NRA In Need of Funds
As longtime readers will know, I’m not really one for gun control. Consequently, I’ve been glad to see this issue be one on which the mainstream view in the Democratic Party has evolved enormously over the past ten years toward a position that’s much more sympathetic to gun rights, and much less invested in the notion that a ban on “assault weapons” is a silver bullet to stop crime.
Under the circumstances, things like this where the National Rifle Association’s phone calls are trying to stoke people’s paranoia are incredibly disappointing. Colin McEnroe reports for The Hartford Courant:
After some more of this talk, a different human being comes on the line and tells me that Obama is appointing “a cabinet full of gun haters.”
“Could you please tell me the name of at least one of the gun-haters?” I ask.
Pause.
“Well, Nancy Pelosi …”
I interrupt, “Nancy Pelosi is not in the cabinet, nor is she appointed by Barack Obama. You and Wayne LaPierre both told me Obama is appointing a lot of gun haters. Now I’m asking you for the name of at least one.”
Gun-owners and supporters of gun rights need to understand how poorly their interests are being served by a group that behaves in this manner. This is good for the GOP and good for NRA fundraising, but an effective interest group needs to be able to take yes for an answer and reward the other side for coming around to its position. But of course a decrease in the temperature around the gun control issue would be bad for NRA finances, so instead they’re going after Obama full-tilt.
50 Responses to “NRA In Need of Funds”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
December 21st, 2008 at 12:33 pm
If it were up to me, I’d ban assault weapons because they make it easy to kill a lot of people. If Matt isn’t one for gun control, is he for being able to own any kind of gun one wants? I’m all for compromise, but exerting some modicum of control over things expressly designed for ending life is a good thing.
December 21st, 2008 at 12:41 pm
The NRA on strict construction really is insistent;
So here is my proposal, it is thoroughly consistent
With how things were in olden days : each soul may have a gun
So long as it’s the type they used in 1791.
December 21st, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Why is that? Because you don’t trust doctors who want it, or because you don’t trust police who want it?
December 21st, 2008 at 12:53 pm
. . . doctors, who want it, or police, who also want it?
December 21st, 2008 at 12:54 pm
Why not keep going full tilt? Keep a significant percentage of the population paranoid enough to be one-issue voters. Seems to be working pretty well.
December 21st, 2008 at 12:57 pm
It’s interesting Matt’s anti-gun control but pro-soda control.
December 21st, 2008 at 12:59 pm
The NRA is in panic mode, and the gun-shop gossip mill is spreading all sorts of bullshit around. My brother-in-law has been stocking up on bullets, in the belief that Obama may not ban guns, but will tax/ban certain types of bullets.
December 21st, 2008 at 1:05 pm
P.A.T., I think not trusting police is one of the defining characteristics of anti-gun control types. Which I would understand, except I know how to read homicide statistics.
December 21st, 2008 at 1:14 pm
Pseudonymous, I take it that your brother is a Chris Rock fan?
December 21st, 2008 at 1:20 pm
Yeah, I’m not that interested in the NRA anymore.
If I have extra funds to spend on gun rights, they’ll go to Gunowners of America, the more conservative and also more cost-effective gun lobby.
The GOA is also less in the pocket of the GOP administration, and more willing to criticize the GOP when it does stupid things.
December 21st, 2008 at 1:21 pm
isn’t the example you use symbolize the GOP on EVERYTHING…they exist to piss people off who pay attention…they never give an inch…Republican Politics isn’t about government service Matt, its a business, then so are most democratic politics
December 21st, 2008 at 1:22 pm
The NRA folks were always paranoid lunatics. And now they have become victims of their own success. I never gave them a penny, and now I’m even less likely to do so. I own ten guns, and one of them is an assault rifle (AK-47). And I have ten 30 round clips for the AK-47. If they can’t convince me to donate, there’s something wrong with their message. And they’ll get my money when they pry it out of my cold, dead hands.
December 21st, 2008 at 1:43 pm
It’s interesting Matt’s anti-gun control but pro-soda control.
i hate this libertarian bullshit…the point of government is to be smart… take cigarettes…higher taxes mean less consumption…smoke all you want, but if you’re gonna place risk on the rest of our society by being a health risk you should pay more money, government exists not to prevent you from smoking, but to put your smoking in perspective…sorry, its the cost of living in a civil society, same thing with guns, they’re dangerous, if you want one, government sets up a system to ensure everyone’s safety, even if it isn’t fail safe…so again, soda is bad for you, nobody is saying not to have as much soda as you want, just that we’ll tax it more …same thing should be done with marijuana…regulate it and give it an extremely high tax
December 21st, 2008 at 1:48 pm
extremely high tax…didn’t even realize the joke i was making!
December 21st, 2008 at 2:57 pm
As longtime readers will know, I’m not really one for gun control.
Yah we know. I always take the opportunity to hammer you on this issue, so, here goes again. Don’t you understand there’s a difference between gun control in the sense of
prohibition of firearms ownership (a strategy that is fraught will all kinds of problems, not the least of which is the fact that such an approach currently illegal)
and
regulations meant to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals?
IIRC your current, highly justified infatuation with Finland provides a suitable segue for you to look into this issue more, because places like Finland demonstrate that the freedom to own firearms (even on a fairly widespread basis) need not conflict with efficacious regulations designed to keep gun crime levels low. Of course, trust fund scumbags like you understandably need not worry over-much about the issue of gun-related crime, given your propensity for high security buildings situated in reasonably safe neighborhoods!
December 21st, 2008 at 3:01 pm
scott, do you think we should also do the same thing with anal sex? Anal sex, particularly male-on-male anal sex, is a very big health problem. It leads to all sorts of infections (much more so than PiV intercourse) and is the most common way that HIV is transmitted sexually (sorry, but there are very few cases of PiV transmitted HIV in the US, and in particular it is difficult for women to transmit it to men this way, meaning that heterosexual transmission gets stalled fairly quickly.
Why should we keep being more tolerant of risky sexual behaviors, in order to aoid being called bigots, but every otehr risky behavior the government needs to regulate more?
When you’re willing to regulate or tax butt-f***ing, maybe I’ll take your concerns about taxing unhealthy behavior seriously. Otherwise, you’re just a busybody who picks and chooses what health risks should be regulated based on your personal feelings on what is acceptable.
December 21st, 2008 at 3:08 pm
And how is this anal sex tax going to be enforced? C’mon you can think of a better example.
December 21st, 2008 at 3:31 pm
scott, do you think we should also do the same thing with anal sex?
Um, shit-for-brains, the government does take action to combat risks associated with anal sex, including expenditures on education, condom distribution, free HIV testing, etc. Please explain for the viewers how you would tax this activity, and, even if you somehow could tax it, how such an approach would work better than the measures I’ve mentioned. Better trolls, PLEASE, I’m fucking begging ya.
December 21st, 2008 at 3:33 pm
And how is this anal sex tax going to be enforced? C’mon you can think of a better example.
Not that I’m opposed to all gun control, but as with smoking bans, my question is always: how about fat taxes & deep fryer bans? From a public health perspective, obviously. I know that guns are designed to kill, etc. etc. but based on health outcomes shouldn’t major causes of heart disease and stroke come first?
December 21st, 2008 at 3:39 pm
…but as with smoking bans, my question is always: how about fat taxes & deep fryer bans?
A big problem with taxing specific nutrients is the reliability of the science, and the differing metabolisms of different peoples. The view with respect to fats seems to be somewhat in flux, I believe. Also, it may be perfectly healthy for a college swim team member to eat a higher fat diet than you or I do. Cigarettes, it seems safe to say, are unambiguously dangerous for everyone.
December 21st, 2008 at 3:44 pm
I, for one, definitely encourage my progressive friends to fully re-embrace their orthodoxy on gun control. Certainly we need some help to try to swing all those purple states back to red.
December 21st, 2008 at 3:55 pm
They’re setting themselves up, just like the people who are running around wailing about the return of the Fairness Doctrine.
When President Obama does absolutely nothing about gun control, they’re going to look like the hysterical partisans they are.
December 21st, 2008 at 4:01 pm
People who have anal sex or eat fried foods and suffer health consequences are engaging in consensual behavior.
People who get shot are not.
This message brought to you by People For the Advancement of Really Obvious Points.
December 21st, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Cigarettes, it seems safe to say, are unambiguously dangerous for everyone.
I take your point. But to play devil’s advocate, what about all the folks not genetically predisposed towards lung cancer? (My grandfather, ie, smoking into his 90s with no apparent ill effects) Should we only tax those with bad genes, assuming we find the culprits in the next decade or so? Or insist they receive gene therapy?
December 21st, 2008 at 4:12 pm
…what about all the folks not genetically predisposed towards lung cancer? (My grandfather, ie, smoking into his 90s with no apparent ill effects) Should we only tax those with bad genes, assuming we find the culprits in the next decade or so? Or insist they receive gene therapy?
I’d say we should tax everybody. Though no doubt the DNA of some people puts them at less risk for cancer than others, AFAIK all members of our species face increased risk of lung disease from smoking cigarettes — just some more than others.
December 21st, 2008 at 4:12 pm
Also, your grandad’s second-hand smoke is also unambiguously dangerous to others.
December 21st, 2008 at 4:52 pm
It’s interesting Matt’s anti-gun control but pro-soda control.
Sugary sodas kill a lot more Americans than guns do. They also cause a lot more nonlethal health disasters.
Of course, tobacco kills more than both together and we’d be crazy to ban that.
December 21st, 2008 at 5:19 pm
Gun control is a loser for the Dems. And it’s mostly a symbolic issue for it’s supporters, as the numbers need some serious massaging to even begin to make a connection with crime. Hopefully, Obama will not be persuaded to make any anti-gun moves in a fit to shore up the base during the inevitable downturn he will face at some point. Such restraint would be the best thing to make the NRA irrelevant, too.
December 21st, 2008 at 6:01 pm
scott, do you think we should also do the same thing with anal sex?
obviously not…i have a brain and can make a distinction between natural human behavior even if its risky and crappy unhealthy beverages…certainly one can’t regulate private bedroom behavior, but we can regulate unhealthy drinks
December 21st, 2008 at 6:04 pm
better asshole please
December 21st, 2008 at 6:35 pm
I think we’re misinterpreting this story when we see it either as raving paranoia or as justified panic — in effect, desperation. It’s manipulation. There’s an incoming Democratic president, and they think, wow, have we got a marketing opportunity. They know as well as anyone that their existence depends on mindless fear, and they’re chortling like anything.
December 21st, 2008 at 9:30 pm
The classic case of government trying to control guns is Dianne Feinstein.
When Mayor of San Francisco - and by the way, in that situation protected by SFPD bodyguards armed to the teeth - she publicly turned in a gun she owned to promote gun control.
Until someone found out she has TWO guns registered.
Fucking hypocrite.
Same thing with people like Ted Kennedy, who walk around with Secret Service bodyguards carrying submachine guns in their briefcases.
Or that fat comedienne who advocated gun control - until someone found out her bodyguard was armed.
Gun control freaks are idiots. While there might just be some point to doing background checks so that professional criminals with a prison record can’t easily buy firearms just be walking into a store, professional criminals aren’t going to be stopped by that at all. Because part of being a professional criminal is knowing other professional criminals who can get you a stolen gun - whether that gun was stolen from a private citizen, a cop, or a military arsenal, or smuggled in from outside the country along with the last ten tons of drugs that government couldn’t stop coming in.
Which is why I know I’m not a professional criminal, since I don’t know anybody like that.
Morons.
The NRA is irrelevant. They should go out of the anti-gun control business and actually lobby for gun bans. The resultant black market will insure that anybody can get a decent gun for a fair price on any street corner, just like drugs.
Go ahead, ban guns. Do it now. I’d like to have an easy way to stock up.
December 21st, 2008 at 10:11 pm
These NRA fellows keep hitting me up.
I’m not sure if this has anything to do with recent purchases or because I’ve been thinking of a Kimber .30-06; I’m superstitious.
Anyhow: they’d be better off sending me a teaser coupon, at least. I’m a sucker for rebates.
December 22nd, 2008 at 1:15 am
Pseudonymous, I take it that your brother is a Chris Rock fan?
I doubt it, for some reason. And refrained from quoting that back to him, since he was waving an AR-15 around at the time.
JohnH is right: the same people who thought that Those People were going to celebrate Obama’s election by stealing their lawn tractors are perfect fodder for NRA scare-marketing.
And I think Glaivester was funnier here.
December 22nd, 2008 at 5:25 am
People who have anal sex or eat fried foods and suffer health consequences are engaging in consensual behavior.
People who get shot are not.
My comment was directed specifically at scott, who was talking about soda taxes, etc.
Um, shit-for-brains, the government does take action to combat risks associated with anal sex, including expenditures on education, condom distribution, free HIV testing, etc.
But no punitive measures like taxes to make those who engage in the behavior pay the risks.
Please explain for the viewers how you would tax this activity, and, even if you somehow could tax it, how such an approach would work better than the measures I’ve mentioned.
Well, we could make it illegal to engage in such activity without a license (we would require the Supreme Court to reverse some recent decisions, of course).
In any case, my point is, why are the same people who are fighting for more tolerance for risky sexual behavior also the same ones fighting to tax other risky behaviors. For that matter, for a long time people were trying to deny the AIDS/anal sex link, arguing that heterosexual PiV sex was just a sbig a risk and that a heterosexual AIDS epidemic was right… around… the… corner… any day now.
obviously not…i have a brain and can make a distinction between natural human behavior even if its risky and crappy unhealthy beverages…
Translation: “I [scott] am a busybody who picks and chooses what health risks should be regulated based on my personal feelings on what is acceptable.”
And I think Glaivester was funnier here.
Yes, if you criticize homosexuality, you must be gay yourself. Thank you for brining up that old canard.
To be honest, I just want the government to let smokers, soda drinkers, and homosexuals alone. (Yes, there can be some regulation of smoking to prevent secondhand smokre, but other than that, let them alone).
December 22nd, 2008 at 9:14 am
One way to wisely intervene in the anal sex issue would be for government to provide incentives to gay men to become monogamous. Slippery slope there, because gay marriage is the answer.
Also, please be reminded that for most readers in civilized countries outside of the USA, this entire discussion (guns, not butts) seems completely ridiculous.
December 22nd, 2008 at 10:13 am
Oh, Matt. The NRA is a 501c4, a purely political organization.
http://www.huntersandshooters.com/
The Association of Hunters and Shooters is a progressive gun-rights organization. I think they’re also a c4, but a remotely sincere one. They do have a c3 arm.
People bought up bullets and assault weapons because they’re CRAZY. Similarly, in 2010 and 2012, people will remember the stink that the NRA is currently making and say “Obama tried to take away our guns! Well, not my gun, but other peoples’ guns!” and vote Republican. Why?
BECAUSE THEY’RE CRAZY. Just look at Glaivester.
December 22nd, 2008 at 2:07 pm
Yes, if you criticize homosexuality, you must be gay yourself.
Ah, no. It’s more “if you decide to derail lots of threads by talking about anal sex, it suggests you spend an awful lot of time thinking about anal sex.”
December 23rd, 2008 at 9:40 am
If it were up to me, I’d ban assault weapons because they make it easy to kill a lot of people.
“Legally-owned (ie, NFA-registered) machine guns have been used in only two murders since 1934, one of which was committed by a police officer…The criminal use of other legally-owned NFA weapons is similarly rare. The Title II weapons used in prominent crimes, such the AK-47s used in the North Hollywood shootout of 1997, have universally been illegally-owned or illegally-converted weapons.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act
March 17th, 2009 at 2:53 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
tramadol
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:53 am
tramadol
Great site. Good info
April 2nd, 2009 at 6:38 am
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
buy cheap viagra
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:52 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
Thanks for the review! viagra