DEBATE Miley Cyrus 'March For Our Lives' in Washington, DC - March 24-2018 (Political debate)

The OP and posts with comments related to the pics has been returned to Celeb Photos. This thread is simply for the debate. Carry on.

 

is this the thread to ask for the free pony rides?

 

I am going to wade into this one time, and one time only. As an outsider (don’t live in the US) who grew up with up to 100 firearms in the house, keeping guns in the home does not bother me in the least. I could field-strip an '05 Colt or Browning Challenger before I was 12 and could outshoot my Commonwealth Games-level father with a long-gun in my teens. I’m also above average with a longbow and other weapons not relevant to this discussion. I have no problem with folks who own guns, so long as they keep them safely and use them appropriately (ie- not loaded in the kitchen drawer or bedside table). There- that’s out of the way for now. Insofar as the 2nd Amendment goes, I’m totally neutral. We don’t have one in Canada, and so what? We can still possess firearms, so long as we simply stay with the rules. What’s the problem with that, anyway? We’ve had the police aware of what guns are in what homes here for over a half century now, and no one’s come to get them yet. I seriously doubt that anyone plans to, either.

But what I do hate is what the NRA has apparently become in the last decade or so and the deliberate polarization they have worked very hard to engender in the American population. The NRA have morphed from an outward-focused, helpful and people-minded, educational organization supporting owners (hunters, target shooters and the like) into a one-note, small-minded arm of the gun industry, clearly funded not by the dues of their 3.3 million members, but by large donations from manufacturers who use the NRA as a purely political lobbying arm of the weapons industry- yet they still call themselves a “non-profit”. Go figure that.

What lobbyists like the NRA have done is remove any trace of common sense from the debate. Politicians, whose first loyalty is to themselves and getting re-elected, are afraid of the NRA and what it “says” it can do to their re-election bid. So they take the money to run their campaigns and try to hold on to their jobs, regardless of the polls which show a majority of US citizens think different from the NRA. (apparently, real people don't count- only the ones with dollars do. Nothing short of shameful, but it happens). Yet the NRA's own published figures on total membership adds up to less than 1% of the total US population. Moreover, there are a great many members who have come out upset with the tactics of the organization, so it's likely fair to say that less than 100% of the NRA membership supports this type of activity.

Sanity, people. That’s what is needed on BOTH sides- sanity. Think about it- less than 1% of the population is dictating to the other 99% and going the full Chicken Little about seizing guns, and all the other dire (and totally made up) warnings they manage to get into the media with distressing regularity.

Likewise for those who would ban all guns. It’s nothing more than the same kind of fear-mongering and propaganda, only from an entirely opposite perspective.

Lots of blame on both sides, it seems. It's become a war game for both sides, and as with any war, reality was lost a long time ago.

And both sides are playing out here, in microcosm. The US needs real solutions, and those lie somewhere in between the two extremes.

Someone needs to start to work on that, don’t you think?


Out.

 

You are misguided as to where the NRA gets its money. Gun companies are not particularly wealthy, and there are scant few of them. The overwhelming percentage of NRA money comes from individual donors. NRA is a uniquely grass roots organization among lobbying outfits and probably the most powerful truly grass roots political organization in the America. It is what Democracy is supposed to be all about.

 

Hmmm

5 million total NRA members (my previous post was out of date), and per the "Centre for Responsive Politics" they spent a total of 62.3 million (source- Open Secrets dot org) on the 2015-2016 election cycle. However, their own books show donations from individuals for that period as totaling $1,805,000 for the same period.

So where did the other 60mil come from? 5 million member would have to cough up six figures each... Kinda doubt it. So it surely came from corporate donations.- and firearms makers are pretty high on their list of corporate donors.

Check it out. Yes, the industry is in trouble, but to try and buy their way out of it, they'll spend whatever they can to survive.

 

Members pay annual dues. Donations and dues are not the same thing.

 

Ok so ban everything but bolt-action rifles, shotguns and revolvers. I have an old 22 plinker that hasn't been fired since '04. My Father has several pistols and shotguns but they're all collecting dust. I mean that's pretty provocative but you're not using a suppressed AR-15 to hunt deer. Anyway, let's get back to the size and shape of Miley and her posterior!

 

Yeah, I get that. It's the point I'm trying to make. I would bet that on average, 75 cents of every membership dollar goes to operations- office space, salaries, executive operations (including that jet that their main spokesperson seems have available), plus writing, editing printing and mailing 5 million copies of "The American Rifleman" or "American Hunter", or "Shooting Illustrated"can't be cheap. Their own website admits the $3.75 of "your dues" covers "your magazine subscription", but the overhead for an organization that size has got to be a significant portion of the dues.

So yeah, we're back to donations.. 62 million dollars worth in the last presidential election cycle alone. Had to come from somewhere- not from me. So follow the money. Who benefits? Who has that kind of cash to throw around?

Perhaps the slumping firearms companies?

 

No, not at all. I think eveRyone is justified for discussing it Considering former SCOTUS judge John Paul Stevens has called for repealing the 2nd amendment, CNN & MSNBC have both run segments discussing the repeal efforts, the speakers at the march in DC & NY openly discussed the elimination of "all guns" and 3 states in the past 4 years have actually attempted to legislate a ban. But hey, you keep thinking people like me (that you know nothing about) are just __________ (fill in the blank).

 

You are failing to acknowledge 2 entirely separate revenue streams: promotions and benefactors. All of the companies that offer NRA discounts pay the NRA for promotional advertising. This is where 90% of their operating money comes from. Additionally, there are donor who donate "in the name of" and "by way of" others in order to help fund their policy lobbying strategy. Just like Planned Parenthood, they have large benefactors that donate 'through them' in order to Promote their agenda. These benefactors are typically very wealthy individuals- not companies.

 

so now you want to get defensive and project? cnn does things for ratings and some retired senile rebulican appointed judge is everybody now?

 

Thanks Scribe. It gives me an opportunity to address a couple of stereotypes: 1) people like me who aren't afraid of guns, see them as tools and not weapons, have a formal familiarity w/ the way our clandestine services actually operate and aren't afraid to discuss what we see as a potential overreaction to a tragedy are not "paranoid". We are simply discussing the issue and calling hypocrisy when we see it. 2) Just because someone does not see guns as the problem, it does not make them "right wing, fanatical, militia who support Trump."

As a point of fact, my most recent presidential ballot casting was intended to be a protest against the wicked witch, of whom I greatly despise. The fact that it turned out to be a vote cast for the winner was a pleasant surprise only in the sense that it meant "she" lost.

The most recent school's shooting was clearly a cautionary tale for the incompetent actions of so many agencies all citizens believe are protecting us. Literally EVERYONE we assumed "had our backs" failed us in Florida; every frickin one of them. The fact that he used a gun, much less an AR, was practically meaningless given that he also had bomb making materials in his possession as well. That kid was damaged goods, just like Dylan roof, the asand Hook kid, the VA Tech kid, the Colorado shooter, etc., etc... see the pattern yet?

 

You're funny... when you state that supporting (or defending) one's opinion, with facts, is defensive - I can't help but giggle. The funniest part is: You won't even understand why it's so funny. And by invoking the true basement-dwelling Internet bully's sharpest retort, "You're projecting," you cede the argument to me; thank you.

 

100% of public school shootings occur at public schools
Ban public schools- problem solved

 

Yep, Timothy McVeigh didn't use a gun. I don't really like guns but I know you could take away all the guns and someone will just walk into a school or a nightclub with a bunch of grenades or pipe bombs. I'm surprised no one has been brave enough to strap a bomb to their chest and walk into a crowded movie theater. Give it time.
I think things are going to get much worse because there are a lot of people out there that feel they have no identity or reason to live...that's the real problem. Under the right conditions any one of us could be capable of doing serious harm.

 

Pot meet kettle.

 

So few

Lmao, awesome! Look sensible thoughts about guns and from a fellow Canadian no less! #CanadianPride bravo brother!

 

Agreed.

 

There is some truth in that, but regardless, this is all distraction. The problem I was on about is what the NRA has become, either by choice or by happenstance or worse, subterfuge. The NRA has become a one-note, strident and dangerously extremist voice that seeks to promote that there is only one view- theirs. They have become a fractious, reactionary bully that would have everyone believe anyone who even mildly disagrees with them are "the thin edge of the wedge" (a wedge that simply does not exist), and those who genuinely feel that change is needed (last estimated at about 72% of the US population) is "the enemy". This is the kind of strident name-calling activism that has given rise to the intense tribalism that permeates American political thinking - "us or them" is now the only way to be, & anything less (formerly known as "moderate") is considered traitorous.

THAT is what these old eyes see as the issue- tribalism, be it from the extreme right or the extreme left. The NRA is at least partly responsible for it, but there are many others who have exploited the attitude for their own gain, to the detriment of American society (and the much-vaunted American value system) in the eyes of the rest of the world.

Historically, this kind of tribalism is precisely what the US and its allies have fought against- yet here it is in your own back yard, sowing the same seeds that were sowed in 1913 in Europe, the 1920s in Japan and China and the 1930s in Western Europe. "We are right, and we are the only right!" "No one else can be right, because we have the only answers!"

And the worry is that more and more of that world is beginning to think along the same lines.

 

This thread is proof that there is plenty of debate to be had. As to your second sentence, keep your arbitrary psychoanalysis to yourself, especially since you've added nothing to this discussion.

"It's the same typical "trying to shame or demonize anyone I don't agree with, because I don't have any argument to counter what was said" tactics the left tried and failed at for the past 2 1/2 years."

Thanks for doing exactly what I said you'd do, tho. Keep up the good work.