• 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.

I just got polled by the NRA!

SezMe said:
I consider the Brady crowd to be a pretty sensible group. You?
Click to expand...

Sensible?

"We must get rid of all the guns."
--Sarah Brady, speaking on behalf of Handgun Control Inc
Phil Donahue Show, September 1994

It [the Brady Bill] is not a panacea. It's not going to stop crimes of passion or drug-related crime.
Sarah Brady
Washingtonian Magazine
1991-03

"I want -- the question is -- I don't believe I have a Second Amendment right to own a gun. I believe you have a First Amendment right to call law enforcement jack-booted thugs. I don't believe I have a Second Amendment right to own this."
James Carville
August, 2002
 
Cicero said:
It [the Brady Bill] is not a panacea. It's not going to stop crimes of passion or drug-related crime.
Sarah Brady
Washingtonian Magazine
1991-03

"I want -- the question is -- I don't believe I have a Second Amendment right to own a gun. I believe you have a First Amendment right to call law enforcement jack-booted thugs. I don't believe I have a Second Amendment right to own this."
James Carville
August, 2002
Click to expand...
Regarding the first one, Cicero, what is your problem with this one? How is it in any way not "sensible" ? Seems somewhat like stating that rain is wet.

Regarding Carville's statement, the issue of whether the 2nd applies to individuals or only militia has been in contention since Jebus was in swaddling clothes. It was only recently adjudicated by the Supremes so Carville's statement in 2002 put him in concert with a number of other lawyers, legal scholars, etc. Now, you may disagree but that does not exclude it from being in the "sensible" category. And, btw, I don't see any evidence that Carville was speaking on behalf of the Brady group.

The first was from Donohue's show 16 years ago. It's too old to bother with.
 
Last edited:
The Painter said:
Do you think the NRA just randomly calls people to ask stupid questions? Oh wait, sorry. Of course you do.

The NRA generally only calls it's members. Not the general public. So unless Travis is a member, I doubt he really got the phone call.
Click to expand...


Or, more likely, he got a call, exactly as he described, but it really wasn't from the NRA, but from some impostor trying to discredit the NRA.

I used to be a member of the NRA some years ago, but let my membership lapse, not because of any disagreement with the organization, but because of a change in my own priorities. That was back in the 1990s. The “poll” described by Travis is way below the standards that I would have expected of the NRA back when I was associated therewith. If this is genuine, then I would have to say that the NRA has gone way downhill since them.

It seems much more likely to me that this is the work of someone not affiliated with the NRA making these phone calls for the purpose of making the NRA look bad; than either that this is really from the NRA or that Travis is lying about the call that he received.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
It seems much more likely to me that this is the work of someone not affiliated with the NRA making these phone calls for the purpose of making the NRA look bad; than either that this is really from the NRA or that Travis is lying about the call that he received.
Click to expand...
On what basis do you assign this likelihood?
 
Bob Blaylock said:
Or, more likely, he got a call, exactly as he described, but it really wasn't from the NRA, but from some impostor trying to discredit the NRA.

{snip}

It seems much more likely to me that this is the work of someone not affiliated with the NRA making these phone calls for the purpose of making the NRA look bad; than either that this is really from the NRA or that Travis is lying about the call that he received.
Click to expand...
Again, I don't get this argument.

If the caller's goal was to discredit the NRA, as opposed to firing people up about "they're gonna take yer guns!", why hang up after getting some resistance to the idea? Under your hypothesis, that's the audience the caller was aiming for and they could have used the opportunity to play to that idea and dig the NRA's hole even deeper.

As to Travis lying, yes, it is possible but it would also mean that the other sources I linked to were independently telling similar lies. I don't know Travis except for what I've seen on here. I don't get the impression he would pull this kind of hoax.

If there is some other organization creating a hoax, has the NRA put out a statement saying, "that's not us"?

Again what would Occam say?
 
Upchurch said:
Again what would Occam say?
Click to expand...

its-a-conspiracy.jpg
 
The Painter said:
If you guys can quote media matters and other nut job sites(just look above, there are several),......so can I. Shoot the messenger all you want.
The UN still wants to regulate you.
Click to expand...

What do you think would happen if the WND opinion piece were correct? How exactly would the U.N. and the Obama administration collect the 200 million firearms in this country?
 
Ladewig said:
What do you think would happen if the WND opinion piece were correct? How exactly would the U.N. and the Obama administration collect the 200 million firearms in this country?
Click to expand...

My understanding is that the black helicopters will herd you into the FEMA concentration camps, and then Men In Black will search your house secretly under the provisions of the PATRIOT Act.
 
I support the NRA's efforts to maintain private gun ownership.
I also support their gun safety and education programs.

It is just unfortunate that they feel the need to dip into the crazy pool so often.
 
Upchurch said:
If the caller's goal was to discredit the NRA, as opposed to firing people up about "they're gonna take yer guns!", why hang up after getting some resistance to the idea?
Click to expand...

Because the caller's time is limited, and they're trying to reach as many people as possible once the message is delivered.

Upchurch said:
If there is some other organization creating a hoax, has the NRA put out a statement saying, "that's not us"?
Click to expand...

Maybe they haven't heard about it yet. But you're right, they would be expected to do so.

Anyway, I threw that idea out there partly in jest. I certainly believe either the NRA or some ultra-wacko division thereof is capable of these tactics. But, again, they're usually not this dumb.

joobz said:
I support the NRA's efforts to maintain private gun ownership.
I also support their gun safety and education programs.

It is just unfortunate that they feel the need to dip into the crazy pool so often.
Click to expand...

Yup. I think that's how a lot of us feel, and a large slice of their membership.
 
Cleon said:
Riiiight. That's totally more likely. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Of course it is! The right is called the right because they are always right. Since the NRA is 'part' of the right, they are right. Since this poll is wrong, and whacked, it must not be part of the right.

If they are not part of the right, they must be part of the left, which is sinister, and therefor, wrong. That means that this poll is actually placed out there by the sinister left.
 
Cicero said:
The U.S. Constitution does indeed protect that right, however, there are people in positions of authority in the U.S. that would love the U.N. to monitor American firearm sales/ownership, and who believe civilian firearms should be "illicit."

McDonald v. Chicago
District of Columbia v. Heller

Proposition H: "restrict handgun possession among San Francisco residents within city limits to police and certain security professionals, and to ban the manufacture, distribution, sale and transfer of firearms and ammunition within the city."
Click to expand...

Doesn't really matter though. As you have accurately pointed out via case law, the UN does not outrank the Constitution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom