15 companies announce termination of their NRA member discount programs - Sensationalist Headlines

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53157356]Or, we could work with those people to take away the reason they donate to the NRA. But that means compromise, which people don't like.[/QUOTE] I never said don't work with people who are uneducated on the matters at hand. But don't for a second think you're going to get anywhere with someone who steadfastly believes that their cause has no holes or whatever. Or you'll just be forced to play defence, somewhat like what you're making me do now actually, which is a no-win situation as you'll be arguing with a brick wall that doesn't actually substantiate their points in order to push their "bullying" narrative but who expects you to do all the work disproving them (and promptly ignoring it anyway).

I had a membership many years ago. What I remember most was the almost monthly junk mail they would send me asking for donations or to renew my membership. I let it lapse and haven't really been upset about it. The NRA should go back to education and get the fuck out of politics outside of lobbying for gun rights.

[QUOTE=Mattk50;53156790]Why was there a discount in the first place?[/QUOTE] the gist of it is that they pay companies to offer discounts to members as an incentive to join. lots of advocacy groups do this, all the major gun rights groups do. I get a discount on prescription medication through the saf if I ever need a zpack or something, plus discounts on several gun related magazines

[QUOTE=SAULSBASHWALL;53156932]I'm pro-gun and hate the NRA. Let's create a new American gun advocacy group, we'll call it Guns of the Patriots.[/QUOTE] Same boat. Like god damn it can we get a gun advocacy group that isn't run by nuts?

[QUOTE=Swebonny;53156845][video=youtube;PrnIVVWtAag]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrnIVVWtAag[/video] I never thought much about NRA until I saw this ad. Talk about terror organization vibes.[/QUOTE] If an organization did this ad in Europe, you can bet your ass they would have been tried in court for avocating violence. This is a real ad? One can be conservative and pro gun but this too far for being allowed to be published in the media without consequences.

[QUOTE=Swebonny;53156845][video=youtube;PrnIVVWtAag]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrnIVVWtAag[/video] I never thought much about NRA until I saw this ad. Talk about terror organization vibes.[/QUOTE] Which Command and Conquer faction was this?

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53157356]No, I just think that working together will get us farther than each side trying to drag the other by the neck.[/QUOTE] how do you work together with the NRA

[QUOTE=kilerabv;53158788]Which Command and Conquer faction was this?[/QUOTE] "[URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLAd0BC9EjY"]Commander[/URL]. Our reconnaissance teams have discovered a hidden Liberal base in the region. They have set up three outposts in the area to steal guns from the local civilians in preparation for a politically correct uprising. You'll need to establish a base of operations and destroy these three outposts, and then wipe out their atheist indoctrination facility in the mountains. The Pentagon has authorised the use of new gaydar-guided missiles in this mission. Good luck commander."

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53157408]The NRA acts like a company and the public pressure is presently [I]demonstrably doing things[/I]. You can absolutely dissent more than that - and people have not yet. The NRA executives are demonized; not everyone who is a member is demonized by association.[/quote] The NRA is not a business and doesn't operate remotely like one, unless you count selling NRA merchandise for fundraising, but I wouldn't view that as a product per-say, because they are just slapping their logo on a hat or knife. And yes, members are dissented against. The entire organization is. [quote]I lived in Texas so I feel I have a good grip on the differences between country and city here and, believe me, the country is far away from 'demonizing' those who're in the NRA -- and I've known plenty of people who say that they're a part of the NRA just because the 'gun lobby' needs them to be in order to fire guns and hate the magazines that just keep piling up on their desks because they don't care about them. Those're the sort of people who'll distance themselves -- and they're the majority, not the fanatical few as you imply who can't be moved.[/quote] You think that people will "distance themselves", they may only do so by hiding that they donate, but their donations won't stop. In case you haven't learned anything from the election, you can either shame people for what they support, or you can actually get them to stop supporting what they support. You can't have both. You can't shame someone into agreeing with you. It doesn't work. [quote]If the NRA doesn't have to hear the public, by the way, [I]why are they asking for an increase in donations?[/I] Do you think their coffers are endless - that the money comes from nowhere? If public support drops and companies drop their support, their coffers are damaged by it. If they're being funded by Russia then that will only entangle them further with people feeling they're not even a 'patriotic' or 'american' interest.[quote] They don't have to hear the public at large because they can survive based on donations from those who already agree with them. [quote]There's many ways to skin this animal - despite your insistence there is only one.[/quote] And if this method ever actually worked, I would agree that this could be one of them. But it's not. [/quote]This implies 'each side' is interested in working with the other. We say 'we're not trying to abolish the second amendment' while the 'other side' says "They will and they're liars". One is acting in good faith and a willingness to compromise. The other is spreading lies and refuses to hear the other's argument.[quote] Because one side has always given with nothing in return, and the other side always takes, and thinks that "at least we didn't take everything" is a good compromise. The sooner this stops being the case, the sooner that narrative will go away. [quote]You can only ever compromise with the willing. It isn't a matter of 'how much we like it' because that would require people to be willing to compromise on both sides to begin with. If every person on one side wanted to compromise it would hold no bearing over those on the other who refuse. One of these sides wants to work with the other to solve a public security and health crisis. The other wants to ignore them and shut down anything they propose.[/QUOTE] Both sides have to get something for it to be a compromise. If you want compromise, you have to be willing to give something in return for taking something. [QUOTE=Raidyr;53157496]How can I work with an organisation that believes I'm an ignorant sheep at best and a traitor at worst.[/QUOTE] That's the question everyone has to answer. [QUOTE=srobins;53157587]So organizations who are fundamentally opposed to the NRA and what they stand for should just grit their teeth and maintain business relationships with a group that they oppose because.. Not doing so might convince people to donate to them? Somehow I feel like you wouldn't apply this "logic" if it were right-wing organizations cutting ties with radical left-wingers like Antifa or something.. Almost as if you have an obvious agenda, hmm..[/QUOTE] No, but you know as well as I do that these organizations don't stand for anything but money. They did this because of public pressure of people who don't like that the NRA advocates against gun control. But you already knew this before you typed this response. But thanks for the disingenuous reply. [QUOTE=hexpunK;53157784]I never said don't work with people who are uneducated on the matters at hand. But don't for a second think you're going to get anywhere with someone who steadfastly believes that their cause has no holes or whatever. Or you'll just be forced to play defence, somewhat like what you're making me do now actually, which is a no-win situation as you'll be arguing with a brick wall that doesn't actually substantiate their points in order to push their "bullying" narrative but who expects you to do all the work disproving them (and promptly ignoring it anyway).[/QUOTE] Working with people shouldn't consist of playing offence or defense, because we're trying to reach a common goal. [QUOTE=elowin;53158815]how do you work together with the NRA[/QUOTE] By working with them the same way you would expect them to work with you.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53159475]The NRA is not a business and doesn't operate remotely like one, unless you count selling NRA merchandise for fundraising, but I wouldn't view that as a product per-say, because they are just slapping their logo on a hat or knife. And yes, members are dissented against. The entire organization is. You think that people will "distance themselves", they may only do so by hiding that they donate, but their donations won't stop. In case you haven't learned anything from the election, you can either shame people for what they support, or you can actually get them to stop supporting what they support. You can't have both. You can't shame someone into agreeing with you. It doesn't work. [quote]If the NRA doesn't have to hear the public, by the way, [I]why are they asking for an increase in donations?[/I] Do you think their coffers are endless - that the money comes from nowhere? If public support drops and companies drop their support, their coffers are damaged by it. If they're being funded by Russia then that will only entangle them further with people feeling they're not even a 'patriotic' or 'american' interest.This implies 'each side' is interested in working with the other. We say 'we're not trying to abolish the second amendment' while the 'other side' says "They will and they're liars". One is acting in good faith and a willingness to compromise. The other is spreading lies and refuses to hear the other's argument.[quote] Because one side has always given with nothing in return, and the other side always takes, and thinks that "at least we didn't take everything" is a good compromise. The sooner this stops being the case, the sooner that narrative will go away. Both sides have to get something for it to be a compromise. If you want compromise, you have to be willing to give something in return for taking something. That's the question everyone has to answer. No, but you know as well as I do that these organizations don't stand for anything but money. They did this because of public pressure of people who don't like that the NRA advocates against gun control. But you already knew this before you typed this response. But thanks for the disingenuous reply. Working with people shouldn't consist of playing offence or defense, because we're trying to reach a common goal. By working with them the same way you would expect them to work with you.[/QUOTE] I think you're being either dishonest or obtuse if you can't see that a group like the NRA, one who unironically puts out CNC grade propaganda via Dana Loesch is at all willing to compromise on anything. They're nothing but a front for the military industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us of. There is no compromise with that.

[quote]By working with them the same way you would expect them to work with you.[/quote] Which is 'they will never work with you', unless you have some proof to offer that they're at all willing to work with anyone? They've not been willing to do so in recent years; I don't see them changing that now. Are we to compromise on their policy that 'maybe liberals deserve to be shot'?

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53159475] That's the question everyone has to answer. [/QUOTE] If everyone has to answer it can you answer it.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53157294]What an excellent way to help them ramp up their cash reserves and drive donations. Nothing says "We need your help now more than ever!" like giving them the ability to paint themselves as "victims of people who want to take your gun rights away". We're just giving them something to use as the canary in the coal mine.[/QUOTE] This just removes the benefits from joining the NRA. Now NRA members have to pay the same rate as everyone else does to rent a car.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;53159481]I think you're being either dishonest or obtuse if you can't see that a group like the NRA, one who unironically puts out CNC grade propaganda via Dana Loesch is at all willing to compromise on anything. They're nothing but a front for the military industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us of. There is no compromise with that.[/QUOTE] And I think you're just ignorant because you don't WANT there to be anything that you agree with them on because what you want to happen is the exact thing they are fighting against, even though there are actual solutions to problems that the both of you could and would agree on. [QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53159485]Which is 'they will never work with you', unless you have some proof to offer that they're at all willing to work with anyone? They've not been willing to do so in recent years; I don't see them changing that now. Are we to compromise on their policy that 'maybe liberals deserve to be shot'?[/QUOTE] I've never heard that official policy that "maybe liberals deserve to be shot". Could you source that? And the only reason they haven't been willing to work with anyone in recent years is because nobody has been willing to give them anything that they want. [QUOTE=Raidyr;53159504]If everyone has to answer it can you answer it.[/QUOTE] I don't have an issue working with either the NRA or with people who want gun control, because I don't view either as an enemy. [QUOTE=Lambeth;53159562]This just removes the benefits from joining the NRA. Now NRA members have to pay the same rate as everyone else does to rent a car.[/QUOTE] Everyone here is aware of this. If you could catch up to the conversation, that would be great.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53159620]And I think you're just ignorant because you don't WANT there to be anything that you agree with them on because what you want to happen is the exact thing they are fighting against, even though there are actual solutions to problems that the both of you could and would agree on.[/quote] Do you work with or for the NRA, Silence I Kill You? You seem to be an expert on 'what they are and aren't willing to do' despite their public statements and stances. [quote]I've never heard that official policy that "maybe liberals deserve to be shot". Could you source that?[/quote] Please tell me who 'they' is in the following quote. What do you think 'the clenched fist' means in 'the clenched fist of truth'? [quote=NRA]They use their media to assassinate real news. They use their schools to teach children that their president is another Hitler. They use their movie stars and singers and comedy shows and award shows to repeat their narrative over and over again. And then they use their ex-president to endorse “the resistance.” All to make them march. Make them protest. Make them scream racism and sexism and xenophobia and homophobia. To smash windows, burn cars, shut down interstates and airports, bully and terrorize the law-abiding — until the only option left is for the police to do their jobs and stop the madness. And when that happens, they’ll use it as an excuse for their outrage. The only way we stop this, the only way we save our country and our freedom, is to fight this violence of lies with the clenched fist of truth. I’m the National Rifle Association of America. And I’m freedom’s safest place.[/quote] [quote=NRA]“After Hurricane Sandy, we saw the hellish world that the gun prohibitionists see as their utopia. Looters ran wild in south Brooklyn. There was no food, water or electricity. And if you wanted to walk several miles to get supplies, you better get back before dark, or you might not get home at all,”[/quote] Why is this world 'hellish'? Because people don't have guns - implying that if you allow people to take your guns away, you're putting yourself in that sort of danger. These aren't isolated statements. These are the routine statements of the NRA that have not shifted in the past 30 years but to become more and more violent and paranoia-fueled -- because they want people paranoid. They want them paranoid enough that they think that a gun is the only thing that can keep them safe; that only a machine built for violence can keep them safe -- and not just to keep them safe. [quote=NRA]“Hurricanes. Tornadoes. Riots. Terrorists. Gangs. Lone criminals. These are perils we are sure to face — not just maybe. It’s not paranoia to buy a gun. It’s survival. It’s responsible behavior, and it’s time we encourage law-abiding Americans to do just that.”[/quote] ... to [I]survive[/I]. They tell people 'you [I]will die[/I] if someone takes your gun away or you don't buy one'. Because of course they would because, like Marlboro, they don't want 'sensible smoking laws' - they want to sell their damn cigarettes and to hell with your scientific data and politicians if it doesn't make us a fat dollar. I mean, for crying out loud, this is their Twitter banner. [thumb]https://imgur.com/QZES0JL.png[/thumb] Do you hear the dog whistling yet? It's blowing like a steam train whose boiler is about to explode. Their intentions and positions are pretty clear - and those intentions and positions have [I]nothing[/I] to do with 'responsible gun control legislation'. That might've plausibly been the NRA before 1971 but it sure isn't the NRA of today. [quote]And the only reason they haven't been willing to work with anyone in recent years is because nobody has been willing to give them anything that they want.[/quote] That's because in recent years they have abandoned any notion of gun control and want to 'free the firearms' from any sort of restriction because 'nobody can keep you safe more than a gun - not the police, not the FBI, not your congressman'. [url=http://time.com/4431356/nra-gun-control-history/]This is historical fact.[/url] [quote]I don't have an issue working with either the NRA or with people who want gun control, because I don't view either as an enemy.[/quote] I don't view them as an enemy. I view them as a gun control lobby who're trying to sell guns and themselves at the same time over anything else - because that's who they are. They're still not going to care one whit about my opinion or anyone else's because 'the enemy' to the NRA is literally gun control legislation. [quote]Everyone here is aware of this. If you could catch up to the conversation, that would be great.[/QUOTE] I don't think you comprehended what they were stating there.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;53159481]If the NRA doesn't have to hear the public, by the way, [I]why are they asking for an increase in donations?[/I] Do you think their coffers are endless - that the money comes from nowhere? If public support drops and companies drop their support, their coffers are damaged by it. [/QUOTE] I don't agree with Silence on much, but I think you and the other people saying basically this same thing are clearly misunderstanding how the NRA works. They're not soliciting donations from random people, they're soliciting donations [I]from their members[/I]. If we're going to phrase this in the context of 'the public', there are really two publics. There's the actual public at large, who they don't have to listen to, and there's their membership, who they do have to listen to. Their membership overwhelmingly supports them ideologically, not because they get discounts on airline tickets (who joins the NRA for the benefits?). When they have an excuse to paint themselves as victims, they use it to their benefit through sounding the alarm bells and crying to their membership that desperate action is needed. They feed off of fear and victimhood, and scare gun owners into thinking that gun ownership is ostracized and under attack. And it works. I'm not going to say that cutting ties to the NRA is the wrong thing to do, but it's not really hurting them any, and in the short-term they'll profit from it. No matter what the actual public does, the only thing that will reduce the NRA's clout is disillusioning the membership of the organization's merits, so that members stop renewing their membership and stop sending donations. [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;53159481]We say 'we're not trying to abolish the second amendment' while the 'other side' says "They will and they're liars". One is acting in good faith and a willingness to compromise. The other is spreading lies and refuses to hear the other's argument.[/QUOTE] I'm sorry, I have to call [I]complete[/I] bullshit on the claim that pro-gun control groups are acting in good faith and a willingness to compromise and it's just the mean old NRA spreading lies and refusing to listen. When Democrat leaders are always saying 'we're not trying to take your guns away' while [URL="http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/sen-dianne-feinstein-suggests-national-buyback-of-guns/article/2516648"]repeatedly suggesting mandatory buybacks and confiscation[/URL], resurrecting assault weapons bans that even the Department of Justice said were completely useless, and refusing to compromise on anything (seriously, give me one example of gun control legislation in the last twenty years that has represented a compromise, ie given something to gun owners in exchange for other limitations), it's clear that neither side is acting in good faith. They're each pandering to their bases, and pass legislation through partisan superiority rather than any sort of compromise. When it comes to the NRA, Democrats are their own worst enemy. If they'd outright stop suggesting Australia-style confiscation as a wish list item, they wouldn't be driving moderate, reasonable gun owners to support the NRA out of fear that any concession will ultimately lead to a total ban. If they were acting more reasonably on gun control issues, such that gun owners didn't feel they need a powerful organization to advocate for them, it would make the NRA look like the raving lunatic mouthpieces of the GOP that they are, rather than the only gun rights organization with any clout.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53159657]Do you work with or for the NRA, Silence I Kill You? You seem to be an expert on 'what they are and aren't willing to do' despite their public statements and stances.[/quote] No, I don't. I used to be a member, but I stopped when they started using over the top rhetoric. I still support other 2nd amendment organizations though. [quote]Please tell me who 'they' is in the following quote. What do you think 'the clenched fist' means in 'the clenched fist of truth'? Why is this world 'hellish'? Because people don't have guns - implying that if you allow people to take your guns away, you're putting yourself in that sort of danger. These aren't isolated statements. These are the routine statements of the NRA that have not shifted in the past 30 years but to become more and more violent and paranoia-fueled -- because they want people paranoid. They want them paranoid enough that they think that a gun is the only thing that can keep them safe; that only a machine built for violence can keep them safe -- and not just to keep them safe. ... to [I]survive[/I]. They tell people 'you [I]will die[/I] if someone takes your gun away or you don't buy one'. Because of course they would because, like Marlboro, they don't want 'sensible smoking laws' - they want to sell their damn cigarettes and to hell with your scientific data and politicians if it doesn't make us a fat dollar. I mean, for crying out loud, this is their Twitter banner. [thumb]https://imgur.com/QZES0JL.png[/thumb] [/quote] Oh, I get it, you're taking your own hyperbole of their over the top rhetoric as a credible threat. That explains a lot. [quote]Do you hear the dog whistling yet? It's blowing like a steam train whose boiler is about to explode. Their intentions and positions are pretty clear - and those intentions and positions have [I]nothing[/I] to do with 'responsible gun control legislation'. That might've plausibly been the NRA before 1971 but it sure isn't the NRA of today.[/quote] WELL NO FUCKING SHIT HAHAHA. Oh my god. Do you really expect the NRA to be supportive of any old gun control legislation? After the only thing they ever get back is if something expires? The reason for that is that gun owners have been burned too many times from the 70s until now. You tend to learn from experiences. [quote]That's because in recent years they have abandoned any notion of gun control and want to 'free the firearms' from any sort of restriction because 'nobody can keep you safe more than a gun - not the police, not the FBI, not your congressman'. [url=http://time.com/4431356/nra-gun-control-history/]This is historical fact.[/url] I don't view them as an enemy. I view them as a gun control lobby who're trying to sell guns and themselves at the same time over anything else - because that's who they are. They're still not going to care one whit about my opinion or anyone else's because 'the enemy' to the NRA is literally gun control legislation.[/quote] I mean, it can't be that they have finally figured out recently that gun control supporters have no intention of ever giving anything to gun supporters, so they have become distrustful. [QUOTE=catbarf;53159896]I don't agree with Silence on much, but I think you and the other people saying basically this same thing are clearly misunderstanding how the NRA works. They're not soliciting donations from random people, they're soliciting donations [I]from their members[/I]. If we're going to phrase this in the context of 'the public', there are really two publics. There's the actual public at large, who they don't have to listen to, and there's their membership, who they do have to listen to. Their membership overwhelmingly supports them ideologically, not because they get discounts on airline tickets (who joins the NRA for the benefits?). When they have an excuse to paint themselves as victims, they use it to their benefit through sounding the alarm bells and crying to their membership that desperate action is needed. They feed off of fear and victimhood, and scare gun owners into thinking that gun ownership is ostracized and under attack. And it works. I'm not going to say that cutting ties to the NRA is the wrong thing to do, but it's not really hurting them any, and in the short-term they'll profit from it. No matter what the actual public does, the only thing that will reduce the NRA's clout is disillusioning the membership of the organization's merits, so that members stop renewing their membership and stop sending donations. I'm sorry, I have to call [I]complete[/I] bullshit on the claim that pro-gun control groups are acting in good faith and a willingness to compromise and it's just the mean old NRA spreading lies and refusing to listen. When Democrat leaders are always saying 'we're not trying to take your guns away' while [URL="http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/sen-dianne-feinstein-suggests-national-buyback-of-guns/article/2516648"]repeatedly suggesting mandatory buybacks and confiscation[/URL], resurrecting assault weapons bans that even the Department of Justice said were completely useless, and refusing to compromise on anything (seriously, give me one example of gun control legislation in the last twenty years that has represented a compromise, ie given something to gun owners in exchange for other limitations), it's clear that neither side is acting in good faith. They're each pandering to their bases, and pass legislation through partisan superiority rather than any sort of compromise. When it comes to the NRA, Democrats are their own worst enemy. If they'd outright stop suggesting Australia-style confiscation as a wish list item, they wouldn't be driving moderate, reasonable gun owners to support the NRA out of fear that any concession will ultimately lead to a total ban. If they were acting more reasonably on gun control issues, such that gun owners didn't feel they need a powerful organization to advocate for them, it would make the NRA look like the raving lunatic mouthpieces of the GOP that they are, rather than the only gun rights organization with any clout.[/QUOTE] I really couldn't have said it any better myself.

So your argument about all that is 'They don't mean it'? I'm quoting them and you say that I'm exaggerating? Are you going to debate this honestly or dishonestly? Are we next going to be back to debating about whether or not Henry II 'meant it' when he openly asked for Becket to be murdered? [quote]The reason for that is that gun owners have been burned too many times from the 70s until now. You tend to learn from experiences.[/quote] It was [I]founded in 1871[/I] and has [I]supported gun control for most of its existence.[/I] Two thirds of its entire existence, it has advocated for responsible gun control. [quote]The summer riots of 1967 and assassinations of Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy in 1968 prompted Congress to reenact a version of the FDR-era gun control laws as the Gun Control Act of 1968. The act updated the law to include minimum age and serial number requirements, and extended the gun ban to include the mentally ill and drug addicts. In addition, it restricted the shipping of guns across state lines to collectors and federally licensed dealers and certain types of bullets could only be purchased with a show of ID. The NRA, however, blocked the most stringent part of the legislation, which mandated a national registry of all guns and a license for all gun carriers. In an interview in American Rifleman, Franklin Orth stated that despite portions of the law appearing “unduly restrictive, the measure as a whole appears to be one that the sportsmen of America can live with.” A shift in the NRA’s platform occurred when in 1971 the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, during a house raid, shot and paralyzed longtime NRA member Kenyon Ballew suspected of stockpiling illegal weapons. The NRA swiftly condemned the federal government. As Winkler points out, following the incident NRA board member and editor of New Hampshire’s Manchester Union Leader William Loeb referred to the federal agents as “Treasury Gestapo”; the association soon appropriated the language of the Panthers insisting that the Second Amendment protected individual gun rights.[/quote] See that first two sentences of paragraph one? The NRA [U]advocated[/U] for that in '67. You know what the NRA was founded on? [quote][...] the NRA was founded by two Union Civil War veterans and a former New York Times reporter in 1871, [U]its purpose was to help improve the marksmanship of urban northerners whose inferiority to the superior marksmanship of their rural southern counterparts was believed to have prolonged the war.[/U][/quote] Where's the second amendment in there? That's right, nowhere. It's a recent change - and thus the recent 'we no longer care about gun control'. This statement came from the NRA of 1939: [quote]“[B]I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons[/B]. I [B]do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns[/B]. [B]I think it should be sharply restricted[/B] and only under licenses.”[/quote] Show me where that statement would come out the mouth of [I]anyone[/I] in the NRA's executive board today. Show me that any member of that board could be even [I]brought[/I] to agree with that statement today. If you can't, then drop the whole point about 'well it's your fault for not negotiating with them - they're tired and paranoid which is your fault because your fault and has nothing to do with them being, now, a lobbying organization whose principle concern is making money'.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53159620] I don't have an issue working with either the NRA or with people who want gun control, because I don't view either as an enemy.[/QUOTE] The point isn't that I view the NRA as an enemy, it's that they view me as an enemy, and anyone who criticizes Trump, and the free press. Most people who want gun control aren't trying to set up a civil war by describing vague "they's" as enemies of the state whom we need to defeat with "the closed fist of truth".

What's funny here, is that the NRA are regarded as a bunch of pussies by the rest of the gun rights groups.

[QUOTE=catbarf;53159896]I don't agree with Silence on much, but I think you and the other people saying basically this same thing are clearly misunderstanding how the NRA works. They're not soliciting donations from random people, they're soliciting donations [I]from their members[/I]. If we're going to phrase this in the context of 'the public', there are really two publics. There's the actual public at large, who they don't have to listen to, and there's their membership, who they do have to listen to. Their membership overwhelmingly supports them ideologically, not because they get discounts on airline tickets (who joins the NRA for the benefits?). When they have an excuse to paint themselves as victims, they use it to their benefit through sounding the alarm bells and crying to their membership that desperate action is needed. They feed off of fear and victimhood, and scare gun owners into thinking that gun ownership is ostracized and under attack. And it works. I'm not going to say that cutting ties to the NRA is the wrong thing to do, but it's not really hurting them any, and in the short-term they'll profit from it. No matter what the actual public does, the only thing that will reduce the NRA's clout is disillusioning the membership of the organization's merits, so that members stop renewing their membership and stop sending donations. I'm sorry, I have to call [I]complete[/I] bullshit on the claim that pro-gun control groups are acting in good faith and a willingness to compromise and it's just the mean old NRA spreading lies and refusing to listen. When Democrat leaders are always saying 'we're not trying to take your guns away' while [URL="http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/sen-dianne-feinstein-suggests-national-buyback-of-guns/article/2516648"]repeatedly suggesting mandatory buybacks and confiscation[/URL], resurrecting assault weapons bans that even the Department of Justice said were completely useless, and refusing to compromise on anything (seriously, give me one example of gun control legislation in the last twenty years that has represented a compromise, ie given something to gun owners in exchange for other limitations), it's clear that neither side is acting in good faith. They're each pandering to their bases, and pass legislation through partisan superiority rather than any sort of compromise. When it comes to the NRA, Democrats are their own worst enemy. If they'd outright stop suggesting Australia-style confiscation as a wish list item, they wouldn't be driving moderate, reasonable gun owners to support the NRA out of fear that any concession will ultimately lead to a total ban. If they were acting more reasonably on gun control issues, such that gun owners didn't feel they need a powerful organization to advocate for them, it would make the NRA look like the raving lunatic mouthpieces of the GOP that they are, rather than the only gun rights organization with any clout.[/QUOTE] Well said. Both sides are feeding off of each other, everything has become so fanatical in my eyes it is ridiculous. When it comes to money I feel like it is fair to point out how lobbying and donations to political figures are awful overall, but EVERY one is involved in it. Just because your politician accepts money from a group you agree with, does not make it any more unethical as the people you feel like your are against. It is also fair to point that the Democrats have received large amounts of money from gun control lobbyists. Just like their republician counter-parts have recieved vast amounts of money from pro-gun lobbiests. Ted Cruz has received 500k from gun rights, while Hillary Clinton has received 1.1 million gun control. Donald Trump has recieved nearly 1 million from gun rights and only recieved 2k from gun control. [url]https://www.opensecrets.org/news/issues/guns[/url] So both sides are playing the same game, taking the same money, the only difference is it is going to be something you agree with or are against in terms of beliefs/values/etc. If they are being paid to represent a certain topic who you think they are going to stand with? You the citizen? or the person paying their checks? Now I do not want to sound awful and sound like the typical "hur dur democrats fault!" type person. But the Democrats did create a massive scare for regular gun-owners and moderates. Of course they are going to flock and lean towards an organization that will protect those rights. It is hard to listen to a political party has flocked the same gun control bills for years now, banning anything that looks scary, makes uneducated remarks and statements, and then turns around and supports operations which sold guns to criminals and looses said guns to criminals. It is hard to take someone seriously when they want to discuss gun crime, then turns arounds and creates it. It is also hard to listen to the other side of the arguement which says we need to put guns EVERYWHERE. Regular gun owners will listen to any type of gun legislation that respects their rights and does not infringe on them. For christ sakes, 80% of americans support expanding background checks to include private firearm sales. That alone is one of the most logical forms of legislation and is a good start to earning the trust back of many americans. Politically our country is a hot mess and the organizations, lobbiests, and other interests groups are eating this shit up because all this insanity is generating MONEY for them.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53159973]It was [I]founded in 1871[/I] and has [I]supported gun control for most of its existence.[/I] Two thirds of its entire existence, it has advocated for responsible gun control.[/QUOTE] Can I just throw out that the real point of departure wasn't 1971, it was 1994. The NRA supported the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban, and gun owners were [I]furious[/I]. Since the NRA is a democratic organization, the members voted out almost the entire NRA leadership and replaced them with hardliners. Since then the NRA has been staunchly against any and all forms of gun control, because that's what its membership voted for, because the NRA is seen as the only gun rights organization actually capable of standing up for its members' interests. The organization compromised with gun control advocates in order to pass a law that ultimately proved completely ineffective, and was never intended as more than a symbolic stepping-stone to further legislation. After 1994, the NRA made it their job to ensure no more stepping-stone legislation passes. Their venture into bugfuck insane Republican nuttery is a product of the late-2000s. [editline]25th February 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=MR-X;53160016]For christ sakes, 80% of americans support expanding background checks to include private firearm sales. That alone is one of the most logical forms of legislation and is a good start to earning the trust back of many americans.[/QUOTE] It's worth noting that a Republican Senator by the name of Coburn proposed a universal background check bill back in 2013, based on the system in Switzerland, and had the support of the Republican party. Democrats rejected it because it was designed such that it could not be used to build a registry of gun owners. The [I]Democrats[/I] rejected a universal background check bill, one with all the necessary provisions to ensure that everyone receives a background check and unscrupulous sellers would be punished, because it would not facilitate building a registry. Gun owners and groups like the NRA hear that and say 'Look, they're not after common sense gun control, they just want to build a registry so someday they can take your guns'. Cue panic and donations to the NRA. I am not saying any of this to defend Republicans or claim that Democrats are the 'real' bad guys, but the Democratic Party is not pushing common-sense legislation to address the causes and major contributing factors. They're looking for symbolic victories that earn support from their constituents, because 'let's propose a bill to better fund the DoJ in prosecuting straw purchases' is not a hot-button issue that will earn them votes. Neither side is willing to compromise because neither is really seeking to address the problem; striking compromise isn't seen as victory.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53159973]Are you going to debate this honestly or dishonestly?[/quote] You've only proven you're interested in the latter, especially with this part: [quote]Show me where that statement would come out the mouth of [I]anyone[/I] in the NRA's executive board today. Show me that any member of that board could be even [I]brought[/I] to agree with that statement today. If you can't, then drop the whole point about 'well it's your fault for not negotiating with them - they're tired and paranoid which is your fault because your fault and has nothing to do with them being, now, a lobbying organization whose principle concern is making money'.[/QUOTE] You don't want to compromise. You don't want negotiation. Your only objective here is to show why you think you are right in not negotiating.

[QUOTE=catbarf;53159896]I don't agree with Silence on much, but I think you and the other people saying basically this same thing are clearly misunderstanding how the NRA works. They're not soliciting donations from random people, they're soliciting donations [I]from their members[/I]. If we're going to phrase this in the context of 'the public', there are really two publics. There's the actual public at large, who they don't have to listen to, and there's their membership, who they do have to listen to. Their membership overwhelmingly supports them ideologically, not because they get discounts on airline tickets (who joins the NRA for the benefits?). When they have an excuse to paint themselves as victims, they use it to their benefit through sounding the alarm bells and crying to their membership that desperate action is needed. They feed off of fear and victimhood, and scare gun owners into thinking that gun ownership is ostracized and under attack. And it works. I'm not going to say that cutting ties to the NRA is the wrong thing to do, but it's not really hurting them any, and in the short-term they'll profit from it. No matter what the actual public does, the only thing that will reduce the NRA's clout is disillusioning the membership of the organization's merits, so that members stop renewing their membership and stop sending donations. I'm sorry, I have to call [I]complete[/I] bullshit on the claim that pro-gun control groups are acting in good faith and a willingness to compromise and it's just the mean old NRA spreading lies and refusing to listen. When Democrat leaders are always saying 'we're not trying to take your guns away' while [URL="http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/sen-dianne-feinstein-suggests-national-buyback-of-guns/article/2516648"]repeatedly suggesting mandatory buybacks and confiscation[/URL], resurrecting assault weapons bans that even the Department of Justice said were completely useless, and refusing to compromise on anything (seriously, give me one example of gun control legislation in the last twenty years that has represented a compromise, ie given something to gun owners in exchange for other limitations), it's clear that neither side is acting in good faith. They're each pandering to their bases, and pass legislation through partisan superiority rather than any sort of compromise. When it comes to the NRA, Democrats are their own worst enemy. If they'd outright stop suggesting Australia-style confiscation as a wish list item, they wouldn't be driving moderate, reasonable gun owners to support the NRA out of fear that any concession will ultimately lead to a total ban. If they were acting more reasonably on gun control issues, such that gun owners didn't feel they need a powerful organization to advocate for them, it would make the NRA look like the raving lunatic mouthpieces of the GOP that they are, rather than the only gun rights organization with any clout.[/QUOTE] The only thing from that post I said was [QUOTE]I think you're being either dishonest or obtuse if you can't see that a group like the NRA, one who unironically puts out CNC grade propaganda via Dana Loesch is at all willing to compromise on anything. They're nothing but a front for the military industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us of. There is no compromise with that. [/QUOTE] I didn't say that second bit. That's a result of fucked up quoting.

[QUOTE=catbarf;53160018]Can I just throw out that the real point of departure wasn't 1971, it was 1994. The NRA supported the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban, and gun owners were [I]furious[/I]. Since the NRA is a democratic organization, the members voted out almost the entire NRA leadership and replaced them with hardliners. Since then the NRA has been staunchly against any and all forms of gun control, because that's what its membership voted for, because the NRA is seen as the only gun rights organization actually capable of standing up for its members' interests. The organization compromised with gun control advocates in order to pass a law that ultimately proved completely ineffective, and was never intended as more than a symbolic stepping-stone to further legislation. After 1994, the NRA made it their job to ensure no more stepping-stone legislation passes.[/QUOTE] I'm googling around and I don't see anywhere that the NRA supported the AWB? unless wikipedia and the other sources I've checked out are lying to me. I mean that doesn't mean gun owners weren't furious and stuffed the NRA full of hardliners anyway though.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53160069]You've only proven you're interested in the latter, especially with this part: You don't want to compromise. You don't want negotiation. Your only objective here is to show why you think you are right in not negotiating.[/QUOTE] Do you have [I]anything[/I] but zingers to put in your argument? I just said: Prove to me that they want to compromise. I want evidence: Statements, quotes, policy positions, memos, speeches, legislation that they've backed ... [B]recent[/B] [I]facts[/I] in general that aren't empty wishy/washy 'blame the other kid' rhetoric. Everything I find from them points to them not being interested in compromise whatsoever. Since you keep insisting that they want to then surely you can prove it. If you can't stop trying to push the argument that 'it's because we don't want to compromise that they don't want to compromise'. You have offered nothing of [I]substance[/I] to defend your argument. For sake of argument, presume [I]that I am willing to compromise[/I]. Because [I]I am[/I] depending on what they're interested in putting on the table. Now will you substantiate your claims or will you continue to state that I am simply 'to trust you' absent of any evidence because 'you're right' for reasons that you aren't giving real, substantial, evidence-backed data for? Note that I will not accept 'see you're not willing to compromise' as a rebuttal.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;53160075]The only thing from that post I said was I didn't say that second bit. That's a result of fucked up quoting.[/QUOTE] Oh shit, my bad. Sorry about that, I certainly didn't mean to put words in your mouth. [QUOTE=Lambeth;53160101]I'm googling around and I don't see anywhere that the NRA supported the AWB? unless wikipedia and the other sources I've checked out are lying to me. I mean that doesn't mean gun owners weren't furious and stuffed the NRA full of hardliners anyway though.[/QUOTE] You'll see a lot of vague references to the NRA opposing the bill, but that's not exactly true. The NRA actually [url=http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/15/magazine/inside-the-power-of-the-nra.html]lobbied House Democrats to help develop the bill[/url]. They hoped that by adjusting the bill into a compromise, by ensuring that it grandfathered in existing assault weapons and magazines rather than forcing a confiscation/buyback, that even if they failed to stop it entirely they could live with the consequences. What ended up happening, in effect, was that they weakened it into a compromise that enough Republicans could accept, and the bill passed. They also didn't do nearly the letter-writing style of opposition that they do today, wielding much less clout in Congress. As a consequence their membership was royally pissed, and blamed leadership for working towards a compromise rather than opposing it at all costs.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53160121]Do you have [I]anything[/I] but zingers to put in your argument? I just said: Prove to me that they want to compromise. I want evidence: Statements, quotes, policy positions, memos, speeches, legislation that they've backed ... [B]recent[/B] [I]facts[/I] in general that aren't empty wishy/washy 'blame the other kid' rhetoric. Everything I find from them points to them not being interested in compromise whatsoever. Since you keep insisting that they want to then surely you can prove it. If you can't stop trying to push the argument that 'it's because we don't want to compromise that they don't want to compromise'. You have offered nothing of [I]substance[/I] to defend your argument. For sake of argument, presume [I]that I am willing to compromise[/I]. Because [I]I am[/I] depending on what they're interested in putting on the table. Now will you substantiate your claims or will you continue to state that I am simply 'to trust you' absent of any evidence because 'you're right' for reasons that you aren't giving real, substantial, evidence-backed data for? Note that I will not accept 'see you're not willing to compromise' as a rebuttal.[/QUOTE] You've not asked for where they would compromise. You've asked for where they support gun control. These are two different questions. The do not support gun control. But if you want an example, look no farther than [URL="https://home.nra.org/joint-statement"]their own statement[/URL] for bumpstock devices: [QUOTE](FAIRFAX, VA) - The National Rifle Association today issued the following statement: "In the aftermath of the evil and senseless attack in Las Vegas, the American people are looking for answers as to how future tragedies can be prevented. Unfortunately, the first response from some politicians has been to call for more gun control. Banning guns from law-abiding Americans based on the criminal act of a madman will do nothing to prevent future attacks. This is a fact that has been proven time and again in countries across the world. In Las Vegas, reports indicate that certain devices were used to modify the firearms involved. Despite the fact that the Obama administration approved the sale of bump fire stocks on at least two occasions, the National Rifle Association is calling on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) to immediately review whether these devices comply with federal law. [B]The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations. [/B] In an increasingly dangerous world, the NRA remains focused on our mission: strengthening Americans' Second Amendment freedom to defend themselves, their families and their communities. [B]To that end, on behalf of our five million members across the country, we urge Congress to pass National Right-to-Carry reciprocity, which will allow law-abiding Americans to defend themselves and their families from acts of violence.[/B]"[/QUOTE] Looks like they were ready to compromise there.

meanwhile, in the state of Georgia [media]https://twitter.com/CaseyCagle/status/968199605803454465[/media] lol

[QUOTE=God of Ashes;53162314]meanwhile, in the state of Georgia [media]https://twitter.com/CaseyCagle/status/968199605803454465[/media] lol[/QUOTE] I'm not a lawyer but it seems kinda sketchy to stipulate legislation based on what sorts of favors a private company is willing to do for an organization that very well might be raising money for his party