Why are NRA people so angry all the time?

American friends: NRA

  • I support em

    Votes: 42 43.8%

  • I don't

    Votes: 40 41.7%

  • on the fence

    Votes: 14 14.6%
  • Total voters
    96
RerouteToRemain said:
Solution to what?
Click to expand...

They should be trying to solve any firearms related issue. Broadly speaking there are three main categories: fire arm accidents and safety concerns, illegal firearms used in a crime, and legal firearms used in a crime. One kid was run over by a driver who couldn't see them while they were backing-up and now cars are required to have back-up cameras as a standard feature. Surely the NRA could at least try to come up to a solution regarding accidental shootings.

RerouteToRemain said:
Solution to what? Loosing 2nd amendment rights.
Click to expand...

See. This is the issue. If you don't like someone else's suggestion, then bring your own to the table and understand you might have to compromise a little bit to get it passed. If the pro-gun people aren't willing to sit at the table and compromise, then they're leaving the solution completely in the hands of the anti-gun crowd.
 
andnowweknow said:
Those are some rose colored glasses. They are agents of protection for the gun industry. The benefits they produce for individual gun owners are ancillary and 100% a secondary concern.
Click to expand...
No, thats what they are. You're making up shit to suit your agenda. They ARE a non profit, civil rights group. They speak for their members when there is legislation that may affect them.
 
InternetHero said:
A good time to post a classic.

The Left’s Phony War on Guns

By Kevin D. Williamson
June 17, 2016 8:00 AM

Their fight isn't about stopping shooters, it’s about identity politics.

This isn’t a gun-control debate. This is Kulturkampf.


In the wake of the San Bernardino shooting, the actor Samuel L. Jackson said that he hoped it would turn out that the killer was a white man. David Sirota wrote the same thing after the Boston marathon bombing, in an article headlined “Let’s hope the Boston marathon bomber is a white American.” Jackson and Sirota were disappointed: Both atrocities were carried out by Muslims as expressions of solidarity with the worldwide Islamist enterprise. The massacre in Orlando was perpetrated by a Muslim, the son of an Afghan immigrant, a man of the sort we have been taught to call a “person of color,” I suppose. (Do Afghans count? This is never made clear.) He may or may not have been suffering from some sort of crisis of sexuality: It isn’t clear whether his earlier presence in the Florida gay club was cruising or casing.

...A later excerpt that sums up the thesis... The cultural role of the NRA (to the left) is to be the fat white face that absorbs the Left’s hatred for the hunting, shooting, and gun-collecting demographics.

The full story for anyone interested:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/06/orlando-shooting-gun-control-left-wing-identity-politics/
Click to expand...

It happens on both sides.

The NRA and gun industry play politics with millions in lobbyists, and use massacres to feed off people's fears just the same. Now LaPierre is making blanket statements about better dead than red socialists hiding in everyone's closet following the Parkland killings. Funny, not a peep out of him when we employ a socialist mechanism to fund the most expensive and wasteful department of defense in the world. I wonder how many trillions will go "unaccounted for" in the Pentagon this year. But that doesn't matter because the military makes the gun industry $$$.
 
Seano said:
Armed security is a better idea. People who's job is just that.
Click to expand...

Some school districts may not be able to afford much in the way of armed security though. Teachers willing to carry may fit the budget better in some instances.
 
Cooz said:
Because there will always be a school without an armed teacher.
Click to expand...

That is certainly their choice, but I don't see why that means you have to close the door on that possibility for all school districts.
 
fonzob1 said:
Some school districts may not be able to afford much in the way of armed security though. Teachers willing to carry may fit the budget better in some instances.
Click to expand...

I would be more than willing to donate any funds my daughters school would need for CCW classes, firearm purchases, and even ammunition and holsters.

My Grandfather is willing to take it one step further, and donate firearm safes and ballistic vests to any school Offical that would ask.

The local sheriff's department and school board have been nothing but resistant to these ideas up until the Parkland shooting.
 
BangersAndSmash said:
They should be trying to solve any firearms related issue. Broadly speaking there are three main categories: fire arm accidents and safety concerns, illegal firearms used in a crime, and legal firearms used in a crime. One kid was run over by a driver who couldn't see them while they were backing-up and now cars are required to have back-up cameras as a standard feature. Surely the NRA could at least try to come up to a solution regarding accidental shootings.



See. This is the issue. If you don't like someone else's suggestion, then bring your own to the table and understand you might have to compromise a little bit to get it passed. If the pro-gun people aren't willing to sit at the table and compromise, then they're leaving the solution completely in the hands of the anti-gun crowd.
Click to expand...

I've proposed things in other threads that address that. The funny thing is that I've actually responded to multiple people asking for "their ideas" or posters calling pro gun posters out for not putting anything forward. I basically never get a response from the anti's.

The problem with this "If the pro-gun people aren't willing to sit at the table and compromise"

They are the only ones who do compromise, over and over and over until you have some shit like Europe or Aus.
 
Seano said:
No, thats what they are. You're making up shit to suit your agenda. They ARE a non profit, civil rights group. They speak for their members when there is legislation that may affect them.
Click to expand...
Why do you suppose the NRA lobbies against restrictions on gun purchases that the majority of their own membership doesn't oppose?

My motives are irrelevant to the question so you can leave that on the side for now. I understand what the NRA projects as their mission so I don't need to hear it rehashed here.
 
BangersAndSmash said:
One kid was run over by a driver who couldn't see them while they were backing-up and now cars are required to have back-up cameras as a standard feature.
Click to expand...
Um, what? That's not a thing.
Surely the NRA could at least try to come up to a solution regarding accidental shootings.
Click to expand...
What do you dummies think the NRA is? Its not a regulatory body, it's a club. A club for gun owners that advocates for the rights of gun owners.



See. This is the issue. If you don't like someone else's suggestion, then bring your own to the table and understand you might have to compromise a little bit to get it passed. If the pro-gun people aren't willing to sit at the table and compromise, then they're leaving the solution completely in the hands of the anti-gun crowd.
Click to expand...
There is no compromise. I refuse to be disarmed or in any way inconvenienced because some dumbasses can't use their weapons properly.
 
They are coming for our guns!!
I lol at this shit all the time...
There is this phobia like if the GOV is going to knock on your door and get you 22 rifle and shotgun away from you and you will defend your home against the government with your guns till you die.
If the government wants to get your guns they can just send a fucking drone and bomb your ass, end of story.

But you seeThe government will never come an get your guns, they are not that stupid they know that if they try there will be a revolution happening and no body wants that.
The problem is that the NRA think they have a saying on government laws when they don’t. They use the scaring tactics that any religion or cult use, they put fear on their members by telling them the GOV wants to take away your guns “please donate money”.
Fuck the NRA
 
BangersAndSmash said:
They should be trying to solve any firearms related issue. Broadly speaking there are three main categories: fire arm accidents and safety concerns, illegal firearms used in a crime, and legal firearms used in a crime. One kid was run over by a driver who couldn't see them while they were backing-up and now cars are required to have back-up cameras as a standard feature. Surely the NRA could at least try to come up to a solution regarding accidental shootings.



See. This is the issue. If you don't like someone else's suggestion, then bring your own to the table and understand you might have to compromise a little bit to get it passed. If the pro-gun people aren't willing to sit at the table and compromise, then they're leaving the solution completely in the hands of the anti-gun crowd.
Click to expand...
The bones of many modern training courses trace their roots back to NRA training programs.

As for being somehow "responsible" for coming up with solutions, that'd be like expecting the NAACP to willingly suggest concessions like carding or stop-and-frisk to their stakeholders.
 
andnowweknow said:
Why do you suppose the NRA lobbies against restrictions on gun purchases that the majority of their own membership doesn't oppose?

My motives are irrelevant to the question so you can leave that on the side for now. I understand what the NRA projects as their mission so I don't need to hear it rehashed here.
Click to expand...

Like what?

Corporations make up very little of their donations/budget.
 
RerouteToRemain said:
I've proposed things in other threads that address that. The funny thing is that I've actually responded to multiple people asking for "their ideas" or posters calling pro gun posters out for not putting anything forward. I basically never get a response from the anti's.

The problem with this "If the pro-gun people aren't willing to sit at the table and compromise"

They are the only ones who do compromise, over and over and over until you have some shit like Europe or Aus.
Click to expand...

Well, I think biometric trigger locks are a good solution for many firearm related problems, provided they work right. Even if the current ones aren't satisfactory, I think they definitely can be perfected to work right. In the future, I think even military weapons will have some sort of biometric protection that prevents them from being used by the enemy. It will probably go beyond just a trigger lock, although I think we're probably at least somewhat far away from that.

https://www.theverge.com/2016/1/8/10738564/smart-gun-lock-obama-ces-2016

As for the compromise bit, yeah it would have to be the pro-gun people who compromise first, because what latitude is there to provide them? Get rid of background checks? Allow fully automatic weapons to be legally purchased? I don't see either of those measures as realistic, even to most gun owners. Just because compromise happens once, doesn't mean that you have to keep compromising until guns are outlawed or whatever. Besides, whats made illegal can be made legal and vice versa, so no change is permanent.

If I was a betting man, I would bet on guns becoming obsolete before they became completely illegal to own in the US.
 
jlagman said:
As for being somehow "responsible" for coming up with solutions
Click to expand...

So you think gun regulation right now is absolutely perfect with no issues?

Well most people don't, and if you don't come up with solutions that you can live with, then yeah, somebody else is going to come up with the solution they prefer.

You're right, they aren't "responsible" for coming up with new solutions, but it's in their best interests.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,254,468
Messages
56,648,898
Members
175,333
Latest member
dubhlinn

Share this page

Back
Top