NRA...the good and not so good, lately

Simply this, allowed concealed carry by lawful citizens or have armed security - at government buildings that are Gun Free Zones - with the private sector let people carry or have the owner provide armed security.

Funny, I don't think the President's life is anymore important than the life of my neighbor down the street. I don't begrudge him or his family armed protection, but evidently he does mine. He's stated he would like a nationwide ban on concealed carry. As far as who is at greater risk? Probably some Kid on the South Side of Chicago in a gang and drug infested neighborhood. The impact of one life or death, maybe that kid on the South Side of Chicago was going to solve nuclear fusion or become President himself.

Everyman lives and Everyman dies - rich, poor, famous, unknown, powerful, weak - each has a right to life - I don't weigh this man's life as more important than that man's life - whether he serves as a President, an infantryman, or a janitor.
 
And yes the ad was in your face, it was meant to be. Why shouldn't it be if we really take these mass shooting seriously. The President's proposed legislation will do nothing to stop these shootings. Actually putting armed protection in place will help to prevent or minimize these tragedies.

The cost would be much less than many other things the government spends money on, a third of schools already have armed security and some are moving to train and arm school staff. Besides if this is as important as the President says then can we afford not too? How much is it going to cost to ban private sales and set up registration of all guns, which is the only way to, even theoretically, monitor all gun sales and transfers?
 
Obama just sighed $500 million for a "study" on guns. I would rather that money be spent on protecting the schools rather than pi$$ed into the wind on a study.
 
mack59 said:
Simply this, allowed concealed carry by lawful citizens or have armed security - at government buildings that are Gun Free Zones - with the private sector let people carry or have the owner provide armed security.

Funny, I don't think the President's life is anymore important than the life of my neighbor down the street. I don't begrudge him or his family armed protection, but evidently he does mine. He's stated he would like a nationwide ban on concealed carry. As far as who is at greater risk? Probably some Kid on the South Side of Chicago in a gang and drug infested neighborhood. The impact of one life or death, maybe that kid on the South Side of Chicago was going to solve nuclear fusion or become President himself.

Everyman lives and Everyman dies - rich, poor, famous, unknown, powerful, weak - each has a right to life - I don't weigh this man's life as more important than that man's life - whether he serves as a President, an infantryman, or a janitor.
Click to expand...

Perfectly stated. I agree on all points, Mack.
 
NRA is doing a fine job in my opinion. They have my support 100% and some of my cash when the budget allows. Somebody has to stand up to this administration's gun grab. Obama sickens me with his parading these kids around and the exploitation of sandy hook.
 
Another good point. His children are NO MORE important than yours or mine!
Click to expand...

As a human being? No, they aren't.

As an extension of the Presidency? They absolutely are. To be perfectly frank, if someone held a gun to your child's head could you compromise the security of millions? Of the entire world? No. The most powerful man on the face of the Earth could, however, if placed in that situation.

Such arguments sound petty and foolish. If you're going to spend the money on the ad, at least put something of substance into it. Attack the man's policies and stances, not the fact his kids are safe.

BTW, this is certainly not a condemnation of the NRA, because they are without a doubt the sharp end of our spear, I just think the premise of the commercial is poor.
 
It doesn't matter what you think. Notice, I didn't say "Obama's kids". The safety of the President's kids, wife, and himself are matters of national security. Whether you voted for him or not. And the safety of your kid is not. Period. End of discussion.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that his children should not be protected, but that mine should be protected also.
"All men are created equally", remember?
He is not our king

Such arguments sound petty and foolish. If you're going to spend the money on the ad, at least put something of substance into it. Attack the man's policies and stances, not the fact his kids are safe.
Click to expand...
That's exactly what we are attacking.
It's his policies that keep our kids unsafe.

Who's side are you guys on anyway??
 
Personally I have no problem with background checks but when you must seek permission to exercise a right it is no longer a right.
 
its an extremely important thing to put on the record, and into the discussion. the obama kids, they have 24/7 secret service guards. one of whom has that traditional mini uzi with 30 round magazines. both of wich are now illegal for private citizens.

heres a better comparison,

if a windowless van pulls up next to these kids, the driver will be spending time in jail no matter what.

if a windowless van pulls up next to one of OUR children, well have to wait 3 or 4 days before the police body dog smells something.
 
Case in point !!!!! How many of you watched the same video I watched on the day of the shooting and saw the LEO pull the Bushmaster from the trunk of the car?????
Click to expand...

It was not a Bushmaster. It was a Saiga shotgun.
 
Wow, this thread has turned into a rabid Obama hate-fest instead of an intelligent discussion. Have fun trying to out-do each other guys.

(Note to self: never criticize the NRA, even if they deserve it. It brings the birthers out of the woodwork).
 
I voted for Neither Candidate in this past election. I saw the writing on the wall long before the election every happened. My vote not withstanding didn't really matter as I am from a VERY red state. I voted for the candidate that most closely supported the same issues that I support. That candidate happened to be Governor Johnson.

That being said my point is that there is a better way of getting the message out to the masses. I have quite a few friends that hate guns. In fact I have friends that refuse to come to my house because they don't feel comfortable being in a house with guns. That is fin with me when I go to their house I simply leave my firearm in my car.

The discussion with us usually ends up in we respect each others right to our own opinion and beliefs. We also agree that if the NRA would promote a message of firearms safety and offer a more palatable way of communicating it would improve their image among those that are not very receptive.

I have another friend that constantly asks me why I feel the NEED to carry a firearm wherever I go. My response to her is that I hope I never NEED my firearm but it sure is nice to know that I have it in order to protect myself, my family, and others in just such an occasion that I may need to.

I have neighbors that are happy that I am able to carry firearms. Two of them are barred from doing so for previous life choices they have made. These people are nice people they have learned from their mistakes and care greatly for their community.

The majority of my friends are 2nd Amendment and support my same views. They also believe that the NRA should promote a much more tasteful message that educates rather than defends or attacks. I know what the NRA stands for as do you.

I am concerned that the NRA will give in to universal background checks giving the Federal Government the ability to build a database of everyone who is purchasing or has purchased firearms. This is akin to weapons registration.

If the NRA would stick to accurately Informing and educating instead of attacking I believe that the message will be better received by everyone.
 
Keene is showing signs of compromise in news interviews. This I don't like. They have an enormous amount of money they have accumulated over the years. If this is truly the fight of the century on gun control than it is time for them to spend it. If they decide to go for broke I will join them.

If they don't I will continue to abstain becoming a member.

I was actually beginning to think the NRA had changed until I heard this morning that they may agree to supporting universal background checks.
 
Background Checks

http://www.denverpost.com/politics/ci_22392384/nra-chief-says-group-accepts-background-checks

This article reflects what I have read regarding the Background check issue. The NRA hasn't said it supports Universal Background checks it says that it supports tougher background checks.

If the NRA comes out in support of Universal Background checks they are certain to hear from this Life Member.

I have no problem with a basic background check on the local and State level so long as there is no record of it kept. A national background check is a different story. I do not trust the Federal Government to not keep a record of such a check. This can start off very simple and get to the point that they are asking for much much more information over time to include positive confirmation of the purchase of a firearm, the type and serial number of it thus resulting in a national database of firearms owners with the types of firearms that they own.

It is my opinion that the current administration desires a national registry system and limits on the amount, and type of ammunition and firearms we can purchase and own and even consider purchasing. This can go so far as to requiring manufacturer to register every firearm manufactured and imported. Complete and utter control.

Long live the sheepdog for the sheep must graze
 
The message is good because it is provocative and confrontational, it upsets some people and gets them talking. Once the conversation starts it goes right to protecting kids from mass shootings. My point to anyone upset with bringing the President's kids into the conversation would be - well that is the point - what about our kids and their safety - no one questions the appropriateness of the President's family getting secret service protection or that they go to a school that has it's own armed security force - but the point is the President said that this national conversation and the need to pass legislation was about making our kids safe - he even emphasized that by having kids with him at his announcement. But none of the legislation the President has proposed will do anything to directly protect our kids. Maybe the focus needs to be put back on taking steps to protect them instead of focusing on laws that won't. Like passing legislation the makes sure that armed security protects all our kids at school.

Thus it effectively provokes discussion and leads it back to how can we stop these mass shootings and protect our kids, instead of why do you need an "assault weapon" or a "high capacity" magazine.

I've already seen it happen on lots of discussion boards, comment sections, forums, and social media. People complaining about the ad and acting morally outraged, only to be put on the defensive almost immediately. That the President's kids might "need" more protection than the average kid doesn't even play if you are a parent. Besides, tell a parent on the South Side of Chicago that their kid doesn't need protection as much, or tell the kids at Sandy Hook that they don't need as much protection, oh that's right they're dead.
 
I completely agree with your sentiment. I agree with the ad. What I would like to see though is the NRA bringing forth a message that everyone can get behind and understand. Specifically those that have a bit of animosity towards the NRA. We have legislators that detest the very existence of the NRA.

This is a Great time for the NRA to stand up and say "Hey we are with you on this. Though we may have a differing standpoint on the issue of guns lets agree to work together and at least promote Security and Safety in our schools. Can we do that?"

I think the NRA taking the tack of "Lets forget the guns for a moment and focus on one major thing. The number one way to prevent this type of event and others is School Security."

Then attack the broader issue of Guns and Gun rights. We will never be able to please everybody. But we can make our message a bit more tactful. Calling the president Ignorant and Hypocritical is divisive it turns a lot of people off and further galvanizes those who do not like the NRA.
 
Who's side are you guys on anyway??
Click to expand...

I'm on the side of believing the only thing you should have to do to buy a gun is lay down cash money. I think the point has been missed and judging from the bash fest, the attempt to even make one was futile.
 
Meanwhile, it was entirely OK for Obama to call the NRA hypocritical, while dancing in the blood of Sandy Hook, and using kids as props for his gun control?
doublepuke.gif
 
Whoever heads up mkting should be fired. It was a terrible public relations message and the gerbil that wrote it has an IQ that wouldn't register on the richter scale. Any perception to those fence sitters that NRA has a reasonable argument just went out the window.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top