Bloomberg to take on NRA-FAIL

[nodoginnafight]

New Evidence that the NRA Might Be Just Another Corporate Front

Mainstream Media Downplay NRA's Close Ties to Gun Industry

Here's Who The NRA REALLY Represents

NRA Gun Control Crusade Reflects Firearms Industry Financial Ties

"Your current strategic focus clearly places priority on the needs of gun and ammunition manufacturers while disregarding the opinions of your 4 million individual members."

I support the NRA's right to support the gun industry - just about EVERY major industry has lobbyists.

If NRA members are content to shell out their hard-earned to support arms manufacturers, then that's fine by me. But if they contribute and pay their dues with the understanding that the NRA is representing their views, they deserve to know the truth.

The NRA spent half a million in one day alone trying to defeat a bi-partisan proposal to expand background checks at gun shows and for online purchases. This, in spite of the fact that 85% of GUN OWNERS supported the proposal! (and 91% of all Americans)

You fail to understand:
Bad/useless law is bad/useless law, regardless of how many people like it.

What you fail to understand is that 91% don't consider it "bad" or "useless."
Just because YOU think it is - doesn't make that true.

 

[Bfgrn]

Hey if you disagree with something in the study read it and post it.

I did, you can't read.

I can't read it and pull out what you disagree with. I think the study is a common sense finding. Now why don't you counter it with some study saying carrying a gun makes you less likely to be shot? I'd gladly read it and tell you why it is wrong. I don't think you'll find one that says that, but feel free to. According to the study your odds are better at being shot if you carry.

The study was as subjective as you are and you still don't get it. You are afraid of guns, I'm not. The solution is simple, stay away from them and be comforted with massaged statistics and I'll take my odds.

You have not specifically stated what you disagree with. Please share and we'll discuss. I've provided a link that says exactly how the study was done.

The little weasel is not afraid of 'guns'...but he is afraid of everything else. That is why he clings to his steel 'manhood'...

 

[Iceweasel]

The little weasel is not afraid of 'guns'...but he is afraid of everything else. That is why he clings to his steel 'manhood'...

Spoken like a child. Cartoons and comedy shows are about your limit.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I did, you can't read.
The study was as subjective as you are and you still don't get it. You are afraid of guns, I'm not. The solution is simple, stay away from them and be comforted with massaged statistics and I'll take my odds.

You have not specifically stated what you disagree with. Please share and we'll discuss. I've provided a link that says exactly how the study was done.

The little weasel is not afraid of 'guns'...but he is afraid of everything else. That is why he clings to his steel 'manhood'...

I don't think demonizing all gun owners is accurate or helpful. It only supports the "they're after my guns" meme.

If you are not out to eliminate the private ownership of guns, why try to paint gun owners in a negative light?

If you ARE out to eliminate the private ownership of guns - then change the Constitution.

If you - like me - support the right of individuals to own guns, but believe that universal background checks or some other non-oppressive rules are in order, why not support the millions of gun owners who agree with you?

 

[boilermaker55]

I wouldn't be surprised if most of the para-military types already engage in poaching of all kinds. You know, the law is not there for them. they feel they are above the law.
But if someone was to get the upper hand on them and they had to use the law, hell they would be all over that part of their lives again.

speaking of New York

a million folks missed the last day of mandatory registration

of their "assault" weapons

which came and went on 4/15/14

--LOL

Indeed- And what I point out to the weak and dependent left, is Nevada was just a dry run. When one puts in perspective the fact that Michigan alone sold over 1 million hunting licenses in 2012 speaks volumes.

If the government continues down the path it's on, there will be a gatherings at Little Big Horn, Vicksburg and Concord etc, that will make the Nevada scene look like child's play

-Geaux

What the hell does hunting licenses have to do with you gun nuts? The stupid military weapons are not legal for hunting in most states, and many hunters, like myself, have nothing but contempt for you whacked out idiots. Besides that, given the attitude toward the law and common decency displaced by the whackaloons, most of you probably poach the game, and only take the backstraps, leaving the rest to rot.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I support the NRA's right to support the gun industry - just about EVERY major industry has lobbyists.

If NRA members are content to shell out their hard-earned to support arms manufacturers, then that's fine by me. But if they contribute and pay their dues with the understanding that the NRA is representing their views, they deserve to know the truth.

The NRA spent half a million in one day alone trying to defeat a bi-partisan proposal to expand background checks at gun shows and for online purchases. This, in spite of the fact that 85% of GUN OWNERS supported the proposal! (and 91% of all Americans)

You fail to understand:
Bad/useless law is bad/useless law, regardless of how many people like it.

What you fail to understand is that 91% don't consider it "bad" or "useless."
Just because YOU think it is - doesn't make that true.

You're right.

The fact that it unenforceable - and that fact, alone - makes it both bad and useless; that 91% of the people like it does nothing to negate this.

And so, your criticism of the NRA and its oposition to the law in question, based on nothing more than an appeal to popularity, demonstrably holds no water.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If you - like me - support the right of individuals to own guns, but believe that universal background checks or some other non-oppressive rules are in order, why not support the millions of gun owners who agree with you?

Backgound checks area form of prior restriant, where the stae, without cause, retrains the exercise of your right until it determines that said exercise meets the limitations placed upon it by the state.
How is prior reatraint not oppressive?

 

[Jarlaxle]

I wouldn't be surprised if most of the para-military types already engage in poaching of all kinds. You know, the law is not there for them. they feel they are above the law.
But if someone was to get the upper hand on them and they had to use the law, hell they would be all over that part of their lives again.

Indeed- And what I point out to the weak and dependent left, is Nevada was just a dry run. When one puts in perspective the fact that Michigan alone sold over 1 million hunting licenses in 2012 speaks volumes.

If the government continues down the path it's on, there will be a gatherings at Little Big Horn, Vicksburg and Concord etc, that will make the Nevada scene look like child's play

-Geaux

What the hell does hunting licenses have to do with you gun nuts? The stupid military weapons are not legal for hunting in most states, and many hunters, like myself, have nothing but contempt for you whacked out idiots. Besides that, given the attitude toward the law and common decency displaced by the whackaloons, most of you probably poach the game, and only take the backstraps, leaving the rest to rot.

More projection!

 

[9thIDdoc]

I wouldn't be surprised if most of the para-military types already engage in poaching of all kinds. You know, the law is not there for them. they feel they are above the law.
But if someone was to get the upper hand on them and they had to use the law, hell they would be all over that part of their lives again.

Indeed- And what I point out to the weak and dependent left, is Nevada was just a dry run. When one puts in perspective the fact that Michigan alone sold over 1 million hunting licenses in 2012 speaks volumes.

If the government continues down the path it's on, there will be a gatherings at Little Big Horn, Vicksburg and Concord etc, that will make the Nevada scene look like child's play

-Geaux

What the hell does hunting licenses have to do with you gun nuts? The stupid military weapons are not legal for hunting in most states, and many hunters, like myself, have nothing but contempt for you whacked out idiots. Besides that, given the attitude toward the law and common decency displaced by the whackaloons, most of you probably poach the game, and only take the backstraps, leaving the rest to rot.

The number of hunting licenses matters because most hunters are pro-gun.
There is little-if any-difference between those "stupid military weapons" and to a very large extent they are interchangeable. I have quite legally and effectively taken deer with '03 Springfields, 1917 Enfields, a Kraig-Jorgenson, a M95, and M98 Mausers all of which had been military rifles. Shotguns popular with hunters have also seen very considerable use with the military. Most hunters with half a brain know that pretty much any criteria used to ban "Military" weapons can also be used to ban traditional hunting weapons.

 

[R.C. Christian]

An M-14 is 1 hell of a weapon.

 

[M14 Shooter]

An M-14 is 1 hell of a weapon.

Not that hunting has anything to do with the 2nd amendment, but...

The M14/M1A, especially the accurized models, are exceptional rifles for hunting - every bit as capable as any bolt-action .308/.30-06. No reason you cannot hunt with one in exactly the same manner as you would a Win-70 or Rem -700.

Cue the usual anti-gun loons openly displaying their ignorance with commentary about needing 30 shots to hit a deer.