Tonight (Aug. 18, 2005) Nightline attacks NRA

Status
Not open for further replies.

F4GIB

Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2003
Messages
1,165
Location
Midwest
Nightline
Outgunned
Aug. 18, 2005

Sometimes it's necessary to pull the curtain back to
fully appreciate how Washington works. When Congress
was rushing to leave town in July for its summer
recess and many eyes were elsewhere, the Senate passed
a major bill sponsored by the National Rifle
Association that gives gun manufacturers and dealers
sweeping protection against lawsuits resulting from
the illegal use of firearms. In other words, it bars
all civil liability actions related to the misuse of
firearms by a third party, meaning criminals. Most
victims of gun crimes and their families won't be able
to seek recourse in court. The legislation wouldn't
have passed last year. But, oh, what a difference a
year can make. And therein lies the tale.

In one sense, 9/11 was a catalyst for the NRA's recent
surge in membership and clout. The attacks in New
York and at the Pentagon didn't convince people to buy
guns to protect themselves from terrorists, but it did
plant the notion that guns might help protect them
from civil disorder and looting that could follow a
terrorist attack. Many who didn't own a gun bought one
for the first time. In fact, the NRA membership has
doubled since the 1990s. And with that growth has
come increasing clout, so much that the NRA helped
defeat Sen. John Kerry in his bid for the presidency,
former Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle for
re-election and helped convince the Senate to pass the
legislation to protect gunmakers and dealers it
refused to do in the past.

To underscore the NRA's clout, this bill also does
something somewhat rare -- it applies to pending
lawsuits. And the NRA did all this with the backing
of Democrats who haven't always been supporrtive. Why?
Democratic senators from states where the NRA is
strong can't afford to cross the gun lobby. The ghost
of Tom Daschle is a powerful reminder that one takes
on the NRA at his own peril. And supporters of gun
control are too outspent and outmaneuvered these days
to compete.

Tonight, Correspondent John Cochran takes us inside
the one of the most effective lobbies in Washington,
the NRA.
 
The ghost of Tom Daschle is a powerful reminder that one takes on the NRA at his own peril.

I'm proud to tell you I've been an N.R.A. member since 1976, and have been a small scale, but regular, frequent contributor to the N.R.A. I.L.A. and N.R.A. P.V.F. all these years.

We've worked long and hard for this kind of clout. May its strength increase!
 
The ghost of Tom Daschle is a powerful reminder that one takes on the NRA at his own peril.

They didn't believe us when we de-Foley-ated Washington. Perhaps they are beginning to see the light? Naaaaaaaah!

Pops
 
When you run into somebody who's against guns and the NRA, point out to them that when the NRA wins, it has won for its enemies as well as its friends--and the cost to its enemies is zero, zilch, zip, nada. The NRA--and the other pro-gun groups--spends its members' money to secure the rights of its enemies. What other lobbying group does that?

No other lobbying group besides the pro-gun folks has successes that do not in some way take money from the taxpayer. No subsidies, no grants, no tax breaks, no corporate welfare.

Art
 
Watch the program before you call it an attack. The description almost sounds like good propaganda for our side. The NRA defeated Kerry and Daschle!?

~G. Fink
 
The NRA did all that/ Wow!

Think I might become a life member in that case!


G
 
I agree, it sounds like a pretty balanced report. So far they just tell it the way it is. The liberals can whine about the NRA all they want, but the facts remain, we are winning and there isn't a darn thing they can do about it! :D
 
In other words, it bars
all civil liability actions related to the misuse of
firearms by a third party, meaning criminals. Most
victims of gun crimes and their families won't be able
to seek recourse in court.

Because if I run someone over in an F-350, they can sue Ford.

Anyone catch the show? How was it?
 
i caught the last 15 min. all they were talking about was how powerful the nra is. but they seemed to give the nra spokesman his fair share of time. (maybe abc's afraid of the nra too) one thing they never made clear is WHY the nra is so powerful. i think it's clear as day but i don't think the antis is gov. get it. the nra is powerful because The People have made it that way. they say it's because of the gun industry deep pockets, well The People have given the gun industry it's deep pockets by buying guns. for example (without any facts to back it up) i'd be willing to bet that Walmart alone (just for example) has deeper pockets than the entire gun industry, but you don't here politicians whining that "wallmart bullied me to vote for lowering the minimum wage and letting them hire illegal aliens." well that's because the walmart position would be unpopular and no one would vote for them again. where as the nra's position is popular and gains the votes of The People.

rant off
 
Is KFC Good Fast Food?

I watched it and thought it was generally fair and objective. Ted Koppel is a balanced professional. However, there was one sound bite of an NRA exec. giving a home speech about how, once Bush gets into the White House, the NRA will be running their own office from out of there! A little bit of "puffing" that serves to inflame John Q. Public, even if only to a small degree.
The show also answered the question matter of factly of why the Dem's don't go very public with the anti-NRA rhetoric anymore, it's costing them big time in the critical swing states, etc...despite poll figures indicating 87% of Americans support the same or more gun control.
Overall, lots of interesting, largely unbiased analysis with a very academic type guest journalist. They squeezed alot into a half hour show. I'd rate the show an 87 or B+. ;)
 
The ghost of Tom Daschle is a powerful reminder that one takes on the NRA at his own peril.
OMG, do you mean that gun owners and NRA members actually have the audacity to vote in their OWN interest, rather than OURS? HOW DARE THEY!!! :p
 
Lol

haaa cuchulainn You took the words right out of my mouth......who STILL watches nightline....thats so 1980's...
 
I've been a member since 1978, when I got my first .22 rifle. I think that I might have let it expire a couple of times, but not for long. Mostly been a regular member since 1978. It's important that we keep their numbers high. Sign up your nephews as birthday or Christmas presents to them. They get the magazine, which, if they are interested in guns or hunting, will be enjoyed by them.
 
I saw the entire thing, and in reality, the big picture was that it was NOT fair and balanced, due to the glaring omission of the REASONS why the seemingly faceless monolithic monster known as the NRA is so damned powerful - because of the rank and file grassroots MEMBERS who are active with their civil rights! Sure on the surface the broadcast had some balance of views, but overall, it was carefully crafted to convey the picture that NRA is some massive evil force, driven solely by a few rich people in the gun manuf. industry, and not the mainstream, grassroots, citizen-focused group that it is! :fire: Pure (well-done) propoganda, in my view.
 
Maybe I missed something....

But I did not get the warm & fuzzy as far as objectiveness is concerned. If you remember in the beginning of the program, Koppel prefaced the story by implying that mainstream media (which Koppel is a part of) is not on the side of the NRA. Then the rest of the story was spent indicating how powerful the NRA has become and how influential they are. It came across to me as a "beware of the NRA" type of message. I interpreted it as a last ditch effort of the gun control lobby to get their message of fear out to the sheeple so as to scare them into pushing gun control at the grass roots level.

The story did show that there is a newfound respect for the NRA by the gun-control crowd. However, if you noticed, they attributed most of the success of the past few years to an organization (NRA) and not to the millions of citizens who do not wish to have their rights trampled. They kept speaking of the power and influence (and money) of a well-connected organization rather than pointing out the fact that this group would be nothing if there were no grass-roots support by the citizens who are clearly not buying into the Brady Bunch's lies.

I don't know...I'm sure there will be some positive fallout regarding those future political candidates in that they will get the message that being anti-2nd amendment is political suicide. That's a good thing for us.

However, I'm not as positive overall about this story. To me, it still seems to paint the 2nd amendment crowd as some sort of fringe group whose views are prevailing because they are simply better organized and financed rather than the fact that our position is based on sound reasoning, supports the spirit of what our founding fathers intended, and is simply right.

g_gunter
 
Good post GunGoBoom

GunGoBoom, you got your message out before I could. Looks like we are on the same page. I'm not alone afterall. :)

g_gunter
 
"fair and balanced" = not ABC or Fox

Koppel drove me up the wall with an "assault weapons" Nightline story a few years back. Then there was another Nightline story on the Marine Corps or something that almost made me blow a gasket. . . .
 
This is why the stupid leftist sheeple can't comprehend why the NRA is so powerful: They think the NRA consists of gun industry corporations and politicians. Like the foundations run by liberals, the Joyce Foundation, ACLU, and the Soros front organizations.

They can't wrap it around their little simple minds that the NRA is made of millions of normal people, that spend ALOT of money, and VOTE. It doesn't matter how much money George Soros spends, he still only gets 1 vote and corporations don't get any votes at all.
 
DelayedReaction hit on my thoughts. The reason why the liability protection was done was because judges could not be trusted to throw those stupid lawsuits out of court. If I tried to sue Ford because someone ran into me, the judge would probably laugh at me while he dismissed it out of hand (that is assuming the lawyers I tried to hire didn't laugh at me first). This is really just an attempt to limit frivolous lawsuits.
 
-------Boofus Quote---------------------
This is why the stupid leftist sheeple can't comprehend why the NRA is so powerful: They think the NRA consists of gun industry corporations and politicians. Like the foundations run by liberals, the Joyce Foundation, ACLU, and the Soros front organizations.
They can't wrap it around their little simple minds that the NRA is made of millions of normal people, that spend ALOT of money, and VOTE. It doesn't matter how much money George Soros spends, he still only gets 1 vote and corporations don't get any votes at all.
-----------------------------------------
Agreed, Boofus.

Another thought springs to mind, reading this... We hear a lot on this board about how the NRA is really against gun owners, all they want to do is cooperate with the VPC, they compromise away our rights, they aren't suing the government for our right to own tactical nukes, etc. Well, from the way the other side is squealing, you'd almost think the NRA is accomplishing something effective. You don't hear the liberals squealing about the Organization for Unrestricted Private Ownership of Tactical Nukes much, do you?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top