NRA ad goes too far?

[Hawkeye]

Isn't that exactly what I said in the very first post?

Hmmm. Yes it does. I must have gotten interupted when I opened the thread and missed the first post!

 

[BugI02]

I'll give credit where credit due. Hough, you're an intelligent person. How many people do you think make a distinction between Democrats and Leftists?

The same number of people that are capable of making the distinction between Socialism and Communism?

 

[BugI02]

... rabble rousers aren't my type; quick shootin' blondes are.

View attachment 57149

 

[BugI02]

So why did Ronnie have street cred? He had a gun ban, appointed pro-choice justices, and legitimized millions of illegal immigrants. And even if you discount his administration's blatant treason, I'm still at a loss as to why he still held in such high regard by Conservatives.

No, no - we're not talking about Billie Jeff's sale of crucial satellite technology to the Chinese nor Obama's pandering and ass-kissing of terrorists; we were talking about GHWB.
You know, the guy who got his street cred the same way the rest of the greatest generation did

 

[Notalentbum]

Video wasn't that bad. Typical fear mongering we see daily.
My only real issue with the NRA is the almost monthly renewal notices. Never seen any other org try to get members to pay multiple times for memberships like NRA. Short of going on the NRA website, can't even find out when your membership expires.


Matt

 

[JAL]

I am put off by this type of vitriolic, acrimonious fear and loathing that's just one step shy of inciting armed insurrection. This kind of advertising will not attract mainstream America to the NRA. It comes across as an attempt to recruit the extreme far-right self-proclaimed militia fringe and convert the NRA into an organization of them.

John

 

[IndyDave1776]

I am put off by this type of vitriolic, acrimonious fear and loathing that's just one step shy of inciting armed insurrection. This kind of advertising will not attract mainstream America to the NRA. It comes across as an attempt to recruit the extreme far-right self-proclaimed militia fringe and convert the NRA into an organization of them.

John

So, it's OK with you for leftist agitators to engage in large-scale acts of violence and property destruction but it's not OK for any of the rest of us to get thoroughly pissed about it and call the situation as it is. I am not seeing the cloaked call for insurrection in that video.

I would also point out that I surmise that you, like most people, define 'mainstream' as being people who think the same way you do. This can be a dangerous assumption to make.

I gather from what you said that most anyone not willing to drop his pants and grab his ankles in the face of adversity is an 'extreme far-right militia fringe' type of person.

It is also possible that the NRA has figured out that there are plenty of people who would consider joining if they would get up of their dead asses and do something, unlike wasting 6 prime years of GOP control of both houses of Congress and the White House mumbling 'enforce the existing laws, enforce the existing laws' instead of trying to get rid of some of the aberrant infringements on our rights.

 

[IndyDave1776]

So why did Ronnie have street cred? He had a gun ban, appointed pro-choice justices, and legitimized millions of illegal immigrants. And even if you discount his administration's blatant treason, I'm still at a loss as to why he still held in such high regard by Conservatives.

Well...

the Hughes Amendment along with the remainder of the Firearms Owner Protection Act was signed into law after Reagan spoke with the NRA and they considered the good to outweigh the bad and recommended signing it when he has offered to veto the law, and somehow most here think the NRA is just awesome.

he had to appoint justices he could get confirmed in a senate where he didn't have enough friendly votes to appoint the justices I would have preferred.

he got sucker-punched in a deal with the D controlled congress for amnesty in exchange for fixing the problem, which they failed to hold their end of the bargain and the latter never happened.

by the time of Iran-Contra, I am inclined to believe that he was telling the truth when he said he didn't remember, as his memory deteriorating by that time was a plausible explanation, as was the possibility that some of the people under him solved their problem as they saw fit when congress was unwilling to participate and kept him either minimally informed or uninformed.

In the end, most of the problems stemmed from trusting people he shouldn't have and dealing with adverse circumstances he couldn't control the best he could.

 

[JAL]

Well...

the Hughes Amendment along with the remainder of the Firearms Owner Protection Act was signed into law after Reagan spoke with the NRA and they considered the good to outweigh the bad and recommended signing it when he has offered to veto the law, and somehow most here think the NRA is just awesome.

he had to appoint justices he could get confirmed in a senate where he didn't have enough friendly votes to appoint the justices I would have preferred.

he got sucker-punched in a deal with the D controlled congress for amnesty in exchange for fixing the problem, which they failed to hold their end of the bargain and the latter never happened.

by the time of Iran-Contra, I am inclined to believe that he was telling the truth when he said he didn't remember, as his memory deteriorating by that time was a plausible explanation, as was the possibility that some of the people under him solved their problem as they saw fit when congress was unwilling to participate and kept him either minimally informed or uninformed.

In the end, most of the problems stemmed from trusting people he shouldn't have and dealing with adverse circumstances he couldn't control the best he could.

You had to live during those times and I agree with much of this.

No point in nominating any SCOTUS justices if they're going to fail confirmation. With an opposition party controlled Senate, there are some back-channel communications that go on to come up with nominees that can get the required majority and be at least mostly acceptable. Otherwise you can have a court with ties which affirms the lower court (i.e. denies the appeal).

There's no doubt in my mind the mastermind of Iran-Contra was Admiral John Poindexter, who was trying to achieve what the president desired in very general terms (i.e. Contra rebel support). Presidents are often shielded from information that could damage them politically and I've little doubt Reagan was shielded from information that would have divulged how Poindexter et alia were going about it. Lt. Col. North was the "fall guy" that didn't take "the fall" as he was supposed to. Poindexter, quite justifiably, was convicted on all counts as the Iran-Contra operation was in very direct violation of the Boland Amendment (to the 1982 House Appropriations Bill for FY 1983, and was effectively renewed for FY 84 - 86). I wouldn't be too surprised if then VP Bush knew more about what was going on, although I'd have expected him to be shielded as well.

He's most remembered for the "Tear down this wall!" speech, and nudging the Soviet Union over the edge toward economic collapse with an arms race they couldn't sustain. They were already in serious trouble; it didn't take much. His initial strategy for this could have triggered WWIII, but some sound advice to talk to Gorbachev face-to-face allowed the pressure to continue (the Soviets were utterly paranoid of the USA).

If he had a failing, it was the Reaganomics and his "trickle down" theory that had to get modified very quickly (and rather quietly) as it was actually making things worse. In addition, the general financial deregulation and lack of oversight on S&Ls resulted in the Charles Keating and Michael Milken S&L meltdown from investing in junk bonds (Keating had bought into Milken's bonds with tens of millions). The stage had been set long before, but general deregulation and lack of willingness to provide effective regulation allowed it to occur.

Those who would call him a "traitor" need to read the formal definition of treason. It's hard-wired into the U.S. Constitution for very, very good reason, to prevent shifting political winds from continuously redefining it by Congressional Act. It's short, direct and to the point in very plain language without any legalese. "Traitor" gets bandied about much too loosely exposing considerable, widespread ignorance about its real definition.

John

 

[IndyDave1776]

"Traitor" gets bandied about much too loosely exposing considerable, widespread ignorance about its real definition.

John

I agree overall, but this point merits specific attention. The Constitution does in fact define treason as either taking up arms against the United States or aiding those who do.

One question that I haven't resolved is that of what constitutes taking up arms against the United States in some unusual cases. Let's say that the president is giving a speech declaring that he is assuming power well beyond that granted by the Constitution and Ted manages to split his head open with a .308 boat tail while he is giving the speech. Is Ted a traitor or a hero as defined by the Constitution?

 

[Kutnupe14]

You had to live during those times and I agree with much of this.

No point in nominating any SCOTUS justices if they're going to fail confirmation. With an opposition party controlled Senate, there are some back-channel communications that go on to come up with nominees that can get the required majority and be at least mostly acceptable. Otherwise you can have a court with ties which affirms the lower court (i.e. denies the appeal).

There's no doubt in my mind the mastermind of Iran-Contra was Admiral John Poindexter, who was trying to achieve what the president desired in very general terms (i.e. Contra rebel support). Presidents are often shielded from information that could damage them politically and I've little doubt Reagan was shielded from information that would have divulged how Poindexter et alia were going about it. Lt. Col. North was the "fall guy" that didn't take "the fall" as he was supposed to. Poindexter, quite justifiably, was convicted on all counts as the Iran-Contra operation was in very direct violation of the Boland Amendment (to the 1982 House Appropriations Bill for FY 1983, and was effectively renewed for FY 84 - 86). I wouldn't be too surprised if then VP Bush knew more about what was going on, although I'd have expected him to be shielded as well.

He's most remembered for the "Tear down this wall!" speech, and nudging the Soviet Union over the edge toward economic collapse with an arms race they couldn't sustain. They were already in serious trouble; it didn't take much. His initial strategy for this could have triggered WWIII, but some sound advice to talk to Gorbachev face-to-face allowed the pressure to continue (the Soviets were utterly paranoid of the USA).

If he had a failing, it was the Reaganomics and his "trickle down" theory that had to get modified very quickly (and rather quietly) as it was actually making things worse. In addition, the general financial deregulation and lack of oversight on S&Ls resulted in the Charles Keating and Michael Milken S&L meltdown from investing in junk bonds (Keating had bought into Milken's bonds with tens of millions). The stage had been set long before, but general deregulation and lack of willingness to provide effective regulation allowed it to occur.

Those who would call him a "traitor" need to read the formal definition of treason. It's hard-wired into the U.S. Constitution for very, very good reason, to prevent shifting political winds from continuously redefining it by Congressional Act. It's short, direct and to the point in very plain language without any legalese. "Traitor" gets bandied about much too loosely exposing considerable, widespread ignorance about its real definition.

John

I think that is probably an excellent idea.... Ronald Reagan went on TV and explained the sale of arms to Iran depite a US Arms embargo. Nov 13th, 1986. Look it up. I don't know what type of creative gobbledygook one has to come up with to NOT see that as giving "aid and comfort" to an enemy.

 

[gregr]

It is worth noting that the slimy little bastard didn't even have a membership of any type until he felt the need to get some street cred with conservatives before running for president in 1988, and then renounced it in such a way one would have though he had the thing since childhood.

Interesting...that part, I did not know. Thank you for that information. Not that it changes anything, but just nice to know truth.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I think that is probably an excellent idea.... Ronald Reagan went on TV and explained the sale of arms to Iran depite a US Arms embargo. Nov 13th, 1986. Look it up. I don't know what type of creative gobbledygook one has to come up with to NOT see that as giving "aid and comfort" to an enemy.

I am not arguing that it was right, but would point out that in Reagan's worldview, communism was, hands down, the ne plus ultra threat to mankind and he was not sensationalizing when he called the USSR an 'evil empire'. He honestly believed that to be a plain fact. That said, selling mostly weapons that would not make a difference unless we invaded to the Iranians would seem like a good trade in exchange for the means to fight communism in our own back yard (which he would have deemed a greater threat to us than Iran).

Fact of the matter, Reagan's single biggest failing in ME policy was seeing it as an extension of the greater east vs. west paradigm rather than the unique animal that it truly is.

 

[gregr]

I am not arguing that it was right, but would point out that in Reagan's worldview, communism was, hands down, the ne plus ultra threat to mankind and he was not sensationalizing when he called the USSR an 'evil empire'. He honestly believed that to be a plain fact. That said, selling mostly weapons that would not make a difference unless we invaded to the Iranians would seem like a good trade in exchange for the means to fight communism in our own back yard (which he would have deemed a greater threat to us than Iran).

Fact of the matter, Reagan's single biggest failing in ME policy was seeing it as an extension of the greater east vs. west paradigm rather than the unique animal that it truly is.

I`ve never found, and never will find an elected employee I agree with 100% on everything. Reagan, as much as I disagreed with the man on several big issues, was a great man, a great president, and loved America. He had vision, and much like Charlton Heston, could speak to hearts and stir up passion. That`s a tremendous gift.

 

[JettaKnight]

So, it's OK with you for leftist agitators to engage in large-scale acts of violence and property destruction but it's not OK for any of the rest of us to get thoroughly pissed about it and call the situation as it is. I am not seeing the cloaked call for insurrection in that video.

I would also point out that I surmise that you, like most people, define 'mainstream' as being people who think the same way you do. This can be a dangerous assumption to make.

I gather from what you said that most anyone not willing to drop his pants and grab his ankles in the face of adversity is an 'extreme far-right militia fringe' type of person.

It is also possible that the NRA has figured out that there are plenty of people who would consider joining if they would get up of their dead asses and do something, unlike wasting 6 prime years of GOP control of both houses of Congress and the White House mumbling 'enforce the existing laws, enforce the existing laws' instead of trying to get rid of some of the aberrant infringements on our rights.

Nice strawman, Dave.

No one here is ever justifying the Left tactics and open insurrection. Nor has anyone ever said we should just roll over and take it.


What folks have said is acting like the leftist rable rousers is not a good long term strategy.


Simply shouting, "They're evil and need to be silenced, so I can say the truth because I'm a better person!" ... keep that up Dave, let me know how many liberals sign up for your newsletter.

 

[GIJEW]

I am not arguing that it was right, but would point out that in Reagan's worldview, communism was, hands down, the ne plus ultra threat to mankind and he was not sensationalizing when he called the USSR an 'evil empire'. He honestly believed that to be a plain fact. That said, selling mostly weapons that would not make a difference unless we invaded to the Iranians would seem like a good trade in exchange for the means to fight communism in our own back yard (which he would have deemed a greater threat to us than Iran).

Fact of the matter, Reagan's single biggest failing in ME policy was seeing it as an extension of the greater east vs. west paradigm rather than the unique animal that it truly is.

Many (most?) of the weapons delivered to the contras were captured from the PLO by Israel. IIRC the arms sales to iran were about ransoming Americans taken hostage by the shiites in beirut.

You're right about Reagan being mistaken in not seeing ME policy issues independently of the cold war. I think many politicians have made a similar mistake in defining the arab-israeli conflict as the ME conflict too.

 

[GIJEW]

About the ad "going too far"? "...the clenched fist of truth." is just Dana using free speech to give hypocritical leftists a figurative fat lip. What she said about the "progressive" establishment and mayhem by the likes of antifa is spot-on

 

[IndyDave1776]

Nice strawman, Dave.

No one here is ever justifying the Left tactics and open insurrection. Nor has anyone ever said we should just roll over and take it.


What folks have said is acting like the leftist rable rousers is not a good long term strategy.


Simply shouting, "They're evil and need to be silenced, so I can say the truth because I'm a better person!" ... keep that up Dave, let me know how many liberals sign up for your newsletter.

Strawman?

In the video, the unpopular truth that the left is what it claims to oppose is placed under the harsh light of day. Please tell me what is wrong with that.

The only thing that could be considered a call to 'violence' was a demand for the police to crack down on this. One may choose to interpret the fact that they clearly are failing to do so as in implication that the rest of us may have to defend ourselves without the police is open to one's own inclination to take a pretty significant stretch.

If this video is too extreme and too much a call to violence, then, by extension, bringing the truth to light and demanding that the police do more than stand back and watch is too extreme and violent given that this is exactly what the contents are. If that is too much, then what else is there this side of simply accepting it?

As for that last little bit, the liberals aren't signing up for my newsletter or any newsletter with which I may agree anyway, so why should I worry about them? This false premise of appeasement has already done too much damage.

As for taking on characteristics of the mob, I really doubt that there is anything that Antifa would understand or conform with other than imprisonment or getting their heads split open with bullets. Reason and civil discussion are obviously outside the realm of their understanding.

 

[rhino]

• Dana Loesch is awesome.
• She is an excellent choice as a spokesperson.
• The ad is fine in my opinion and doesn't even come close to "going too far."

 

[IndyDave1776]

Many (most?) of the weapons delivered to the contras were captured from the PLO by Israel. IIRC the arms sales to iran were about ransoming Americans taken hostage by the shiites in beirut.

You're right about Reagan being mistaken in not seeing ME policy issues independently of the cold war. I think many politicians have made a similar mistake in defining the arab-israeli conflict as the ME conflict too.

I was under the impression that Iran, the hostages, the Contras, and maybe an additional bonus or two were all part of the same big scheme, but then again, if I remember correctly, I was 12 years old when watching the hearings.