Would there be any DU outrage/anger/frustration...

[-..__...]

if a more "Liberal" rights organization/lobbying group wielded the same influence, ability to turn out voters, get what they want, etc, was as effective as the NRA is?

What if NARAL, the NAACP, Green Peace, the Gay Liberation Front, NORMAL, etc were powerful/game changing enough to influence elections, get laws passed favorable to them, get laws unfavorable to them repealed, etc?

Would people here be enthusiastically supportive of them, or would they be just as opposed/disgusted by the ability of any one group to have that much sway... regardless of their purpose?

What I'm getting at, is it the NRA's all powerful influence that upsets people, or is it simply the product they're pushing?

Love'em or hate'em, there's no denying that they're damn good at what they do.

[Pharaoh]

1. You may be confusing groups

that represent people verses groups that lobby for corporate interests?

[beevul]

3. No, its you who are confused.

The nra represents PEOPLE.


The firearms manufactures have their own group that represnts them, and it isn't the nra.

[TheCowsCameHome]

5. DUzy

+1

[Starboard Tack]

13. The NRA sells guns to some of the PEOPLE

and takes money from the gun manufacturers

http://www.auctionarms.com/
http://www.friendsofnra.org/corporate-sponsors.aspx

The NRA represents gun dealers, gun makers and gun lovers.

[PavePusher]

23. Either you have trouble with reading comprehension.....

or you have serious cognitive problems.

Either way, neither of your sites supports your assertion.

[Skittles]

15. LOLOLOL

:rofl:

[-..__...]

7. Not at all.

There're many areas where the NRA's cause would have minimal to no effect on corporate interests; which as it turns out, isn't very interesting at all.

[ileus]

2. I don't really consider the NRA that powerful, it's the supporting non-members that hold the votes.

I've never really seen anything the NRA does except bug members with constant phone calls and mailers. That's why I'm not a member, I don't want my dollars wasted of BS. I dropped membership in 92 or 93....haven't looked back.

[Drale]

4. The NAACP doesn't try to justify murder or

putting weapons into the hands of dangerous people.

[DonP]

8. A few examples?

Or is this just another "everyone knows" piece of BS?

Or just a typical "ignorant of facts" drive by post?

[Drale]

9. "Guns don't kill people, people kill people"

Having a aunt who is an emergency nurse in Chicago and having talked to her about the subject, her experience shows that there are a ton more gun shot victims then knife victims. The NRA tried to convince people that if they didn't have guns, people would still kill each other and while thats true on a limited basis for the most part, many gun shot wounds are caused by spur of the moment decision that probably would not happen if they didn't have a gun at hand.

[gejohnston]

12. different demographic like gangster shooting other

gangsters. Before Nixon's war on drugs, when they were not as profitable, she would have seen more knife wounds. The rare gun was usually a homemade zip gun. In short, the pot smokers and coke heads are more responsible for that than the NRA or 99.9 percent of all US and Canadian gun owners combined, so don't feed us that shit. Put the responsibility where it belongs.

[Drale]

16. I'm guessing you don't know any of these "gangster" types

They reason there are more gun shot wounds then knife wounds is because they are cowards and it takes balls to fight with a knife, while pointing a gun at someone and pulling the trigger is easy. And before you ask I do know plenty of the "gangster" types and they are truly cowards.

[gejohnston]

19. Not personally but I am old enough to remember as I explained

Of course that was a different time when they had balls to settle their disputes up close rather than machine gunning a house and driving off. I agree, that is cowardly.

[slackmaster]

36. Pointing a gun at an innocent person and pulling the trigger is "easy" only if you are a psychopath

Normal people don't do that. Normal people often have difficulty shooting people who are truly deserving of being shot, and are sometimes left with permanent psychological scars even when it's clear that they did the right thing.

BTW, you are conflating criminal misuse of firearms, which the NRA certainly does not condone, with legitimate purposes for owning and using them.

[rl6214]

27. Emergency nurse in Chitcago huh? And what are they're guns laws?

That's right, very draconian.

My sister is an ER nurse in El Paso TX, has been for 30 years now. El Paso is across the border from Juarez, Mexico, the most dangerous city in the world. She would say she can count on one hand the number of gunshot victims that have come in over that time. This is in Texas, where everyone is a cowboy and everyone has guns.

[GreenStormCloud]

35. In 2010 El Paso had exactly THREE murders. N/T

[PavePusher]

24. You seem to imply that the NRA does do those things.

Cite to evidence, please?

[AtheistCrusader]

30. Quell surprise that you are clearly oblivious of NRA-backed gun laws, and NRA support of NICS,

and other tools such as increased sentencing, to keep guns out of the hands of ineligible consumers.

[baldguy]

6. NRA=GOP

Isn't that enough?

[-..__...]

11. Read the fucking question.

The whole "NRA=GOP" has been so repeated over... and over... and over again (ad nauseum), that your comment was predictable.

By your logic, political influence is fine, as long as it's your politics, gripe, or grievance.

[Tejas]

26. Brady = GOP

Helmke was a 3-term Republican mayor, Brady was Reagan's press secretary.


Please try to keep up.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[hughee99]

10. Not much, I suspect.

Whatever else most people say, it's really all about the political agenda. People (not just DUers either) are willing to overlook all sorts of things if the agenda is right.

[gejohnston]

14. just like the "terrorist watch list" nt

[hughee99]

18. Sure,

For example, let's say you have a group of private citizens who are taking it upon themselves to attempt to enforce an existing law or laws because the governing body isn't willing or able to do it. Do people support or oppose it?

[gejohnston]

20. I think you are missing the point.

Basically that the professional left were against the watch list before they for it because it never contained any terror suspects. The list is simply a list of names, if your name is T. Kennedy, you are hassled even though you are a senator from Mass. The same is true of Nelson Mandela. Another person on the list was guy who had gun powder residue on this combat boots. He just left the unit supply and armory and went to the airport in his utility uniform go get on a plane, to go to a Air Force aerial port, to get him to Iraq.

Now according to Rachel and Thom, it is important part of national security as long as it concerned gun sales. In other words, hypocritical bullshit on our side that we should not tolerate.

[hughee99]

21. This is exactly what I mean.

The scenario I laid out refers to either the Minutemen on the Mexican boarder or the Sea Shepherd fighting the "whale wars". Some people like the Minutemen and hate the Sea Shepherd, while others hate the Minutemen and love the Sea Shepherd. Essentially, it's the same situation, though.

No one here was in favor of making it easier for the government to look at someone's medical records until the government starting investigating Rush Limbaugh for doctor shopping, and then many (though not all) people were okay with making it more accessible.

No one was in favor of holding prisoners at Guantanamo Bay until Obama took over, and now you can find at least some DUers willing to try to justify why it's still open.

I could go on, but for everyone one of these (and then some), you can find similar hypocrisy on the conservative side as well. In the end, it all just really comes down is political agenda. I agree that we should neither tolerate it on their side or our side.

[gejohnston]

22. I am not saying that the cons are not hypocritical, just look at

Newt. They make it an art form. Personally, I like Sea Shepherd more than Minutemen. SSCS is multi national group of idealists standing up to corporate power and the planet. The minutemen would be better to help average Mexicans to take their country back from the oligarchs and the drug lords so that can stay home to support their families.

[hughee99]

38. There's definitely as much or more on the repukes side

but it seems a little ridiculous to me to scream about repuke hypocrisy while remaining willfully blind to our own.

[rrneck]

37. Yep. Issues like this are a handy litmus test

to see whether someone is concerned with the reality of people's lives or their own ideology.

A lacunae can crop up anywhere.

[PavePusher]

25. Depends on the law.

If the government abrogates their responsibilities to deal with a law, the people have every right to resume their previously delegated control.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

33. ...the agenda...

People (not just DUers either) are willing to overlook all sorts of things if the agenda is right.

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend."
"Where there's a will, there's a weapon."
Eschew intellectual dishonesty. ;)

[sharesunited]

17. Which of those other groups' efforts result in people shooting each other? The NRA is very special.

[rl6214]

28. stoopid post

[rrneck]

29. The NRA has a better business model. nt

[AtheistCrusader]

31. Are you kidding? Look at the people RIGHT HERE willing to use the Terrorist Watch List

without due process, for their pet peeve.

Bad when Bush does it, good when they do it. :crazy:

[ileus]

34. punishing all gun owners is a good thing from what I can read into it.