Exactly.
:clap:t2::clap:t2::clap:t2:
- Status
:clap:t2::clap:t2::clap:t2:
J
jfz178
Guest
Also, the NRA is primarily a lobbying and public relations organization for gun rights. They are not a gun dealer. Planned Parenthood is primarily a service provider, including actually doing abortions. So the comparison is apples and oranges.
Also, I can tell you that they are not a bedfellow of any party. They tend to side with one party only to the extent that party follows the pro-gun agenda. I was personally involved in a political campaign where they sided with the other major party. They do what a lobbying organization should: They are hard-nosed about the agenda they are lobbying about.
You may not like their agenda, that is your right. But lobbying the government is a Constitutionally protected activity and even the critics of the NRA admit they are one of the most effective lobbying groups there is.
Another myth is that they are shills for the gun industry. I have a close friend who has been in that industry for decades. He says to the contrary, the NRA does more telling the industry what to do than the other way around.
Also, I can tell you that they are not a bedfellow of any party. They tend to side with one party only to the extent that party follows the pro-gun agenda. I was personally involved in a political campaign where they sided with the other major party. They do what a lobbying organization should: They are hard-nosed about the agenda they are lobbying about.
You may not like their agenda, that is your right. But lobbying the government is a Constitutionally protected activity and even the critics of the NRA admit they are one of the most effective lobbying groups there is.
Another myth is that they are shills for the gun industry. I have a close friend who has been in that industry for decades. He says to the contrary, the NRA does more telling the industry what to do than the other way around.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
I don’t know about “shills,” but the NRA does receive comparatively more funding from the gun manufacturers than from member dues, so It is hard to imagine them telling their biggest donor what to do.
J
jfz178
Guest
But that is the reality. That’s the kind of power the NRA has. And we are not talking about “their biggest donor.” The industry group is lots of manufacturers, distributors and retail chains. They are all independent of one another. Again, I have this information from a close friend who represents one of those businesses.
T
Theo520
Guest
granted this is just a google graph, but it fits with my expectations. Gun manufacturers are not a primary source of revenue, though I expect all their employees have joined
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
Unions have retirement investments in Koch subsidiaries.
They never want to answer my question on what will happen to all of the Asians living there, who may sooner rather than later outnumber Hispanics.
Also, I have some bad news for the Aztlan crowd: The Aztecs never got into Kansas. The conquistadors did, but not the Aztecs.
And the Navajo may have a thing or two to say about that.
Really, ethno-supremacists crack me up.
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
The fact that there are numerous business does not change the fact that all of them have an interest in seeing guns promoted and not discouraged by laws. So regardless of their desire to compete, they will all want the NRA to lobby against gun control. But I suppose it is possible that the NRA chooses to ignore the wishes of the industry that feeds them and make policy base on idealism.
J
jfz178
Guest
I think it shows how influential the NRA is. It’s not that they choose to ignore, it’s that the manufacturers realize the NRA knows best in this realm. Also, the manufacturers are not all interested in the same things. They are not all concerned about the same legislation. Some manufactures semi-auto, high capacity carbines that get incorrectly called assault rifles. Some don’t. Some manufacture handguns, others don’t. Some sell mainly to government buyers, others mostly to the civilian market.
E
Ender
Guest
We’ve gotten sidetracked: the thread is about the USCCB calling for more gun control, a bad idea coming from an organization that may have some moral authority but carries virtually none of that over into this particular issue.
D
Duesenberg
Guest
D
Duesenberg
Guest
Not only that, but it’s clear the USCCB has no real knowledge of this issue. They’re merely parroting the extreme left. They don’t seem to realize they do further harm to their reputation when they do stuff like that.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
I don’t think bishops of the Catholic Church should be more concerned about their reputation than about trying to be a beacon of truth as they see it. Being a bishop is not a popularity contest. There is only one judge for them.Ender:
Not only that, but it’s clear the USCCB has no real knowledge of this issue. They’re merely parroting the extreme left. They don’t seem to realize they do further harm to their reputation when they do stuff like that.
D
Duesenberg
Guest
All they are doing in this case is parroting the extremist left. They are not being “beacons of truth.”
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
…in your opinion. They obviously feel otherwise. Now let’s see… Whom should I believe? The bishops of my Church? Or some random guy posting on the internet? For me the choice is obvious.LeafByNiggle:
All they are doing in this case is parroting the extremist left. They are not being “beacons of truth.”
D
Duesenberg
Guest
Nope. You demonstrate a problem. Believing someone simply because they are clergy, particularly on a matter where it’s clear they have no experience, insight or wisdom.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
And yet you expect me to believe you based on even less justification?LeafByNiggle:
Nope. You demonstrate a problem. Believing someone simply because they are clergy, particularly on a matter where it’s clear they have no experience, insight or wisdom.
E
Ender
Guest
Actually, when they wander into political discussions, we may all freely judge their opinions.
J
jfz178
Guest
Actually, in the case of pedophile priests, there have been lots of judges for them, and continue to be. How much of a beacon of truth have they been on that score? I think their moral authority has become suspect over that. What is possible in one case is possible for all cases.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
I agree, but that was not the question. The question was which is the more reasonable position - to believe the bishops or believe Duesenberg?LeafByNiggle:
Actually, when they wander into political discussions, we may all freely judge their opinions.
D
Duesenberg
Guest
Particularly when one is extremely well informed on a given subject.
- Status