More Liberal Speak Nonsense...

Discussion in 'Second Amendment and Legal' started by SHOOTER13, Oct 6, 2015.

  1. SHOOTER13

    SHOOTER13 RETIRED MODERATOR Lifetime Supporter

    3,606
    66
    48
    Who the N.R.A. Really Speaks For

    The New York Times
    By ALAN BERLOW

    An angry and exasperated President Obama, speaking to the nation last Thursday after the slaughter in Roseburg, Ore., made one oblique reference to the National Rifle Association, asking gun owners to question whether their “views are properly being represented by the organization that suggests it’s speaking for you.â€

    It’s a fair question, and not only because the N.R.A. has single-handedly dictated the shape of the debate over guns for decades. Whether they own guns or not, Americans should understand the outsize role the N.R.A. plays, not only in thwarting sensible gun safety laws but also in undermining law enforcement by abetting gun traffickers, criminal gun dealers and criminal gun users.

    The N.R.A., which claims some 4.5 million members, often professes to speak for all gun owners — hunters, sportsmen, collectors and ordinary Americans who keep guns for self-defense. But on some issues, most gun owners clearly reject the party line.
    In 2012, the Republican pollster Frank Luntz found that 87 percent of gun owners supported criminal background or “Brady†checks for all gun purchases. Following the December 2012 massacre of 20 children in Newtown, Conn., another poll showed that 92 percent of Americans supported background checks for all buyers, including those buying on the Internet and at gun shows.

    But by April 2013, when the Senate considered a bill to do just that, the N.R.A. campaign to defeat it was in full swing. The N.R.A. tagged the bill as a top priority and made clear that senators who opposed it risked receiving a low N.R.A. rating, which many of its single-issue supporters use in deciding how to vote, or a flood of negative television ads.

    Licensed gun dealers slated to run the new background checks would have reaped millions, as thousands of new customers would have been sent to their stores. But like many members of Congress — who cower in fear of the ratings system and negative campaign advertising — the dealers knew not to cross the N.R.A. So the measure went down, with opponents arguing that criminals don’t bother submitting to background checks.

    That story wasn’t quite accurate, though. Since some background checks were first implemented in 1994, gun dealers have turned away more than two million felons, drug users, unauthorized immigrants and other “prohibited persons,†according to a report by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

    When the organization’s chief executive, Wayne LaPierre, calls the N.R.A. “one of the largest law enforcement organizations in the country,†nothing could be further from the truth.

    Consider, for example, the federal law requiring licensed gun dealers to notify the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives when a single purchaser buys two or more handguns within five days. The A.T.F. knows that multiple purchases are an indicator of trafficking, and that traffickers can evade the law by making a single purchase from five, 10 or 20 different gun stores. So why doesn’t the A.T.F. crosscheck those purchases? Because Congress, under pressure from the N.R.A., prevents the federal government from keeping a centralized database that could instantly identify multiple sales. Gun sale records are instead inconveniently “archived†by the nation’s gun dealers at 60,000 separate locations — the stores or residences of the nation’s federally licensed gun dealers, with no requirement for digital records.

    Rather than preventing crimes by identifying a trafficker before he sells guns to potentially lethal criminals, the A.T.F. has to wait until the police recover those guns from multiple crime scenes. Then law enforcement officials can begin the laborious process of tracing each gun from the manufacturer or importer to various middlemen, the retail seller, the original retail purchaser and one or more subsequent buyers.

    Meanwhile, dealers who work with traffickers are protected by another N.R.A.-backed measure that ensures that firearms dealers do not have to maintain inventories.

    Think about that: A car dealer keeps an inventory to know when cars go missing so the police can track them down as quickly as possible. Why the lack of curiosity among gun dealers? Well, gun dealers must report lost and stolen guns to the A.T.F. because large numbers of missing weapons are a red flag for trafficking. Without an inventory requirement, it’s easier to sell guns off the books.

    Do most gun owners want the N.R.A. to protect criminal dealers? I doubt it.
    The A.T.F., which has helped convict tens of thousands of gun criminals, has of course been a perennial target of the N.R.A., and the lobbying group has worked relentlessly to limit the A.T.F.’s budget and strangle its operations.

    Today’s A.T.F. operates with about the same number of agents as it did 40 years ago, fewer than the number of officers in the Washington, D.C., police force, yet it is charged with investigating violations of federal gun, arson, explosive and other laws nationwide.

    Since the N.R.A. seems to loathe the A.T.F., one might think it would work to disband it or have its mission performed by an agency like the Federal Bureau of Investigation, with its more polished and professional public image. But the N.R.A. prefers the hobbled A.T.F. just as it is, and every year it helps ensure that Congress approves legislation banning the transfer of A.T.F. operations to any other agency.

    You don’t get much more cynical than that.

    Since his daughter, the journalist Alison Parker, was shot dead in August while presenting an on-air broadcast, Andy Parker has been on a campaign to “shame†lawmakers whom he says are “cowards and in the pockets of the N.R.A.†Some of those lawmakers might prove to be less cowardly if they understood that the N.R.A. was no longer the voice of law-abiding gun owners, but rather a voice for criminals.
     
  2. pokute

    pokute Sincere as a $5 funeral

    1,620
    2
    0
    Amen!

    As long as idiots like Alan Barlow fail to do their real homework and get into the gun stores and to the ranges to interview gun owners, the left is going to continue to look foolish. A few good interviews with counter and range ninjas would go a long way toward putting the NRA back on track as an educational organization, and hopefully get them to replace that senile nutjob LaPierre.
     

  3. pokute

    pokute Sincere as a $5 funeral

    1,620
    2
    0
    I've been reading old issues of Guns magazine a lot lately. There was a lot of irresponsible liberal blather going on in the pages of that hallowed rag as well:

    Sen. John F. Kennedy's statement, Know Your Lawmakers, Guns, April 1960, p. 4 (1960): "By calling attention to 'a well regulated militia,' the 'security' of the nation, and the right of each citizen 'to keep and bear arms,' our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy. Although it is extremely unlikely that the fears of governmental tyranny which gave rise to the Second Amendment will ever be a major danger to our nation, the Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships, in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason I believe the Second Amendment will always be important."


    Sen. Hubert Humphrey's statement, Know Your Lawmakers, Guns, Feb. 1960, p. 4 (1960): "Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be very carefully used and that definite safety rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible."


    Garsh, now I'm confused!


    Somebody hash out this Liberal/Not thing once and for all!
     
  4. Vin63

    Vin63 CH3NO2

    44
    0
    0
    It's interesting that an organization of only about 5 million members is such a target for the liberals, not to mention that it is blamed for actions committed by none of its members. Usually, when I mention that, liberals immediately change the argument to lobbying money, to which I mention the flood of money to liberal politician coffers and "foundations" from organizations with known terrorist ties, including CAIR, MPAC, ICNA, ISNA, MAS, and MANA.
     
  5. squirrelhunter

    squirrelhunter Well-Known Member

    6,196
    31
    48
    Very simple,the times have changed. :D
     
  6. pokute

    pokute Sincere as a $5 funeral

    1,620
    2
    0
    Just to keep things in perspective, a few actual numbers:

    *** What the campaigns have raised so far: With the July 15 reporting deadline coming up next week, here is what the CAMPAIGNS have raised so far in the second quarter:

    • Hillary Clinton campaign: $45 million
    • Bernie Sanders campaign: $15 million
    • Marco Rubio: $12 million
    • Jeb Bush: $11.4 million
    • Ben Carson: $10.5 million
    • Ted Cruz campaign: $10 million
    • Rand Paul: $7 million
    • Carly Fiorina: $1.4 million
    • Rick Perry: $1.07 million
    • Lincoln Chafee: $393,000
    *** What the Super PACs and 501c4s have raised so far:

    • Right to Rise (Bush): $103 million
    • Keep the Promise groups (Cruz): an estimated $37 million
    • Rick Perry Super PACs: $16.8 million
    • Conservative Solutions PAC (Rubio): $16 million
    • Conservative Solutions Project 501c4 (Rubio): $15.8 million
    • Priorities USA (Clinton): $15.6 million
    • American Bridge (Clinton): $7.7 million
    • American Bridge 501c4 (Clinton): $1 million
    • CARLY for America (Fiorina): $3.4 million
    • John Kasich 527s groups: $11.5 million
    *** What the combined amounts (campaign + outside groups) are:

    • Team Jeb: $114.4 million
    • Team Hillary: $69.3 million
    • Team Cruz: $51 million (that includes the $4 million his campaign raised in the 1stQ)
    • Team Rubio: $43.8 million
    • Team Perry: $17.9 million
    • Team Carly: $4.8 million
     
  7. Vin63

    Vin63 CH3NO2

    44
    0
    0
    How much is not the issue, it's from where the money comes. For instance, the Clinton Foundation alone has received upwards of $40 million from Islamist contributors over the past decade - $1-5 million direct contributions each from the UAE and Qatar last year alone. In contrast, the NRA spent $984,000 total in contributions last year.

    http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article24782695.html

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/foreign-government-gifts-to-clinton-foundation-on-the-rise-1424223031
     
  8. pokute

    pokute Sincere as a $5 funeral

    1,620
    2
    0
    I think you're just upset because the Saudi's and Kuwaiti's who were supporting Jeb to the tune of millions per quarter front loaded Hillary during the 3rd quarter this year, after the Clinton foundation lifted their ban on foreign contributions.
     
  9. Vin63

    Vin63 CH3NO2

    44
    0
    0
    You think wrong...not upset (I don't get upset about stuff that I have no control over like this)...just pointing out that liberal politicians receive by far the majority of financial contributions from muslim organizations with known terrorist ties that far exceed what the NRA contributes (responding to the original post article).

    The top three recipients of Islamic contributions in order of contributions received are: 1. Keith Ellison; 2. Barack Obama; 3. Cynthia McKinney.
     
    Last edited: Oct 15, 2015
  10. squirrelhunter

    squirrelhunter Well-Known Member

    6,196
    31
    48
    I'm surprised Odumbo isn't number 1 by a landslide.
     
  11. pokute

    pokute Sincere as a $5 funeral

    1,620
    2
    0
    True. I'd expect the NRA to be giving him a board position after his brilliant strategy that succeeded in increasing gun sales by 500% at my LGS.