NRA

Political discussions of any type are welcome here. All we ask is that you try to respect everyone's views, and that you use facts to back up any claims that you make.

Moderators: BarbaraSher, Tituba

NRA

Postby Tituba » Mon Mar 25, 2013 5:08 pm

Tituba
Mega Poster
Mega Poster
 
Posts: 9618
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:01 pm
Location: North Shore - Boston

Re: NRA

Postby Scenario Thinker » Mon Mar 25, 2013 7:15 pm

Just for that, I am NOT going to renew my subscription with them! :evil:
S.Thinker
....o
^/v
/>
User avatar
Scenario Thinker
Mega Poster
Mega Poster
 
Posts: 7331
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2004 11:01 pm
Location: near Chicago

Re: NRA

Postby SquarePeg » Tue Mar 26, 2013 10:52 am

I got that call two nights ago. I listened to the entire fear-mongering message, including the part that told me to contact Kevin Witkos and tell him how to vote to preserve freedom. I remember feeling rather indignant about it.
SquarePeg
Mega Poster
Mega Poster
 
Posts: 1023
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 9:36 pm

Re: NRA

Postby jcjm » Wed Mar 27, 2013 6:53 am

I think robo-calls are obnoxious no matter what the content. The reason is they don't distinguish between who is appropriate and who isn't.

In this case, wrong message to the wrong people.

I recently received 2 calls about voting in an election that I wasn't in the district for.

These robo-callers get by in many cases because it is political or for a non-profit. Had they been selling aluminum siding, they would have been fined for violating local , state or national no-call laws.

I don't know why any organization would use this sort of "promotion" when they offend 9 times more people than they attract.

Whenever I receive this type of call, I immediately put that organization on my "do not associate with" list.
jcjm
Mega Poster
Mega Poster
 
Posts: 1600
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2002 10:01 pm

Re: NRA

Postby merk » Wed Mar 27, 2013 10:31 am


not sure about no soul, but definitely no brains. Their responses over the last few months, to me, have just been incredibly stupid. They are rapidly turning themselves into an irrelevant, fringe group.
My Blog http://blog.imerk.com
User avatar
merk
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2710
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 1999 10:01 pm
Location: Pasadena, CA

Re: NRA

Postby SquarePeg » Wed Mar 27, 2013 11:11 am

I get calls that are appropriate for the typical right wing-leaning voter. I think it's because I was once a Republican.

Incidentally, I was not given an option to opt-out of future phone calls from NRA. I did listen all the way to the end. Are not such calls supposed to provide a way for the callee to request to be put on a Do Not Call list?
SquarePeg
Mega Poster
Mega Poster
 
Posts: 1023
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 9:36 pm

Re: NRA

Postby jcjm » Thu Mar 28, 2013 6:54 am

As far as I know, if you are a non-profit, political group, or a company the recipient does business with, none of the no-call requirements apply.

It may vary on states no call lists, but not on the ones I know of.
jcjm
Mega Poster
Mega Poster
 
Posts: 1600
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2002 10:01 pm

Re: NRA

Postby merk » Tue Apr 02, 2013 2:28 pm

A little more proof that i think the NRA is completely nuts, they opposed an international arms treaty controling the sale of weapons around the world - a treaty that would have nothing to do with the sale of personal firearms in the US btw

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21998394 - scroll to the bottom for the small comment about the nra opposing it.
My Blog http://blog.imerk.com
User avatar
merk
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2710
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 1999 10:01 pm
Location: Pasadena, CA

Re: NRA

Postby jcjm » Wed Apr 03, 2013 5:56 am

Seems typical for them.

They probably feel they have to fight against any restrictions whether it involves the US or not.

Much the same as Churches give opinions on things that have nothing to do with their members.
jcjm
Mega Poster
Mega Poster
 
Posts: 1600
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2002 10:01 pm

Re: NRA

Postby Tituba » Wed Apr 03, 2013 8:08 am

I just don't get why anyone thinks it is OK to have assault weapons. The news is that the bill won't pass to ban them. I don't get it. Why do they defend having a machine gun?
Tituba
Mega Poster
Mega Poster
 
Posts: 9618
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:01 pm
Location: North Shore - Boston

Re: NRA

Postby jcjm » Wed Apr 03, 2013 8:45 am

For the past 2 years I have worked at a global company and have come to know several people in Europe, Asia and South America. In doing so we have become friends and I have been able to get their perspective on the US and comparisons to what they do in their native land.

Looking at things globally, there are no absolutes and because the US is so large, I think that is part of the problem.

For example, 2 countries that have pretty harsh gun laws are England and Mexico. From the people I know there, they don't understand our gun laws. In their countries, the only legal guns people have are for hunting.

The result however is quite different. In England, gun crime is down, while in Mexico there is a lot of it with most of it relating to drugs, gangs and organized crime.

So, here you have 2 places with similar laws and differnt results. Gun crime up in one and down in another.

I think this is why you have such diverse thinking on the issue. People in Texas want more guns to defend themselves against the percieved threats of drugs, gangs and organized crime, coming over the border. People in the East, have more of the British take on guns. People in the South, just like their guns. People in Chicago think the only people who have guns are criminals.

Going back to the global view, because of its size, the US has more of the global view where it depends where you live as to what you think about guns.

For that reason, I lean toward state laws, but that is still a problem. Because you don't have to have a passport or go from one country to another when you go from New York to Florida, there can be a lot of difference in local gun laws in a few hundred miles. Guns can be bought in one place and taken somewhere else.

Its a very complex issue. I just wish legislators would look at the whole picture and not just parts of it. Gun laws as well as mental health laws, prevention, law enforcement, drugs, gangs, organized crime, hunting, sport shooting, etc. Instead of pusing an agenda which is relevant to the state and city they come from.

It seems to me, a lot of lobbying on every issue, is done by people who are going to make money on it and supported by normal people who they can dupe into rallying around their cause.

*****************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

Bottom line... the NRA is doing what they do....Bloomberg is doing what he does....Rom Emanuel is doing what he does.... and none of them is doing what is unbiased and right for the country.
jcjm
Mega Poster
Mega Poster
 
Posts: 1600
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2002 10:01 pm

Re: NRA

Postby jcjm » Thu Apr 04, 2013 7:57 am

Looking over my last post I think I took a lot of space to come to a short conclusion. Its a more complicated situation in the US than Europe, etc.

In Europe you have country borders where both the law and transfer of guns can be regulated. Each country can make laws in line with their thoughts on guns.

In the US, there are no borders where you need to show a passport and have your stuff checked when you go from state to state. So even if you make state laws, they are not as easy to enforce and national laws can't take into account the diversity of the entire nation.
jcjm
Mega Poster
Mega Poster
 
Posts: 1600
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2002 10:01 pm

Re: NRA

Postby SquarePeg » Thu Apr 04, 2013 10:51 am

Agreed, jcjm.

A stricter gun law is imminent in CT. An analyst on NPR commented that it offers yet another excuse (in addition to high taxes) for individuals and businesses to not move here.

Would someone actually move here because of a stricter gun law, thinking that it's actually safer here? I doubt it. I might actually be inclined to move to Texas because I'd be surrounded by gun-owning neighbors who'd deter criminal behavior. Yet I feel uncomfortable owning a gun myself.

I wonder, would a gun friendly state actually try to relax its gun laws in response to stricter gun laws elsewhere?
SquarePeg
Mega Poster
Mega Poster
 
Posts: 1023
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 9:36 pm

Re: NRA

Postby jcjm » Thu Apr 04, 2013 1:00 pm

I wonder, would a gun friendly state actually try to relax its gun laws in response to stricter gun laws elsewhere?


I may not have this exactly right, but I recently saw on the news where law officers in one state (I think it was Colorado) were protesting about the (proposed?or passed?) new gun legislation.

Then of course there's Texas, where it seems like everybody owns at least 2 guns.
jcjm
Mega Poster
Mega Poster
 
Posts: 1600
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2002 10:01 pm

Re: NRA

Postby SquarePeg » Fri Apr 05, 2013 5:31 am

I don't know the details of the new Colorado gun law, but it would put the burden of enforcement on the police. if the law requires gun owners to turn in their weapons, and to arrest anyone that doesn't, then I can understand why the police would oppose that.
SquarePeg
Mega Poster
Mega Poster
 
Posts: 1023
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 9:36 pm

Next

Return to Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest