The NRA's Allegiance to Cops Undermines it's Credibility on Gun Rights

[BehindBlueI's]

I can understand the motives behind the politicians doing this which is exactly why I want to know why, when the opportunity was there, the NRA didn't build fires under the asses of the politicians who give us lip service and then do nothing.

It'd have to be a big fire. The politicians know that if you really care about gun rights, you aren't switching sides. The potential to lose is more worrisome than the lack of gains. Why expend political capital on something they know you're not going to jump ship over? Way easier to do something like raise gas taxes, then worry you about losing 30 round magazines come next election time so you aren't so concerned about your taxes.

 

[IndyDave1776]

It'd have to be a big fire. The politicians know that if you really care about gun rights, you aren't switching sides. The potential to lose is more worrisome than the lack of gains. Why expend political capital on something they know you're not going to jump ship over? Way easier to do something like raise gas taxes, then worry you about losing 30 round magazines come next election time so you aren't so concerned about your taxes.

They may not lose us per se in the sense none of us are likely to vote Democrat, but at the same time, this is how you motivate people to stay home, thus losing only one half of a vote flipped to the other side. That said, it still adds up.

 

[IndyDave1776]

It'd have to be a big fire. The politicians know that if you really care about gun rights, you aren't switching sides. The potential to lose is more worrisome than the lack of gains. Why expend political capital on something they know you're not going to jump ship over? Way easier to do something like raise gas taxes, then worry you about losing 30 round magazines come next election time so you aren't so concerned about your taxes.

They may not lose us per se in the sense none of us are likely to vote Democrat, but at the same time, this is how you motivate people to stay home, thus losing only one half of a vote flipped to the other side. That said, it still adds up.

 

[jamil]

I would expect libertarians to like liberty.

Factarians like facts.

Boring, boring facts.

It's been my experience that Libertarians haven't proven themselves to be Factarians at any higher rate than the general population.

Three words.

Gary ****ing Johnson.

You guys own that mess.

The problem with Libertarians is that they seem to differ considerably between themselves on what are the facts. Well. That, and they tend to be digital thinkers in an analog world. Not everything concept be represented with a 1 or 0.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

It's been my experience that Libertarians haven't proven themselves to be Factarians at any higher rate than the general population.

Three words.

Gary ****ing Johnson.

You guys own that mess.

The problem with Libertarians is that they seem to differ considerably between themselves on what are the facts. Well. That, and they tend to be digital thinkers in an analog world. Not everything concept be represented with a 1 or 0.

How dare you take my purity of the 1 OR 0.

I am telling Ron Paul.

 

[jamil]

How dare you take my purity of the 1 OR 0.

I am telling Ron Paul.

Well, don't get me wrong. I consistently score very high on the libertarian end of the scale whenever I take the political compass test. But I'm not a big-L Libertarian nor will I ever be.

My issue with Libertarians is that the ones I've encountered are among the most ideologically corrupted people I've ever encountered. Maybe that's why they think so much purer of themselves than they ought. Have I mentioned Gary ****ing Johnson today?

Ideological purity is a flimsy, incomplete, low resolution replica of truth. But I digress.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

They may not lose us per se in the sense none of us are likely to vote Democrat, but at the same time, this is how you motivate people to stay home, thus losing only one half of a vote flipped to the other side. That said, it still adds up.

You won't stay home if they can demonize the other side. Staying home is a vote for having your guns taken away, right? You'll show up, not to vote for your candidate but to vote against their candidate. Add in a dash of a vote for the independent is really just a vote for the other side, and they've still got you.

 

[SSGSAD]

I guess I am the only one, who didn't know Dana L., was on the NRA payroll .....

I know she advertises their carry insurance .....

Is she going to replace Wayne, as the EVP ?????

 

[jamil]

It'd have to be a big fire. The politicians know that if you really care about gun rights, you aren't switching sides. The potential to lose is more worrisome than the lack of gains. Why expend political capital on something they know you're not going to jump ship over? Way easier to do something like raise gas taxes, then worry you about losing 30 round magazines come next election time so you aren't so concerned about your taxes.

You won't stay home if they can demonize the other side. Staying home is a vote for having your guns taken away, right? You'll show up, not to vote for your candidate but to vote against their candidate. Add in a dash of a vote for the independent is really just a vote for the other side, and they've still got you.

This is the crux of it. If you really care about gun rights every election is a binary choice of bad or worse. We're stuck with just two parties and as long as the Republican Party is the party of Fudds + some anti-gun Repubs + advid gun rights proponents, they'll be the defacto choice for gun rights proponents, because progressive anti-gun zealots have taken over the other party.

There's a threshold different for each voter on what will make them stay home. Even the Fudds have a limit. Just don't take away their hunting and skeet shotguns and everything else is fair game. So Republican politicians can pretty much do what they want as long as they keep within most people's thresholds.

In a two-party system there aren't a lot of options.

 

[ATM]

It's been my experience that Libertarians haven't proven themselves to be Factarians at any higher rate than the general population.

Three words.

Gary ****ing Johnson.

You guys own that mess.

The problem with Libertarians is that they seem to differ considerably between themselves on what are the facts. Well. That, and they tend to be digital thinkers in an analog world. Not everything concept be represented with a 1 or 0.

Actually, the problem with Libertarians is that it is merely another political party.

I still expect libertarians to like liberty, and all of my binary concepts go to 3.

 

[IndyDave1776]

You won't stay home if they can demonize the other side. Staying home is a vote for having your guns taken away, right? You'll show up, not to vote for your candidate but to vote against their candidate. Add in a dash of a vote for the independent is really just a vote for the other side, and they've still got you.

I agree mathematically, but if they don't do anything but pay lip service without actually acting on it, if they lose, I haven't really lost anything, and respond accordingly.

 

[IndyDave1776]

In a two-party system there aren't a lot of options.

There were when both parties were made up of people who wanted what was good for the country and the people (no doubt with an eye on what was good for themselves, but in a Trump-like way of perceiving their personal good to rest on the strength of the country). There really isn't any good choice when both parties for the most part are all about destroying the republic and fighting over who gets to pick the corpse clean.

 

[gregr]

Very true, and anyone familiar with the anti-gun modus operandi will know it instinctively.
Further, while it's easy to criticize the NRA for not reaching out more to the "black community" (whatever that even is), don't forget that the anti-gunners and leftists alike will immediately besmirch those efforts as nefarious and racist, motivated by their innate antipathy toward the NRA and by their desire to keep that demographic voting overwhelmingly Democrat.
IOW, damned if you do and damned if you don't, and the NRA enemies like it that way.
Also, contrary to Michael Mooron's ("Bowling for Columbine") outrageous lies, the NRA was founded largely as a counter against KKK aggression, with the NRA seeking to train the targets of that aggression to be able to defend themselves, so the NRA has nothing to apologize for regarding race relations, far​ from it.

I`ll say this: why would NRA "reach out" to anyone? Any law-abiding, American citizen, may join NRA, and donate freely of their time, and monies. If anyone, any group, chooses to not do this, it`s hardly on NRA, it`s on them.

 

[oldpink]

Well, don't get me wrong. I consistently score very high on the libertarian end of the scale whenever I take the political compass test. But I'm not a big-L Libertarian nor will I ever be.

My issue with Libertarians is that the ones I've encountered are among the most ideologically corrupted people I've ever encountered. Maybe that's why they think so much purer of themselves than they ought. Have I mentioned Gary ****ing Johnson today?

Ideological purity is a flimsy, incomplete, low resolution replica of truth. But I digress.

Supporting what you say, if you really want to get an earful of Liberalitarianism (what I choose to call it), check out "Free Talk Live" on WIBC each Saturday night between 7:00PM and 10:00PM.
There are some things that the two main hosts, Ian and Mark, say that make sense, but the other 70% is as stupid as anything that Nancy "Stretch" Pelosi has ever said with that vacant smile on her scarecrow face.
Ian is the more doctrinaire of the two, to the point of fanaticism.
Some examples of Ian's stupidity:
Cops are unnecessary, and both Ian and Mark are proud members of the detestable "Cop Block" misfits.
The military is unnecessary.
National boundaries should be ended altogether.
We were in the wrong for responding to 9/11 and we brought 9/11 on ourselves.
The Constitution, while a noble effort, is not worth even preserving due to how so much of it has been subverted.
The very idea of nationhood itself is an outdated and outmoded concept.

Both hosts are strongly pro-gun, but that is more than outweighed by what else they espouse and the other crap I may have forgotten that they believe.

 

[bwframe]

Supporting what you say, if you really want to get an earful of Liberalitarianism (what I choose to call it), check out "Free Talk Live" on WIBC each Saturday night between 7:00PM and 10:00PM.
There are some things that the two main hosts, Ian and Mark, say that make sense, but the other 70% is as stupid as anything that Nancy "Stretch" Pelosi has ever said with that vacant smile on her scarecrow face.
Ian is the more doctrinaire of the two, to the point of fanaticism.
Some examples of Ian's stupidity:
Cops are unnecessary, and both Ian and Mark are proud members of the detestable "Cop Block" misfits.
The military is unnecessary.
National boundaries should be ended altogether.
We were in the wrong for responding to 9/11 and we brought 9/11 on ourselves.
The Constitution, while a noble effort, is not worth even preserving due to how so much of it has been subverted.
The very idea of nationhood itself is an outdated and outmoded concept.

Both hosts are strongly pro-gun, but that is more than outweighed by what else they espouse and the other crap I may have forgotten that they believe.

Confirmed. Their show follows the Gun Guy show and occasionally gets left playing after. About the time a decent point is made, a minute later, turning it off.

 

[jamil]

Supporting what you say, if you really want to get an earful of Liberalitarianism (what I choose to call it), check out "Free Talk Live" on WIBC each Saturday night between 7:00PM and 10:00PM.
There are some things that the two main hosts, Ian and Mark, say that make sense, but the other 70% is as stupid as anything that Nancy "Stretch" Pelosi has ever said with that vacant smile on her scarecrow face.
Ian is the more doctrinaire of the two, to the point of fanaticism.
Some examples of Ian's stupidity:
Cops are unnecessary, and both Ian and Mark are proud members of the detestable "Cop Block" misfits.
The military is unnecessary.
National boundaries should be ended altogether.
We were in the wrong for responding to 9/11 and we brought 9/11 on ourselves.
The Constitution, while a noble effort, is not worth even preserving due to how so much of it has been subverted.
The very idea of nationhood itself is an outdated and outmoded concept.

Both hosts are strongly pro-gun, but that is more than outweighed by what else they espouse and the other crap I may have forgotten that they believe.

<rant>
The embolden points are absurd because the people who believe them are deluded to think past the piratical realities that exist now. They ignore human nature.

Cops are necessary as long as we have laws. Civilization will have laws as long as human nature is foremost self-interested AND imperfect. Some humans lack the moral structures which allow them to be self interested mostly without harming others.

The idea of nations and borders evolved. They've evolved out of necessity. As long as human cultures are not naturally homogeneous, they often clash, sometimes violently. Related to innate self-interest, we are prone to find differences between people relevant. Governments can force people to be homogeneous artificially, but the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, North Korea, etcetera, have ran that experiment and it resulted in hundreds of millions of people being killed for really no better reason than to force homogeneity under the guise of equality.

So let's assume that these open border kooks actually want a free, worldwide, borderless society. What does that require? And to say that borders are now obsolete, the most important question is do we have what is required now?

So first, we have nations and borders now because we have disparate cultures which evolved socially to form them. Even when societies mix, we tend to self-sort according to cultures, beliefs, religions, ideologies. We still have the same basic human natures. So to have a free borderless open society it means that our nature must be compatible with that. Is it? To be compatible either all cultures must become homogenized, or we must develop attitudes which make disparate cultures and beliefs and physical features irrelevant. Do we have either?

Are humans a homogeneous race? No. Do humans regard culture, beliefs, and physical features irrelevant? No. Those virtue-signaling **********s on the radio program are making claims from the depths of their asses when they say that borders and nations and cops and laws are obsolete. Human nature isn't anywhere near that point. We are 180 degrees from homogeneity with the bearded, robe wearing, wife beating, gay murdering thugs on the other side of the world who behead the people they disagree with.

Humans are no closer to a liberty induced sense of homogeneity than we were when humans were clans of hunter-gatherers fighting other clans over territory. We are territorial by nature. We are nowhere near capable of all coexisting peacefully without laws, without cops, without nations, without borders, without tearing each other apart. That's our nature.

So to those nitwits on the radio, I'd say, you stupid arrogant twits, how dare you claim, as you look down your wrinkled judgemental noses, that because you think you've evolved socially enough to harmonize with everyone, that everyone else has. And, anyway, have you really?
</rant>

Confirmed. Their show follows the Gun Guy show and occasionally gets left playing after. About the time a decent point is made, a minute later, turning it off.

I've never heard it. Living south of CaNAHda, I don't get WIBC over the air. Just as well. Unless they have a call-in format where I can be a regular heckler.

 

[oldpink]

<rant>
[great rant trimmed for brevity]
So to those nitwits on the radio, I'd say, you stupid arrogant twits, how dare you claim, as you look down your wrinkled judgemental noses, that because you think you've evolved socially enough to harmonize with everyone, that everyone else has. And, anyway, have you really?
</rant>

Nicely done.
I would just tell Ian the following, quoting a great mind that Ian would doubtless believe is archaic:
“If men were angels, no government would be necessary.”
-James Madison

Leftists believe that man can be perfected, while conservatives know that man is inherently and permanently flawed, so laws are required to constrain man's base instincts and lapses of conscience.

I've never heard it. Living south of CaNAHda, I don't get WIBC over the air. Just as well. Unless they have a call-in format where I can be a regular heckler.

Well, I confess that I called in on their July 1 show and actually got on the air.
Ian was going on about the Castile case and how, as he put it, "cops get away with killing people," and that's what got me irked enough to call.
I pointed out that he was being ridiculously flippant in his terminology, and that it's pretty ****ing stupid to believe that in today's day and age (post-Bull Connor) a police action shooting would be the best way to "get away with killing anyone," considering the firestorm of investigations, demonstrations, and outright direct threats to any LEO involved, no matter whether he was justified.
I then said that this particular case should have wound up differently, but I pointed out that, as a lifetime LARRY holder who carries daily, if I were in a traffic stop and told not to reach because he knew I had my sidearm, that I would SUPERGLUE my hands at the 10 and 2 position on the steering wheel.
That's when Ian tried to shift away from common sense and go on about how he chooses at will which laws he will and will not follow, to which I just asked exactly how he is just certain that he has carte blanche to decide which laws are "just" (he's obsessed with anti-drug laws) and exactly how he thinks that will go over in a court of law.
I can't remember exactly what he said at that point, but it was smartass enough that I finally had enough and blew my top and just said "Well, you're an *******."
I had the radio off (radio call-in show 101) at the time, so I couldn't hear what might have gone out over the air with him probably cutting it off with "dump button," but he just said back "I'm sorry, but you can't use that word over the air," to which I said "Well, I just did," right before he hung me up.
Oh, and yes, he is a major *******, and I should correct myself in saying that he's as stupid as "Stretch" Pelosi; he's even more stupid, as if that were even possible.

 

[jamil]

Leftists believe that man can be perfected, while conservatives know that man is inherently and permanently flawed, so laws are required to constrain man's base instincts and lapses of conscience.

This really is one of the basic differences but I'm not sure the dichotomy is exactly left/right. I've heard several liberal pundits speak as though they understand self-interested human nature.

But just to expand on the thinking that human nature is "unconstrained", as Thomas Sowell puts it, utopians think that humans can evolve to be more perfect. What I would add to that is just to ask, what is "perfect"? Who gets to define what that means? Who's version of ideological purity must we strive to evolve towards?

And let's make no mistake about their intentions, it is biological human nature they seek to change. We can pass on ideas to our children. That's how we've socially evolved away from being a racist society. But that hasn't changed our nature one bit. Humans used to enslave other humans. But as the immorality of that became apparent in the West, each successive generation taught their kids, generation after generation, until slavery was abolished, and continued to a point where racism is much less common.

We can learn to overcome our self-interested nature. We can learn disciplined self-interest. But mostly, the same nature is still there. There is research which shows that learned traits can become inherited, so there is some biological evolution of human nature possible. But mostly, we all still have the same self-interested nature. Whatever we've accomplished, to be able to live together more civilly, is learned. So. If some catastrophe wiped out all that knowledge, humans would likely revert to their basic nature and would have to start all over again learning the lessons of social interaction.

So, if it is social evolution they think that will get us there, it needs to change the biological nature. Evolution is selective. Natural selection isn't necessarily interested in ideological purity, so then any evolution towards this perfect utopian existence must involve unnatural selection. So it would have to be a lot like breading dogs. There's some research that shows dogs still have the same nature, but through selective breading, successive generations suppress various undesired natures. So it's more like a vague memory. The only way to really "evolve" towards whatever utopia, they'd have to bread humans like breading dogs. That's not a very liberty minded process.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Leftists believe that man can be perfected, while conservatives know that man is inherently and permanently flawed, so laws are required to constrain man's base instincts and lapses of conscience.

This really is one of the basic differences but I'm not sure the dichotomy is exactly left/right. I've heard several liberal pundits speak as though they understand self-interested human nature.

But just to expand on the thinking that human nature is "unconstrained", as Thomas Sowell puts it, utopians think that humans can evolve to be more perfect. What I would add to that is just to ask, what is "perfect"? Who gets to define what that means? Who's version of ideological purity must we strive to evolve towards?

I would say that when it is all said and done, what the leftists actually believe amounts to 'stop your wrong thinking, do what your 'betters' tell you, and we can all be happy and live without worry just like when we were children' while failing to observe that this thinking has brought poverty and misery consistently whenever it has been attempted. Every. Single. Time.

In a way, it reminds me of a time I was scheduled for surgery and the doctor started to tell me what he was going to do, and immediately noticed my squeamish reaction. He stopped, smiled, and said, "You are going to be asleep, I am going to fix your face, and everything is going to be alright," which left me happily informed to the level I wished to be informed. While this approach works under certain limited circumstances, it does NOT work in planning the sum total of your life or the sum total of an entire society.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I`ll say this: why would NRA "reach out" to anyone? Any law-abiding, American citizen, may join NRA, and donate freely of their time, and monies. If anyone, any group, chooses to not do this, it`s hardly on NRA, it`s on them.

Because part of being the de facto leader of the pro-2nd amendment movement in the eyes of most politicians (and probably most citizens) is to champion the 2nd amendment. That includes countering the narrative that gun owners are racist, the organization is racist, etc.