Tom Harbold: Demonizing NRA based on falacies

People rightly complain about birther claims that President Barack Obama is not a U.S. citizen, pointing to factual documentation that he is. It would be nice to see a similar regard for factual evidence when it comes to firearms.

I am referring to repeated attempts by anti-gun activists to claim that the National Rifle Association supports, in the words of recent writer Mitch Edelman, "high volume sales of automatic weapons" and allegedly opposes control of "fully-automatic military rifles."
http://www.carrollcountytimes.com/news/opinion/columnists/tom-harbold-demonizing-nra-based-on-falacies/article_2c51a3de-7fc1-11e0-8ded-001cc4c03286.html

The guy makes some very valid points. Pro 2A folks are often bombarded with false positions assigned to the NRA by the pro gun control crowd. I have read many times claims by pro gun control folks that the NRA wants to "arm criminals" and such. This is hardly the case and while it can be very frustrating to a pro 2A person it proves something very important (to me anyway). The pro gun control people are loosing the debate and grasping at anything, even if they have to make it up, to bolster their position.

It gets so old, continually shooting them down, the same BS over and over..

They are hoping that if they repeat a LIE, enough times, it will somehow become the truth.

I'm sure Gabby and her family have other opinions about them.

You do know that she had a concealed carry permit (when they were required) and ran and governed as a strong 2nd amendment supporter? I don't know if she was an NRA member or not. Do you know for sure one way or the other - with any kind of proof?

Or do you just assume that anyone that has ever been shot by a criminal is automatically anti gun? We have several folks here that might disagree with that.

Since they have not said what their opinion is of the NRA as far as I know. And since she is a CCL holder and a supporter of RKBA she may be more supportive of them than you might think.

Or do you just like making things up. Sad.

I see that as a sign you have nothing else to support your argument.

even the most feeble legislation on guns and their components, they are full of shit. They come out automatically against everything. Everything. Their position is to fight all and sundry efforts to put even small controls on guns.

Your slurs are sad. I have personal guns but the NRA is a bullshit kneejerk organization with ties to white supremist groups. Enjoy.

Care to cite your information about ties to white supremist groups?

The NRA supported all of the current federal law including the Brady NICS? Yes they supported parts of GCA68. What I find interesting is that the NRA and Brady both supported Project Exile while their allies (both sides) were against it. While I am not big on mandatory minimums, I think the idea had merit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Exile

Particularly the NRA-ILA


but:

:popcorn:

I stopped giving money to the NRA when they pulled their shenanigans with the Parker case - later became the Heller case. But this article struck a cord with me on how pro gun control people assign positions to the NRA that they don't have.

when reporters can't get the facts straight on a simple subject such as firearms and gun control.

I am led to believe that either reporters are incredibly incompetent or they receive brownie points from their editors if they lie and distort the facts about issues involving firearms.

The right to keep and bear arms granted by the Second Amendment involves tremendous responsibility just as the right of a free press granted by the First Amendment requires reporters to make every attempt to print the truth. If anything, the reporter's responsibility may well be as important or more important than the responsibility of gun owners because what they write may cause serious changes in public policy that will effect the future of our nation.

In order for citizens to fully understand the issues our nation faces we need trustworthy information.

misrepresentation, or "NRA sucks - yup". another NRA member is born. Actually that is a good thing.

Semper Fi,

Meanwhile the NRA just keeps getting stronger.

yup

Yup.

Attacks on gun ownership give the nra strength. Give the nra members.

And from what im able to tell, you support just such attacks.

You really don't have grounds to be complaining jpak, because you in your own small way, helped make them.

Yup.

Yup.

Yup.

...yup ;)

Fighting fire with fire if you will. I try not to but don't always succeed. Sometimes when a statement goes from absurdity to offensive hateful rants, then I get annoyed. Water works best, back fires work only if you have a good sized fire line and no rain in the forecast.
If the Cincinnati revolt not taken place, when the NRA also did pro environmental issues etc, would they be what they be as effective as they are to day or would the less mouthy and broader coalition been the better way to go? I know you don't give a rat's ass,but worth pondering.

Over half of the House and almost half of the Senate have NRA ratings of "A" or better. An outfit with that kind of power is anything but marginalized. The only groups that have been marginalized are the gun-control groups such as the Brady group and VPC.

of our most vocal anti RKBA members here (sorry, couldn't help the play on words). You view is well supported here by many of us, thanks for the link.

They get money donated by scaring the average gun owner by "Obama wants to take your guns away" bullshit. And the average gun owner and NRA member falls for the scare tactics.

They are currently a right wing based organization, that might change someday, but not in the short term.

I know the NRA really hammered on him for is voting record on gun issues during his time in the Illinois state legislature, but I don't know of any real lies that were told. Please help me out here.

On edit: It is odd how you don't address the lies told about the NRA but instead make a counter accusation that is uncited. Interesting. . .

http://factcheck.org/2008/09/nra-targets-obama/

And they are at it again saying Obama will use his 2012 election to take guns away. Please show me how Obama has tried to take guns away from Americans in the last two years.

Why would any progressive defend the NRA attacking Obama?

And for the record, I hate the NRA and their damn 2011 keynote speakers of Huckabee and Nugent, both right wing nutjobs. And the 2010 speaker, Palin. WTF is so hard to understand about that?

The posters here who get upset about the NRA being attacked surprise the hell out of me. They want Obama defeated in 2012 and people here defend them about it.

by his voting record, support for the "new and improved" assault weapon ban and past statements.

And for the record I don't give a damn what you think of the NRA. WTF is so hard to understand about that?

Posters here seem to get mad at the lies told about the NRA and that surprises you? They want Obama and the Democratic party to remove renewal of the "new and improved" so called assault weapon ban removed from the party platform. It is costing elections. WTF is so hard to understand about that?

in the last two years is valid logic?

And you obviously ignore his direct statements where he said he didn't want to take guns from someone.

Some people, maybe you, hears the NRA say "Obama is anti-gun" and believe it hook, line and sinker. And the NRA loves your blind belief. They actually count on it.

So opening up the National Parks to guns, which he could easily have blocked, means nothing? But a vote in 1999 you want to hold over him? LOL....I understand where you are coming from now. Thanks for the clarification.

Do you think he would have signed the Parks piece, if it had been a stand-alone bill and not a rider on another critical issue?

if Obama was as anti-gun as your NRA says he is he would not have vetoed it?

He could have vetoed it and asked them to send it back without the gun part. That is what a true anti-gun President would have done.

You tried to make it sound like it was a "extend the national debt" type of bill. Nice try.

We have had none, if any setbacks since Obama was elected. But the NRA still promotes him as gun evil. And you believe it.

Was the credit bill of such importance that he was willing to "take one for the team", so-to-speak, and sign it anyway? Obviously. I was not at all implying that he was so anti-gun that he would do otherwise.


If the Parks bill had been a stand-alone law, do you think President Obama would have signed it? Going by his prior voting/speech record, I don't think so. Maybe I'm wrong. It would be nice if I was, but there's no evidence to support suach an assumption.

us votes. Maybe he is not a gun fan but I think he knows that he needs to not fight it and I don't think he wants to fight it.

But my point is that the NRA needs a bad guy. Obama is it.

Politicians do this sort of thing all the time...

Personally, I'd rather he stayed consistent, it would at least be proof of integrity. But again, he's a pol, and there are damn few of them with such a virtue.

Looking at ones voting record as an indicator of that persons beliefs, is not "blind belief".


Ignoring it on the other hand...


You were saying?

If Obama had vetoed the guns-in-parks he would have had to veto credit card reform. Sorry, he gets no pro-gun points for that.

The President's actual voting record in the Illinois Senate was decidedly anti gun ownership. He appeared several times with Daley at anti gun rallies while running for office and voted for every one of Daley's gun control proposals. He also did newspaper and TV interviews while campaigning for the state and US Senate and when the issue was raised he was a strong spokesperson for more gun control, Chicago style.

He also supported the DC gun ban until the Heller decision, then he wisely said it's settled law now. He stayed silent on the McDonald case AFAIK.

Telling the truth about his voting record and the historic stands he's taken on this issue is not lieing about him.

Since taking office he has been neutral to somewhat supportive of gun rights issues (carry in parks etc.) more as a political expediency than a change of heart IMHO, but neutral, none the less.

If you want to ignore his actual record, fine. But you can't pretend it's not there.

2012 predictions? That he is ready to change his whole tune? Really?

What else would you bas it on except the last 2 years of not attacking gun rights at all? Actually opening up national parks, etc.

The NRA is a bunch of right wing idiots. Pure and simple.

Wait until the election gets closer and see if you still like what the NRA says about OUR candidate. Wow, this forum surprises me.

Given the disconcerting amount of leeway the BATFE has in interpreting the NFA of '34 and the GCA of '68, and how it enforces those laws, having a director of the BATFE who is distinctly hostile to the RKBA would have significantly further-reaching repercussions for private gun ownership than any piece of legislation you could get through Congress even before the 2010 mid-terms.

As a lame duck president if he is offered a renewed ban, who is to say he will, or will not sign it. As he can not be reelected he may sign it, irregardless of the damage it will do to the Democratic Party. Then again he may not sign it and allow it to be law. Or he may even veto it.

Who knows? :shrug:

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

And it has jack and shit to do with who the speakers were at the annual meeting.

Reality is that Holder has been aggressively trying to gin up gun control support through the Justice department with the whole phony Mexican cartel issue starting with his new rifle reporting rules and I see no one trying to rein in the BATFE, do you?

No, I don't think he or anyone else is going to "take away our guns" but I also don't kid myself that he or many of his appointees won't take the chance if they get it to put more restrictions in place, including more SCOTUS apppointments like the last two that voted against McDonald and For Daley and Chicago, after both said in their sworn Senate hearings that they believed Heller was "settled law".

If Bush had appointed someone that agreed that Roe v. Wade was settled law in their Senate hearing, then a few months later voted to overturn it, would you trust them?

Of course it shows the direction they lean and the type of speakers they want delivering their message. Get a clue. There was many less right wing people who could speak and maybe actually pull in some dems to the pro-gun cause. But with Palin and Huckabee and Gingrich and Nugent you only get the extreme right giving a shit. I would not watch them speak on any topic. Because I know how they feel about other progressive issues. And unlike many here other progressive issues matter to me ALSO!!!

And are you really saying us gun owners and CCW holders LOST GROUND over the last two years under Obama? Really? We started losing the battle recently? I must have missed that.

You are too pro-gun or naive to see the NRA is playing you like a fiddle and their goal of keeping everyone scared and thinking that any minute the Dems will swoop in your home and take your guns is working 100% on people like you.

I hope Obama gets to pick two new SCOTUS members his next term. And my need for them to be pro-progressive greatly out weighs my need for them to be pro-gun. The gun battle is over. We won!!! And soon IL and WI will be CCW also.

Lose the NRA induced paranoia!

conspiracy theory posters here.

YUP

YUP

YUP

Why are you always so rude when someone does not 100% agree with your idea of gun rights?

No more need to discuss anything with you. You are too biased to have a discussion with.

The speakers have nothing to do with Obama's actual record on this issue. You are showing yourself to be exactly the kind of blind, "screaming mimi" about the NRA the OP is talking about.

You choose to ignore the President's entire record before he was President and hope for the best. That's your choice.

But don't fly into an online, spittle flecked rage at people that choose to consider his entire public record, instead of cherry picking a few bills and two years as the parameters to define his POV. I've been listening to the man talk about his feelings on guns and gunowners for the last 6 years, long before he ever made any speeches at the conventions where most people here first heard about him.

Eric Holder is a nightmare for gun owners, both his SCOTUS picks likewise. His choice for BATFE head is a proven liar and gun grabber who is on the record about repealing CCW anywhere he can.

"Under the radar"

Any of those things "good" things, in your view?

bad they don't stick around to talk.

went way down quick. Only one person stayed to post. Though that poster tended to want to discuss something OTHER than what was posted. Why do they do that, try to take the discussion in a different direction?

The original post was about "NRA" and "Deception". Understand that so far?

My response was about "NRA" and "Deception".

Read this again and let me know if I was off topic! :-)

Civil discourse?

Maybe I'm not sufficiently DU literate but what is this and how do you know it?

Semper Fi,

The purpose of these is that a highly recommended thread is displayed on the front page. In practice, it's more often used to signal approval or disapproval of the OP (original post).

A "drive-by unrec" is the act of hitting the "Unrecommend" button without posting comment on why you don't like the thread. Some posters consider it somewhat cowardly, since reccing or unreccing is anonymous.

Didn't think so.

Didn't think so.

Didn't think so.

So did SCOTUS (twice) and both houses of Congress along with the head of pretty much every law school on the country.

But I guess you know better than all those fools.

Either that or your haven't read a newspaper or blog in the last decade about the issue. Say, I heard Dewey beat Truman and the Hindenburg went down, you hear anything about that too?