Responsible gun owners don't have to brandish their guns or fire warnings, right?

[Venix]

I was responding more to this:


.
.


It's from IRS filings, so I know, leftist, pinko, commies:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/petercohan/2012/07/23/the-nra-industrial-complex/

My guess is that a big chunk of that too comes from the divine Koch brothers.

Let's dissect this claim: "from 2004 to 2010, the NRA’s revenue from fundraising — including gifts from gun makers who benefit from its political activism — grew twice as fast as its income from members’ dues."

1) Member dues grew from $80 million to $107 million, and fundraising revenue from $43 million to $71 million. That means that fundraising revenue accounted for 35% of the total in 2004, compared to 39% in 2010. That's an insignificant difference.

Growing a smaller revenue stream faster than a larger one is also not unusual or interesting. It's much easier to increase fundraising efforts than add new members, and the NRA are experts at soliciting donations.

2) "Revenue from fundraising" includes personal donations. No evidence is presented to suggest that gun industry contributions are responsible for the majority of growth of this revenue stream, and the other article strongly suggests that they aren't. A growth in membership will certainly increase fundraising revenue, since members are the ones making donations.

Yet again, your source doesn't support your claim. I don't understand why you let yourself be misled by obviously biased articles that are light on facts; a claim like "grew twice as fast" without hard numbers just screams bullshit. You should be infuriated that the writer is trying to trick you with fuzzy math and emotional appeals.

 

[Nebor]

I don't want to be in a deadly situation so I avoid putting myself in one. Maybe it's because I can rely on my fists, but I don't see why I would show my gun just because some punks got near me. The second my gun comes into play, even if it's holstered, the situation is now potentially deadly.

In most assaults involving multiple assailants against one person, the one person loses, no matter their size. When you lose distance, you lose options, you lose maneuverability and you lose the initiative. Your enemy wants to take away that distance, because it increases their advantage and it's how they're accustomed to operating. Even if you're Billy Badass the MMA fighter, if weapons are produced once your stand-off distance is gone, your ability to recognize and respond to them in close quarters, when you're potentially surrounded, is hugely reduced. An ounce of vigilance is worth a pound of asskicking.

 

[rudeguy]

In most assaults involving multiple assailants against one person, the one person loses, no matter their size. When you lose distance, you lose options, you lose maneuverability and you lose the initiative. Your enemy wants to take away that distance, because it increases their advantage and it's how they're accustomed to operating. Even if you're Billy Badass the MMA fighter, if weapons are produced once your stand-off distance is gone, your ability to recognize and respond to them in close quarters, when you're potentially surrounded, is hugely reduced. An ounce of vigilance is worth a pound of asskicking.

Well right. I'm not walking around with my head in the sand. However seeing a threat coming and escalating that threat to confrontation with possible deadly consequences are two completely separate things.

 

[bradly1101]

Let's dissect this claim: "from 2004 to 2010, the NRA’s revenue from fundraising — including gifts from gun makers who benefit from its political activism — grew twice as fast as its income from members’ dues."

1) Member dues grew from $80 million to $107 million, and fundraising revenue from $43 million to $71 million. That means that fundraising revenue accounted for 35% of the total in 2004, compared to 39% in 2010. That's an insignificant difference.

Growing a smaller revenue stream faster than a larger one is also not unusual or interesting. It's much easier to increase fundraising efforts than add new members, and the NRA are experts at soliciting donations.

2) "Revenue from fundraising" includes personal donations. No evidence is presented to suggest that gun industry contributions are responsible for the majority of growth of this revenue stream, and the other article strongly suggests that they aren't. A growth in membership will certainly increase fundraising revenue, since members are the ones making donations.

Yet again, your source doesn't support your claim. I don't understand why you let yourself be misled by obviously biased articles that are light on facts; a claim like "grew twice as fast" without hard numbers just screams bullshit. You should be infuriated that the writer is trying to trick you with fuzzy math and emotional appeals.

So you don't think that the gun lobby and the gun industry are in each others back pocket? Okay. Reince Priebus would be proud of you.

So far you haven't posted any links that show that a significant amount of the NRA's funding does not come from the industry.

Another "hurr I used the Google" post

If I don't Google and provide links you guys say, "You got proof?"

What do you guys want?!?!?!

 

[highland145]

So you don't think that the gun lobby and the gun industry are in each others back pocket? Okay. Reince Priebus would be proud of you.

So far you haven't posted any links that show that a significant amount of the NRA's funding does not come from the industry.

But one could posit that a significant amount of the gun industry's money has come in because of Obama. Greatest gun salesman of all time and a right wing plant.:thumbsup:

 

[bradly1101]

But one could posit that a significant amount of the gun industry's money has come in because of Obama. Greatest gun salesman of all time and a right wing plant.:thumbsup:

Quick! Look in your rear-view mirror RIGHT NOW! He's behind you, coming for your guns!

Decisions based on fear are always so rational.

The goal of reducing weapons in the wrong hands can be obscured by the backlash of those who assume that it's from their hand too.

 

[spidey07]

Quick! Look in your rear-view mirror RIGHT NOW! He's behind you, coming for your guns!

Decisions based on fear are always so rational.

The goal of reducing weapons in the wrong hands can be obscured by the backlash of those who assume that it's from their hand too.

Obama has consistently called for banning weapons and magazines including the most popular and owned rifle there is. If he had his way the only thing allowed would be single shot target weapons. He is on record many times with his goals. That's why firearm sales and NRA memberships have gone through the roof since he was elected. Not out of fear, but out of the stated goals of this administration and congressional democrats.

If you like your rifle, I'll let you keep your rifle - Obama.

 

[highland145]

Quick! Look in your rear-view mirror RIGHT NOW! He's behind you, coming for your guns!

Decisions based on fear are always so rational.

The goal of reducing weapons in the wrong hands can be obscured by the backlash of those who assume that it's from their hand too.

Took you an hour to come up with that?

Everyone is "the wrong hands".....What spidey said.

I only bought one pistol in 2013 and no ammo....must need to ramp up my fears. A few beers should help.

 

[bradly1101]

Obama has consistently called for banning weapons and magazines including the most popular and owned rifle there is.

You got me there, and to be clear; confiscation is off the table.

 

[bradly1101]

Took you an hour to come up with that?

I have a life, I don't sit here trying to come up with reaction for everyone. But my baby just left for the dentist, so watch out!

 

[irishScott]

So you don't think that the gun lobby and the gun industry are in each others back pocket? Okay. Reince Priebus would be proud of you.

So far you haven't posted any links that show that a significant amount of the NRA's funding does not come from the industry.



If I don't Google and provide links you guys say, "You got proof?"

What do you guys want?!?!?!

Does it matter if they are? Guns are one of those nice little issues where upholding peoples' freedom is good for business.

 

[irishScott]

Quick! Look in your rear-view mirror RIGHT NOW! He's behind you, coming for your guns!

Decisions based on fear are always so rational.

The goal of reducing weapons in the wrong hands can be obscured by the backlash of those who assume that it's from their hand too.

Have you been paying attention to recent gun control proposals? New York City just commenced confiscation of any rifle or shotgun that holds more than 5 rounds, even bolt action .22s. Not to mention the New York SAFE act, which is without a doubt the stupidest American gun control law ever devised. (You can own 10 round magazines, but only have 7 rounds loaded). Then there's California's attempt to ban any semiautomatic rifles that accept detachable magazines, that was only shot down by a surprise veto.

Gun control advocates can no longer pretend that their representatives aren't trying to take away innocent people's guns. They could barely get away with that argument before, it's patently obvious now. When gun control advocates stop focusing on the guns and start focusing on the crime, we can talk universal background checks and such.

 

[rudeguy]

Quick! Look in your rear-view mirror RIGHT NOW! He's behind you, coming for your guns!

Decisions based on fear are always so rational.

The goal of reducing weapons in the wrong hands can be obscured by the backlash of those who assume that it's from their hand too.

ok...how old are you?


Obama has not only threatened to ban certain kinds of guns, he sent his ignorant VP on a tour to promote it. After failing to politicize Sandy Hook, he threatened to do it without Congress. Remember...he has a pen!

Tyranny like his is why so many of us have guns. His disregard for our rights is why we keep buying more.

 

[Venix]

So you don't think that the gun lobby and the gun industry are in each others back pocket? Okay. Reince Priebus would be proud of you.

So far you haven't posted any links that show that a significant amount of the NRA's funding does not come from the industry.

Why would I? You already linked an article showing that the gun industry has contributed $52.6 million total in the last eight years, thoroughly disproving your claim that the NRA is a "gun industry trade group" or funded in any significant amount by the gun industry. Try to keep up.

Of course the NRA and industry have similar goals. That doesn't mean that the NRA is controlled by firearm manufacturers. The NRA's course is overwhelmingly directed and funded by its membership, as your own sources have definitively proved.

If I don't Google and provide links you guys say, "You got proof?"

What do you guys want?!?!?!

You post blatantly false nonsense because you're ignorant about the topic, then frantically search for articles that support your claims. You never bother to read them or question their veracity. I can't recall a single instance of one of your sources actually supporting your argument.

 

[bradly1101]

Have you been paying attention to recent gun control proposals? New York City just commenced confiscation of any rifle or shotgun that holds more than 5 rounds, even bolt action .22s.

I assume they've also made said guns illegal?

Gun control advocates can no longer pretend that their representatives aren't trying to take away innocent people's guns.

Are they innocent if they're in possession of an illegal weapon? We confiscate all sorts of illegal things.
.
.
I meant that I believe Obama is not advocating blanket confiscation of all guns that are found to be illegal in the future (what, go door to door?). "Liberals are coming for your guns" is a red herring (IMO).

 

[Venix]

Have you been paying attention to recent gun control proposals? New York City just commenced confiscation of any rifle or shotgun that holds more than 5 rounds, even bolt action .22s. Not to mention the New York SAFE act, which is without a doubt the stupidest American gun control law ever devised. (You can own 10 round magazines, but only have 7 rounds loaded). Then there's California's attempt to ban any semiautomatic rifles that accept detachable magazines, that was only shot down by a surprise veto.

Connecticut's law actually rivals the SAFE Act in stupidity. You can own a grandfathered 30-round magazine if you register it, but only load it with 30 rounds in your home or at a licensed gun range. The limit anywhere else is 10 rounds.

Accidentally load it with more than 10 at home and drive to the range? Crime. Load 11 with the intention of chambering one round but forget to rack the slide? Crime. Load it with 30 at the range, then have a medical emergency and neglect to unload before driving to the hospital? Crime.

Though I guess it's kind of a moot point since only 50k out of over 2 million standard capacity magazines were registered, so the overwhelming majority are now contraband.

Gun control advocates can no longer pretend that their representatives aren't trying to take away innocent people's guns. They could barely get away with that argument before, it's patently obvious now. When gun control advocates stop focusing on the guns and start focusing on the crime, we can talk universal background checks and such.

Indeed. But to be clear, most "universal background check" bills have done much more than simply require background checks for private sales. Washington's I-594 initiative is a good example: It defines a new action called a "transfer," which basically means handing someone a firearm. Transfers require dealer-facilitated background checks in all but a few specific circumstances, like hunting or shooting at a licensed range. Shooting on private property isn't listed, so people with backyard ranges would technically no longer be allowed to invite friends over to shoot unless each person only handles his own guns.

The current background check system is also hopelessly complicated, expensive, and ineffective, so any expansion should be accompanied by significant reforms. Issues like these are why most people support expanded background checks in theory, but none of the actual background check bills get anywhere near the same level of support.

 

[Zargon]

Quick! Look in your rear-view mirror RIGHT NOW! He's behind you, coming for your guns!

Decisions based on fear are always so rational.

The goal of reducing weapons in the wrong hands can be obscured by the backlash of those who assume that it's from their hand too.

maybe its because most of the rules they try to put in place only hurt LEGAL GUN OWNERS and hit us with further financial burdens for our hobbys

since ya know, criminals don't pay taxes on guns and ammo that they steal

its harder on the stray purchasers some but they pass the cost on anyways Im sure

I assume they've also made said guns illegal?



Are they innocent if they're in possession of an illegal weapon? We confiscate all sorts of illegal things.
.
.
I meant that I believe Obama is not advocating blanket confiscation of all guns that are found to be illegal in the future (what, go door to door?). "Liberals are coming for your guns" is a red herring (IMO).

but its happening, RIGHT NOW. with magazines. no grandfathering, taking away legally purchased property without financial compensation

sure its just magazines right now, RIGHT NOW. until now it was "no ones taking away your guns you already own' to 'its only magazines they are trying to take away"

whats the next step?

"its just 'assault rifles'

'its just handguns'

 

[highland145]

Bradly isn't for confiscation
because they aren't illegal.
But they could be made illegal,
then Bradly is for confiscation,
well, because they are illegal.

Awesome.

 

[irishScott]

I assume they've also made said guns illegal?



Are they innocent if they're in possession of an illegal weapon? We confiscate all sorts of illegal things.
.
.
I meant that I believe Obama is not advocating blanket confiscation of all guns that are found to be illegal in the future (what, go door to door?). "Liberals are coming for your guns" is a red herring (IMO).

Yeah, they're confiscating legally registered weapons from law-abiding gun owners for no logical reason without compensation... after they made said guns illegal. It's actually a prime example of how registration leads to confiscation.

Yes, liberals are coming for our guns, typically through legal political means. How else would they come for them? Illegally? Lol, they'd probably get shot if they tried.

If the government declaring something illegal is justification enough to you, then no wonder the gun control movement doesn't gain traction outside of tragedies. With people like you backing them, how can they not look a few fries short of a happy meal?

 

[irishScott]

but its happening, RIGHT NOW. with magazines. no grandfathering, taking away legally purchased property without financial compensation

sure its just magazines right now, RIGHT NOW. until now it was "no ones taking away your guns you already own' to 'its only magazines they are trying to take away"

whats the next step?

"its just 'assault rifles'

'its just handguns'

And after they've gone as far as they can go down that road, it's:

"it's our neighbor's fault! That state with lower gun crime than us? Our gun crime is all their fault!"

 

[bradly1101]

You post blatantly false nonsense

Insults are the last refuge of a scoundrel, but you're right; there must be no valid data from anywhere that show a positive outcome of any kind of gun control. They can only add to the violence.

Guns can be used to shoot at targets and to [relatively easily] commit murder. I-M-H-O the relatively rare times a gun could save you is not worth making them so easy to obtain and misuse I-M-H-O. Otherwise I don't get the attraction to them, but that's just me; your friendly, neighborhood hippy peace freak. To that you may say I'm ill informed, nonsensical, etc. That's OK.

The debate is moot, so I don't know why I bother. Guns are too ubiquitous for there to be any kind of meaningful gun control in our lifetimes. I just hope for the future of humanity that not just anyone is allowed to have a phaser. Kids'll want to be gettin' into them too.

On to confiscation. I believe that the fear (no matter how heavily pushed by the media) that you're going to lose your gun(s) is unfounded.

 

[BoberFett]

Insults are the last refuge of a scoundrel

Do you even know what an insult is? What you quoted is not. An insult is if I tell you that you're buffoon. A moron. An idiot. An imbecile.

Otherwise I don't get the attraction to them, but that's just me; your friendly, neighborhood hippy peace freak.

No, that has nothing to do with being a hippy peace freak. A friend of mine is a hippy peace freak, tie dye and Birkenstocks and everything. But he has hunted and killed deer. With a gun. No, your objection to guns is because you're stupid.

Again, just so you know, that's an insult.

 

[highland145]

Insults are the last refuge of a scoundrel, but you're right;

On to confiscation. I believe that the fear (no matter how heavily pushed by the media) that you're going to lose your gun(s) is unfounded.

Did you not retain any of the info above? Damn you're dense.

Or not. I'm not going to lose mine but I don't live in NY, DC, Cali, Chicago....

As long as you're happy with your masters, I'm happy for you.

 

[bradly1101]

With people like you backing them, how can they not look a few fries short of a happy meal?

That's the stuff!

 

[bradly1101]

Did you not retain any of the info above? Damn you're dense.

Or not. I'm not going to lose mine but I don't live in NY, DC, Cali, Chicago....

As long as you're happy with your masters, I'm happy for you.

I think S.C. is safe [at least for a while] muhaha.