• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

What is the NRA up to these days?

ServiceSoon said:
Rumors of the NRA's death have been greatly exaggerated.
Click to expand...

I did a search for National Rifle, National, and NRA and didn't see a single mention at all. To save me the time of going through the whole article, want to link the relevant part?

ETA: Nevermind, I scrolled through it and it's just a long article bitching about background checks and how useless they think they are...
 
Last edited:
3point14 said:
The lobbying industry's only goal is to subvert democracy. That's literally the reason lobbyists exist. There should be none.
Click to expand...


I'll just link to this Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal comic, which provides a very good explanation of lobbying.

I'm not bribing you, I'm giving you money because I like you. However, if you introduce policies I don't like, I won't like you anymore.
 
Last edited:
plague311 said:
I did a search for National Rifle, National, and NRA and didn't see a single mention at all. To save me the time of going through the whole article, want to link the relevant part?

ETA: Nevermind, I scrolled through it and it's just a long article bitching about background checks and how useless they think they are...
Click to expand...
You consider conclusions reached by comprehensive research conducted by UC Davis, UC Berkeley, RAND corp, and Johns Hopkins as "bitching?"
 
ServiceSoon said:
You consider conclusions reached by comprehensive research conducted by UC Davis, UC Berkeley, RAND corp, and Johns Hopkins as "bitching?"
Click to expand...

No, I consider it a non sequitur to what you posted. You said that the NRA dying was an exaggeration and then linked to a piece about background checks.

The two have ******* nothing to do with each other.
 
plague311 said:
No, I consider it a non sequitur to what you posted. You said that the NRA dying was an exaggeration and then linked to a piece about background checks.

The two have ******* nothing to do with each other.
Click to expand...
Your observations align with my intent, which was that my two posts were meant to be processed separately.

I accept uncontested that you may not agree that the NRA is dying/dead.

Do you accept that there is an increasing amount of evidence that back ground checks have a negligible impact on reducing homicides?
 
ServiceSoon said:
Your observations align with my intent, which was that my two posts were meant to be processed separately.

I accept uncontested that you may not agree that the NRA is dying/dead.

Do you accept that there is an increasing amount of evidence that back ground checks have a negligible impact on reducing homicides?
Click to expand...

I don't know if there's real evidence that background checks have a *negligible* impact on homicide rates. Perhaps not notable, but I doubt negligible.

In any event, does your dismay at the perceived ineffectuality of such mean that you desire to enact more meaningful measures to curb this ongoing tragedy of Americans slaying themselves at a rate *many* times that caused by all foreign terrorists and wars put together?

Or does your 'reasoning' have it that if no tepid measures are deemed to make a meaningful dent in the bloodshed then we mustn't strive for anything more firm and resolved. Like was done in Australia after Port Arthur? Or New Zealand right after Christchurch? You know, stuff civilized people eventually recognize as solutions staring themselves in the face and requiring just a measure of common sense and a bit of backbone to enact.
 
Lurch said:
I don't know if there's real evidence that background checks have a *negligible* impact on homicide rates. Perhaps not notable, but I doubt negligible. In any event, does your dismay at the perceived ineffectuality of such mean that you desire to enact more meaningful measures to curb this ongoing tragedy of Americans slaying themselves at a rate *many* times that caused by all foreign terrorists and wars put together?

Or does your 'reasoning' have it that if no tepid measures are deemed to make a meaningful dent in the bloodshed then we mustn't strive for anything more firm and resolved. Like was done in Australia after Port Arthur? Or New Zealand right after Christchurch? You know, stuff civilized people eventually recognize as solutions staring themselves in the face and requiring just a measure of common sense and a bit of backbone to enact.
Click to expand...

That actually depends on locality and implementation. Any tool used poorly will be ineffective. However, in some places they have actually even arrested people who show up to 'pick up their new gun' because of outstanding warrants, or trying to buy the gun knowing it is illegal for them to.

And as in many cases, yes, local GOP trying to break something does actually break it. No surprises.
 
Lurch said:
I don't know if there's real evidence that background checks have a *negligible* impact on homicide rates. Perhaps not notable, but I doubt negligible.
Click to expand...
If background checks saved one life that would make it negligible compared to the other thousands of lives that were not saved as a result of back ground checks. A different perspective is that one life saved would be very meaningful to the family of that person. This is a gray area. That is why I used the weasel word.

If you want to be more precise then substitute lacking statistical significance for negligible.

What is the purpose of your quibble?

Lurch said:
In any event, does your dismay at the perceived ineffectuality of such mean that you desire to enact more meaningful measures to curb this ongoing tragedy of Americans slaying themselves at a rate *many* times that caused by all foreign terrorists and wars put together?
Click to expand...
I'd like to see the math that verifies American's are slaying themselves at a rate many times that caused by all foreign terrorists and wars put together.

Lurch said:
Or does your 'reasoning' have it that if no tepid measures are deemed to make a meaningful dent in the bloodshed then we mustn't strive for anything more firm and resolved. Like was done in Australia after Port Arthur? Or New Zealand right after Christchurch? You know, stuff civilized people eventually recognize as solutions staring themselves in the face and requiring just a measure of common sense and a bit of backbone to enact.
Click to expand...
My reasoning is to recommend solutions that are proven or at a minimum reasonably believed to be effective while simultaneously considering other aspects of society.

I view New Zealand and Australia's response to those incidents as draconian and authoritarian. Even with such draconian measures there is still debate among criminologist and statisticians whether those measures had an impact on an already decreasing trend.

tyr_13 said:
That actually depends on locality and implementation. Any tool used poorly will be ineffective. However, in some places they have actually even arrested people who show up to 'pick up their new gun' because of outstanding warrants, or trying to buy the gun knowing it is illegal for them to.

And as in many cases, yes, local GOP trying to break something does actually break it. No surprises.
Click to expand...
I cannot reason why you would discuss back ground checks in the context of local law enforcement because the NICS back ground check program is a National system that is overseen by the Federal BATFE.

Perhaps you have specific examples of GOP members circumventing laws the national government is responsible for enforcing and prosecuting. Are you aware that the BATFE prosecutes a very very small percentage of individuals who attempt to purchase a firearm who are felons? Again, nothing to do with 'local GOP.'
 
ServiceSoon said:
I cannot reason why you would discuss back ground checks in the context of local law enforcement because the NICS back ground check program is a National system that is overseen by the Federal BATFE.

Perhaps you have specific examples of GOP members circumventing laws the national government is responsible for enforcing and prosecuting. Are you aware that the BATFE prosecutes a very very small percentage of individuals who attempt to purchase a firearm who are felons? Again, nothing to do with 'local GOP.'
Click to expand...

And I can't figure out why you think that because the check system itself is run at the federal level that local authorities have no ability to act on that information (I have some hypotheses though).

They are known as 'lie and try' laws, which seek to actually punish people who lie on forms, and similar laws which inform local (well, actually state, just local in relation to federal) about people with outstanding laws seeking firearms.

The specific example I have is how the GOP in Washington fought against such laws, despite the obvious advantages of them. Eventually they relented. It has worked very well in the last two years.
 
tyr_13 said:
And I can't figure out why you think that because the check system itself is run at the federal level that local authorities have no ability to act on that information (I have some hypotheses though).

They are known as 'lie and try' laws, which seek to actually punish people who lie on forms, and similar laws which inform local (well, actually state, just local in relation to federal) about people with outstanding laws seeking firearms.

The specific example I have is how the GOP in Washington fought against such laws, despite the obvious advantages of them. Eventually they relented. It has worked very well in the last two years.
Click to expand...

There is also of course going to be limited effect on background checks that are only locally required as moving guns between states is really pretty easy and hence selling guns legally to some guy in a state that it is legal and that guy then transports it into a state that it needs a background check to transfer and doesn't bother with the law.

But actually registering and tracking firearms so that you can find the guy who first sold it into the illegal market is right out for any real gun owner of course.
 
ponderingturtle said:
There is also of course going to be limited effect on background checks that are only locally required as moving guns between states is really pretty easy and hence selling guns legally to some guy in a state that it is legal and that guy then transports it into a state that it needs a background check to transfer and doesn't bother with the law.

But actually registering and tracking firearms so that you can find the guy who first sold it into the illegal market is right out for any real gun owner of course.
Click to expand...

The howling from the 'lawful' gun owners about the bad guys always being able to get weapons is a self-fulfilling state of affairs when they oppose even the least intrusive measures to try and make it harder for guns to get into the wrong hands. To say nothing (Lawd forbid) of measurably effective policy.
 
Lurch said:
The howling from the 'lawful' gun owners about the bad guys always being able to get weapons is a self-fulfilling state of affairs when they oppose even the least intrusive measures to try and make it harder for guns to get into the wrong hands. To say nothing (Lawd forbid) of measurably effective policy.
Click to expand...

Better a million gun deaths than one hint that the conspiracy theory they believe about the government coming for their guns and that they need their guns to protect themselves from the government is wrong.
 
It looks like Corey Booker thinks the NRA is no longer powerful enough to keep a pro-gun control candidate out of the oval office. I wonder if he is right.
 
tyr_13 said:
And I can't figure out why you think that because the check system itself is run at the federal level that local authorities have no ability to act on that information (I have some hypotheses though).

They are known as 'lie and try' laws, which seek to actually punish people who lie on forms, and similar laws which inform local (well, actually state, just local in relation to federal) about people with outstanding laws seeking firearms.

The specific example I have is how the GOP in Washington fought against such laws, despite the obvious advantages of them. Eventually they relented. It has worked very well in the last two years.
Click to expand...
Are you of the opinion that state governments should always enforce federal law? What about immigration? The fight of responsibility usually comes down to funding.

As it is right now, I am not certain what happens when a denial occurs. The FFL probably informs the individual they have been denied, and gives them a number to call the ATFE to dispute the denial. My best guess is that very rarely does the agency in the know (Federal) notify the states. I don't believe the FFL should be responsible for passing this information to anybody. The FFL is not law enforcement.

Let me try to understand your claim. Republicans are sabotaging the National back ground system that has been in operation for more than 20 years and that is the reason the system has been proven ineffective by various independent research initiatives? Republicans are also preventing improvements to the back ground system, all but trying to make it fail.

As evidence, you link to a single article concerning Washington State. In the year 2016 a news agency and Sheriffs Associate conducted research to determine if Washington State officials were prosecuting individuals whom attempted to purchase a firearm and were denied. They found no evidence for such prosecutions. I'm curious how many of those denied tried to purchase a gun again from legal channels? Some of the reasons the article attributed for lack of prosecution was that denials were not being sent to law enforcement or prosecutors, law enforcement didn't have the funding or personnel to investigate. There is no mention of any particular group, individual, agency, or politically aligned person that was found responsible for the lack of these prosecutions.

As a result of these findings, HB 1501 was co-sponsored by 1 democrat and 1 Republican and passed unanimously by the Senate in the year 2017, with only 13 house members of 98 voting against it. I don't know why anybody would have voted against this bill, however, voting against this bill is not an automatic indication that somebody is not willing to pass meaningful legislation that can reduce violence. This bill was huge. It dealt with many different aspects all mashed together. None-the-less, this bill provided funding to Washington State Law enforcement if they prosecuted these individuals.

A year-sh later, the results of this bill is that information of denials is flowing to the proper state gov officials. People whom are denied are now being investigated and some are prosecuted. There is no mention of any particular group, individual, agency, or politically aligned person that was found responsible for the lack of these prosecutions of people whom were denied. Your claim that Republicans fought against this legislation is completely detached from reality when looking at the roll call.

I agree that the back ground system could be more effective if there was better continuity of information between ATFE, FFL's & state officials. With that said, unless you can show that individuals whom are denied eventually buy a firearm successfully from a different FFL, this is a low priority concern. You said this new law has obvious advantages. They aren't so obvious to me.

In a world where resources are infinite, it would make sense to act on the information of every denial and perform a proper investigation.
 
Ex-NRA Head Wayne LaPierre and Wife Worked to Secretly Turn Elephant They Shot Into Stools

The former head of the National Rifle Association and his wife went to great lengths to ship parts of the elephant they killed in Botswana back home—and to keep their names far removed from it. According to The New Yorker, Wayne LaPierre and his wife, Susan, had elephant feet repurposed for stools, umbrella stands, and a trash can, all while trying to make sure the shipment couldn’t be traced back to them. A 2013 email from Susan LaPierre to a manager asked that the shipment to be sent to a taxidermist and for the company to “not use our names anywhere if at all possible.” Aside from explicitly violating NRA rules on contractor gifts greater than $250, the two were afraid of a backlash over their hunt after seeing the pushback from an episode of hunting show Under Wild Skies, in which the host shot and killed an elephant. New York’s Attorney General’s Office, which has sought to disband the gun-rights organization over corruption claims, said the gifts were worth thousands of dollars and “in excess of authorized amounts pursuant to NRA policy to LaPierre and his wife.” An NRA spokesperson told the outlet the hunting trip was perfectly legal and that the NRA donated some of the other animal prizes from that trip.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom