

[KAWDUP]

Actually I think you're the dangerous extremist, but that is a story for another day.

By "living in a war zone" were you thinking of the south side of Chicago or in the city of Detroit?

You couldn't possibly want to trap someone who liked Nixon and Reagan into agreeing with your obviously lopsided agenda?

BTW - society has regressed quite a bit, but it isn't just because the gun lobby is so powerful.

 

[Michchamp]

Actually I think you're the dangerous extremist, but that is a story for another day.

By "living in a war zone" were you thinking of the south side of Chicago or in the city of Detroit?

You couldn't possibly want to trap someone who liked Nixon and Reagan into agreeing with your obviously lopsided agenda?

BTW - society has regressed quite a bit, but it isn't just because the gun lobby is so powerful.

you didnt answer my questions. if you dont want to, ignore the thread. no one is forcing you to.

 

[Thumb]

I have never cared much for the NRA. They are simply a political lobby for gun manufacturers. We don't NEED the NRA to protect our 2nd Amendment rights, because nobody has tried to take them away.

the 2nd Amendment guarantees U.S. citizens the right to bear arms, but does not specify what kind, or say there is no limit. Nobody is suggesting (nobody serious anyways) that people can't own pistols, rifles, or shotguns. People don't get upset that they're not allowed to own 30MM Gatling guns, or shoulder fired rocket launchers (Bazookas), because that would be utter stupidity.

But the idea that a high capacity weapon, which are easily converted to full auto, and are often the same designs as what is carried by front-line troops, is somehow covered in the Constitution, and would be a violation of 2nd Amendment rights to have a ban on them has everyone all uptight.

And the NRA is mostly to blame, not because they care about your rights, but because they're backed by Colt, Bushmaster, and several other manufacturers, including the ones wanting to sell clips, stocks, sights/scopes, and other accessories for your very expensive assault weapons.


One other thing is this, I wish people on twitter, facebook, youtube, and everywhere else would cut the bullshit. And by bullshit I mean the "cold, dead, hands" bullshit. If the National Guard showed up tomorrow and said hand over your assault rifles, they would, people like to think/pretend they're a lot tougher than they are.

 

[KAWDUP]

you didnt answer my questions. if you dont want to, ignore the thread. no one is forcing you to.

You rarely answer any of my questions, posed directly to you, so that means little. I don't have to ignore any thread if don't feel like it, just like you.

If you look real close at the fine print, I did answer your question about society, but oooh, . . . I forgot . . . I didn't consider the rest of your statement. Do I really need to comment on whether I thought those individuals are dangerous extremists?

Uh . . . duh . . . OK. No.

 

[redandguilty]

Nobody is suggesting (nobody serious anyways) that people can't own pistols, rifles, or shotguns. People don't get upset that they're not allowed to own 30MM Gatling guns, or shoulder fired rocket launchers (Bazookas), because that would be utter stupidity.

I think I've made a couple suggestions pointing a bit in the "utter stupidity" direction. Not full-on advocating the stupidity, but suggesting it would be more practical to focus on pistols than to worry about more deadly weapons.

 

[Michchamp]

You rarely answer any of my questions, posed directly to you, so that means little. I don't have to ignore any thread if don't feel like it, just like you.

If you look real close at the fine print, I did answer your question about society, but oooh, . . . I forgot . . . I didn't consider the rest of your statement. Do I really need to comment on whether I thought those individuals are dangerous extremists?

Uh . . . duh . . . OK. No.

apologies. given the first few statements, I wasn't clear if that was your position. so you believe that society has regressed from the rule of law to such an extent that the statements I quoted no longer apply?

I disagree with this. I think by most measures violent crime has decreased nationwide over the last few decades.

Do you have any evidence to support your position, or was that just a casual statement or unsupported belief?

 

[KAWDUP]

apologies. given the first few statements, I wasn't clear if that was your position. so you believe that society has regressed from the rule of law to such an extent that the statements I quoted no longer apply?

I disagree with this. I think by most measures violent crime has decreased nationwide over the last few decades.

Do you have any evidence to support your position, or was that just a casual statement or unsupported belief?

Decreased natiowide as an average. Wasn't all good news in big violent cities however. Google searches are KEWL, no?

http://www.nbcnews.com/business/most-dangerous-cities-america-832351

Societal decline has been pretty steady, but it isn't completely due to violent crime, assault weapon use, or even just our woeful lack of good education available to everyone. It is due to the demise of the family unit. I will expound on that all day if you like. Just ask.

BTW - the statements you quoted are right on. Didn't think you needed a pat on the back for quoting some great people on the subject.

Has it come far afield from what it was? Again I didn't think the obvious was necessary. The reason I didn't particularly respond to that question is it is uninteresting. How is this different from most lobbying groups today? From Unions to farmers it is always about the money and what the government can do for a select few. How far afield are those lobbies?

If you say less than the NRA, I say take your blinders off.

 

[Michchamp]

Decreased natiowide as an average. Wasn't all good news in big violent cities however. Google searches are KEWL, no?

http://www.nbcnews.com/business/most-dangerous-cities-america-832351

Societal decline has been pretty steady, but it isn't completely due to violent crime, assault weapon use, or even just our woeful lack of good education available to everyone. It is due to the demise of the family unit. I will expound on that all day if you like. Just ask.

BTW - the statements you quoted are right on. Didn't think you needed a pat on the back for quoting some great people on the subject.

Has it come far afield from what it was? Again I didn't think the obvious was necessary. The reason I didn't particularly respond to that question is it is uninteresting. How is this different from most lobbying groups today? From Unions to farmers it is always about the money and what the government can do for a select few. How far afield are those lobbies?

If you say less than the NRA, I say take your blinders off.

I would say less than the NRA. Not all lobbyists or trade groups create equal results. There's a big difference between pushing for unrestricted gun ownership which results in a lot of innocent people getting killed in order to make the manufacturers that fund you a lot more money, and what unions or farmers do.

you keep citing large urban areas as reasons for justifying increased gun ownership, but in my experience, it's not residents of low-income urban areas who are members of the NRA and the ones vocally opposing gun control... it's rural/suburban whites who live in relatively low crime areas. there's a fundamental error in your logic here.

 

[Michchamp]

I would say less than the NRA. Not all lobbyists or trade groups create equal results. There's a big difference between pushing for unrestricted gun ownership which results in a lot of innocent people getting killed in order to make the manufacturers that fund you a lot more money, and what unions or farmers do.

you keep citing large urban areas as reasons for justifying increased gun ownership, but in my experience, it's not residents of low-income urban areas who are members of the NRA and the ones vocally opposing gun control... it's rural/suburban whites who live in relatively low crime areas. there's a fundamental error in your logic here.

so regardless, the factual basis for opposing gun control is bankrupt and cannot explain the inconsistency between the Pre-1990 NRA & and Post-90 NRA's statements. Nor does it refute the quote from Justice Burger, or the one in the article I cited.

Out of curiosity, did you even read those quotes & the article I cited, before deciding to plunge head-first into calling me an extremist and cranking out the bullshit false analogies to crime in Detroit and Chicago?

 

[KAWDUP]

I would say less than the NRA. Not all lobbyists or trade groups create equal results. There's a big difference between pushing for unrestricted gun ownership which results in a lot of innocent people getting killed in order to make the manufacturers that fund you a lot more money, and what unions or farmers do.

you keep citing large urban areas as reasons for justifying increased gun ownership, but in my experience, it's not residents of low-income urban areas who are members of the NRA and the ones vocally opposing gun control... it's rural/suburban whites who live in relatively low crime areas. there's a fundamental error in your logic here.

Not sure I see where this is coming from. There is a leap of logic connecting my messing with your sarcastic warzone comments, with somehow that I'm pushing unrestricted gun ownership. How does anything I said conflict with your point of suburban whites wanting unrestricted gun ownership? I am not advocating that. Why do you think I am?

Is this just a way of equating the logical position I took that a ban on a particular assault weapon wouldn't do all that much good at curbing violent crime? If, so nothing you said refutes what I said.

. . . and I can tell you there is at least one lobby who is pushing for things that help make our kids obese, and I will bet you way way more people die from heart disease than firearms deaths.

If it makes you feel any better, I believe trying to curb gun ownership is a good thing, and the NRA does nothing to help that position. Still think you are making too many conclusions based on suppositions about my opinions.

 

[Michchamp]

...

. . . and I can tell you there is at least one lobby who is pushing for things that help make our kids obese, and I will bet you way way more people die from heart disease than firearms deaths.

...

you might have a point there if I was arguing that the NRA is the worst lobbyist out there, or that they were the only lobbyist who causes harm... but that's not what I ever said.

My point is that the NRA is viewed as some sort of civil rights organization when in reality they are no different than OPEC... just an organization dedicated to maximizing profits of the gun & ammo manufacturers.

this view is harmful because it gives them the appearance of being unbiased defenders of a civil right, rather than the recklessly self-interested promoters they are.

 

[Michchamp]

...

If it makes you feel any better, I believe trying to curb gun ownership is a good thing, and the NRA does nothing to help that position. Still think you are making too many conclusions based on suppositions about my opinions.

not sure why you didn't state this up front, rather than posting what you did post then. this thread wasn't specifically about you

 

[Thumb]

. . . and I can tell you there is at least one lobby who is pushing for things that help make our kids obese, and I will bet you way way more people die from heart disease than firearms deaths.

While this is true, probably, I don't think you can equate bad eating habits to violent shooting sprees.

But I would also not object one bit to seeing a ban on the fast food and soda industries.

Interestingly, I just finished reading Toxin - By Robin Cook. It takes a pretty hard (fiction based) poke at how the USDA actually has a conflict of interest when it comes to meat safety.

 

[KAWDUP]

so regardless, the factual basis for opposing gun control is bankrupt and cannot explain the inconsistency between the Pre-1990 NRA & and Post-90 NRA's statements. Nor does it refute the quote from Justice Burger, or the one in the article I cited.

Out of curiosity, did you even read those quotes & the article I cited, before deciding to plunge head-first into calling me an extremist and cranking out the bullshit false analogies to crime in Detroit and Chicago?

LOL - really got under your skin eh? The very loose analogies were there to counter your sarcastic diatribe about living in a war zone as the only possible reason gun ownership means anything. Refuting partial facts when combined with the use of certain volatile phrases to bait posters is your specialty.

E. g.
Suburban whites are more likely to be for unrestricted gun ownership. (FACT) - Using that statement to "negate" the comments from former leaders of our nation, but then assuming any regression in society is due to this unmitigated need for guns, totally ignoring the fact that many people in the inner parts of big cities do just about live in a warzone.

Lastly, as if my disagreeing with parts of your post, means that I agree with the opposite of the entire thing. You do that all the time. As long as you do I will continue to argue with you.

BTW - I read every word. It isn't the articles I disagree with so much as your generalizations and leaps of logic to somehow denigrate a group of people that you have no right to denigrate as it is impossible for you to know that what you spout has THE casual effect of the prejudices you ascribe to the facts you provide.

EDIT: BTW calling you an extremist was done tongue in cheek. I know it is easy for me to say that in hindsight, but I figured you would relate and I have done that before, no?

 

[KAWDUP]

not sure why you didn't state this up front, rather than posting what you did post then. this thread wasn't specifically about you

It is all about me. Don't you know that by now? :*)

 

[KAWDUP]

While this is true, probably, I don't think you can equate bad eating habits to violent shooting sprees.

But I would also not object one bit to seeing a ban on the fast food and soda industries.

Interestingly, I just finished reading Toxin - By Robin Cook. It takes a pretty hard (fiction based) poke at how the USDA actually has a conflict of interest when it comes to meat safety.

Well I really wasn't equating the two. Only stating the causal relationship between the two is similar. I think you are right about USDA's CoF.

BTW I am not for a ban on fast food and soda for the same reasons.

 

[KAWDUP]

not sure why you didn't state this up front, rather than posting what you did post then. this thread wasn't specifically about you

I think it's obvious - you raised some ire by making the blanket statements/conclusions from the facts that you posted. Those are what I disagree with and what I argue against.

I have made it my mission to mess with you when you do that. Didn't you know that?

EDIT: Hope you realize the last thing there is a joke. Sometimes I am not sure.

 

[Thumb]

I'm not saying I was pro-ban on those industries, just that I would not object.

I don't eat fast food, or drink soda. But in the end, I do believe both are probably as dangerous as tobacco is, as far as the long term illness/deaths caused by prolonged use.