I would be happy if we were in a position where they could go back to focusing on marksmanship. I am not sure they would be quite as happy - there would be quite a few layoffs in the Fairfax office.
African-American Gun Owners Discuss Police and Other Interactions While Armed
- Thread starter Speedo66
- Start date
- Status
Deanimator
Member
But we're no more in that position than the US Navy was to downsize after the Battle of The Coral Sea. People dedicated to ENDING the individual right to keep and bear arms just took over the House. What makes you think they've given up on their signature project? Who do you think is going to stop them, John Kasich and Bill Kristol?
Well, we don't have to worry about that happening.
We should add an amendment to the constitution that will make sure our right to keep and bear is not infringed! Then we won’t need the NRA because it will be right there on a piece of paper so it can't be challenged.
Last edited:
lionking
Member
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2006
- Messages
- 3,107
yeah and look where they are from, most that are from NYC or California are the ones that say "there is no good guy with a gun" or "there should be strict requirements to have a gun" and such.
But stereotyping while more predominant toward color happens in other ways also, like me, I am a long haired rock n roller, look like Ozzy Osbourne, a couple times getting pulled over the cops asked "any drugs or weapons in the car while shining their torch around my car?" when there was no need to ask such a thing and one time a cop said to me "I smell weed on you" and I don't even smoke it. But it is what it is.
CapnMac
Member
I'd pull rank on you for that honor. Unless you were thinking Sonny Bryant's or maybe Marshall's or one of the good hole-in-the wall joints.
CapnMac
Member
This is tough sledding for me. I'm third generation Navy. The people I grew up around were military and Military first. They and their families were from all over, they had many appearances practiced any number of faiths. Sure there were troglodytes and knuckledraggers and oxygen thieves but no human institution is perfect. And when you walk around with your resume pinned over your left pocket that tends to be the focus rather than some other superficial feature.
So this tends to irritate me. The numbers tell us things important things. Like barely 10% of the US population engages in criminal activity on a regular basis. And only 16% of that group engages in violent crime, as a rule. So statistically more than 90% of any population groups is law abiding. And it sore offends me that nay portion any fraction, of my fellow law-abiding citizens could not arm themselves if they cared to for worries about the color of their skin, their accent when they speak, or the like..
I simply do not know how to reach out, to have people ignore the fact that I'm old, white, and military and not have presumptions based on all of that.
So this tends to irritate me. The numbers tell us things important things. Like barely 10% of the US population engages in criminal activity on a regular basis. And only 16% of that group engages in violent crime, as a rule. So statistically more than 90% of any population groups is law abiding. And it sore offends me that nay portion any fraction, of my fellow law-abiding citizens could not arm themselves if they cared to for worries about the color of their skin, their accent when they speak, or the like..
I simply do not know how to reach out, to have people ignore the fact that I'm old, white, and military and not have presumptions based on all of that.
No doubt, but my point is, even as the NRA is defending our rights, they have no incentive for the 'conflict' to end. You use a military analogy, and I will use another - the 'military-industrial complex' has a direct interest in continued military conflict, or at least in keeping the fear of conflict on the front burner. Do we need them? Ultimately, yes, to some extent, but we shouldn't let them drive the debate. Do we need every long-range bomber they are trying to sell? Do we need another light tank? Another littoral combat ship? Probably not, but their lobbying arm is very powerful, and it can be tough to stand up to them when the challenge is always 'American warfighters need the best!'.
In the case of the NRA, they have decided the best way to generate support is to cynically exploit cultural divisions rather than try to bridge them in a way that might reduce the need for the NRA. Not only is it is a short-term way of thinking, with a potential heavy long term down-side, but it speaks to an absence of a core ethical foundation. Fifty years ago gun rights was not a liberal vs. conservative issue. But as groups like the NRA align themselves with conservative issues generally, it drives a wedge where one didn't exist previously. It is tough for a liberal gun owner to support the NRA because the group does not 'stay in its lane'. On NRA TV you will see Dana Loesch ranting about immigration, anti-Trump protestors, etc. None of that has anything to do with gun rights, and drives potential supporters right out the door.
Try asking Wayne LaPierre today about Reagan signing the Mulford Act to suppress legal Black Panther gun ownership. I think you would see circuits frying from the cognitive dissonance.
Last edited:
Old Dog
Member
Excellent summation, and goes to the fact that the NRA has to shoulder a lot of the responsibility for framing gun issues (specifically, gun rights and gun control) as a liberal vs. conservation and Democrat vs. Republican construct. Back in the day (presumably long before a lot of our younger members would know), there were plenty of Democrats (most especially that ol' breed, the "blue dog Dem") who were avid supporters of gun rights ... Even my home state spawned John Dingell, as liberal as they come, yet a staunch supporter (and NRA board member) of gun rights in Congress for half a century.
End result: the NRA has actually helped alienate minorities from even considering the pragmatic aspects of gun ownership or carrying a gun, with the extremist rhetoric it uses, along with the hyperbole and stereotying it habitually engages in ...
Deanimator
Member
I'm a liberal gun owner and I don't have the slightest difficulty supporting the NRA.
This is most definitely an ideological fight, but not one between liberals and conservatives. Given the venomous racism, anti-Semitism, misogyny, homophobia, and gleeful authoritarianism (I've been threatened with concentration camps on more than one occasion, and now nuclear weapons) I've experienced or seen, this is a fight between liberals and conservatives on the one hand, and jackbooted fascists on the other.
I have no more in common with Eric Swalwell than I do with David Duke, Kim Jong Un and Abu Bakr al Baghdadi.
Last edited:
TomJ
Contributing Member
I wasn't involved in shooting for about 20 years, returning a few years ago so I can't speak as to what the NRA was before then, but as of the past few years, if not longer, it's the Democratic Party that has turned 2A rights into a Democrat v. Republican and liberal v. conservative issue, as they're the ones pushing for gun control as the extreme left has taken control of that party. What I know with 100% certainty is that we had a former president that was intent on dividing us by class, race and a number of other categories and taking away our 2A rights.To blame the NRA for alienating minorities when they were standing up to that president is simply wrong. Maybe there's something they did prior to that which I'm not aware of, and if there is I'd be interested in what that was using specific examples, not just vague terms.
As with most of our current political dysfunction, both irrational and cynical actors on both sides of the ideological/cultural aisle have made this topic a polarized red-team/blue-team one. Which is unfortunate, because there is no inherent link between one's views on, say, minimum wage or health care finance or antitrust enforcement or antidiscrimination laws in private employment, on the one hand, and gun rights on the other. Rather than work against this trend, though, the NRA works very hard to heighten it. I'm quite concerned that they've got the math wrong over the long term.
edwardware
Member
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2010
- Messages
- 4,424
I disagree. Positions on all those issues can be strongly correlated with your underlying philosophy of individual responsibilities and freedoms vs the State's responsibility and authority to provide for and protect you.
Of course there are exceptions, and some progressives recognize the value of an armed populace; that doesn't invalidate the broad correlation across issues.
TomJ
Contributing Member
In Illinois the Democratic Party, which runs Chicago, has done what they can to make sure gun shops and ranges are not open in Chicago, restricting access to guns and ranges in minority neighborhoods. After they were forced to allow concealed carry they structured the law so it costs hundreds for dollars to obtain a permit, making it unaffordable for our lower class residents and Cook County passed a $.05 per bullet tax, making shooting even more expensive. These actions push the ability to conceal carry legally out of reach of many people on the south and west sides of Chicago, where violence is most prevalent and the need to protect oneself is greatest. That's a specific example of how the Democratic Party has infringed on the 2A rights of minorities here. I'm not saying the NRA has clean hands, only that I haven't seen them do anything that would alienate minorities and I'm wondering if someone can provide similar specific examples.
There is currently correlation. Everyone agrees that those views are currently commonly-aligned. But there's no inherent reason. Just as you might imagine conservative economic views to reflect individual autonomy as a core value, many economic liberals view their positions as reflecting the value of each individual natural person, as opposed to large conglomerations of power. Not trying to argue economic politics with you, just pointing out that allowing individual freedoms (including gun ownership, but also things like bodily autonomy, freedom of speech, etc.) are views that are shared - and also not shared - across economic political lines.
The NRA has thrown in with conservatives across the board. Whether it makes sense to you or not, most minorities (including especially black americans) feel that the economic and voting rights and educational access policies of the modern american conservative are strongly adverse to their interests. You don't have to agree, but that's the thinking. The NRA doesn't have to do anything related to guns to hack off those people... they just have to be one-sided in their support of conservatism broadly.
A specific example comes from my state (Georgia). 4 years ago, the candidates for governor were Deal, a republican, and Carter, a Democrat. Carter, as a member of the state legislature, had sponsored the so-called "guns everywhere" bill that dramatically reduced the number of statutory "no gun" areas (and given that private signs don't have the force of law in GA, that really does make it easy to carry a gun most places without fear of a criminal conviction). Both he and Deal had "A" ratings from the NRA.
However, when Carter ran against Deal, the NRA endorsed Deal and ran ads in his favor - against a pro-gun Democrat. Deal won - not by a huge margin, but pretty decisively. Then, just after the election, Deal vetoed a college/university "campus carry" bill that the legislature had passed (he signed a revised/reduced version a year later under lots of political pressure and with evident discomfort). That's right, the NRA's GOP guy vetoed a pro-gun/carry bill right after they helped win him the election against a pro-gun Democrat.
Fast forward 4 years, and the Democrats don't nominate a moderate, pro-gun Democrat. They nominate Stacey Abrams, an unapologetic leftist (not liberal - real leftist) who advocates mandatory confiscation/return of "assault weapons," a mag cap limit, etc. And she came very, very close to pulling off the upset.
So, thanks to the NRA, the historically gun-moderate Democratic party in my state is now about as rabidly anti-gun as the NY and CA branches of the party. Because there's no sense trying to appease the NRA from their perspective - the NRA is just for the GOP, not for pro-gun-rights candidates specifically.
If you cannot tell, this royally irritates me.
Last edited:
TomJ
Contributing Member
Understood. We've had different experiences in Illinois, where Democrats march in lock step and are all anti 2A. Illinois is largely a red state outside of the Chicago area, and there may be times where a downstate Democrat is allowed by party leadership to vote pro gun to appease their base, but only if that vote is irrelevant as they have the votes necessary to pass the bill they're voting on. I've also seen the NRA give a F rating to the senator from my district, a republican, as he voted for a bill regulating gun shops. I've seen a different side of this, but based on your experience I understand your concerns about what the NRA is doing.
Just look at this NRA ad. What is it about? It's sure not about guns. It's about whether Trump is Hitler, about protesters (and the need for cops to use violence against them), it's about "fake news," it's about whether accusations of racism and homophobia are well-founded. Guns are not mentioned. The right to self-defense is not mentioned. The only reference to the use of force is by cops beating up protesters - and that's presented as a positive. I would say the NRA - just like physicians who don't know much about criminology or constitutional law - need to do a much better job of staying in their lane.
Now, having watched that ad, imagine that you are a law-abiding black voter. Imagine that you are of the view that the police routinely subject you to extra scrutiny and hassle because of the color of your skin. Does the NRA seem concerned with your individual rights? Or do they mainly seem concerned with suppressing your right to free speech?
Now, having watched that ad, imagine that you are a law-abiding black voter. Imagine that you are of the view that the police routinely subject you to extra scrutiny and hassle because of the color of your skin. Does the NRA seem concerned with your individual rights? Or do they mainly seem concerned with suppressing your right to free speech?
Hutchin's. It's my favorite. All you can eat for $23.
TomJ
Contributing Member
I saw that and when it came out and believe there was a thread or two about it. I understand it's not specific to the 2A, but addresses what was going on at that time. Whether you agree or disagree with that ad depends on whether you beleive the NRA has the right to comment on things other than the 2A. I don't see where race plays into it, as the "they" referred to in the ad is leftists, regardless of their skin color. Of course the left will cry racism, as it's one of their go to cards when they can't win a debate based on the issues.
Of course the NRA has a right to comment on whatever they want. But that was a profoundly stupid use of that right, and is a fine example of why many minorities - who will undoubtedly bear the primary criminal-enforcement brunt of any new gun control - don't like or trust the NRA.
You may even agree with all the things in the ad, but recognize that using the NRA as the mouthpiece for them comes at a big eventual cost to the perceived legitimacy of the NRA as a gun-rights organization - or just another branch of the whole of modern american conservatism. The NRA is pretty clearly putting all its chips on modern american conservatism winning... and its chips include our individual gun rights. I am very concerned that they are placing a bad bet over the long term. In part because that is extremely alienating to minority voters.
Remember, you asked what the NRA has done to alienate minority voters. You don't have to agree with any of it, but I think it's not a hard question to answer.
You may even agree with all the things in the ad, but recognize that using the NRA as the mouthpiece for them comes at a big eventual cost to the perceived legitimacy of the NRA as a gun-rights organization - or just another branch of the whole of modern american conservatism. The NRA is pretty clearly putting all its chips on modern american conservatism winning... and its chips include our individual gun rights. I am very concerned that they are placing a bad bet over the long term. In part because that is extremely alienating to minority voters.
Remember, you asked what the NRA has done to alienate minority voters. You don't have to agree with any of it, but I think it's not a hard question to answer.
red rick
Member
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2009
- Messages
- 3,150
Good commercial . Lets face it , if you vote Democrat , you are voting anti gun , where you are for the gun rights . If you are fighting for gun rights , you have to get political . The NRA should be on the side of the people who vote for our 2nd Amendment rights .
Wisco
member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2013
- Messages
- 1,239
I voted for Democrat congressman this last time. He has an A rating from the NRA.
Way off the track. When we get to vote for a party for a sole issue decision, we have descended into cliches and away from the OP.
I think the major points have been made and the reader can decide about the issues. I just see off topic repetition.
Closed.
I think the major points have been made and the reader can decide about the issues. I just see off topic repetition.
Closed.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
