Does the current rhetoric of the NRA remind you of another place and time?
After yet another mass shooting, the (nearly bankrupt) National Rifle Association still proclaims guns are not a problem, and: “...anti-gun Docs should stay in their lane.” The US Medical community disagrees. What do you think?
I gotta say I may be very naïve, but I was FLOORED when I learned that the NRA is almost bankrupt. HOW? How can this be? LOL
Can you tell me? How? THEY ARE lining the pockets of Congress left and right and they are BROKE? THEN WHAT? What happens when they go bankrupt? Anything?
Well to answer your question here I will compare it to the Ku Klux Klan. If they went bankrupt. Just say they did. Do you think they would be changing one word of their rhetoric? NEVER. That is who they are.
So, guns are safe, is what the NRA is. Denial. That is what the NRA has always been. I just don't get how they are operating and why they are so broke. Who is siphoning all the money? I mean they have to have lots of money. Who mismanaged it?
This post was edited by WM BARR . =ABSOLUTE TRASH at November 8, 2018 7:36 PM MST
We discussed this on another Q. The NRA outlay to candidates during the 2016 campaign cycle far exceeded their annual revenue. By millions. Mismanaged, maybe embezzled too, lawsuits are building. Can you say legal fees? [send your money now!]
The recurring massacres, and prevalence of shootings everywhere, amid the defiant stance of the NRA are hurting it’s membership. Dues are way down, as are sales of NRA swag.
This post was edited by Don Barzini at November 8, 2018 9:32 PM MST
If I had an interaction about this with you before, then you probably were the one I was asking when I learned about it in the first place. If so, forgive. I forgot this. But if it was just something you discussed in another question, I don't read everything nor do you.
So, thanks either way. This was most enlightening. I will remember. I promise.
The NRA lost it’s way years ago, Spunky. Instead of being a club for gun enthusiasts, it metastasized into a political Super PAC, pushing neurotic hyperbole about this or that politician wanting to “take our guns away”. I was a soldier, I support all the Amendments, and I own guns, but the NRA is a joke to me. Of late, they’re practically insolvent as well.
This is one of the best reasons why big business should be curtailed from contributing millions of dollars to political campaigns. I'm not sure how the SCOTUS could possibly rule them to be "persons," and instead of winding up with a government by and for the people, we have a government that the most money can buy.
I agree. It might be a bit like asking Congress to vote themselves a pay cut. Who are they to tie off the flow of “voluntary” contributions to their “cause”?
And therein lies the rub Congress will never do anything that would kill the Golden Goose. Perhaps there should be a fourth branch of government that deals with issues like this and ethics.
I'm in favor of much tighter regulation of guns. After the Port Arthur Massacre in Hobart, Tasmania, the then Australian Prime Mininster, Mr Howard, enacted a nationwide buyback of guns. Every owner who surrendered rifles and guns was paid the market price. An estimated half of all guns were handed in and destroyed. All automatics and semi-automatics were made illegal. To qualify for a gun license, and Australian must be able to show good reason why one is needed and be free of any record of mental illness or criminality. Hunting of feral animals or for sport is permitted within strict parameters. Farmers are permitted to keep guns to put down sick or injured livestock. Security guards and police are permitted guns under specific circumstances. The result was a drop to one-tenth of the previous rate of murders. Such a change was easier in Australia because the border controls are nearly impossible to slip past and because Australia does not manufacture armaments. Even so, I feel certain that America could do a better job of arms control if the political zeitgeist became strong enough. I wonder what kinds of events it would take to convince the pro-gun lobbyists.
This post was edited by inky at November 10, 2018 9:00 AM MST
Sadly, in the US, the gun genie is too far out of the bottle to put it back. We manufacture guns here (though Remington recently went into bankruptcy) and the machinations of groups like the NRA have held open the door to automatic weapons being available to the public. Their rank and file equates controlling guns to civil rights violations, so that line of thought is a tough sell. There have been gun buyback programs, but their effects usually last until the next miscreants loot a gun store (which are practically everywhere).
Myself, I have no issue with collecting rare guns, or hunting with rifles, or (as you may surmise our need of) having a means of home defense. But automatic/assault style weapons don’t belong in the hands of civilians, IMO. They are intended for war, not hunting. I believe the evidence of their misuse speaks for itself.
This post was edited by Don Barzini at November 9, 2018 3:10 PM MST
Only the very rich can get their hands on an automatic weapon. And must pass a very strict background check. An automatic weapon costs upwards of $15,000.
While that isn’t entirely true (the ”black market” for guns is huge - urban drug gangs can get them), doesn’t that frighten you even a little?
This post was edited by Don Barzini at November 9, 2018 4:52 AM MST
And they are NOT cheap. Yes, we need to enforce the laws we have. And if a crime is committed with a firearm it should automatically trigger prison time....no slap on the wrist allowed even if a first time offender.
These guns are already illegal (unless you have those $1000s to spend and can pass that background check) and new law or new ban will not help with illegal guns, that kind of what makes them a criminal.
You hit on something interesting, black market guns. If you take all the firearms from the knowledgeable, law-abiding citizen the criminals will still be able to get firearms from the "black market" or other illegal sources. Which means, if the law-abiding citizens are disarmed, those with illegal, black market guns will have more of a field day than they already do because they will know that their prey is a whole lot more vulnerable.
Inanimate objects like guns don't suddenly decide to grow legs and arms and decide to run out and shoot people. You have to remember, it's not the firearm that presents the problem, it's the criminal pulling the trigger. Only law-abiding citizens obey the laws, criminals don't. So why hand over more innocent lives to the criminal element by taking away there means to protect themselves and their families?
I agree. The Second Amendment is a boon to us all, and as I said, since the genie is out, law abiding citizens need and deserve the ability to protect themselves.
The problem is the availability of guns. Not every law abiding citizen has or uses a gun safe, and legally acquired collections can and often do get stolen. Kids bring daddy’s gun into school; people who’ve acquired guns legally go off the beam; we’ve all seen these stories. They don't BECOME criminals until they actually pull the trigger. Add to that the volatile social climate and here we are. My point with the question is the NRA is advocating that more guns is the answer.
We’re descending into a downward spiral toward a fortress mentality, IMO.
This post was edited by Don Barzini at November 9, 2018 10:39 AM MST
The original purpose of the NRA was for rifle marksmanship training. However, despite this, the NRA is the oldest civil rights organization in the United States. While African Americans were being terrorized by the Ku Klux Klan, where the Klan was sometimes aided by local law enforcement, the NRA setup charters to help train local African American communities to be able to protect themselves. Something that many don't know about.
The NRA is active in wildlife conservation. It offers extensive firearms training programs including one called the Eddie Eagle GunSafe program used to promote gun safety to minors. I am a life member of the NRA and it was mainly the training programs that drew me to them. I was also a trained firearm instructor. The NRA's current stance on gun control is to enforce existing laws more aggressively. Which unfortunately isn't being carried out with any great regularity by the political machinery or some of the law enforcement agencies around the country. Has the NRA done and said some things I disagree with? Yes, it has but they still carry out the fight to defend our Second Amendment rights and for that I'm thankful.
I think we should recognize they’ve now become almost virulently political. We know they literally hand out millions and millions of $ to campaigns; as is their right, absolutely. No argument.
Huge Black Market, I would suggest a recheck of facts. A legal Class 3 has only been used in 1 murder since 1933 - fact not fiction.
Now what the Drug Gangs are getting is 3rd world smuggled weapons. The other source is straw purchases. The cost is prohibitive for the average Street Gang for Class 3 weapons, even smuggled. Now if we are talking about the Old Time Cartels, different story. They had the money and the Networks. The new breed are viscous, albeit dumber than bricks.
You have been watching far too many movies and reading far too many fiction novels.
What frightens me is individuals that want new laws, however they bitch a funding enforcement o the current laws on the books.
Cureent price for a low end is around $17,000, that was a Reisen. Figure $32,000 on average. A special permit manufactured after 86 is about $8,000 most of these go to Private securities firms or PMC's with a need. Current price is $6500 + fees for a total of $8,000
Don Barzini 