So a ban on high-capacity magazines would remove them from the face of the Earth. And Wayne LaPierre is guilty of being an accessory before the fact in the shooting of Congresswoman Gabriel Giffords. Or, as we like to say around here, not. Either way, LaPierre is now, suddenly, in the sights of the left leaning media. Over at aol—I mean, The Huffington Post, self-described bon vivant Cliff Schecter is aiming innuendo. So to speak . . .
There is plenty of circumstantial evidence that the NRA’s mission has nothing to do with its members, but everything to do with protecting the profits of the gun manufacturers who support the organization with big bucks — not to mention pay the million-dollar-plus salary of the NRA’s executive vice president, Wayne LaPierre.
Ah, circumstantial evidence. That would fit in with thedailykos.com‘s assessment of Schecter’s strengths.
“Winning” the argument should never be the goal, but making the other guy look silly, unbelievable or ridiculous should. That’s what makes Schecter so masterful . . . He throws aside all levels of respectful discourse going straight for the jugular. Schecter’s performances not only expose the right and their pundits for what they are, but he also glaringly underlines what we are lacking in our left-wing pundits.”
And that would be . . . what? Integrity? The ability to engage in rational discourse, to articulate the righteousness of deeply held beliefs based on personal responsibility? Whatever it is—and I’m no NRA cheerleader–I gotta say Wayne LaPierre has it. And neither O’Donnell or Schecter does.
Having a sense of how the internet is monetized I will not click either of those links and I don’t think you should even provide them.
I like how the left thinks that high cap magazines did not exist during the assault weapons ban.
Also, I’m assuming when he said that “a good guy was there with a gun and couldn’t do anything because it was too dangerous to fire…” he was talking about the guy who heard shots and by the time he was over there the shooter had been subdued and he was able to help in that process. The pundit seems to suggest that the armed citizen was at closer proximity to the scene when everything went down, and was ineffective when from listening to an interview with him, it was not the case at all.
Well spotted. Misrepresentation and obfuscation are often joined at the hip.
I like when they bring up how the armed citizen didn’t do anything. Hey, guess what, all those COPS you say we should let protect us didn’t do anything either!
I love Wayne, so he gets the last word.
Schecter describes the NRA to a tee: How the organization doesn’t represent individual members at all and is owned lock, stock, and barrel by the guns ‘n ammo biz. The member gun owners only foot the bill for what is in reality a trade organization and industry lobby. Also, how the NRA employs slander and fear to keep gun nuts would up in a perpetual state of paranoia and relieve them of their cash: It’s their chief fundraising tool. That’s the NRA in a nutshell. That’s why I walked away from a life membership — around the same time as George H.W. Bush.
The NRA is one of the most unscrupulous lobbying organizations in Washington. Read that sentence again. That’s saying something. I’ve seen what they do with their money to subvert and obstruct the democratic process, and that’s why they’re not getting mine.
Isn’t subverting and obstructing the key to the democratic process?
Do you happen to know how much the Guns and Ammo (copyright me) industry is worth in the US? I always hear people like magoo and his ilk talking about the NRA as a special interest representing an industry that has drug company size money. We might go through a lot of ammo but guns are a durable good with relatively thin margins. I might be wrong but I think the reason the NRA is so powerful is because of its membership.
Not that big in the larger scheme of things, a few billion a year for the major makers combined. Give the industry props for the club it swings in proportion to its size. And in the long term prospects it’s shrinking: Cold war over, foreign military aid declining, strong foreign competition.
Meanwhile, the domestic retail market and the NRA have the same problem. They’re Cadillac: dying demographic. Hunting is disappearing due to urbanization and changing social mores. Today’s market is gun nuts and the self-defense and minuteman knuckleheads. One thing the NRA and your gun shop won’t tell you: Violent crime is down over 40 percent in the last 20 years. They got big bumps from 9/11 (hmm) and the Obama election (hmm) but nothing is forever.
Isn’t it interesting,
the number of guns owned/bought has been slowly increasing over these past years and yet crime is going down. Must be a good thing. And all you antis scream about crime going up if there’s more guns.
Too bad crime hasn’t gone down 100%. Then your words might have some meaning. But then crime has existed since the dawn of civilization and since we found out there’s not enough goodies to go around.
Not really. The decline in crime predates the shall-issue movement etc. by a decade.
With weapons sales in decline and NRA membership dying off, CC couldn’t have come at a better time for the gun biz. Let’s see… they get to sell each comer a gun, ammo, belt, holster, training, lots of tacticool and tactifool hardware… and of course you’ll be needing wanting the extended magazines, an absolute must in case of ninjas…
And some people have even weirder hobbies/interests/routines ie re-enacting, Renaissance fairs, clergy, art collection, etc. Whatever you do with your money is your business. Whatever you do with those objects is also your business, and your business alone. I may have opinions about them, but unless you are DIRECTLY harming someone – I don’t see why I should lay into you.
you somehow missed the point that there are even more guns in this country than before and yet still crime is going down. So much for your antigun friends.
Meant to say that concealed carry hasn’t actually increased the overall crime levels.
“The NRA is one of the most unscrupulous lobbying organizations in Washington.”
I doubt that considering other lobbying organizations want to take away my Constitutional rights but the NRA does not.
^^This. Any organization, other than the ACLU, that intends to lobby on my behalf to protect and support my natural, civil and Constitutionally protected rights (all of ’em) has my support, and I do not care which corporate entities may show a profit as a result.
Of course the gun companies are going to support the NRA, they would be fools not to. But do they support the NRA just because they want to make money or do they also care that if our Second Amendment rights are taken away they will lose a huge customer base and be slaves to the government? I fail to see how in a capitalist economy we can claim that a company making a product we want to buy and that is in business to make a profit is somehow evil for supporting the efforts of the NRA on our AND their behalf.
Perhaps we should let it all go and just get along with milsurp Soviet weapons smuggled in after we lose our 2A rights?
I’ve never been a member of the NRA, since I consider them a bunch of namby-pambys. After reading one of the comments above, I sent the NRA two checks — one for me and one for my GF. And I may make a contribution, too. I’m not going to gauge the NRA by who its friends are, but by who its enemies are, and that includes Mikeb, Schecter, the Brady wingnuts and a certain blind cartoon character.
Nothing could make me happier. That’s your money you just threw down the rabbit hole, Ace. Good thinking. I hope Wayne lights a cigar with your contribution.
why does that make you happy?
Oh, please. Schadenfreude, obviously.
I’m glad you’re happy, sunshine.
You’re certainly right that I’m critical of old Wayne. I can’t believe the glowing things Robert said about the man. And Joe said he loves him. The video clip I posted today contained one of the shabbiest rhetorical tricks in the book. He misrepresents what his opponents say and then calls them liars for having said it. A lot of you gun guys do that, I suppose gun control folks do too, but this man is a national figure who has a big influence. It’s low-rent behaviour and it’s wrong. If his position were as solid as he claims, as you all claim, what need is there of tricks. I’ve often asked commenters on my blog when they resort to this same technique, isn’t what I really do say objectionable enough to you? Why do you have to exaggerate it?
“I suppose gun control guys do that too.”
We don’t run around disguising attempts at total control with “love,” “safety,” “peacefulness,” etc.
You are guilty of false compassion.
In other words, you constantly poison the well.
I concur. Like the saying goes, “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.”
I always found that a little saccharine. Better:
“The enemy of my enemy is not my enemy.”
Nra has been fighting for gun rights longer than any body well other have done nothing but set back talk about it. They have respect pro gun congressmen fear ant gun congressmen. If ask ant-gun people why they hate Nra becuase they done most hurt there agenda disarm all of are guns. So have respect for job which not lot other have stood up done. There lot other people talk about safe guarding are freedom bear arms how many those people are doing it??? At leats Nra is.
I’m not totally unsympathetic to the NRA. It was a great organization back in the day and in some ways it still is. To some extent they are victims of their environment. For one thing they’re forced to respond to tremendous pressure from more radical gun-rights groups outflanking them to the right and poaching their potential members. But none of that forgives their irresponsible policies and beyond cynical tactics. I’m done with them.
Good. Your misery is our Schadenfreude.
Please tell us when you’re moving out of the US. We built this country on violence. Who the hell let you in?
“Who the hell let you in?”
I think it was Mikeb.
We must forgive Mr. Magoo, he is blind to the truth and trusts in luck to get him through the day unscathed.
Comments are closed.