Anti-NRA vitriol increasing?

D

DaleA

New member
Is Anti-NRA vitriol increasing? I ask this because of the comments to news stories and a Public Radio program “1A” that asked the question “Why Can’t We Talk About Guns?” (Short answer, it’s hard to engage with folk that see nothing wrong with phrases like “gun nut”, “gun fetishist” and “NRA Terrorist”.

Seems like a year, a year and a half ago stories about ‘gun violence’ would have quite a lot of pro-gun folk putting in their comments which by and large were reasonable. Now, there’s a LOT of anti-NRA comments being posted---even the story about the police shooting the unarmed Australian woman which had no NRA connection at all.

Here’s the stories I mentioned. These stories have all allowed comments.

Daily Mail
Florida man shooting tires on AT&T trucks
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4713042/Homeowner-shoots-T-trucks-parked-outside-home.html

1A
"Why can't we talk about guns?"
http://the1a.org/shows/2017-07-13/why-cant-we-talk-about-guns

Austrailian woman shot
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ossible-rape/?utm_term=.414810b2d4a5#comments
 
If you argue with an idiot , then there are two idiots.

Besides when we refuse to debate/argue with them, it upsets them all that much more.

You will never change their position anyway. Don't let them bait you and pull you down to their level.
 
The Alt Left is desperate. Politicians, however, know that more gun control is political suicide, but bashing the NRA sounds good, so...........
 
It's like arguing to ban cars, Anti gunners would find that topic ridiculous even though so many are killed (including children) in wrecks every year not to mention the occasional vehicular homicide.

It's also hard to debate a topic about guns with someone who knows next to nothing about them so of course movies become their primary educator.

Debates are suppose to have logical arguments but usually they devolve into emotional pleas after their thin gun knowledge cracks and falls away.
How can I argue how you feel?; Or how you think I should feel?; Or how im a bad person cause I don't feel the way you feel?

I've yet to see anyone converted via discussion, I have seen a few reach middle ground of keeping an open mind sometimes education and a firing range can work.. But really the only single incident catalyst I've seen that will actually convert someones thinking is after they've had a violent encounter and wished they had a gun.

I actually know someone who was anti gun and converted after a situation.
Now they're an instructor.
 
Like much of the gun-control agenda, it's a pack of lies, but a pack of lies with a very professional presentation.

Gun control cost a great many politicians their jobs in the 1990's. For two decades, they largely left it alone. Sure, Feinstein would push a new Assault Weapons ban every year, but it was assumed a failure before even reaching committee.

Then the Newtown shooting happened. It was time for gun-control advocates to get the band back together. They knew framing the debate as "smart folks like us vs. the dumb hicks who cling to their guns" was a recipe for failure, so they tweaked the message a bit.

Instead of blaming the voters or other politicians, they created a strawman in the form of the NRA. They claimed 90% of Americans supported their proposals, but that the NRA spent gajillions of dollars to sway politicians to its favor, thus thwarting the will of the people.

Basically, the narrative strategy was to paint the NRA as a creepy, monolithic corporate behemoth and then alienate it from its members. What's that, you say? The actual lobbying is done by the ILA, who subsist only on member donations and only have about $4.2 million/year to spend? Noooo...let's conflate the ILA with the NRA proper so the public assumes their membership dues are going to stop us from saving the children.

Yes, they're lying, but it actually worked to some extent. Once the narrative was laid out, politicians started "calling out" the NRA. Secretary Clinton made "tackling the NRA" a day-one priority for her presidency. Everyone made the NRA look like the uncaring bogeyman so they could divide and conquer. They repeated that lie loud and long enough that more than a few moderates quit the organization because they believed the hype.

LaPierre's tone-deaf statements certainly didn't help. They've said a few boneheaded things, and our opponents have wasted no time using that to their advantage.

Another part of the narrative that was changed was the actual terminology. Apparently, "gun control" didn't work well with focus groups, so now we've got everyone from Shannon Watts (or Troughton or whatever name she uses this week) to Gabrielle Giffords calling themselves "gun safety" advocates.

So, we've got "gun safety" advocates working in direct opposition to the nation's largest, most effective gun safety organization. Let that sink in.

The problem is, they've been successful on the state level. Washington, Oregon, and Colorado are just a few states where their "gun safety" laws have passed. Anyone who speaks in opposition is branded as a lapdog (their wording) of the evil NRA. There have been mainstream media claims that the NRA profits from and even wants more mass shootings because these things bring more money in for the "gun industry," who are apparently the NRA's paymasters and puppet masters.

Alas, that's pretty much what all political discourse is like these days, but it's been used in reference to the NRA because it works for them when nothing else did.
 
Most of us pro-gun folks just hide in the shadows, listen to what the other side says and quietly vote.
We can't go into partisan politics, but me and my wife along with other family members have to pretend to be of the opposite party to maintain a favorable employment status.
Most of us just silently nod at each other. My social media looks like someone who'd align themselves with gun control.
Then they are caught off guard when the election results come in.
 
SIGSHR said:
IMHO the anti-gunners are getting desperate because they know public opinion is flowing away from them.
Click to expand...
Correct. Not only is public opinion against them, but so is math. People are far more likely to die from poisoning or liver failure than being murdered by a firearm. The opposition is in crisis mode, and they're throwing anything and everything at the NRA to see what sticks.

Sure, the NRA doesn't help things when they roll out ads that are fairly polarizing. But I support the NRA because my dues go to club support and education, and because they are one of the most effective and successful lobbying organizations in the US.
 
What passes for a newspaper in the "city" near me had an editorial this morning on "Why can't we end gun violence?" They mentioned three shootings, but their overall argument was that for too many people today, violence is the response to perceived lack of "respect." What they omitted (intentionally or out of ignorance) is the reality that if a thug wants to get someone for not giving him (the thug) the respect he feels is due him, if he can't get a gun he'll use a knife, if he can't find a knife he'll use a baseball bat, and if he can't find a baseball bat he'll curb stomp the other dude. The problem is not "gun" violence, the problem is "violence as the first response to any difference of opinion."
 
The NRA's change in stance is a fairly recent one.. the "stand and fight" is actually what it's members want.. or at least the majority.

Looking back at past major bills I think it's fair to say the 2a has been bent enough already.. we're all out of compromise.. at least I am.

Pretty much all the major stuff happen before I was even born.. who the hell dropped the ball?
 
Pretty much all the major stuff happen before I was even born.. who the hell dropped the ball?
Click to expand...

It could be argued that it was the Supreme Court letting the NFA 1934 stand as constitutional that set the stage for every thing after.
 
It could be argued that it was the Supreme Court letting the NFA 1934 stand as constitutional that set the stage for every thing after.
Click to expand...
Since the topic is the NRA - - it's only fair to point out that the NRA not only supported the NFA of 1934, but, they also wished to include a tax on all handguns - similar to the tax on full auto!

The NRA's change in stance is a fairly recent one..
Click to expand...
Absolutely..
I clearly remember when the NRA's policy was to back off when the anti's started to squawk....
 
Since the topic is the NRA - - it's only fair to point out that the NRA not only supported the NFA of 1934, but, they also wished to include a tax on all handguns - similar to the tax on full auto!
Click to expand...
Your history is a bit wrong. The $5 handgun tax was removed from the NFA at the behest of the NRA.

One narrative I've noticed coming from the millennial crowd is that the NRA somehow sat back and let all this bad stuff happen. As such, they claim that the modern version of the organization is not worth supporting.

The plain fact is, the NRA has always represented the wishes of its members and supporters. The Assault Weapons Ban? The Brady Act? The NRA didn't oppose those as much as it might have because its members didn't oppose them. If people have such a problem with the supposed compromises and deals the NRA has made, perhaps they could consider actually joining the organization and voting in board elections.
 
Tom Servo said:
The plain fact is, the NRA has always represented the wishes of its members and supporters.
Click to expand...
I'd say you're probably right.

I don't know about the 5$ pistol tax, But from what I do know is they supported the 34 and 68 law, there is a issue of American Rifleman around 68 that has a article in it to that effect.. I don't recall which issue but I can find out if it's of interest to someone.

If you had asked me years ago I'd be one of those people complaining.
They tried to squash Heller, They only supported it AFTER it was to late and going to be heard by the court.

Essentially they was worried of a loss and did not want to chance it.
But afterwards with the win they got a lot more bold.

I think we're better off with the NRA then without and they've taken a lot harder stance (as they should) They're also a lot more active in supporting local orgs which is where all the action is these days at the state level.

I agree that it's likely the NRA act's the way it act's based on it's members wishes.
Gun culture has changed, now the EBR is the order of the day.. unfortunately that's where a lot of the infringement has long done it's damage.
Just a lesson not to cave to appease the gun grabbers, what seems insignificant today might be of major importance tomorrow.

The republicans have a opportunity they could go in and tweak the existing laws.. out right repeal or major overhaul might be politically unworkable but A good first step might be to reopen the registry.. some democrats would probably even support it (they're not all gun grabbers), Imagine the boost to the market that would bring, The buying spree would make the panic buying of years gone by look like a yard sale.

For the record I don't see that actually happening though.
 
The debate over guns in America has never been easy – but is it getting harder to keep it civil and useful? ibid
Click to expand...

Both sides of the ‘debate’ are equally guilty of incivility and rendering it useless to realize solutions.
 
jdc1244 said:
Both sides of the ‘debate’ are equally guilty of incivility and rendering it useless to realize solutions.
Click to expand...

Solution suggests there is a problem.
If you're talking about compromise I'd say we (the pro 2a) have compromised quite a damn bit thus far.. it does not seem to be enough..

Ya know what, Scratch that.. we haven't compromised anything.. We've Forfeited, A compromise would imply we get something in return.. which from what I can see is scant little.

If I put forth the suggestion of a national registry and elimination of all private transfers, However in return all.. I MEAN ALL restrictions and taxation was eliminated.. do you think any one on the other side would take that deal?

Not a chance.
 
jdc said:
Both sides of the ‘debate’ are equally guilty of incivility and rendering it useless to realize solutions.
Click to expand...

Rights don't call for solutions.

JoeSixPack said:
Pretty much all the major stuff happen before I was even born.. who the hell dropped the ball?
Click to expand...

Voters.

They elected an executive and congressional majority who chose to disregard a range of individual rights that served as a check on federal power.

The Constitution is an impressive document, but it carries no greater authority than people are willing to give it.
 
But from what I do know is they supported the 34 and 68 law
Click to expand...
They didn't oppose the laws. There's a difference. The National Rifle Association of the time wasn't a 2nd Amendment advocacy organization. Their focus was on marksmanship and training. That really didn't change until 1977.

They tried to squash Heller, They only supported it AFTER it was to late and going to be heard by the court.
Click to expand...
Again, your history is a bit off. The NRA had genuine misgivings for good reason. Had Kennedy broken for the other side, we'd have been left with a ruling from SCOTUS that said there is no individual right to own a firearm. We would have seen sweeping nationwide bans by 2010. There was reason to be apprehensive.

In fact, the NRA had their own case, which they tried to merge with Heller. There was a great deal of confusion and misunderstanding at the time. It's worth noting that the NRA mended fences with the SAF and brought lawsuits against Chicago and San Francisco immediately after the ruling.

Pretty much all the major stuff happen before I was even born.. who the hell dropped the ball?
Click to expand...
Everybody. I'm really tired of the younger generation pointing fingers at everyone older and claiming we somehow "sold them out" or "dropped the ball" when they have no idea of the context. The general public could not be mobilized to oppose regulation in 1934, 1968, or even 1994. Without that clout, gun-rights advocates were a voice in the wilderness, and one that was easily overwhelmed.

The current generation has it better than anyone in history when it comes to gun rights, and despite low levels of political activism, they sure do enjoy pointing fingers and laying blame.
 
The fear of what would happen with Heller was quite justified. Even though the decision was seen as positive, the follow up has had negative consequences with the state laws.

Same risk with Peruta. Unless Kennedy was secured - it was a terrible risk.

Recall that much of the standard 'conservative' politicos were just fine with antigun laws. And many still are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top