There is a huge chasm (not a mere gap) between the NRA past and the NRA present; likewise, there is a huge chasm between the NRA politically, and the rest of the country, both gun owners and non-gun owners.
For those who are shockingly unfamiliar with the NRA history, allow me to educate you, since once again I demonstrably have a better grasp of facts than the right wingers do.
I am cross-posting this from the website
Sane Guns, because I couldn't write a better brief history:
The National Rifle
Association |
 |
| 
The National Rifle Association is the most vocal and most recognized
component of the "Gun Lobby." Today, it is best known outside of the shooting
community as the most powerful advocate of a broad (and almost limitless)
individual "right" to firearms ownership. But the NRA is 123 years old and has
gone thru three major eras in its history -- it wasn't always the obstructionist
force it is today.
History of the NRA
The Early Years
The first century of the NRA's history (from it's incorporation in 1871 to
the "Cincinnati Revolt" of 1977) was directed towards promoting shooting sports
-- first marksmanship and then (following WW II) hunting. The organization
maintained close ties with those governments which could support it and, in
fact, relied on feeding at the public trough for its survival -- in both direct
financial support and legislated favoritism that drove off all competition.
The New NRA
The NRA claims to be far more than just a lobbying organization. It portrays
itself as maintaining a serious interest in the shooting sports and in gun
safety. In fact, it is still the national overseeing body for target
competitions and does provide training in safe gun handling and promotes the
Eddie The Eagle program for children. But the primary thrust of the NRA is no
longer in the shooting sports or in safety. It is in carrying Harlan Carter's
legacy of no gun laws.
The Ultimate Lobbying Machine
When Harlon Carter took over the reins of the NRA in the "Cincinnati Revolt"
of 1977 and announced that "Beginning in this place and at this hour, this
period in NRA history is finished," he was serious. No longer would the NRA's
primary goal be to serve the sportsman. Now it was to intimidate those who had
the temerity to challenge it.
Bashing the Cops
In the early years, the NRA and law enforcement were the best of friends. A
shared interest in firearms, coupled with the NRA's training programs in
marksmanship and safety forged strong bonds between the two groups. But the "New
NRA" destroyed those bonds when Harlan Carter's absolutist opposition to gun
laws ran into the police officers' campaign for bans on cop-killer bullets,
plastic guns and assault weapons. The NRA's response was an all-out attack on
the police leadership -- from the chiefs to the head of the rank-and-file's
Fraternal Order of Police.
|
Advocacy groups engage in ad hominem argument just as individuals do. Rational people ignore that tactic.
ReplyDeleteMr. Doakes will, of course, be providing examples and citations to back up his assertion.
ReplyDeleteThanks a bunch Dog. This was a very informative post.
ReplyDeleteI see that nearly 96 hours is still not enough time for Mr. Doakes to back his assertions in his original comment.
ReplyDeleteYou're quite right, Demo: I can cite no examples of rational people posting on this website hence, there are no examples of people here avoiding ad hominem arguments. Good call.
ReplyDeleteJoe it is a pleasure as always to have you read and comment.
ReplyDeleteI know that you have been persuaded that because the NRA tells you they represent the majority of gun owners, that you believe it to be so.
Of course, you probably don't know that they require every employee, including those who are simply hired to do telemarketing, to join as a condition of employment? Yeah, that includes a lot of people who neither own guns nor care about gun legislation, they just want a job.
Like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce which gins up their member numbers, to inflate them to appear influential, so apparently does the NRA.
What you haven't shown here, and of course what democommie was asking for from you was to produce anything INDEPENDENT of the NRA propaganda that shows them to be representing the views of the majority of firearms owners in the U.S., or a majority of their questionalbe member numbers for that matter.
I cited MULTIPLE polls, taken over a significant period of time - more than a year and a half - by multiple poll entities. They were remarkably the same, ocnsistently, in favor of legislation / regulation which is in opposition to legislation by the NRA.
If you're still convinced that the primary constituency of the NRA is gun owners, rather than gun manufacturers, I suggest you follow the money in and through the NRA, and take a hard look at who their policies really benefit.
I know that as a conservative, you don't like facts, you don't do research, you want to believe your propaganda, be it denying the dozens of studies and investigations that show there is no voter fraud, or the very compelling data on what the overwhelming majority of gun owners want.
Conservatives have more emotional imact on reason; liberals have other faults, but being factual and better critical thinkers are not nearly as much a problem.
The data on political psychology and core differences in political personalities is also quite extensive. It shows that when you confront a conservative with facts they wish not to be true, they spin them, they deny them, they do anything BUT alter their point of view to conform to facts and reality.
I'm still waiting on another question; if I contact every - EVERY - county attorney to confirm what I was told by Election Integrity, and make that information that those investigations did not give a pass to people who should not have voted, will you see it is published where you claimed the opposite?
Joe wrote:You're quite right, Demo: I can cite no examples of rational people posting on this website hence, there are no examples of people here avoiding ad hominem arguments. Good call.
ReplyDeleteAnd yet you must be lumping yourself in with those irrational people Joe, since you comment.
We've had more than a few irrational conservatives comment or try to comment here over the years, and some very reasonable ones as well.
Your statement is more in pique than an accurate observation.
dog gone:
ReplyDeleteJoe Doakes is either intelligent enough to be disingenuous OR he's just lying.
This was his original comment:
"Advocacy groups engage in ad hominem argument just as individuals do. Rational people ignore that tactic."
When asked to provide examples of/citations for data that would support his idiotic assertion he writes:
"You're quite right, Demo: I can cite no examples of rational people posting on this website hence, there are no examples of people here avoiding ad hominem arguments. Good call."
This is either an arrogant bit of stupidity or willful evasion. It might be both. In the event it in no way responds to my original comment. Joe Doakes is a liar, but then again, he's a KKKonservative, so what else should I expect from him?
Let me elaborate on the point so pithily made by democommie; it is true that Strom Thurmond started out as a Democrat, or 'Dixiecrat' as they were called. Whether Democrat or Republican he was conservative his entire poltiical career. The two pronged strategy nominally referred to as the southern and northern strategy, respectively, resulted in racially intollerant conservatives from both parties shifting to the Republican party. This is distinct from conservatives like George Wallace, who was rabidly racist (and conservative) from the same era, and subsequently changed his politics by changing his racist viewpoint along with becoming a born again Christian in the 1970's.
ReplyDeleteWhat I'm waiting to see democommie is if Joe Doakes has the cojones to admit he was cherrypicking by focusing on the first ten years of Strom Thurmond's politics, but then ignoring the more significant next 39 years, just shy of 4 times longer.
ReplyDeleteI find it so dishonest of the righties to pretend they were the driving political party behind civil rights. Only the most progressive/liberal Republicans were cooperative; the arch conservatives (and I would include St. Ronnie Raygun in there) were bloody minded racists.
I have some interesting videos to post later on that point....
So Joe, we're waiting. How intellectually honest or dishonest are you going to be? This is where you need to step up to the plate and demonstrate those wonderful conservative values that your side makes so much noise about, but does so little to put in practice.
Using propaganda from another advocacy group is not citing factual sources. Perhaps you should consistently value it yourself?
ReplyDeleteGEJ, thank you for commenting, however erroneous your observation.
ReplyDeleteAn advocacy group is not a source of propaganda if it is factually accurate. Propaganda is information that is both false and emotional in appeal, drawing people away from rational thinking.
Most importantly, there is NOTHING factually inaccurate in the Sane Guns history of the NRA. It is in fact quite clear that the NRA does not represent the majority of gun owners, and that it has become a far right extremist organization. Secondly, the information is presented in a very matter of fact way, and there is nothing in it that uses an emotional appeal rather than appealing to rational thought.
I fact checked that information; it is correct. So other than you don't LIKE the information, factual or not - what problem do you have with what is written here?
If you don't have both facts and logic on your side, your criticism has failed. If you do have either a fact not included, then please present it.