More Liberal Speak Nonsense...

Discussion in 'Second Amendment and Legal' started by SHOOTER13, Oct 6, 2015.

  1. SHOOTER13

    SHOOTER13 RETIRED MODERATOR Lifetime Supporter

    7,454
    16
    38
    Who the N.R.A. Really Speaks For

    The New York Times
    By ALAN BERLOW

    An angry and exasperated President Obama, speaking to the nation last Thursday after the slaughter in Roseburg, Ore., made one oblique reference to the National Rifle Association, asking gun owners to question whether their “views are properly being represented by the organization that suggests it’s speaking for you.”

    It’s a fair question, and not only because the N.R.A. has single-handedly dictated the shape of the debate over guns for decades. Whether they own guns or not, Americans should understand the outsize role the N.R.A. plays, not only in thwarting sensible gun safety laws but also in undermining law enforcement by abetting gun traffickers, criminal gun dealers and criminal gun users.

    The N.R.A., which claims some 4.5 million members, often professes to speak for all gun owners — hunters, sportsmen, collectors and ordinary Americans who keep guns for self-defense. But on some issues, most gun owners clearly reject the party line.

    In 2012, the Republican pollster Frank Luntz found that 87 percent of gun owners supported criminal background or “Brady” checks for all gun purchases. Following the December 2012 massacre of 20 children in Newtown, Conn., another poll showed that 92 percent of Americans supported background checks for all buyers, including those buying on the Internet and at gun shows.

    But by April 2013, when the Senate considered a bill to do just that, the N.R.A. campaign to defeat it was in full swing. The N.R.A. tagged the bill as a top priority and made clear that senators who opposed it risked receiving a low N.R.A. rating, which many of its single-issue supporters use in deciding how to vote, or a flood of negative television ads.

    Licensed gun dealers slated to run the new background checks would have reaped millions, as thousands of new customers would have been sent to their stores. But like many members of Congress — who cower in fear of the ratings system and negative campaign advertising — the dealers knew not to cross the N.R.A. So the measure went down, with opponents arguing that criminals don’t bother submitting to background checks.

    That story wasn’t quite accurate, though. Since some background checks were first implemented in 1994, gun dealers have turned away more than two million felons, drug users, unauthorized immigrants and other “prohibited persons,” according to a report by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

    When the organization’s chief executive, Wayne LaPierre, calls the N.R.A. “one of the largest law enforcement organizations in the country,” nothing could be further from the truth.

    Consider, for example, the federal law requiring licensed gun dealers to notify the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives when a single purchaser buys two or more handguns within five days. The A.T.F. knows that multiple purchases are an indicator of trafficking, and that traffickers can evade the law by making a single purchase from five, 10 or 20 different gun stores. So why doesn’t the A.T.F. crosscheck those purchases? Because Congress, under pressure from the N.R.A., prevents the federal government from keeping a centralized database that could instantly identify multiple sales. Gun sale records are instead inconveniently “archived” by the nation’s gun dealers at 60,000 separate locations — the stores or residences of the nation’s federally licensed gun dealers, with no requirement for digital records.

    Rather than preventing crimes by identifying a trafficker before he sells guns to potentially lethal criminals, the A.T.F. has to wait until the police recover those guns from multiple crime scenes. Then law enforcement officials can begin the laborious process of tracing each gun from the manufacturer or importer to various middlemen, the retail seller, the original retail purchaser and one or more subsequent buyers.

    Meanwhile, dealers who work with traffickers are protected by another N.R.A.-backed measure that ensures that firearms dealers do not have to maintain inventories.

    Think about that: A car dealer keeps an inventory to know when cars go missing so the police can track them down as quickly as possible. Why the lack of curiosity among gun dealers? Well, gun dealers must report lost and stolen guns to the A.T.F. because large numbers of missing weapons are a red flag for trafficking. Without an inventory requirement, it’s easier to sell guns off the books.

    Do most gun owners want the N.R.A. to protect criminal dealers? I doubt it.

    The A.T.F., which has helped convict tens of thousands of gun criminals, has of course been a perennial target of the N.R.A., and the lobbying group has worked relentlessly to limit the A.T.F.’s budget and strangle its operations.

    Today’s A.T.F. operates with about the same number of agents as it did 40 years ago, fewer than the number of officers in the Washington, D.C., police force, yet it is charged with investigating violations of federal gun, arson, explosive and other laws nationwide.

    Since the N.R.A. seems to loathe the A.T.F., one might think it would work to disband it or have its mission performed by an agency like the Federal Bureau of Investigation, with its more polished and professional public image. But the N.R.A. prefers the hobbled A.T.F. just as it is, and every year it helps ensure that Congress approves legislation banning the transfer of A.T.F. operations to any other agency.

    You don’t get much more cynical than that.

    Since his daughter, the journalist Alison Parker, was shot dead in August while presenting an on-air broadcast, Andy Parker has been on a campaign to “shame” lawmakers whom he says are “cowards and in the pockets of the N.R.A.” Some of those lawmakers might prove to be less cowardly if they understood that the N.R.A. was no longer the voice of law-abiding gun owners, but rather a voice for criminals.
     
  2. buster40c

    buster40c Well-Known Member

    8,549
    269
    83
    They don't care if they tell lies because lies get them closer to what they want which is gun confiscation. The unknowing people, also thought of as sheep, hearing their lies have no idea they are lies. After all why would a politician lie?
    The sheep believe if the mass media reports it then it must be true. To most sheep to think otherwise would be to agree with conspiracy nuts. I must be a conspiracy nut because I don't believe 90% of the population want greater gun control. I do believe 90% of the people want Constitutional law enforced. The remaining 10% are politicians that want their own desires based on criminal agendas made law of the land.
    Just like shooter13 shows Obama is attacking the NRA trying to get people to think the NRA is so wrong. Does Obama really think a member of the NRA believes the NRA is bad for America?
    Hey Obama am I supposed to trust you take my interests and security to heart and take actions accordingly? How pathetic Obama is for implying he speaks for us whereas NRA doesn't.
     
    Last edited: Oct 7, 2015

  3. Nogoat

    Nogoat New Member

    547
    1
    0
    Well stated, Shooter 13
     
  4. VThillman

    VThillman Active Member

    2,733
    25
    38
    Well stated, and twisted. It's story spinning, because the 'facts' are carefully selected pieces of things, not the whole things, and opinions/conclusions are repeatedly stated as if they were facts.

    It should be easy to knock the NRA - without all that padding.
     
  5. SHOOTER13

    SHOOTER13 RETIRED MODERATOR Lifetime Supporter

    7,454
    16
    38
    For the record....it was the liberal writer ( named above ) for the liberal newspaper The NY Times that wrote this piece of garbage...

    I just reported it....!!

    SHOOTER13
    NRA Life Member
    since 1977
     
  6. VThillman

    VThillman Active Member

    2,733
    25
    38
    The sad thing about it is that the NY Times editorial honchos almost certainly think the article is a brilliant piece of journalism. Hell, if the criterium is the success of the con, maybe it is. "The truth is malleable" may be one of their catchphrases.
     
  7. Ernesto

    Ernesto In the army now..

    558
    0
    0
    Who doesn't use digital record keeping of gun and ammo purchases??

    I figure the government has records of every gun I've ever purchased from a licensed gun dealer unless that person is living in the 20's. I believe the .gov knows I have guns if I am a member of any gun organization-gun range-club etc. I believe they know I have guns if I am posting on a gun forum or even talk about guns on my cell phone.
    So I don't really care if they do background checks as ALL of my guns have been purchased through a licensed dealer. And I have had background checks done on me many times.
     
  8. phideaux

    phideaux Well-Known Member Lifetime Supporter

    12,933
    100
    63
    I don't really care who knows that I own guns...and lots of them.

    If the Japanese had not known that we americans had many , many guns, they very well may have invaded .

    Best offense is a good defense.

    Us good ole boys with guns, may be the only thing standing between us and a gestapo type takeover,


    Jim
     
  9. Ernesto

    Ernesto In the army now..

    558
    0
    0
    ........................
     

    Attached Files:

  10. Nogoat

    Nogoat New Member

    547
    1
    0
    I think it's our personal responsibility to never sell a firearm to someone who you don't know unless they have a CC or some other form of background like a officer etc., then too, we know someone who we shouldn't sell too anyway.

    lf we don't police are own as shooter/collector someone one else will. You need cash that bad sell it to a dealer or pawn it.