The N.R.A. Is Naming Names

Status
Not open for further replies.

FRIZ

Member
Joined
May 24, 2003
Messages
193
Here is a sample of what is fed to the masses.


The New York Times
October 13, 2003

The N.R.A. Is Naming Names
By BOB HERBERT

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/13/opinion/13HERB.html

The National Rifle Association doesn't call it an enemies list, but deep in the recesses of the organization's Web site is a long, long compilation of the names of groups and individuals that the N.R.A. considers unfriendly.

I'm happy to report that I'm on the list, but my name is truly one among very many. The A.F.L.-C.I.O. is there, and the American Academy of Pediatrics. The Children's Defense Fund and the Lutheran Office for Governmental Affairs are there. The United States Catholic Conference, the U.S. Conference of Mayors and the Y.W.C.A. of the U.S.A. are all there.

Among the celebrities on the list are Dr. Joyce Brothers, Candice Bergen, Walter Cronkite, Doug Flutie, Michelle Pfeiffer, Vinny Testaverde, Moon Zappa and the Temptations.

Also on the list are the Kansas City Chiefs, Hallmark Cards, the Sara Lee Corporation, Ben & Jerry's, and Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas City.

I'm sure there's a method to the N.R.A. madness, but to tell you the truth, all I can see is the madness.

All of the groups and individuals listed are supposed to be anti-gun. I can't speak for the Kansas City Chiefs or Moon Zappa, but I'm not anti-gun. I think soldiers, the police and certain other law enforcement officials should have guns. Civilians, however, should be required to demonstrate a good reason for having firearms. We should go to great lengths to keep guns out of the hands of children, criminals and insane people. All guns should be registered. And all gun owners should be properly trained and licensed.

The N.R.A. sees this as a radical, even lunatic position. So I guess we're at odds.

I asked Andrew Arulanandam, the N.R.A.'s director of public affairs, why the list had been compiled and displayed on the Web site. He said, "We put the list together in response to many requests by our members wanting to know which organizations support the rights of law-abiding Americans to keep and bear arms, and which organizations didn't."

I asked what he thought his members would do with the information. He said, "How they use the information is at their own discretion."

I recently read Jules Witcover's book "The Year the Dream Died: Revisiting 1968 in America." The murders that year of Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy were among the great tragedies of U.S. history. Both were killed by freaks with guns.

What is not so well known now is that President Lyndon Johnson tried, in the aftermath of the murders, to get Congress to pass legislation requiring the registration of guns and the licensing of owners. The gun lobby fought and killed that effort, and it continues to fight to the death any attempt to bring sanity to the manufacture, sale and possession of guns.

Between 1968, the year of Johnson's failure to get his legislation passed, and 2001, the last year for which complete statistics are available, more than one million Americans were killed by firearms.

No number of gun-related fatalities or serious injuries is sufficient to deter the N.R.A. from its fanatical course. A former N.R.A. lawyer has admitted in an affidavit in a lawsuit that distributors and gun dealers have for years been illegally diverting guns that end up in the hands of criminals, and that the industry has closed its eyes to the practice.

Instead of fighting to end this threat to the public's safety, the gun lobby and its allies in Congress are pushing legislation that would protect the practice by granting special immunity from liability to gun manufacturers and sellers.

The big item on the legislative agenda next year is the federal assault-weapons ban signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1994. Because of a sunset provision, the law will expire next September if it is not renewed by Congress and the president. The gun lobby has made it clear that it will do all in its power to bury the ban. The plan is to not even let the issue come up for a vote.

The N.R.A. Web site and its enemies list (which looks like nothing so much as a broad cross-section of America) has led inevitably to a counter Web site, nrablacklist.com, created by a group called stopthenra.com. In addition to facing off against the gun lobby on legislative matters, the new group and its site are inviting people to volunteer for a spot on the N.R.A. enemies list.

Ah, free expression.
 
:barf:

How many people, in that same time period, have died in motor vehicle accidents?:scrutiny: They're already registered, and drivers are required to be licensed, yet they kill more people than guns.
 
I'm not anti-gun. I think soldiers, the police and certain other law enforcement officials should have guns. Civilians, however, should be required to demonstrate a good reason for having firearms. We should go to great lengths to keep guns out of the hands of children, criminals and insane people. All guns should be registered. And all gun owners should be properly trained and licensed.

:barf:

I'm not anti-gun either. I think that soldiers, the police, certian other law enforcement officials, and absouletly everyone else who lives in america should have the right to choose the means to defend and protect themselves and their families. Civilians, however, should not ever have to demonstrate any reason for having firearms. Seeing as how the right to defend yourself from the criminals who will always have guns, as the UK has so wonderfully shown, no matter what laws are passed will always be around. We should go to great lengths to teach and educate children about the dangers of guns and about proper gun saftey. Seeing as how there are plenty of laws to keep guns out of the hands of criminals but are seldom enforced as harshly as they should be, there should also be a national movement to enforce these already existing laws. Guns should not ever be regestered, seeing as how, historically, regestration has always led to later confiscation. And all gun owners should be properly educated on the dangers of guns and about proper gun saftey.

Did I leave anything out or mess anything up?
 
Taken from gunowners.org after a search on "gun registration and genocide"

Gun Control and Genocide
As bad as the five-day waiting period was, the danger it posed was far less than that of the Instant Registration Check. The Brady Instant Registration Check is the foundation for a national, centralized, computerized registration list of gun owners. And the lessons to be learned from countries abroad show that registration is a disease that must be avoided like the plague.

In an exhaustive study on the subject of foreign gun control, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership has researched and translated several gun control laws from other countries. Their publication, Lethal Laws: "Gun Control" is the Key to Genocide, documents how gun control (and confiscation) has preceded the slaughter and genocide of millions of people in Turkey, the Soviet Union, Germany, China, Cambodia and other countries.38

Once the identification of gun owners is in place (registration), the thugs in power (a.k.a. the government) confiscated firearms. In Rwanda, they also confiscated machetes. Then the slaughter of the target population began -- Jews in Nazi Germany, Ukrainians and others in Soviet Russia, Christians in Uganda, Indians in Guatemala, the educated in Cambodia and so forth.

This is not to say that genocide must follow the confiscation of firearms -- just like the removing of a fire extinguisher from a home does not mean the house must catch on fire.

History teaches, however, that guns (like fire extinguishers) are effective insurance policies. Many problems could have been prevented if decent people had the freedom to choose the best "insurance" available to them. And many people could have retained their "insurance" if they had never been registered in the first place.

The figures are in. During the past century alone, governments have slaughtered their tens of millions, the Al Capones their scores and hundreds.39 Yet Sarah Brady, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) and the other advocates of civilian disarmament breeze right on past the killing fields of our recent past. They also overlook the massive threat to personal security posed by center-city street gangs.

Instead, their desire is to convince us all that it is the guns of the victims that are at fault -- decent people wishing to protect themselves from the criminals set loose on our streets by our government. We are watching a monumental shifting of the blame from those who have brought us a failed system of criminal justice. They want us to look not at murderers put out on the street. Rather than blame murderers, "blame guns" we are told.

Our answer to the civilian disarmament crowd has to be that crime is their fault, not the fault of gun owners. Gun control laws kill. When stating our position, we must not fall into the trap of agreeing to policies, such as the Instant Registration Check, that make disarmament possible. We should press on for what we want -- the free exercise of a constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. After all, we will never get more than we ask for.

Gun controllers are the friends of criminals and the enemies of freedom. They arrogantly assume that only they (and their buddies in the government) are responsible enough to be trusted with guns. The watchword should be that guns save lives, gun control kills. And the Instant Registration Check is gun control -- a threat to every citizen.

Should I email the gentleman a copy? Would it do any good?

Adios
 
Someone is missing from that list.
attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • nra_ar_10_68_pg10.gif
    nra_ar_10_68_pg10.gif
    83.2 KB · Views: 1,064
Pal,

If you are for the registration of guns, I hate to break it to you, but you are anti-gun. And if you think a law-abiding citizen should have to show a need to exercise a constitutional right, you are most decidedly anti-gun.
 
It's madness to moron writers for the joke that is the Times, discredited as they are by "journalists" who like to make up stories. But it's method to those in the majority who want to boycott those companies hostile to our 2nd amendment rights, as all of those on the list are. As for Heston, people can change, and the good he has done far outweighs the bad he did 35 years ago. Contrast this to the anti-gun company called Ruger, who was instrumental in passing the 94 gun ban, which is much more violative of our rights than the 68 GCA, yet Ruger has done NOTHING to atone for their violently anti-rights stance at that time. Yet, some unmitigated traitors still buy Ruger products. Doesn't make sense to me, but that's tangential to the topic at hand...
 
Whats wrong?

QUOTE]I asked Andrew Arulanandam, the N.R.A.'s director of public affairs, why the list had been compiled and displayed on the Web site. He said, "We put the list together in response to many requests by our members wanting to know which organizations support the rights of law-abiding Americans to keep and bear arms, and which organizations didn't."[/QUOTE]

I am a member of the NRA and I want them to come up with their list. What else is the NRA for and what else are they so good at? It's what politics is all about.
 
Nothing more than the doublethink rantings of a paranoid halfwit.

*ding ding* We have a winner! :D

It's funny how mainstream these sort of extremists seem to think they are when they write this garbage. They act as if 99% of America stands behind them against the evil, eeeeeeevil gun nuts. :rolleyes:
 
You're at odds with about 75% of the people in this country, too - so get over it.

Don't be ridiculous! He asked around at the last Malibu cocktail party he attended and everyone there was anti-gun!

Keith
 
...I'm not anti-gun. I think soldiers, the police and certain other law enforcement officials should have guns. Civilians, however, should be required to demonstrate a good reason for having firearms. We should go to great lengths to keep guns out of the hands of children, criminals and insane people. All guns should be registered. And all gun owners should be properly trained and licensed.

[SARCASM]...I'm not anti-opinion. I think journalists, university professors and other intellectuals ought to have word processors. Civilians, however, should be required to demonstrate a capability to think correctly before they're allowed to express an opinion. We should go to great lengths to keep dangerous and subversive ideas from the minds of children, criminals, and insane people. All word processors, fax machines, printers, and email should be registered. And all writers should be properly trained and licensed. [/SARCASM]

Gheeeesh. I guess by this point I shouldn't be surprised at what the NYT puts out, but you'd think that someone who makes a living off the power of the First Amendment, might think to read a little further. I mean after all, it's not like we're asking that Herbert read all the way to the Tenth Amendment. Just get to the next one. The Second Amendment is every bit as relevant as the First.

Herbert's a maroon.
 
Between 1968, the year of Johnson's failure to get his legislation passed, and 2001, the last year for which complete statistics are available, more than one million Americans were killed by firearms.
Sources please. Mr. Herbert, you just can not keep these statistics where the sun doesn't shine then pull them out at an opportune time. That figure sounds suspiciously like the 300 homeless who die every day or the 13 "children" who day daily because of guns. The day of you people being able to performing an anal extraction on statistics and getting away with it are over.

If, Sir, I find one factual error, mistake, or lie in your piece, I am justified in dismissing everything you wrote. The only reason you earn a living at writing is because you have "credibility." Don't waste it.
 
one million Americans were killed by firearms.

Those horrid guns, they never learn, do they? Listen, Herb, millions of Americans enjoy firearms responsibly. Those are the good guys. A handful of criminal thugs and irresponsible nitwits misuse firearms. Those are the bad guys. Concentrate your efforts on the bad guys and we won't have a problem here.
 
Ah, free expression

Ya know, Mr. Herbert, I agree!

So lets see the NYT run a pro-gun editorial.

I think soldiers, the police and certain other law enforcement officials should have guns. Civilians, however, should be required to demonstrate a good reason for having firearms

Hey, at least he didn't trot out the played out "hunters" caveat. :rolleyes:
 
I'm not anti-gun. I think soldiers, the police and certain other law enforcement officials should have guns. Civilians, however, should be required to demonstrate a good reason for having firearms. We should go to great lengths to keep guns out of the hands of children, criminals and insane people. All guns should be registered. And all gun owners should be properly trained and licensed.



The only thing that makes sence from this, is keeping guns out of the hands of children and criminals.The rest of it is bla bla bla
 
I don't think this guy has demonstrated a good reason for expressing himself.

</wiseass>

Some people just don't think things through for themselves!!! They follow the mainstream, spouting off every unsupported "statistic" that they come across.

Come one. Pull your head out. The oxygen might do you some good. :rolleyes:

Be a freethinker. :rolleyes:

Wes
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top