NRA and gun industry support of anti gun control politicians backfiring?

[spankys bbq]

Originally Posted by dspguy

Yes, they accept donations to what end? The original NRA mission statement included:

and the current mission statement includes:

I cut out the fat from that while keeping it as close the original meaning. In both cases, they talk about gun ownership. In order to own a gun, you need to purchase a gun. Where do you purchase a gun from... ultimately a supply chain that involves a manufacturer, an assembler and a retailer.

So who stands to benefits from the promotion of guns? On one hand, citizens. That's a good thing. Promoting citizens' rights is a worthy cause. But, what are they promoting to citizens... buying a product. Who benefits from people buying this product? Gun manufacturers. Who is donating to the NRA? The gun industry.

It's about the money. Always.

Here is a much simpler example:

Ever watch one of those commercials that talks about "Pork, the other white meat." Guess who paid for it? The National Pork Producers Council. Connect the dots here. Who stands to benefit from people consuming more pork? And who is donates to the National Pork Producers Council to air those commercials? Same deal.

I'm not even touching your nonsense about "bending an interpretation." I'm sure that will derail the thread anyway.

I'll address the "bending an interpretation" part. That's easy.

The supposed great thinkers of our time apparently stopped thinking when they were talking about the 2nd Amendment.

They've applied a modern version of "regulate" to an Amendment made over 200 years ago while ignoring the actual meaning of the words as written. It's a convenient way of attempting to rewrite, or argue, the 2nd.

Our language has evolved in most every aspect but, no one seems to argue the evolution of the language in other places. The original intent is very much intact in every other case but the 2nd Amendment is the one where the words must have meant what we understand today as regulate.

After all, the First Amendment applies to Twitter and Facebook but the 2nd means we have to regulate, err, control who owns arms.

Truth is, it's easier for the anti-2A folk to just ban guns than address the real reason for the violence we have today. Maybe it's just better politically.

[Hrw-500]

We should ask to Alyssa Milano when she'll drop her armed security guards? If she really believe in gun control unless she think then gun control is only for peasants and not the Hollywood elite.

VIDEO: Hollywood actress attends anti-gun protest - with armed guards - The American MirrorThe American Mirror
https://twitter.com/BenHowe/status/992824417477693441

[Delahanty]

Originally Posted by Hrw-500

We should ask to Alyssa Milano when she'll drop her armed security guards? If she really believe in gun control unless she think then gun control is only for peasants and not the Hollywood elite.

VIDEO: Hollywood actress attends anti-gun protest - with armed guards - The American MirrorThe American Mirror
https://twitter.com/BenHowe/status/992824417477693441

And one one of that little hypocrite's lummoxes said he "had to ask" an NRA member to leave her tiny "rally." Despite the fact that yours truly would have responded, "I'm going to have to say no," this simply points out her hypocrisy, and that of everyone else in her orbit.

[JimRom]

Originally Posted by KenFresno

And nobody ever successfully shot a deer before the AR-15 platform came around? Also, seriously what happened to the sport part of hunting? Its not suppose to be as easy as possible.

As an avid hunter in my younger years, not one time did I hunt for "sport." I hunted to put food on the table, not so that I could brag about how many points the antlers had or how long the beard on the turkey was.

Many people in rural America still hunt as their main source of meat for the table. As someone who grew up in that situation, I can tell you that the best day of hunting was the one when I walked out on the porch, saw a deer in the lower field, dropped him while my coffee was still hot, and then went to work fixing fences after I dressed him out. The only way hunting that deer could have been easier would be if he had walked into my living room and had a coronary - and that was my best hunt ever.

The AR-15 is one of the most practical firearms ever built, with a modular design that makes building, cleaning, and maintaining much simpler than other models. It is, quite possibly, the best all-around firearm that exists. That's why it is so popular, and its popularity explains why it seems to be the firearm of choice for mass shooters. If the most popular firearm in America were the Benelli shotgun, that would be the weapon used by mass shooters.

There are other firearms that can perform exactly like the AR-15, without the modular build aspect, and none of these other firearms have even been addressed in any proposed ban. The idea that school shootings will be affected by banning the AR-15 is ridiculous to anyone who knows anything at all about firearms. The weapon of choice will simply shift to one of these other firearms which will still be readily available because they aren't scary looking.

[ram2]

Originally Posted by KenFresno

And you need an AR-15 to hunt what? People?

I have a Remington semi-automatic 30-.06 that I use for hunting. It shoots a bigger bullet that those scary AR-15s. Does that make you feel better? After all, it is not classified as an "assault rifle".