The Left's Most Beloved Boogeyman: The NRA

http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/dan-joseph/lefts-most-beloved-boogeyman-nra

The Left's Most Beloved Boogeyman: The NRA

By Dan Joseph | October 2, 2015 | 2:42 PM EDT

The NRA is probably the far-left's most beloved boogeyman. Any time there is a tragedy involving a firearm, liberals from the top down are quick to blame the NRA and even insinuate that the organization is gleeful that people have died.

Unsurprisingly, the left seems completely flummoxed as to why the NRA and other Second Amendment supporters oppose some gun laws that have been floated by liberals in the past few years, despite these laws having the support of a majority of Americans.

Forget for a second that the laws would do nothing to curb gun violence. Making sure that no mentally ill individuals buy guns would require an unconstitutional burden on potential gun purchasers and would be impossible to enforce. How do we determine the mental state of someone who has no psychiatric record? Will all potential gun buyers be forced to have their head's shrunk prior to purchasing a handgun? Who decides who is too crazy to buy a weapon? The Federal Government? Uh huh. That's not a recipe for a constitutional crisis at all, is it?

The real reason for the NRA's staunch opposition to these feel-good policies is not based on their purely symbolic nature or the burden these silly policies would impose on law-abiding Americans. They are based on the past activities of the left itself.

In the 1980 and early ‘90s, liberals wanted to ban ALL handguns. After not getting what they wanted, they moved on to an assault weapons ban, which proved a futile effort and expired more than a decade ago—much to the consternation of the anti-gun crowd.

Because these agenda items did not work out the way the anti-gun left had hoped, the lobby had no choice but to continue to lower its expectations.

Nowadays, president Obama spends an inordinate amount of political capital in an effort to promote symbolic, gun control measures that have no impact and have no chance of passing.

The NRA rightly understands, from past experience, that if you give the gun grabbers an inch, they'll take a mile. Cave on new background check laws and they will simply politicize the next tragedy to demand more gun control in an effort to get back to a place where they can once again promote truly Draconian policies. Because, of course, the anti-second amendment crowd understands that there will ALWAYS be a “next tragedy.” Hence the left's bumbling, long game strategy.

Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

"The NRA rightly understands, from past experience, that if you give the gun grabbers an inch, they'll take a mile."

Stupid argument. The second inch has to pass through congress just like the first inch.

Attila - "The NRA rightly understands, from past experience, that if you give the gun grabbers an inch, they'll take a mile."

Stupid argument. The second inch has to pass through congress just like the first inch.
With the number of arbitrary measures that the federal government and various states have passed or attempted to pass, I don't blame the NRA, the 2A Foundation, and other organizations fighting tooth and nail. Ban guns with evil features, black plastic, and high capacity magazines, but ignore the core issues and common factors in both mass shootings and the (far, far more common) urban violence. Phone Post 3.0

Congress won't even allow the CDC to study the causes of gun violence. It's hard to address a problem when we don't fully understand what causes it, so let's not try to figure out those causes. It's as if they're afraid reality does not conform to their preconceived version of it.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/janetstemwedel/2015/10/01/congress-still-bans-cdc-scientists-from-studying-gun-violence/

I'm not on the left, support gun rights, and believe the NRA is run by a bunch of crazy nutjobs.

pfsjkd - 


I'm not on the left, support gun rights, and believe the NRA is run by a bunch of crazy nutjobs.


That's because all the anti gun people want you to believe they are.

The NRA supported background checks and other safety laws.

As far as the NRA being a bunch of gun nuts, the Second Amendment Foundation was created because they felt the NRA wasn't doing enough for gun owners.

I have met people that feel the 2nd means everyone. You get out of jail you should still be able to keep a gun.

When someone wants you to believe and follow them they deaminize the others. That's also how you kill off a population, the Nazi's called the Jews Rats, so killing them was good for society, I Rwanda they called them Cockroaches killing them was good for society. We called the Indians savages, good for society.

We are not killing each other, but still the same concept. I am progun, so they need to demonize us. Good for society.

IronHands - 
Attila - "The NRA rightly understands, from past experience, that if you give the gun grabbers an inch, they'll take a mile."

Stupid argument. The second inch has to pass through congress just like the first inch.
With the number of arbitrary measures that the federal government and various states have passed or attempted to pass, I don't blame the NRA, the 2A Foundation, and other organizations fighting tooth and nail. Ban guns with evil features, black plastic, and high capacity magazines, but ignore the core issues and common factors in both mass shootings and the (far, far more common) urban violence. Phone Post 3.0

I agree that the things you've listed shouldn't be banned, but come on now, some things are really too much for civilians to have. Our forefathers never anticipated high capacity bullet clip magazines and heat seeking lasers! I mean, who really NEEDS a shoulder thing that goes up when they're hunting??? And for self-defense, studies have shown (probably) that the most effective tool for defense is firing a double-barreled shotgun into the air. These are COMMON SENSE issues, don't you have any common sense?

"That's because all the anti gun people want you to believe they are."

No, that's because they do stupid shit like VEHEMENTLY oppose ANTHING progressive regarding gun safety like smart guns, or unintrusive law enforcement support like microstamping, etc.. The fact of the matter is that the NRA's primary goal is to raise money. Their secondary goal is to create contreversy, which helps goal #1.

The NRA strognly opposed the law to have manufacturers *voluntarily* ship a trigger lock with every handgun. Wayne LaPierre, the head of the NRA, sent a letter lambasting gun industry execs who supported the legislation saying, "Firearms safety - as it's being pressed by the Administration - is a phony. It is simply a stalking horse for gun bans." He went on saying that the manufacturers had made 'a greivous mistake'.

Paul Jannuzzo, the then CEO of Glock (one of those supporting the legislation) wrote back hitting LaPierre for comparing federal agents to fascists in the past and for being too extreme. He concluded with, "Finally, if you ever feel the need to speak to me in such a condescending manner, have the spine to do it person, but be prepared to have your head slapped."

pfsjkd -


"That's because all the anti gun people want you to believe they are."



No, that's because they do stupid shit like VEHEMENTLY oppose ANTHING progressive regarding gun safety like smart guns, or unintrusive law enforcement support like microstamping, etc.. The fact of the matter is that the NRA's primary goal is to raise money. Their secondary goal is to create contreversy, which helps goal #1.



The NRA strognly opposed the law to have manufacturers voluntarily ship a trigger lock with every handgun. Wayne LaPierre, the head of the NRA, sent a letter lambasting gun industry execs who supported the legislation saying, "Firearms safety - as it's being pressed by the Administration - is a phony. It is simply a stalking horse for gun bans." He went on saying that the manufacturers had made 'a greivous mistake'.



Paul Jannuzzo, the then CEO of Glock (one of those supporting the legislation) wrote back hitting LaPierre for comparing federal agents to fascists in the past and for being too extreme. He concluded with, "Finally, if you ever feel the need to speak to me in such a condescending manner, have the spine to do it person, but be prepared to have your head slapped."

Because when someone is brawling into my house I wanted to look for a fucking key to protect myself. Go Fuck yourself. Phone Post 3.0

LegionariusIV - 
pfsjkd -

"That's because all the anti gun people want you to believe they are."

No, that's because they do stupid shit like VEHEMENTLY oppose ANTHING progressive regarding gun safety like smart guns, or unintrusive law enforcement support like microstamping, etc.. The fact of the matter is that the NRA's primary goal is to raise money. Their secondary goal is to create contreversy, which helps goal #1.

The NRA strognly opposed the law to have manufacturers *voluntarily* ship a trigger lock with every handgun. Wayne LaPierre, the head of the NRA, sent a letter lambasting gun industry execs who supported the legislation saying, "Firearms safety - as it's being pressed by the Administration - is a phony. It is simply a stalking horse for gun bans." He went on saying that the manufacturers had made 'a greivous mistake'.

Paul Jannuzzo, the then CEO of Glock (one of those supporting the legislation) wrote back hitting LaPierre for comparing federal agents to fascists in the past and for being too extreme. He concluded with, "Finally, if you ever feel the need to speak to me in such a condescending manner, have the spine to do it person, but be prepared to have your head slapped."

<span class="User-261966" id="userPost54903239">Because when someone is brawling into my house I wanted to look for a fucking key to protect myself. Go Fuck yourself. <img alt="Phone Post 3.0" border="0" src="/images/phone/droid.png" style="vertical-align:middle;" /></span></blockquote>

Not an invalid point. However, it disproves the notion that the NRA supports gun safety. Trigger locks DO prevent accidental shootings by kids. The fact that it was voluntary for gun makers to do it, and also not neccessarily mandatory for you to use it is the main point. The NRA painted it as a tacit gun ban, which is ridiculous.

P.S. Feel free to eat a giant bag of dicks since you can't seem to have a rational conversation without being an asshole.

pfsjkd - 


"That's because all the anti gun people want you to believe they are."



No, that's because they do stupid shit like VEHEMENTLY oppose ANTHING progressive regarding gun safety like smart guns, or unintrusive law enforcement support like microstamping, etc.. The fact of the matter is that the NRA's primary goal is to raise money. Their secondary goal is to create contreversy, which helps goal #1.



The NRA strognly opposed the law to have manufacturers voluntarily ship a trigger lock with every handgun. Wayne LaPierre, the head of the NRA, sent a letter lambasting gun industry execs who supported the legislation saying, "Firearms safety - as it's being pressed by the Administration - is a phony. It is simply a stalking horse for gun bans." He went on saying that the manufacturers had made 'a greivous mistake'.



Paul Jannuzzo, the then CEO of Glock (one of those supporting the legislation) wrote back hitting LaPierre for comparing federal agents to fascists in the past and for being too extreme. He concluded with, "Finally, if you ever feel the need to speak to me in such a condescending manner, have the spine to do it person, but be prepared to have your head slapped."


A law that makes it voluntarily ?

How is that voluntarily?

pfsjkd - 


"That's because all the anti gun people want you to believe they are."



No, that's because they do stupid shit like VEHEMENTLY oppose ANTHING progressive regarding gun safety like smart guns, or unintrusive law enforcement support like microstamping, etc.. The fact of the matter is that the NRA's primary goal is to raise money. Their secondary goal is to create contreversy, which helps goal #1.



The NRA strognly opposed the law to have manufacturers voluntarily ship a trigger lock with every handgun. Wayne LaPierre, the head of the NRA, sent a letter lambasting gun industry execs who supported the legislation saying, "Firearms safety - as it's being pressed by the Administration - is a phony. It is simply a stalking horse for gun bans." He went on saying that the manufacturers had made 'a greivous mistake'.



Paul Jannuzzo, the then CEO of Glock (one of those supporting the legislation) wrote back hitting LaPierre for comparing federal agents to fascists in the past and for being too extreme. He concluded with, "Finally, if you ever feel the need to speak to me in such a condescending manner, have the spine to do it person, but be prepared to have your head slapped."


So you quote a Bloomberg article. What you are quoting happened During the Clinton Administration.

and from the article you quoted

In 1998 and 1999, gun control activists working with big-city mayors and the Clinton administration launched a series of lawsuits against the industry en masse--an attempt to imitate earlier litigation against cigarette manufacturers. While the much larger tobacco companies could afford to settle (ultimately for $246 billion to be paid over a quarter-century), the U.S. gun industry at the time had total annual sales of only about $1.3 billion. Defense lawyer fees alone threatened some firearm companies' financial viability.


Just like the last line says, Defense lawyer fees alone threatened some firearm companies' financial viability.

So The Clinton Administration found a way to financially ruin companies if they did not comply.

Those agreements always guaranteed one thing, to stay in business

On March 17, 2000, Smith & Wesson made an agreement with Bill Clinton under which it would implement changes in the design and distribution of its firearms in return for "preferred buying program" to offset the loss of revenue as a result of anticipated boycott.

The agreement stated that all authorized dealers and distributors of Smith & Wesson's products had to abide by a "code of conduct" to eliminate the sale of firearms to prohibited persons, dealers had to agree to not allow children under 18 access, without an adult, to gun shops or sections of stores that contained firearms.

As expected, thousands of retailers and tens of thousands of firearms consumers boycotted Smith & Wesson.

On 11 May 2001, Saf-T-Hammer Corporation acquired Smith & Wesson Corp. from Tomkins plc for $15 million, a fraction of the $112 million originally paid by Tomkins. Saf-T-Hammer assumed US$30 million in debt, bringing the total purchase price to US$45 million. Saf-T-Hammer, a manufacturer of firearms locks and other safety products, purchased the company with the intention of incorporating its line of security products into all Smith & Wesson firearms in compliance with the 2000 agreement.

The acquisition of Smith & Wesson was chiefly brokered by Saf-T-Hammer President Bob Scott, who had left Smith & Wesson in 1999 because of a disagreement with Tomkins' policies. After the purchase, Scott became the president of Smith & Wesson to guide the 157-year-old company back to its former standing in the market.


Tort reform came after Clinton.

pfsjkd - 


I'm not on the left, support gun rights, and believe the NRA is run by a bunch of crazy nutjobs.


They are cynical mercenaries at the top. They are washington insiders who know they are selling a product: the fear that washington is going to take your guns. If you were

The "evil" NRA. Its good for society if we get rid of them, they are parasites


BTW, Glock give a lot of money to the NRA

Freaky_Hibiki -
IronHands - 
Attila - "The NRA rightly understands, from past experience, that if you give the gun grabbers an inch, they'll take a mile."

Stupid argument. The second inch has to pass through congress just like the first inch.
With the number of arbitrary measures that the federal government and various states have passed or attempted to pass, I don't blame the NRA, the 2A Foundation, and other organizations fighting tooth and nail. Ban guns with evil features, black plastic, and high capacity magazines, but ignore the core issues and common factors in both mass shootings and the (far, far more common) urban violence. Phone Post 3.0

I agree that the things you've listed shouldn't be banned, but come on now, some things are really too much for civilians to have. Our forefathers never anticipated high capacity bullet clip magazines and heat seeking lasers! I mean, who really NEEDS a shoulder thing that goes up when they're hunting??? And for self-defense, studies have shown (probably) that the most effective tool for defense is firing a double-barreled shotgun into the air. These are COMMON SENSE issues, don't you have any common sense?
You almost got me.

For the record, there's no more humane way to hunt a deer than a TOW missle. No pain, the deer is vaporized, and you have several pounds of ground venison. Phone Post 3.0

I love hunting and guns, but would absolutely support a ban on handguns.  Well over 90% of the gun-related deaths in America are due to hand guns, and there is absolutely no reason to own a handgun other than shooting fellow human beings.  And don't give me the 'home defense' bullshit.  A shotgun will kill an intruder just as well as a handgun.

Ed Okin -


LOL @ cnsnews.com



Such idiocy.

Lol at motherjones....or the salon....or buzzfeed...or any other news outfit. They all have an agenda. Phone Post 3.0

Steve4192 - 


I love hunting and guns, but would absolutely support a ban on handguns.  Well over 90% of the gun-related deaths in America are due to hand guns, and there is absolutely no reason to own a handgun other than shooting fellow human beings.  And don't give me the 'home defense' bullshit.  A shotgun will kill an intruder just as well as a handgun.


Handgun shooting is in the Olympics.

Handgun hunting is popular, especially with the rounds like super magnums like 454, 460, 500 (what else would you do with them)

The problem is any measure taken no matter what it is will get throttled by the nra and sold as anti American. Whether we like it or not you will see changes to gun laws until we find middle ground due to the gun violence that is continually shown on daily news. And I'm all for more strict measures as long as it makes sense and does deter people that shouldn't have guns. Phone Post 3.0

Isaac298 - The problem is any measure taken no matter what it is will get throttled by the nra and sold as anti American. Whether we like it or not you will see changes to gun laws until we find middle ground due to the gun violence that is continually shown on daily news. And I'm all for more strict measures as long as it makes sense and does deter people that shouldn't have guns. Phone Post 3.0

Does it makes sense. When we hear "Common sense gun laws" it usually is not