Trump back in step with NRA after doubts over Parkland shooting

[UncleTouchyFingers]

3 minutes ago, farcanell said:

Lol... progress... so you agree that the second amendment can be changed stripping the people of any rights to bear arms... 

 

Its not progress, I've never advocated that it cant be changed. If you followed any of my posts on such a matter you would know thats the method of reform I would prefer. Go straight after the amendment itself and let people know thats exactly what you want. That way people can see it. That way its honest. But Democrats wont do that because they know they can never do it, so they lie and tell people that they dont want to "take everyones guns" when in reality they do, and they will if given the chance. Instead favoring incrementalism. 

 

9 minutes ago, farcanell said:

your in complete denial about the influence of the most powerful lobby group on the planet. Lol... just consider that term... the most powerful lobby group.

 

This is false, completely fake news. 

 

You really shouldn't come at me unless you know what you're talking about. Im a lifetime member of the NRA and been into shooting since I was a kid. The lobbying arm of the NRA is minuscule. 

 

http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/business-a-lobbying/318177-lobbyings-top-50-whos-spending-big

 

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=d000000082

[farcanell]

5 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

I wouldn't go that far. Labor unions probably more powerful. AIPAC probably more powerful. Defense contractors, Bank Lobby, Pharma Lobby, Energy Lobby. A lot of fragrant grease being applied.

Good point... and taken

 

in this im a victim of “fake news” lol (internationally we don’t hear of them, so excuse my ignorance... just googled aipac), but even so, still in the ball park, I think.

[farcanell]

21 minutes ago, UncleTouchyFingers said:

This is false, completely fake news. 

 

You really shouldn't come at me unless you know what you're talking about. Im a lifetime member of the NRA and been into shooting since I was a kid. The lobbying arm of the NRA is minuscule. 

 

http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/business-a-lobbying/318177-lobbyings-top-50-whos-spending-big

 

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=d000000082

Lol.... I really should come at you, because your just chucking out pro gun propaganda.... which is disputable.

 

eg... your list puts the chamber of commerce at first place with 84 mill, and the national realtors at second, spend 37 million... yet the non partisan center for responsive politics states that the NRA and affiliates spent 54 mill to secure a republican victory, which puts them at second place after the chamber of commerce

 

yes.. minuscule proportionally.... lol... not!

 

hopefully I’ve vindicated the notion of coming at you without knowledge, by not relying on NRA supplied figures and looking deeper into things, vs a closed minded outlook suiting your own belief system

 

[UncleTouchyFingers]

22 minutes ago, farcanell said:

still in the ball park, I think.

 

Not even on the same planet. 

[farcanell]

Https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association

 

4 minutes ago, UncleTouchyFingers said:

 

Not even on the same planet. 

So.... not even on the same planet.... mmmm... what a quandary... who to believe

 

on one hand there’s you, who had yet to make a valid point, and on the other hand there’s this ( don’t gun nuts know how to do research?);

 

[UncleTouchyFingers]

6 minutes ago, farcanell said:

yet the non partisan center for responsive politics states that the NRA and affiliates spent 54 mill to secure a republican victory, which puts them at second place after the chamber of commerce

 

Ask yourself this:

 

Why isn't the NRA listed as second in the list? 

[farcanell]

20 minutes ago, UncleTouchyFingers said:

 

Ask yourself this:

 

Why isn't the NRA listed as second in the list? 

Right... question in previous post answered... gun nuts don’t know how to do their own research.

 

your second source does not include donations by NRA affiliated (which you would know, if you had bothered to read the link you supplied)

 

your first source states it relies on information that you provided from your second source ( which you would have known, if you had bothered to read the link you supplied)

 

can you see the problem? ... can you see why I should come at you for your assertions?

 

again, dear NRA member, try reading something not sponsored by your club

Edited May 6, 2018 by farcanell

[UncleTouchyFingers]

1 minute ago, farcanell said:

Right... question in previous post answered...

 

Its not answered. You placed the NRA as second in the list, and Im asking you why its not actually second in the list, or even in the top 50. 

 

Worth a read:

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/16/nra-money-isnt-why-gun-control-efforts-are-failing-commentary.html

[farcanell]

11 minutes ago, UncleTouchyFingers said:

 

Its not answered. You placed the NRA as second in the list, and Im asking you why its not actually second in the list, or even in the top 50. 

 

Worth a read:

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/16/nra-money-isnt-why-gun-control-efforts-are-failing-commentary.html

Again.... my question is answered.... you don’t know how to do your own research.

 

this link is also relying on information supplied by your link in post 121, which excludes affiliate donations ( which you would have known, if you had read the link)

 

so.... putting it as simple as possible, the NRA is not on the list because these affiliate donations have not been disclosed ( and worth noting is that the one donation cited by open secrets was discovered thru investigation, vs offered up freely)

[UncleTouchyFingers]

33 minutes ago, farcanell said:

the NRA is not on the list because these affiliate donations have not been disclosed

 

So if we applied your criteria (the one you are making up right now) to everyone (not just the NRA) what do you think would happen to the list? 

 

There is a reason that they aren't even in the top 50, and no amount of you obfuscating it with your made up terms is going to change that. 

[farcanell]

42 minutes ago, UncleTouchyFingers said:

 

So if we applied your criteria (the one you are making up right now) to everyone (not just the NRA) what do you think would happen to the list? 

 

There is a reason that they aren't even in the top 50, and no amount of you obfuscating it with your made up terms is going to change that. 

https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/28076/how-does-nra-spending-compare-to-other-major-us-lobbies

 

research research research.... again.... here is further corroboration of my “made up criteria”, as your incapable of coming up with anything at all of value, beyond NRA PR releases

 

And yes, there is a reason that your lists don’t have the NRA on it, and I have explained it clearly in English, but apparently my translator to American isn’t working.

 

but as to your question, it would make the list worthless.

 

If you looked around, you would see claims that big pharma is first, spending 240mill, not the chamber of commerce, and that insurance comes in second, spending 157 mill, (according to a 2016 NY times article).

 

so what does this mean? It means that you need to investigate and verify for yourself, because the truth is out there, even if your average NRA member doesn’t know it.

 

And... for giggles... note the 300 million annual budget for legal issues comment at the bottom..... And then there’s advertising costs ( like your gun nut mags encouraging ownership etc)... these all should be included in costs associated with progressing their agenda... but like I said, that’s just for giggles

 

As an after thought.... do you really believe that the NRA only spends a paltry 5 mill to promote guns. I mean... seriously?

 

[heybruce]

3 hours ago, UncleTouchyFingers said:

 

Well hey, at least your honest in your racism considering that you would be disproportionately effecting people of color. 

 

Please do expand upon your logic.  This should be interesting.

[UncleTouchyFingers]

3 minutes ago, farcanell said:

And yes, there is a reason that your lists don’t have the NRA on it, and I have explained it clearly in English, but apparently my translator to American isn’t working.

 

It isnt working because you are not capable of reading and comprehending the function of footnotes. Do you see that little cross? The one in the post? Purple color? 

 

At the bottom of the post which you are trying to use as the basis of your entire argument:
 

Quote

✝ The relative rankings I came up with is an apples to oranges comparison because I am including outside expenditures of the NRA but not any of the others on that list, but I include it just to keep a sense of the scale of the spending.

 

The NRA is not, and wont ever be, the "most powerful lobbying group in the world" nor will it ever be in the top 50. 

 

Once again, you are wrong. Give up. 

[UncleTouchyFingers]

23 minutes ago, heybruce said:

 

Please do expand upon your logic.  This should be interesting.

 

Glad you replied. You will like this:

 

Its not my logic, is your/liberal logic. 

 

Voter ID laws are racist because they disproportinaltely effect minorities and people of color who don't have time or cant afford to get an ID. 

 

The same argument can and will be applied to guns. Mandating, federally, that gun owners must register and license their firearms and take training courses would negatively impact people of color and minorities. 

 

You cant have it both ways. 

[Basil B]

6 hours ago, 7by7 said:

The US supreme court has ruled that your 2nd amendment rights are not unlimited and the 2nd amendment does not prohibit regulation of gun ownership. There is absolutely no constitutional reason why the USA cannot follow the example of the civilised world and bring in stricter gun control laws. It just needs a government with the political will.

AFAIK there was only one politician with the balls to take on the NRA and that was Hillary... 

[UncleTouchyFingers]

2 minutes ago, Basil B said:

AFAIK there was only one politician with the balls to take on the NRA and that was Hillary... 

 

So if the NRA is so dangerous and most people want gun control, why didn't they vote for Hillary? If its widely known that the NRA is the devil that controls all politicians that they support, why didnt Hillary win? 

 

The NRA isn't voting, the people are. If people didn't believe in the second amendment then the NRA would have absolutely no power whatsoever. 

[Basil B]

1 minute ago, UncleTouchyFingers said:

So if the NRA is so dangerous and most people want gun control, why didn't they vote for Hillary?

They did... she got millions more votes than trump.

[heybruce]

23 minutes ago, UncleTouchyFingers said:

 

Glad you replied. You will like this:

 

Its not my logic, is your/liberal logic. 

 

Voter ID laws are racist because they disproportinaltely effect minorities and people of color who don't have time or cant afford to get an ID. 

 

The same argument can and will be applied to guns. Mandating, federally, that gun owners must register and license their firearms and take training courses would negatively impact people of color and minorities. 

 

You cant have it both ways. 

By that logic, all licensing and training requirements are racist. 

 

Since people of color are disproportionately affected by gun violence, I wonder if they think it is racist to require training, licensing and registration of guns.  I doubt that there is a uniform opinion on the matter, but I suspect a great many would be happy to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, crazies, and incompetents, even if it makes gun ownership a little more expensive and a little less convenient.

[heybruce]

5 minutes ago, UncleTouchyFingers said:

 

So if the NRA is so dangerous and most people want gun control, why didn't they vote for Hillary? If its widely known that the NRA is the devil that controls all politicians that they support, why didnt Hillary win? 

 

The NRA isn't voting, the people are. If people didn't believe in the second amendment then the NRA would have absolutely no power whatsoever. 

I suspect that how deep the 2018 candidates are in the pocket of the NRA will be a big issue in the upcoming election.  This could be interesting.

[UncleTouchyFingers]

7 minutes ago, heybruce said:

By that logic, all licensing and training requirements are racist. 

 

Since people of color are disproportionately affected by gun violence, I wonder if they think it is racist to require training, licensing and registration of guns.  I doubt that there is a uniform opinion on the matter, but I suspect a great many would be happy to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, crazies, and incompetents, even if it makes gun ownership a little more expensive and a little less convenient.

 

Barely any of the legislation put forth by Democrats has the intent to do any of that. Most of the legislation they put forth have been shot down because they slide in unconstitutional laws. 

 

Thanks, NRA

 

Quote

A misbegotten path is introducing new rules and misrepresenting them to the public. That's what happened last year when Democrats tried a proposed rule that they and most of the news media portrayed as a way to keep guns from the "mentally ill." But it really sought to put people into the federal government gun background database if they received disability payments from Social Security and received assistance to manage their benefits due to mental impairments. That's a far cry from "mentally ill." Even the ACLU and mental health advocates lined up against that idea, not just the NRA.

 

A similar mistake is being made with trying to put everyone on the TSA's "no fly" list into the gun background check database. Again, the ACLU swooped in to join the NRA in opposing that idea since that list is notoriously error-prone and using it would also deprive people of due process.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/16/nra-money-isnt-why-gun-control-efforts-are-failing-commentary.html

 

10 minutes ago, heybruce said:

I suspect that how deep the 2018 candidates are in the pocket of the NRA will be a big issue in the upcoming election.  This could be interesting.

 

I hope among hopes that they do, because attacking the NRA is attacking its members and other responsible gun owners. 

[farcanell]

33 minutes ago, UncleTouchyFingers said:

 

It isnt working because you are not capable of reading and comprehending the function of footnotes. Do you see that little cross? The one in the post? Purple color? 

 

At the bottom of the post which you are trying to use as the basis of your entire argument:
 

 

The NRA is not, and wont ever be, the "most powerful lobbying group in the world" nor will it ever be in the top 50. 

 

Once again, you are wrong. Give up. 

Ummm.... right... I have a comprehension issue... sure... why not... but....

 

https://listosaur.com/politics/10-powerful-special-interest-groups-america/

http://www.businesspundit.com/10-of-the-biggest-lobbies-in-washington/

http://www.businessinsider.com/nra-power-lobbying-statistics-gun-control-2017-10

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35261394

 

research research research.... again... these business and political organizations seem to be suggesting that I’m right.... and that you are misinformed (wrong)

 

now... the purple cross annotation that you mentioned.... well, it kind of supports my earlier statement that the list your working off is worthless, as all expenses aren’t included in the gazette numbers, so they are wrong (incomplete)... and I was not basing my argument on that link.... i clearly stated that it was corroboration of earlier claims.... here it is... hope that helps, as nothing else seems to have

 

1 hour ago, farcanell said:

research research research.... again.... here is further corroboration of my “made up criteria”, as your incapable of coming up with anything at all of value, beyond NRA PR releases

???? yes... I should give up.... because you appear incapable of critical thinking or research..... much like creationists.

[farcanell]

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

 

Please do expand upon your logic.  This should be interesting.

???? how did that work out for you ?

[UncleTouchyFingers]

8 minutes ago, farcanell said:

Ummm.... right... I have a comprehension issue... sure... why not... but....

 

If you want to debate how much influence the NRA has then Ill give you that. They are very influential, mostly because of its members. 

 

If you want everyone here to believe that the NRA is the most powerful lobbying group in the world, then you would be wrong. They aren't. They aren't even top 50. Context matters. Literally none of the links you cite state that they are the biggest, and you wont be able to find a link that states they are the biggest, because they arent. 

 

The NRA states that their membership is up to almost 6 million people due to the publicity of Parkland and the overall attacks towards the NRA. Thats a huge swath of very politically motivated people. Thats the power of the NRA. Thats the difference between pharmaceutical lobbyists, and special interest groups. People. Actual votes. 

[underlordcthulhu]

6 hours ago, farcanell said:

Wow... dude... you should have slept on it.

 

when did god (arguably a figment of your imagination, but that’s another story of ignorance) give people the right to carry firearms?

 

Was it when he allowed the Chinese to discover gunpowder and invent projectile weopons?

 

or was it when he allowed Europeans to gain the knowledge of explosives (intellectual theft from the chinese.. lol) and further refine gunpowder weopons of war

 

or was it when he developed mass production and quality control, to make ownership available to more and more people

 

Yer... ok... I don’t believe that rubbish, but may your dog bless you if you do

 

now... stepping away from superstition for a minute .... people like me leaving our children undefended... well ... last year 17 australian children were killed... so... undefended by privately owned guns doesn’t mean undefended, but rather, better defended, if you really want to discuss that.. and (minute up... back to god) wouldn't your god prefer not to need to defend your children.... your argument seems to be that as god has given others the right to harm your children, he’s therefore given you the right to own guns.... (mmmm... that’s to stupid to be a correct assumption of your posting... or is it?)

 

And... hundreds of years later... what? The NRA started pushing back in 1934.... once again, let me suggest that you read something other than NRA produced indoctrination material

 

and... as you are now going to sleep,( if your conscience allows,) consider this over your morning Folgers,.... you still have gun rights because your willingness to legally or illegally shoot stuff up, (bottles or babies), is what is stronger than ours

 

edit.... your gun rights are protected by the NRA “bribing” politicians, with money and votes.

Why would I need to sleep on something I know to be true?

That's as dumb as saying take some time to think about the answer to 2 + 2, the answer is always going to the same.

The only thing I would have changed in what I wrote was that it's the right to self-defense that's given to us by God. So your little rant about gun powder and the Chinese is funny at best. 

There's no need to call people who believe in God ignorant. It's not strong Christian countries that are currently bending over to Muslims , committing cultural suicide and embracing the evil ideology of social justice.

I think we would all prefer our children didn't NEED protection from violence. But it's a dog eat dog world out there(that's just nature you don't need to believe in God to understand that) and only weak men would ever give away their rights to protect their own family and community.

I wasn't talking about the NRA protecting our gun rights for hundreds of years, smart guy.

[underlordcthulhu]

6 hours ago, Becker said:

You should have just stopped right there. No need to read any more of what you're posting. You have inalienable rights given to you by an invisible man in the sky?? 

Get some sleep and don't forget your meds.

That's not nice. I realize your opinions just don't really matter anymore. Most of you people are going to end up dying alone in a house full of cats anyway with no children to pass on your values. We get the last laugh, bucko.

Edited May 6, 2018 by underlordcthulhu

[7by7]

6 minutes ago, underlordcthulhu said:

embracing the evil ideology of social justice.

I take it that the photo in your avatar is not of you.

 

I cannot comprehend how any black person of any nationality, especially an African American, could say that social justice is an evil ideology!

 

Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny.

Martin Luther King, Jr.

 

 

 

[underlordcthulhu]

6 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

I take it that the photo in your avatar is not of you.

 

I cannot comprehend how any black person of any nationality, especially an African American, could say that social justice is an evil ideology!

 

Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny.

Martin Luther King, Jr.

 

 

 

MLK Jr would be rolling in his grave today. It's disgusting that you judge someone by their skin color and assume they believe something based on it.

[farcanell]

33 minutes ago, UncleTouchyFingers said:

 

If you want to debate how much influence the NRA has then Ill give you that. They are very influential, mostly because of its members. 

 

If you want everyone here to believe that the NRA is the most powerful lobbying group in the world, then you would be wrong. They aren't. They aren't even top 50. Context matters. Literally none of the links you cite state that they are the biggest, and you wont be able to find a link that states they are the biggest, because they arent. 

 

The NRA states that their membership is up to almost 6 million people due to the publicity of Parkland and the overall attacks towards the NRA. Thats a huge swath of very politically motivated people. Thats the power of the NRA. Thats the difference between pharmaceutical lobbyists, and special interest groups. People. Actual votes. 

Paragraph one.... ?

 

paragraph two... part A...  I accepted many many many posts back that the NRA might not be the most powerful group.... do you not remember your refutal of my post saying that it was in the ballpark...,and the links I made to underscore that?

 

paragraph two.. part B... we are back to comprehension issues.

Link One had the NRA at number one position....

link two had the NRA at number one position...

link four said of the NRA that it....   “is now among the most powerful special interest lobby groups in the US, with a substantial budget to influence members of Congress on gun policy. It is run by executive vice president Wayne LaPierre.”

Link three discusses the power of the NRA in more general terms.

 

so.... part B of your claim shows you never bothered to read the links, or simply can’t understand the written words.

 

paragraph three... well damn hey.... NRA membership jumped from 5 million to 6 million, when 80 million Americans supposedly own guns.

 

I’m going out on a limb here, but do you think perhaps that a million of the 75 million gun owners, not enrolled as NRA members, might have decided that they should join the NRA to help protect their gun ownership, after such a tragedy, (Parkland) that had the potential to reduce there personal Arsenal’s

 

that explaination works right... occums razor, and all that.

 

so again.... more holes than Swiss cheese.... but carry on.... 

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, farcanell said:

???? how did that work out for you ?

Well, he equated requiring proven competence with dangerous weapons with racism, so it worked out about how I thought it would.

[UncleTouchyFingers]

2 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Well, he equated requiring proven competence with dangerous weapons with racism, so it worked out about how I thought it would.

 

So are you saying that voter ID laws are racist, but exact same logic applied to the right to own a firearm isn't racist? 

 

The right to vote and the right to keep and bear arms are both rights protected by the constitution. You can't have it both ways man, you know that.