doublegunshop.com - home Forums Is KING BROWN an Anti-Gunner?

King, the NRA has been extraordinarily effective in promoting Second Amendment rights.

I give them much of the credit for getting the right case in front of SCOTUS that allowed that court to rule that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.

They were able to get the government to eliminate the ban on "assault weapons".

The recent and rapid adoption of concealed-carry laws by dozens of states was much facilitated by the NRA.

Bloomberg and his allies created organizatons based on the NRA model, hoping to emulate the NRA's methods in their own anti-gun campaign.

You tell us the approval rating for the NRA is down, yet the percentage of Americans that think protecting gun rights is important has increased and the Second Amendment supporters are now in the majority. The percentage of those that think gun control is important declined.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/12/us/gun-control-gun-rights-pew-survey.html

Your antipathy for the NRA must spring from your liberal mindset. It is not based on any objective judgement. The fact is that the NRA is highly effective and very successful in defending gun rights in the USA.

Are you a member of the NRA?

You should be.

Pound for pound, I felt the need to trim a bunch-o-stuff off of this one too. You may not be aware of it, but I have a scale sitting next to my comp, more of a balance beam.

In this small example, I threw the pro gun dem reality on one side and the less than flattering NRA comments on the other, and guess what? Broke my scale, it took a distinctive anti NRA bent.

I believe you wrote johnny mac, who's heart and who's mind did it change exactly? Changing minds may not be moronic, but window dressing may be aimed at perceived morons. For all the greatness of an upper third best, couldn't he have thrown a few window dressing right wing victories at the fools to disarm opposition to future gun control progress. Or, maybe the hearts and minds that matter are inflexible. Hey, those are both the same.

King continues to flog the dead horse of Wayne LaPiere's response to Sandy Hook simply because it does not suit him. In fact, it was reserved, accurate and delayed out of consideration to the gravity of the situation.

The truth is that the concept has been widely accepted by many school districts which are in fact actively training those who are capable of being armed and willing to be so. In addition police and others in many municipalities such as the police chief of Detroit are encouraging citizens to legally arm themselves.

It has done all of those things. I made a point of NRA's importance. As for membership, I posted public opinion of LaPierre's gaffe in 2013. I don't know what membership is now. From my experience of running easily 100 campaigns, stupidity and mistakes, totally unexpected issues, kill well-thought-out strategies for keeping the public onside. Sandy Hook was an example. The little fella is another.

The issue has nothing to do with liberal or conservative mindsets. The fraternity is under seemingly increasing criticism from every quarter. The Second is a continuing debate; evidence a plethora of contradictory gun laws in municipal, state and federal jurisdictions. I have no more antipathy toward NRA than when the Blue Jays change a perfect lineup. The issue is minimizing any actions on our part that militates against gun rights.

Become an NRA member? The NRA's principal spokesman here says I'm an anti-gun troll in the same way he characterizes all other members and anyone who think differently from him---politically. They abjure reasonably from membership for the same reason as I do: we're not fit to be in his company.

The effect was to diminish positive public opinion of the NRA.

You need to judge NRA on its totality, not just some act you disagree with.

And keith is a member here and you certainly are too. So you can stand sharing Misfires with him but not the NRA?

Can't we seem to come up with a more specific quarter. In the interest of compromise, who anyway is driving the 'debate'?

Any time there's a Second challenge, there's no end to public debate, even on whether the constitution is the federal charter as a thread the other day, and it will go on as long as America pushes its originalist and living document opinions. And a Supreme Court decision doesn't mean much if nothing changes i.e. Guantanamo.

I'll take a shot. The antigun sentiment is coming from the urban centers of our Country where the the ruling class is contending with rampant murder and a backlash of police over reaction.

The management of these urban centers has relied upon taxing and regulating the productive members of society out and leaving the self absorbed "can't help its" to stew in a terrible government handout environment where violence seems the only way to survive. Gun control may actually be the only answer to inner city madness.

Those of us on the outside though see that in our system, the regulation of the inner city thugs must be applied to all of us if applied to them. If gun banning works to save lives in Chicago, et al a large number of Americans think that it is worth restricting the rights of all of us to achieve that goal.

Bloomberg and Obama both are "right" from their limited point of view. We the rest of the people have every right to respectfully disagree. And clearly we do...Geo

I would add that almost all of those large urban crime ridden cities have been under Democratic control for decades. So if keeping the cities safe is the responsibility of the Mayor and city council and the city is unsafe then who is to blame? "Guns! That's it! Guns! And that nasty old NRA won't let us outlaw them with sensible gun control laws! We don't have the tools we need to do our jobs!"

It is all excuses and lies from the failed political ideologists running those cities.