NRA Prepared to make sure this never happens again
POSTED BY: ANTHONYT
UPDATED: Monday, December 31, 2012 18:17
VIEWED: 11662
PAGE 10 of 10
The NRA was founded in 1871. How does the fact that it accepts $ from the gun industry make it their 'overlords' ? Seems to me that it's a quid pro quo arrangement, where both parties rely on each other.
Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen
Resident USA Freedom Fundie
" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
As to the NRA and gun manufacturers, only someone self-blinded would argue anything but that the NRA works for the gun manufacturers, and does virtually nothing more.Quote:
Why can’t America keep murder weapons out of the hands of these lunatics? The answer: the NRA Industrial Complex.
Each time we have one of these mass murders, the shooters get enormous publicity. But the makers of weapons — without which these killings would be a deranged individual’s fantasy — seem to benefit. To be fair, the National Rifle Association (NRA) has been scaring gun owners about the imminent threat to their arsenals ever since President Obama took office. The NRA’s tactics have contributed to industry growth.
And that growth has been impressive. After all, according to the National Shooting Sports Foundation between 2008 and 2011, jobs in companies that make, distribute, and sell firearms and ammunition have grown 30%
By any measure, the gun industry is outpacing the US economy that has been inching along at a 2% annual rate.
And America can give some of the credit for that to the NRA. Bloomberg reported that the NRA ended 2011 as “a lobbying, merchandising and marketing machine that brings in more than $200 million a year
And the gun industry – led by Ruger – has benefited tremendously from the NRA. According to IRS fillings, from 2004 to 2010, the NRA’s revenue from fundraising — including gifts from gun makers who benefit from its political activism — grew twice as fast as its income from members’ dues.
Over 50 firearms-related companies have given at least $14.8 million to NRA according to its list for a donor program that began in 2005. That was the year NRA lobbyists helped get a federal law passed that limits liability claims against gun makers. Former NRA President Sandy Froman wrote that it “saved the American gun industry from bankruptcy,” according to Bloomberg.
But the key to gun industry growth in the last few years is the NRA’s effort to scare gun owners and stop President Obama from being re-elected. To that end, NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre gave a September 2011 speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference in Orlando, Fla., in which he announced “a massive Obama conspiracy to deceive voters and hide his true intentions to destroy the Second Amendment in our country.”
Do we want to make sure that a handful of gun industry executives and shareholders continue to enjoy market-beating profits? Ultimately, the NRA’s power comes from the way it spends money to reward politicians, who turn its self-interest into the law of the land and use its money and power to defeat politicians who oppose its will. Guns are an essential ingredient in senseless mass murders.
And gun industry money is similarly vital to stifling anyone who dares discuss changes in the law that would keep Rugers and Glocks out of the hands of lunatics. Excerpts from http://www.forbes.com/sites/petercohan/2012/07/23/the-nra-industrial-c
omplex/
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Niki - even if they do, which I don't buy, so what ?
Keeping guns from law abiding citizens, which is all Obama really wants to do, will not keep law abiding citizens safe.
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul with evil." - Socrates
" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Regarding the NRA, they will do essentially ANYTHING to keep selling guns, even when it comes to our military:Quote:
US military commanders are increasingly expressing frustration with the National Rifle Association for blocking what they feel are vital measures to keep troops safe.
The controversy revolves around the surge in suicide within the armed forces. The Pentagon is facing an “epidemic,” Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told lawmakers this week, with some 206 US troops suspected of taking their own lives so far this year.
“That is an epidemic,” he said. “Something is wrong.”
As they cast about looking for possible ways to bring down the rates of suicide, commanders say that the answer may lie in having candid discussions with their soldiers about their personal firearms--and to take personal weapons away from those who appear likely to hurt themselves.
“The majority of [suicides] have two things in common: Alcohol and a gun. That’s just the way it is,” General Peter Chiarelli, the Army’s former Vice Chief of Staff, told the Monitor this January, shortly before he retired. “And when you have somebody that you in fact feel is high risk, I don’t believe it’s unreasonable to tell that individual that it would not be a good idea to have a weapon around the house.”
The problem, say US military commanders, is that a new NRA-backed law prohibits them from engaging in discussions about weapons and safety.
“I am not allowed to ask a soldier who lives off-post whether that soldier has a privately-owned weapon,” Chiarelli says. The legislation took effect at the end of 2010.
While commanders are permitted to ask troops who appear to be an imminent danger to themselves or others about private firearms--or to suggest locking them temporarily in a base depot--the law requires that if the soldier denies that he or she is thinking about harming anyone, then the commander cannot pursue the discussion further, he adds.
Half of troops that killed themselves use firearms to end their life and “suicide in most cases is a spontaneous event” that is often fueled by drugs and alcohol. But “if you can separate the individual from the weapon,” he added, “you can lower the incidences of suicide.”
“In many circumstances, awareness of risk means removing firearms from those who we believe are at risk of harming themselves or others,” Brig. Gen. Jonathan Woodson, an Army Reserve physician and Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, told the audience at a recent suicide prevention conference. “I would ask all of you at this conference to commit to making reasonable recommendations that will guide uniform policy that will allow the separation of privately-owned firearms from those believed to be at risk of suicide."More at http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2012/0727/Gun-control-Why-the-US
-military-is-fighting-with-the-NRA/(page)/2
So to the NRA, the risk of suicide by soldiers, which is a very real risk and which has been increasing for some time now, is trumped by the good old Second Amendment and keeping guns in the hands of as many as possible.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Why does your silly cartoon ( and that's exactly what it is ) specify the right to own guns for RECREATION ? Where in the 2nd Amendment does it mention recreation ? Or for sport ? It doesn't.
Quote:
There is no legitimate exception to the Second Amendment for military-style weapons, because military-style weapons are precisely what the Second Amendment guarantees our right to keep and bear. The purpose of the Second Amendment is to secure our ability to oppose enemies foreign and domestic, a guarantee against disorder and tyranny.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/336529/regulating-militia-kevin
-d-williamson#
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul with evil." - Socrates
" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero
"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012
Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"
Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
A thought occurs to me. Before I write that thought, I want to remind everyone that I've been clear about taking a reasoned, rational middle road on the issue of gun control.
My thought is this:
Speaking on average, 87 people died of gun-inflicted violence in the last twenty-four hours. This is to say nothing of rapes, robberies, and other crimes committed at gunpoint.
The common argument from the radical end of the pro-gun spectrum is that if these people were armed, those crimes would be prevented.
I have to call bullshit on that narrative, permanently and definitively.
Why?
On Monday, March 30th, 1981, while surrounded by a dozen or more heavily armed and excruciatingly well-trained Secret Service agents, President Ronald Reagan was shot and wounded by a random lone gunman in a crowd of people in Washington, DC.
Not only did all of those guns in the hands of highly-trained professionals not stop John Hinkley, Jr. from pulling out his own pistol and shooting quite probably the most heavily-protected man on the planet, Hinkley was able to fire *six times*, hitting a police officer and a secret service agent directly, and grazing the president with a ricohet. Even *after* those six shots were fired, it was still a random union steward (or "thug" if you prefer) from Cleveland who made the first and critical contact and apprehension of the shooter. He did not use a gun to do it.
In addition to all of that, there is the stark fact that *at no point* during the assassination attempt was the reality of several of the world's most highly-trained gunmen whose sole purpose in life is to provide an immediate armed response to precisely such a situation, and equipped with the most powerful and advanced firearms federal money can buy, any sort of factor in preventing the assassination attempt or subduing and arresting the shooter.
Now can we PLEASE put this ridiculous notion that some random yobbo with a Saturday night special in his waistband could do any better, and start talking some rational, reasoned solutions to the problem of gun-related violence in our culture?
Thanks.
John Henry
http://www.facebook.com/JohnHenryLG?ref=stream
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero
"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012
Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"
Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Please Disregard this message.
--Anthony
Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9
“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME