[via telepolis]
…they have a ‘blacklist‘ where they name organizations that
[Quote] have lent monetary, grassroots or some other type of direct support to anti-gun organizations [Quote]
and individuals that
[Quote] have lent their name and notoriety to anti-gun causes, speaking out for anti-gun legislation and providing a voice for anti-gun organizations. [Quote]
Not forget the section where they mention journalists that
[Quote] actively editorialize in favor of gun control laws. [Quote]
Luckily it seems to be backfiring, cause now everybody against the NRA asks them to get on the list. There’s also a site where you can sign in to join the blacklist.
Edited on Oct 29th 2003, 10:15 by jeck
What’s so wrong with maintaining a list of people and organizations who are not friendly to your cause, and of journalists likely to distort your quotes?
My thoughts exactly. I can’t see it backfiring at all really; all it will do is provide NRA supporters with a list of organisations and charities etc that they can choose not to support.
That’s what it is about isn’t it? It’s not only a list of people that are
it also tags them as being notorious and (at least the journalists) as ‘active editors’. Maybe I’m off the track here cause I’m not a native speaker but that translates to me as ‘being unteachable wrong’ and ‘lying’. What I think this list tries to communicate is: These people are wrong and not to be supported in any ways cause they are against guns. As you might guess: I don’t think this is right.
Concerning the backfiring: Well, of course you’re right there nim, but I think it’s cool that the other side doesn’t lament about but sees it as an opportunity to use it as PR.
Just being curious: Are you US-citizens? Do you support the NRA (or their cause)? If so: Why?
Jeck - would you be upset if it were Handgun Control Inc. who had been reported to be keeping a blacklist?
“Actively editorialize” isn’t quite what you think it means. An “editorial” in an American paper (or radio or tv show) is an “editorial opinion”, and to “editorialize” means to express one’s editorial opinion. It sometimes implies “to express one’s opinion in supposedly factual articles”, and probably does so in the NRA’s list, as Handgun Control Inc. and other anti-gun propagandists have a habit of distorting facts and outright lying. Go here (and scroll down a bit) for lots of articles about Michael Bellesiles’ utterly fraudulent scholarship in Arming America - the book won a prize for its anti-gun argument, which was later revoked because it was exposed as a fraud.
I support the NRA (though I haven’t ever given them money) because I believe people have the right to defend themselves.
Touché. Of course not… I never said that I’m unbiased. ;-)
I read this article about the book. Wow. Quite a story. Is this then another one of the cases where you can only believe the things you found out yourself? Or is the NRA-side always truthful and honest?
I do think that guns are dangerous things and that automated instruments with probable mortal consequences are way to easy to acquire in the USA. I also think that promoting fireweapons is more dangerous than promoting their risks/a very strict legislation on that cause.
And then think no one should have one…
More curious questions (Sorry if this bothers you, but I seldom have the chance to ask them to a native American): What does “the right to defend themselves” mean to you? That you want to carry a gun? Or that every(?) person should have the possibility to own one? What do you think needs to be defended?
Edited on Nov 5th 2003, 04:16 by jeck
The NRA side isn’t perfect - there’s quite a storm over some statistics by a fellow named John Lott. While the questions are more difficult to answer than the Bellesiles case, it does appear that Lott has been less than honest, though his conclusions and claims are not apparently completely made up, just possibly somewhat exaggerated.
The “right to defend oneself” means, to me (though not to all Americans) that people who haven’t proven untrustworthy (by being convicted of a crime) should be able to own and carry a gun.
One large area of dispute, because the research is difficult, is over “defensive gun uses”. The number of incidents where guns are fired in self defense isn’t very high, but is easy to track - almost every such case ends up reported to the police. However, quite often, merely brandishing a gun is sufficient to deter a criminal, and an unknown large fraction of such cases are not reported to the police for various reasons.
Really, most middle-class Americans who don’t hunt aren’t affected by gun laws much. The real effects are on people who live in high-crime neighborhoods, which means mostly poor people. But poor people are much more likely to be victims of crime, and are much more likely to be disarmed by gun control laws.
The NRA sucks, simple as that. Gun control is where it should be.
The NRA spam it’s own members. I joined the NRA and constantly received spam in the name of the NRA. I did everything I was supposed to do to stop the spam yet it continued relentlessly. At first I was broken-hearted that they would do this to their own members. For some reason I felt the NRA was above those sleazy tactics. Then I did some research and discovered the truth. I strongly regret ever joining the NRA. In fact, I have joined every organization that they have tried to demonize over the past few years to show my support for integrity and honor. IMO, the NRA has become dishonorable and I am embarrassed to have ever been associated with them.
I can’t wait until the liberals get in office and then systematically take all guns from lawful citizens and then turn the country over to the United nations. I’m too old to care, but the rest of you are in for some tough times. what ever you think of the NRA, they are the ONLY REASON you still have your guns! ask anyone from australia, no NRA, no guns, england: no NRA, no guns. what you dont undersatand is that u cant give an inch to people that want to totally disarm you! what was one of the first things Hitler did? He disarmed his people, much easier to “control” that way dont you think? maybe that’s what they meant by “Gun Control”?
And If the Native Americans had guns when the europeans arrived, that lay of the land would be allot different than it is tody!