quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Welcome to how a democracy works.

You're going to like this better than Iran, China, or North Korea. Give it time.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy


I think that there's a certain irony to being "macho" and guns, because the guy who brings a firearm to a fistfight or to challenge a lost Alzheimer's man wandering on his property is a form coward or paranoid personality.

Talk about beating a dead horse.
In the first one you have it backwards he brought fists to a gunfight, remember he started the violence.
In the 2nd one the courts the cops and even the widow said it was a justified shooting. Continuing these arguments undermines what little credibility you have.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy


I think that there's a certain irony to being "macho" and guns, because the guy who brings a firearm to a fistfight or to challenge a lost Alzheimer's man wandering on his property is a form coward or paranoid personality.

Talk about beating a dead horse.
In the first one you have it backwards he brought fists to a gunfight, remember he started the violence.
In the 2nd one the courts the cops and even the widow said it was a justified shooting. Continuing these arguments undermines what little credibility you have.

Right, it's macho (not cowardly) to shoot (and kill) unarmed people.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Staleek

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

That's simply a different segment of the gun owners population.

Different to what exactly? At no point did I ever say that's the entirety of the gun owning populace, although I may have incorrectly implied that is the majority of it. However my point stands; guns ARE marketed with that sort of machismo in mind and I've proven it. I think that marketing is irresponsible and dangerous as it would attract the wrong sort of person to guns.

I don't see much kool-aid there I'm sorry.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy


I think that there's a certain irony to being "macho" and guns, because the guy who brings a firearm to a fistfight or to challenge a lost Alzheimer's man wandering on his property is a form coward or paranoid personality.

Talk about beating a dead horse.
In the first one you have it backwards he brought fists to a gunfight, remember he started the violence.
In the 2nd one the courts the cops and even the widow said it was a justified shooting. Continuing these arguments undermines what little credibility you have.

Right, it's macho (not cowardly) to shoot (and kill) unarmed people.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy


I think that there's a certain irony to being "macho" and guns, because the guy who brings a firearm to a fistfight or to challenge a lost Alzheimer's man wandering on his property is a form coward or paranoid personality.

Talk about beating a dead horse.
In the first one you have it backwards he brought fists to a gunfight, remember he started the violence.
In the 2nd one the courts the cops and even the widow said it was a justified shooting. Continuing these arguments undermines what little credibility you have.

Right, it's macho (not cowardly) to shoot (and kill) unarmed people.

Maybe you wouldn't have such a hard time keeping up if you actually responded to what was written and not the crap that floats around in your own head.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Trying to suppress the data collection smacks of agenda overtly. Pretend otherwise if it suits your kool-aid consumption.

And yet, despite the paranoia of some, nobody came to take your guns, even given that "grossly distorted data."


In fact, the NRA quite explicitly plays to this paranoia -- if you go to join, here's the top of page:

quote:

Dear Fellow American:

What's happening RIGHT NOW in Washington, D.C. could spell disaster for YOUR guns and YOUR Second Amendment rights!

Hundreds of gun-ban politicians, political appointees and bureaucrats are now writing regulations, casting votes and passing laws that could all but eliminate your right to own a gun. Their agenda starts with licensing, registering, fingerprinting, inspecting and cataloging every firearm, firearm owner and firearm transfer in the United States ...

... And it ends with an outright ban on your guns!!!!

Only you can stop the anti-gunners and prevent the obliteration of our Second Amendment rights...
by joining NRA today.

All bullshit, as no one anywhere is calling for an outright ban on guns, nor, despite the tin foil hats, is anyone secretly plotting that behind closed doors.


But the faithful are buying it, which allows the NRA to function as the industry group it has become.

And you don't have to take my word for it. Here's a business analysis, showing how the industry funds the NRA:
http://www.businessinsider.com/gun-industry-funds-nra-2013-1

quote:

"Today's NRA is a virtual subsidiary of the gun industry," said Josh Sugarmann, executive director of the Violence Policy Center. "While the NRA portrays itself as protecting the 'freedom' of individual gun owners, it's actually working to protect the freedom of the gun industry

Or this article from the well-respected Atlantic:
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/12/whom-does-the-nra-really-speak-for/266373/

quote:

the modern NRA's hard-line political stances, which often seem out of step even with the majority of gun-owners, and its deepening industry ties have led some to argue that the group is little more than a corporate lobbyist dressed up in woodsy camouflage.

quote:

ORIGINAL: quizzicalkitten

quote:

ORIGINAL: Staleek

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

That's simply a different segment of the gun owners population.

Different to what exactly? At no point did I ever say that's the entirety of the gun owning populace, although I may have incorrectly implied that is the majority of it. However my point stands; guns ARE marketed with that sort of machismo in mind and I've proven it. I think that marketing is irresponsible and dangerous as it would attract the wrong sort of person to guns.

I don't see much kool-aid there I'm sorry.

If we are going to talk about dangerous marketing how about the fact that ecigs are marketed to children, the same with alcohol laced energy drinks, that theres a 6 billion dollar a year industry basked on making men and women feel bad about their appearance. Or that to be successful in life you have to drive a luxury car.

The marketing isnt the problem. Ive never seen a gun ad run on tv or in the paper, or really at all that i can recall in my life time. If they are "marketing" they arent doing that great of a job...

Also seeing as I have a pussy, and bought the gun for my protection because of ownership of said pussy, I dont think im a "tough alpha male" Or a Cowboy, or any other senseless thing you claimed...

BUT because you claimed it, when kids die from ecigs..... or over indulgence of energy drinks, or overdosing on diet pills....

We can blame the marketing of these items...

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Trying to suppress the data collection smacks of agenda overtly. Pretend otherwise if it suits your kool-aid consumption.

And yet, despite the paranoia of some, nobody came to take your guns, even given that "grossly distorted data."


In fact, the NRA quite explicitly plays to this paranoia -- if you go to join, here's the top of page:

quote:

Dear Fellow American:

What's happening RIGHT NOW in Washington, D.C. could spell disaster for YOUR guns and YOUR Second Amendment rights!

Hundreds of gun-ban politicians, political appointees and bureaucrats are now writing regulations, casting votes and passing laws that could all but eliminate your right to own a gun. Their agenda starts with licensing, registering, fingerprinting, inspecting and cataloging every firearm, firearm owner and firearm transfer in the United States ...

... And it ends with an outright ban on your guns!!!!

Only you can stop the anti-gunners and prevent the obliteration of our Second Amendment rights...
by joining NRA today.

All bullshit, as no one anywhere is calling for an outright ban on guns, nor, despite the tin foil hats, is anyone secretly plotting that behind closed doors.


But the faithful are buying it, which allows the NRA to function as the industry group it has become.

And you don't have to take my word for it. Here's a business analysis, showing how the industry funds the NRA:
http://www.businessinsider.com/gun-industry-funds-nra-2013-1

quote:

"Today's NRA is a virtual subsidiary of the gun industry," said Josh Sugarmann, executive director of the Violence Policy Center. "While the NRA portrays itself as protecting the 'freedom' of individual gun owners, it's actually working to protect the freedom of the gun industry

Or this article from the well-respected Atlantic:
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/12/whom-does-the-nra-really-speak-for/266373/

quote:

the modern NRA's hard-line political stances, which often seem out of step even with the majority of gun-owners, and its deepening industry ties have led some to argue that the group is little more than a corporate lobbyist dressed up in woodsy camouflage.

Even the articles you linked to don't definitively state, nor do they prove your notion that the NRA is an arm of the gun industry. Your notion is just the latest NRA bashing talking points. Just because the unabashedly biased pompous asshole Josh Sugarman says so simply because the NRA gets money from the industry, does not make it true.

I can just imagine this conversation.

Gun industry to NRA: "Here's millions of dollars to help line your coffers".

NRA to gun industry: "Oh we can't take that money, the likes of Josh Sugarman might say we're a virtual subsidiary of the gun industry".

Fuck yes they're going to take the money. Are you fuckin kidding me.


From your article in The Atlantic:

So who does the NRA speak for, again? The answer is: lots of people. Hard-core gun-devotees, frightened conservatives, its own well-paid leaders, gun makers, and ammo retailers all play into the mix. It would be reductive to call it a mere corporate lobbyist. But in any event, it's clear the NRA isn't just representing your average Joe Six-Shooter.

A wee bit of balance there but they left out 10's of millions of sportsman, collectors and enthusiasts.

In the same article they listed the amount donated by the gun industry in 2010. While significant it doesn't come close to the combined amounts donated by members, wealthy benefactors, advertising sales and other sources.

Are ya happy now ? But go ahead, keep making hay.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Trying to suppress the data collection smacks of agenda overtly. Pretend otherwise if it suits your kool-aid consumption.

And yet, despite the paranoia of some, nobody came to take your guns, even given that "grossly distorted data."


In fact, the NRA quite explicitly plays to this paranoia -- if you go to join, here's the top of page:

quote:

Dear Fellow American:

What's happening RIGHT NOW in Washington, D.C. could spell disaster for YOUR guns and YOUR Second Amendment rights!

Hundreds of gun-ban politicians, political appointees and bureaucrats are now writing regulations, casting votes and passing laws that could all but eliminate your right to own a gun. Their agenda starts with licensing, registering, fingerprinting, inspecting and cataloging every firearm, firearm owner and firearm transfer in the United States ...

... And it ends with an outright ban on your guns!!!!

Only you can stop the anti-gunners and prevent the obliteration of our Second Amendment rights...
by joining NRA today.

All bullshit, as no one anywhere is calling for an outright ban on guns, nor, despite the tin foil hats, is anyone secretly plotting that behind closed doors.


But the faithful are buying it, which allows the NRA to function as the industry group it has become.

And you don't have to take my word for it. Here's a business analysis, showing how the industry funds the NRA:
http://www.businessinsider.com/gun-industry-funds-nra-2013-1

quote:

"Today's NRA is a virtual subsidiary of the gun industry," said Josh Sugarmann, executive director of the Violence Policy Center. "While the NRA portrays itself as protecting the 'freedom' of individual gun owners, it's actually working to protect the freedom of the gun industry

Or this article from the well-respected Atlantic:
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/12/whom-does-the-nra-really-speak-for/266373/

quote:

the modern NRA's hard-line political stances, which often seem out of step even with the majority of gun-owners, and its deepening industry ties have led some to argue that the group is little more than a corporate lobbyist dressed up in woodsy camouflage.

Even the articles you linked to don't definitively state, nor do they prove your notion that the NRA is an arm of the gun industry. Your notion is just the latest NRA bashing talking points. Just because the unabashedly biased pompous asshole Josh Sugarman says so simply because the NRA gets money from the industry, does not make it true.

I can just imagine this conversation.

Gun industry to NRA: "Here's millions of dollars to help line your coffers".

NRA to gun industry: "Oh we can't take that money, the likes of Josh Sugarman might say we're a virtual subsidiary of the gun industry".

Fuck yes they're going to take the money. Are you fuckin kidding me.


From your article in The Atlantic:

So who does the NRA speak for, again? The answer is: lots of people. Hard-core gun-devotees, frightened conservatives, its own well-paid leaders, gun makers, and ammo retailers all play into the mix. It would be reductive to call it a mere corporate lobbyist. But in any event, it's clear the NRA isn't just representing your average Joe Six-Shooter.

A wee bit of balance there but they left out 10's of millions of sportsman, collectors and enthusiasts.

In the same article they listed the amount donated by the gun industry in 2010. While significant it doesn't come close to the combined amounts donated by members, wealthy benefactors, advertising sales and other sources.

Are ya happy now ? But go ahead, keep making hay.

That's not it, lm. The NRA itself makes clear its prime objective is political action against a boogie man.

And rifle owners aren't part of any legal problem I'm aware of other than general gun checks etc.

Whether conclusive, there's certainly clear evidence that the NRA fronts for the industry. Even other industries have tried to copy the model, as the articles note. And it's no secret that whoever pays the bills calls the tune.

When I see an NRA fronting for gun safety and happier hunting and free markets and true 2nd amendment rights, your words will hold some truth. Until then, they're just repeating the party line, and frankly, in denial of reality, giving the actions of the NRA and the industry in the real world.

That may not even necessarily be a bad thing. But to pretend it isn't true is--what's that phrase you guys love--"intellectually dishonest."

I have to get back into my real world of work and projects. If you've got real evidence the NRA works for all gun owners and not the political win of the industry, I'd truly like to see it. I suspect, though, that this will just go in circles.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Since my evidence was taken directly from the NRA's site, I think I'm good, thanks. And quoted directly and entirely, with no changes or omissions.

The other sources I offered were an article from Business Insider and a piece by the Atlantic. Both very credible publications, and not devoted to any particular issue or stance.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Since my evidence was taken directly from the NRA's site, I think I'm good, thanks. And quoted directly and entirely, with no changes or omissions.

The other sources I offered were an article from Business Insider and a piece by the Atlantic. Both very credible publications, and not devoted to any particular issue or stance.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Since my evidence was taken directly from the NRA's site, I think I'm good, thanks. And quoted directly and entirely, with no changes or omissions.

The other sources I offered were an article from Business Insider and a piece by the Atlantic. Both very credible publications, and not devoted to any particular issue or stance.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Since my evidence was taken directly from the NRA's site, I think I'm good, thanks. And quoted directly and entirely, with no changes or omissions.

The other sources I offered were an article from Business Insider and a piece by the Atlantic. Both very credible publications, and not devoted to any particular issue or stance.

When you went to the NRA site did you notice the section on training and safety?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Well, you know the NRA's web address--have a look for yourself. And the other articles are indeed from Business Insider and the Atlantic, and if you doubt it, you can simply click on them to see.

It's exactly as I quoted -- just clicking through to see how to join.

These are things you can do yourself before coming back with objections. Please.