Sorry to be so blunt, but after feeling deep sadness over the shooting deaths at the Jewish Community Center in Kansas City that included a 14 year old boy and his grandfather, that was the thought that came into my head.
I hate the National Rifle Association and all it stands for.
I don’t hate the people in it, but I hate the NRA as an organization. Guns, guns, guns is all it knows.
Anybody who believes the NRA is all about protecting second amendment rights is living in fantasy land.
The NRA is an arm of gun manufacturers whose sole purpose is to put as many guns as possible into the hands of as many people as possible, including young kids and people like Frazier Glenn Cross who did the KC shooting.
This is not an organization our nation needs.
The NRA is a menace to our society because it now represents the views of right wing conservatives who pretend like gun ownership is being threatened by common sense gun control laws.
What malarkey!
Propaganda is the air the NRA and its supporters breathe.
What is truly baffling is how NRA leaders can talk in ways that insult most people’s intelligence and get away with it.
“The only answer to a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,” NRA chief Wayne LaPierre intoned after the Newtown School slayings.
There’s an idea. Let’s arm everybody so we can return to the days of the O.K. Corral shootout with good guys with guns blasting away at bad guys with guns.
How utterly absurd and childish.
Ah, but maybe that’s the key to understanding how a group with a nationwide membership of only four million people can have such political influence.
It appeals to Americans who believe in the absurd and act like they are still children.
If there ever was a use for the NRA, that day is gone.
It needs to be gone. Period.
The only answer to a bad organization continuing to exist is for people who believe in good organizations to stop supporting it or listening to anything it ever has to say again.
linnposts.com 
Interesting that you brought up the image of the “wild west”. I’ve long thought that era was tried and found wanting, especially a few western movies whose story line had a town secure a “gun fighter” to rid it of a bunch of thugs only to be left with one who, in real life, was harder to get rid of. Sadly, now It’s all about money and, more sadly, population control through lethal divisiveness.
The best realistic idea I’ve heard on a gun control upgrade would be to treat them like automobiles. Everyone wanting one would need to take classes, take a test and buy insurance, whose premium rates would be set by factors of age, location and a track record of either a clean slate or numbers and types of violations.
I doubt such a change will happen soon.
But I really like the idea!
SPOT ON!!!! Sorry Bob, but I don’t see any changes like your good suggestions happening in America anytime soon, if ever. Just the opposite is happening. A “Guns for all” law just floated around in, I think it is GA, to allow anyone to carry anywhere (including church) anytime. AZ has some of the most liber3al gun laws (if one can call them that) in the country. Have we gone MAD?????!!!
A clue: think so.
Since I can see you’re so very smart, maybe you can answer a couple questions to enlighten us ignorant NRA members:
1) The O.K. Corral argument has reared it’s head every time ccw legislation has been on the table, and yet this prediction has been proven false in virtually every locality in which it has passed. What is your explanation for how completely wrong these predictions have been?
2) We have a system of legalized bribery in this country which enables people like Michael Bloomberg and groups like the Brady campaign to do everything they can to keep me from owning a handgun. Are you only angry at people whose views you disagree with for taking advantage of this system?
3) How would you propose getting rid of the millions of guns that circulate in our society now, and would you expect that it would be the more criminal or the more law abiding individual who would be more likely to hang on to his weapon?
I love the word malarkey!
To Mark:
Since you asked…
First, I made no reference to NRA members being ignorant, but the word literally means “lack of knowledge,” so in that sense I think the adjective fits. But to your questions…
1. Because something has not happened doesn’t mean it won’t. There is no
credible evidence that conceal and carry has made people safer either. I
prefer to err on the side of caution.
2. Nobody has ever or is now trying to keep you from owning a gun. But
society ought to be able to say you cannot own a gun of mass destruction,
or if your background indicates criminal activity or instability. Your question
is an example of the propaganda I wrote about.
3. Again, no one is trying to force people to get rid of their guns. The goal is
to regulate the sale of guns, not take them away. At the same time, the
voluntary “buyback” programs police have run in various cities has had
modest success.
These are my answers, for what they are worth to you, which I suspect is very little.
1) “There is no credible eveidence that conceal and carry has made people safer either” This is factually incorrect. While I doubt you would ever read it, the NRA compiles news stories on a monthly basis regarding citizens who have successfully defended themselves (usually but not always without firing their weapon). News outlets are all easily verifiable.
“Because something hasn’t happended doesn’t mean it won’t” All of us would gain much credibility, and be taken much more seriously Lin, if we conceded and obvious point rather than doubling down on something in which the outcome has already been proven. Try it. It’s actually quite empowering.
2) “Nobody has ever or is now trying to keep you from owning a gun”. This is factually incorrect. You have heard of Mcdonald vs Chicago right? Is the Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, whose decision was thankfully overturned by the Supreme Court, propoganda? You are correct that society ought to be able to say that a person cannot own a weapon of mass destruction and a line has to be drawn at some point, but to say a 12 gauge shotgun is O.K. and .22 pistol is not is ridiulous.
3) “No one is trying to force people to get rid of their guns” This is factually incorrect. Notices have been sent out in New York and other localities, regarding guns that were bought leagally, and now have been detrmined illegal to own. That wasn’t actually my point regarding the guns in circulation now, however. The point is that even if you believe we would be safer as a gun free society, it’s too late. Instituting laws that ban and severely restrict the sale of guns from this point forward leaves millions already out there. This means criminals have them, law-abiding people do not. If you are simply to squemish to face that fact fine, don’t keep them, but don’t try to keep me from doing so.
You might want to think about that word “ignorant” again.
What you have written is NRA propaganda masked as reasoned thinking. If there is a single incident where someone with a gun in a public place successfully defended himself or someone else, other than something concocted by the NRA, I would be glad to hear it. At the same time, that would not be a basis for generalizing that this would happen in more places if more people carried guns.
Give me the details of the court case you sight and I will give it serious consideration. My guess is, you have generalized enough to make your point that details would undercut.
The same principle applies to “notices sent out.” In the first place, a “notice” is hardly a concerted effort by the government to take away people’s guns, but once again knowing the specific circumstances surrounding such “notices” is necessary to understanding what they actually mean. I would have thought you would be able to describe police knocking on doors demanding people’s guns, except that it doesn’t happen.
One of the things I have learned is that people who cite examples without giving details tend to do so because they either don’t know the details or don’t want to provide them because they would contradict their conclusions. You are very good at this, but not good enough for me to rethink who the definition of ignorance applies to.
I have limited my details to some extent due to the fact that my posts have seemed somewhat lengthy as it is, certainly not because they are not known, or because they contradict my point. Since you have, however, indicated an openness to listening, details will be forthcoming. I must say I am somewhat surprised, however, that anyone writing on this issue would not be fairly versed in the Supreme Court caseI I cited. Also, for the record, I have never suggested that more people need to carry more guns. You are doing what most do in highly charged issues, which is to assume that anything anyone has ever said regarding an issue, no matter how extreme, is embraced by everyone who is on the side you are not. I must address one other thing. You said “No one is trying to force people to get rid of their guns”. I would have thought that a notice sent to your door by authorities giving you options regarding your choices in ridding yourself of the weapons would be enough for any reasonable person to concede that obviously there ARE people trying to do that very thing, but O.K.. You want evidence of authorities going door to door confiscating weapons? This is exactly what occured after hurricane Katrina, at a time when much of the police force were deserting the city, and crime was rampant. You aren’t aware of that either are you?
For the sake of brevity, and time, I am going to have to limit my details to 1 or 2 topics, because your false assumptions about NRA members, and lack of knowledge regarding the issues is simply too much for me to keep up with.
I wilil be sending you some specifics in the next day or 2, and I do appreciate your willingness to at least read what I have to say. We’ll see if you can have an open mind, but i have not seen evidence of it yet.
Thank you Mark! You are so kind in your presentations. Truly appreciate your rebuttals and refutations to unwarrented charges, by someone who uses way too many superlatives. This leaves NO room for “open and affirming” that other people have different views. J. L. leaves no room for diversity that the liberal view says it has, but that it has ONLY for certain topics and specific views–not for any opposing views. Once again, thank you, Mark, for presenting another view so that TRULY LIBERAL people can have a chance to hear BOTH sides. This doesn’t have to be an “Amen choir” for one viewpoint!
I’m glad to have different points of view, but since this is my Blog and not yours, there is a limit to what I am willing to permit. If you don’t like what I write, why read it.
I am here to announce, “The Emperor has no clothes!!”
One single incident huh? O.k. How about the incident at the Dollar General Store as reported in the Selma times-journal, Orrville, Ala., 1/16/14? Or the incident at the neighborhood market as reported in the Minneapolis Star Tribune, Minneapolis, Minn., 12/19/13? How many details would satisfy you? Surely I shouldn’t have to type out the articles for you. Look up the paper with that date, and search for gun story. Or I could have said look up the gun story in The Herald-dispatch, Huntington, W.Va., 12/14/13, or many many more, but none of it would make any difference would it?
As far as the McDonald vs Chicago case, as well as the District of Columbia case, they are the 2 most substantial cases regarding gun rights in over 70 years. They were both covered heavily by the media (yes, the ENTIRE media I.e. USA Today, ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC etc.) for weeks and you’ve never even heard of it? And then actually criticize me for not giving details when I cite the case? You have got to be kidding! Here you are blogging opinions about a topic, and you know nothing about the recent landmark case that was covered so heavily I don’t know how someone could miss it if they tried. I think you can find the details quite easily if you care to learn about what you write about.
In the end, none of matters. I have refuted virtually every misguided claim you have made, yet I expect your views will not change one iota. Like so many, you will use your intellect not to objectively listen and evaluate, but to defend, strategize, and attack. Your point of view is part of your identity, to be defended at all costs. One final thought. It is not weakness to concede a point in which you have been shown to be wrong, it is a strength and leads to wisdom. This will be my last post to you. I appreciate your willingness to post what I have written, even if this one doesn’t make it. If it does, this is your post, the last word goes to you.
I’ve had my say and feel no need to say more. So you get the last word.
>
On second thought, I do have a few last comments.
One, I didn’t say I was unaware of the count striking down guns ban laws in D.C. and Chicago. I said give me the details. If you had you would had included the fact that gun laws are intended to regulate gun ownership, not ban it, and that the Supreme Court did not say ownership of any kind of gun is legal or having one in your possession anywhere is as well, or that all gun laws are unconstitutional. You equate efforts to regular guns as a scheme to ban them.
Re the Orville, Al shooting, you failed to mention that Marlo Ellis, the man who shot the guy, was facing charges of rape in the second degree and enticing a child for immoral purposes, stemming from a 2013 investigation involving a girl under the age of 16. At the time of the shooting he was out of jail on bond. Just the kind of “good guy” we all want protecting us against “bad guys.” Really. I don’t know if the killing was ruled justifiable, but whether it was or not, I don’t want cowboys pulling guns out in public and shooting people, period!
The bottom line issue is reasonable regulations of gun sales to private citizens. We already have good guys protecting us against bad guys. They are called “police.” But, of course, conservatives would rather have the likes of Marlo Ellis wielding guns than pay taxes that pay the police a fair wage to do their job. The NRA has no rhyme or reason to its opposition to gun laws because. Why? Because, as I said originally, it is a shill organization for gun manufacturers that would sell guns to kindergarten kids if they could.
So I repeat, and for the last time, I hate the NRA.
I am re-posting some thoughts I originally posted on Facebook the other day.
I am a proud gun owner. I have owned guns all of my adult life. I support the right of individuals to own guns for self defense and sporting. That does not mean, however, that I am against reasonable legislation and regulation necessary to protect the public. I believe that most members of the NRA agree with where I stand on most issues concerning gun control. Their organization, however, is against all regulation of any kind no matter how rational. The only regulation they have recently supported was regulation to stop the sale of “smart guns” which would only fire when held by their owner. There may be some arguments against the use of such weapons, but they do not justify a ban on their sale. Especially coming from a group that is against all other regulation. I ask everyone to join me in asking all reasonable members of the NRA to resign from the organization immediately. I don’t care of they promote gun safety. I don’t care of they provide training in the proper use of weapons. Today the NRA stands against any reasonable legislation or regulation. They argue for more guns as the only answer to every question. All of those killed in Las Vegas the other day were armed officers. The good guy with the gun still died when he was surprised by the bad guy who should never have had a gun. If I am a member of an organization that stands primarily for positions that I find objectionable I leave as quickly as I can. I refuse to be associated with such an organization. Today the NRA is such an organization. They stand not for gun owners, but for gun sellers. Right or wrong too many of our elected officials are afraid of the NRA. If you truly believe in reasonable regulation. If you truly believe that the 2nd Amendment permits reasonable control. Stand up for what you believe and resign now. It is clear that you have not been able to change things from within. The only way you can make your voice heard is to resign. Don’t wait for others. Stand up to their failed leadership. If you leave others will follow. If they do not, at least you will know that you did what is right.
Well said, Joel.
I’m only going to add 3 points to this discussion.
First, the NRA stands for our 2nd amendment rights first and foremost. And YES they defend them vigorously. If you value your freedom you should also. Freedom is not “free” and there will always be a price on it. If you don’t like those rights then get the constitution changed. If you don’t want to support them for some hyped up fringe charge, then you have the freedom to not support them (pretty simple.) Hitler banned guns after he took control of the press, don’t HATE the NRA, hate what bad guys and what they do with guns. So if you can only supply rhetoric to your arguments, run for president. (sorry!)
Second, saying that we have police then we don’t need guns is equal to saying, since we have firemen we don’t need fire extinguishers. Can anyone tell me the last time a child was killed in America from a fire in a public school building. (hint..it was probably before most of you were born, 1958!) When seconds count, help is only minutes away. Do you know the figure our Law Enforcement agencies use in an “active shooter incident” is one death for every 15 seconds the “bad guy” has time to target their victim(s). Bad guys will always head for “soft targets”. Places like schools, shopping malls, churches, theaters posted with “no gun” signs and of course post offices. Heard of going postal. Did you know that James Holmes passed two other theaters from his home where “no gun” signs where not posted, that was showing the same Batman movie that midnight. One of them even had a higher seating capacity, so don’t go there. Why do you think he picked that particular theater? Hmmm…
Third, out of fear of sounding canny I’m going to say this anyway. Bottom line, when you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. Just ask Chicago, India, England and Australia just to name a few. Oh, that’s right, since our press always reports the truth, shootings don’t happen there…wink, wink. Connecticut already had some of the most stringent gun laws in the nation. That didn’t stop a young man with mental issues from killing his mother after she had already asked for help with him. SHE made the mistake of not properly securing them and SHE also paid the ultimate penalty for that mistake.
Get the facts first, then discuss this issue. It’s all about CONTROL and I only allow my savior JC to control my life and if necessary, I WILL protect my life and the life of my loved ones. Sorry, it’s the way I was raised!
I wrote this Blog a long time ago, but the subject is always relevant. But honestly, I don’t know what to say to a comment that defends the possession and use of guns and then ends with a shout out to Jesus Christ as the One who controls your life. If you don’t see the inconsistency in that, nothing I can say will make any difference to you.
Sorry, I just stumbled on it. And your hatred of guns still exist.
I choose to read Luke 22:36 as Jesus saying it’s OK to defend yourself against the evils of His world and translate it from swords to guns in our world. Let alone it being all throughout the Old Testament.
It’s for SELF DEFENCE. We’re not talking about going back to the OLD WEST (that’s just silly nonsense). Check the governments own stats at http://www.fbi.gov. Any way you slice it after Conceal Carry rights being granted, ALL sorts of crime stats drops dramatically. All you have to do is to keep yourself from being a “soft target”. Read up on Lt. Col. Dave Grossmans’ (ret.) explanation of “wolves, sheep and sheepdogs. I am part of my Christian church’s security staff, I’m not an L.E.O. but I am a licensed security officer and darn proud of being a sheepdog watching over the sheep. Wolves are still looking for a sheep to attack.
I also guarantee you that if our 2nd amendment falls, so will our freedoms. That includes freedom of who/where we worship. Just ask the Christians in Africa, Middle East and most of Asia. Check with Israel, they might not even make through our lifetime. Last I checked, they believe in Moses.
And after all, the only bone you could attack from my previous post was being my Christian beliefs. You fell for my purposely hung “lowest hanging fruit….gotchya! I only had 3 points to make and you could only attack my 4th point…..he…..he
Be Safe!
In fact, the drop in crime rates you site comes from stories in right wing news services. The opposite is true. See the link below that reports on the findings of a Stanford and Johns Hopkins study. As far as your “Christian” faith is concerned, cherry pick verses from scripture to apply to today’s laws is not only bad interpretation, it is silly. Enough said.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/14/right-to-carry-laws-crime_n_6160414.html
I guess you didn’t read my earlier post. I stated to go look for YOURSELF at your own presidents figures posted at fbi.gov. I don’t need a liberal professor or an alleged neutral reporter to interpret data for me. Look for yourself, it’s there.
It doesn’t take long, some minor knowledge of when various locales approved Conceal Carry is helpful. Other then that my 9 year old granddaughter could understand it. And you can’t use Illinois data yet. They really don’t have CCW yet. (That’s another lie!) Every other locality is fine, even liberal states like CA., OR., CT., MA. Or even choose cities, county. Anyway you like it.
Pastors cherry pick versus out of every bible to prove their point. I know, I was raised a Quaker and was always taught that the commandment said “thou shalt not kill”, period. And that was a good upbringing. When I matured and found out that it actually should have been defined as “thou shall not commit ‘murder of the innocent”. That brings a whole new meaning to that one basic commandment, doesn’t it. Capitol punishment is a whole other topic.
O well, you cherry picked my one statement of my religious views and ignored my first stated 3 points that I wanted to make about your topic of “I hate the NRA”. Can’t argue with those, so turn the table to a different issue. But that’s what libs do. Even lie about everything to prove their point. The ends justify the means. Global warming and of course “if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor”. When are people going to wake up?! It’s sad….really, really sad!
I’m done,
Be safe! Bye!