PDA

View Full Version : Al-Jazeera shows why I will never join NRA.


r3dn3ck
02-06-2011, 6:39 AM
Not news: A non-profit organization is accused of funneling millions into the pockets of its executives. News: It's the NRA. Fark: Al Jazeera called them on their shiat

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/02/20112375421439250.html

BigDogatPlay
02-06-2011, 6:48 AM
So what would Al Jazeera's vested interest be in putting the NRA in a bad light?

First rule when reading opinion pieces disguised as news reporting...... consider the source.

:rolleyes:

Pyrodyne
02-06-2011, 6:59 AM
In other words, what the NRA does has nothing to do with its members. They have created ever more lethal gun designs, laughably argue that one needs high-capacity clips for "defencive situations", (you never know when Genghis Khan and a platoon of Mongol soldiers might be right around the corner) and have supported concealed carry laws, according to Diaz, all in an attempt to keep selling ever more guns and gun paraphernalia.

It's not about the rights of hunters and sportsmen. It's simply about the right of Wayne LaPierre and his plutocratic pals on the NRA board to get ever richer as the body count mounts.

I wasn't aware that the pictured AR-15 was an NRA design. I could have sworn that it was Eugene Stoner.

Yes, how laughable that you might want to have the same capacity magazines as a criminal that uses them against you.

There is that "hunters and sportsmen" argument again. They fail to recognize the right to self defense.

This "article" is full of the same jingles we hear from openly anti-gun organizations. Also, it is an opinion - stated clearly at the top of the page. Pure FUD.

Henry Shooter
02-06-2011, 7:00 AM
Discrediting an establishment for the betterment of the Global Gun Ban.

Agent Orange
02-06-2011, 7:02 AM
While I'm not a fan of the NRA that's merely an opinion piece by Cliff Schecter. A bit of google fu will show where he stands on gun control.

tacster
02-06-2011, 7:03 AM
So what would Al Jazeera's vested interest be in putting the NRA in a bad light?

First rule when reading opinion pieces disguised as news reporting...... consider the source.

:rolleyes:

i believe it.

pdugan6
02-06-2011, 7:06 AM
"With their decision to reject the calculated negotiation of their previous "old guard" board members, who for example, came out publicly in support of a proposed ban on .38 Specials by then-senator Birch Bayh of Indiana, they embarked upon a "no compromise" plan of action for the future" Yes that is called protecting all gun rights! Just what we would expect them to do. to pick and chose what is allowable for a civilian is not their goal. That is reserved for the likes of Boxer and Feinstein. gggggggrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!

glockwise2000
02-06-2011, 7:10 AM
Al-Jazeera is sleeping with Obama to plan a Worldwide Gun Ban.

If Al-Jazeera can get us disarmed, then the Muslim Brotherhood would start attacking US soil for their world dominance. IMO.

Just stop listening or reading anything that could take our eyes from our goal, to arm as many citizens as possible.

wash
02-06-2011, 7:11 AM
That's a lot of BS.

How can MidwayUSA's round up program be the gun industry funnelling millions to the NRA? They are asking their customers to send money and they are sending it to the legal defense fund, not the pool that salaries are drawn from.

As for Brownells sponsoring youth shooting sports, I'm all for it.

I've got no issue with what Barret is doing either.

Wayne's salary is high compared to other non-profits but not compared to executives in general. It's probably well deserved.

The NRA isn't perfect but this conspiracy they have found is a joke. We should be glad that the NRA is as good as it is.

003
02-06-2011, 7:13 AM
The NRA is the very best way to fight the anti gun crowd. This article is just a very good example of the anti crowd at work. Making the NRA good bad is a good tactic to split off gun owners who do not understand how devious the anti gun folks are. Of course the firearms industry supports the NRA, why would they not? Most if not all firearm business owners are shooters and gun enthusiasts themselves. It only makes sense to support like minded groups.

As I recall, Al-Jazeera praised the 9-11 bombers. Let's remember who and what Al-Jazeera is and who they support. Al-Jazeera has their own agenda and is not an impartial legitimate news organization. If the anti's need to use an organization like Al-Jazeera to publish their drivel then it shows how little influence they really have.

Oceanbob
02-06-2011, 7:19 AM
That's a lot of BS.

How can MidwayUSA's round up program be the gun industry funnelling millions to the NRA? They are asking their customers to send money and they are sending it to the legal defense fund, not the pool that salaries are drawn from.

As for Brownells sponsoring youth shooting sports, I'm all for it.

I've got no issue with what Barret is doing either.

Wayne's salary is high compared to other non-profits but not compared to executives in general. It's probably well deserved.

The NRA isn't perfect but this conspiracy they have found is a joke. We should be glad that the NRA is as good as it is.

THIS^^^^^^

'Funneling 7.5 million since 1992..'..heck..that's not much money at all over a 19 year time-frame....

I like Wayne and his leadership; no compromise and no excuses.

JMO

1859sharps
02-06-2011, 7:34 AM
Not news: A non-profit organization is accused of funneling millions into the pockets of its executives. News: It's the NRA. Fark: Al Jazeera called them on their shiat

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/02/20112375421439250.html

right and Al Jazeera is such an unbiased source of news about the US and western world :rolleyes:

HUTCH 7.62
02-06-2011, 7:38 AM
I would rather have the NRA funnel millions into the hands of it's executives. Instead of Muslims Funneling Billions into the hands of Muslim Terrorist organizations during the same time period. This article is FUD plan and simple.

ScottB
02-06-2011, 7:40 AM
First off, the NRA is not a charity or philanthropic organization (i.e. not a 501(c)3) so the article's inference is incorrect. The same organization includes the NRA in its "Top Rated Charities" list, giving it an "A" grade. Apparently they include all nonprofits, including advocacy groups under the term "charities" Charity Navigator does not include c4 groups. CEO compensation is relatively high these days. NRA's annual revenues are probably well north of $150MM/yr. I wonder what the CEO of Al Jazeera makes and what their revenues are.

But let's look at the list and see how LaPierre's compensation compares to CEOs of organizations that are charities. Here are the other members of the million dollar club (and there are a bunch just below $1MM/yr) http://www.charitywatch.org/hottopics/Top25.html

Harold Varmus, M.D., President/CEO Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center $2,677,306

William Barram, Past National VP, Division Services American Cancer Society $2,428,592
Includes $1,096,232 in supplemental executive retirement plan and $866,041 other retirement benefits. CEO John Seffrin earned $1,316,356, including $386,562 in deferred compensation.

Roger Chapin, Past President
Help Hospitalized Veterans $2,239,346
Includes a retirement benefit of $1,955,269.

Wayne LaPierre, Executive VP/Ex-Officio National Rifle Association & Foundation, respectively $1,281,635

Edward J. Benz, M.D., President Dana-Farber Cancer Institute/Jimmy Fund $1,233,800

Robert J. Mazzuca, Chief Scout Executive Boy Scouts of America - N.O. $1,163,472

M. Cass Wheeler, Past CEO American Heart Association/American Stroke Association $1,090,769
Includes $300,000 severence payment.

Brian A. Gallagher, President/CEO
United Way Worldwide $1,037,140
Includes "non-qualified pension imputed income of $410,131."

Ernest Allen, President/CEO National Center for Missing & Exploited Children $1,028,533
Includes $422,337 retirement and other deferred compensation, of which $330,944 is a catch-up amount for underfunded retirement benefits in previous years.

Edwin J. Feulner, President Heritage Foundation $1,008,094
Stephanie Streeter, Past CEO United States Olympic Committee $1,006,336
Includes $558,462 bonus and incentive compensation.


Second, the "Good Guys" is a well known anti-gun front groups pretending to be something they are not. They are dishonest from the get-go. They were a creation of the Freedom States Alliance (FSA), an anti-gun organization that went broke after Heller (HA!) and merged with a similar group, "States United to Prevent Gun Violence". Google all those groups and you'll see.

So, the Al Jazeera article was nothing more than a pretty transparent hit piece. The question is why? Are they just trying polish their credentials as part of the liberal inside-the-beltway media? Or are they adding to the drumbeat for the UN jihad against private firearms ownership?

guns4life
02-06-2011, 7:43 AM
First off, the NRA is not a charity or philanthropic organization (i.e. not a 501(c)3) so the article's inference is incorrect. The same organization includes the NRA in its "Top Rated Charities" list, giving it an "A" grade. Apparently they include all nonprofits, including advocacy groups under the term "charities" Charity Navigator does not include c4 groups. CEO compensation is relatively high these days. NRA's annual revenues are probably well north of $150MM/yr. I wonder what the CEO of Al Jazeera makes and what their revenues are.

But let's look at the list and see how LaPierre's compensation compares to CEOs of organizations that are charities. Here are the other members of the million dollar club (and there are a bunch just below $1MM/yr) http://www.charitywatch.org/hottopics/Top25.html

Harold Varmus, M.D., President/CEO Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center $2,677,306

William Barram, Past National VP, Division Services American Cancer Society $2,428,592
Includes $1,096,232 in supplemental executive retirement plan and $866,041 other retirement benefits. CEO John Seffrin earned $1,316,356, including $386,562 in deferred compensation.

Roger Chapin, Past President
Help Hospitalized Veterans $2,239,346
Includes a retirement benefit of $1,955,269.

Wayne LaPierre, Executive VP/Ex-Officio National Rifle Association & Foundation, respectively $1,281,635

Edward J. Benz, M.D., President Dana-Farber Cancer Institute/Jimmy Fund $1,233,800

Robert J. Mazzuca, Chief Scout Executive Boy Scouts of America - N.O. $1,163,472

M. Cass Wheeler, Past CEO American Heart Association/American Stroke Association $1,090,769
Includes $300,000 severence payment.

Brian A. Gallagher, President/CEO
United Way Worldwide $1,037,140
Includes "non-qualified pension imputed income of $410,131."

Ernest Allen, President/CEO National Center for Missing & Exploited Children $1,028,533
Includes $422,337 retirement and other deferred compensation, of which $330,944 is a catch-up amount for underfunded retirement benefits in previous years.

Edwin J. Feulner, President Heritage Foundation $1,008,094
Stephanie Streeter, Past CEO United States Olympic Committee $1,006,336
Includes $558,462 bonus and incentive compensation.


Second, the "Good Guys" is a well known anti-gun front groups pretending to be something they are not. They are dishonest from the get-go. They were a creation of the Freedom States Alliance (FSA), an anti-gun organization that went broke after Heller (HA!) and merged with a similar group, "States United to Prevent Gun Violence". Google all those groups and you'll see.

So, the Al Jazeera article was nothing more than a pretty transparent hit piece. The question is why? Are they just trying polish their credentials as part of the liberal inside-the-beltway media? Or are they adding to the drumbeat for the UN jihad against private firearms ownership?


spot on. For the head of the NRA to be compensated a mere million dollars is laughable! Sounds like we need to increase donations to get that pay up a couple of notches...


I pasted these stats as a comment...


ETA:

In general I think people are confusing "profit" with "salary". The heads of these companies are employees, they provide a service(by doing their jobs), and are then compensated for it. The only difference between what they do and what you do(anybody not on their pay level) is the value placed on the task they perform(that value is set by the person(s) who hired them). WLP is not the NRA, he's just an employee doing a job for a paycheck.

yakmon
02-06-2011, 7:44 AM
you trust what al-jezzera has to say about the nra? seriously? isn't that like getting agricultural news from peta?

Oceanbob
02-06-2011, 7:47 AM
First off, the NRA is not a charity or philanthropic organization (i.e. not a 501(c)3) so the article's inference is incorrect. The same organization includes the NRA in its "Top Rated Charities" list, giving it an "A" grade. Apparently they include all nonprofits, including advocacy groups under the term "charities" Charity Navigator does not include c4 groups. CEO compensation is relatively high these days. NRA's annual revenues are probably well north of $150MM/yr. I wonder what the CEO of Al Jazeera makes and what their revenues are.

But let's look at the list and see how LaPierre's compensation compares to CEOs of organizations that are charities. Here are the other members of the million dollar club (and there are a bunch just below $1MM/yr) http://www.charitywatch.org/hottopics/Top25.html

Harold Varmus, M.D., President/CEO Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center $2,677,306

William Barram, Past National VP, Division Services American Cancer Society $2,428,592
Includes $1,096,232 in supplemental executive retirement plan and $866,041 other retirement benefits. CEO John Seffrin earned $1,316,356, including $386,562 in deferred compensation.

Roger Chapin, Past President
Help Hospitalized Veterans $2,239,346
Includes a retirement benefit of $1,955,269.

Wayne LaPierre, Executive VP/Ex-Officio National Rifle Association & Foundation, respectively $1,281,635

Edward J. Benz, M.D., President Dana-Farber Cancer Institute/Jimmy Fund $1,233,800

Robert J. Mazzuca, Chief Scout Executive Boy Scouts of America - N.O. $1,163,472

M. Cass Wheeler, Past CEO American Heart Association/American Stroke Association $1,090,769
Includes $300,000 severence payment.

Brian A. Gallagher, President/CEO
United Way Worldwide $1,037,140
Includes "non-qualified pension imputed income of $410,131."

Ernest Allen, President/CEO National Center for Missing & Exploited Children $1,028,533
Includes $422,337 retirement and other deferred compensation, of which $330,944 is a catch-up amount for underfunded retirement benefits in previous years.

Edwin J. Feulner, President Heritage Foundation $1,008,094
Stephanie Streeter, Past CEO United States Olympic Committee $1,006,336
Includes $558,462 bonus and incentive compensation.


Second, the "Good Guys" is a well known anti-gun front groups pretending to be something they are not. They are dishonest from the get-go. They were a creation of the Freedom States Alliance (FSA), an anti-gun organization that went broke after Heller (HA!) and merged with a similar group, "States United to Prevent Gun Violence". Google all those groups and you'll see.

So, the Al Jazeera article was nothing more than a pretty transparent hit piece. The question is why? Are they just trying polish their credentials as part of the liberal inside-the-beltway media? Or are they adding to the drumbeat for the UN jihad against private firearms ownership?

Perfect post. THIS..!^^^^

Cali-Shooter
02-06-2011, 7:55 AM
What the hell does a NON-AMERICAN news source know about the NRA? Like someone before me said, that's like taking agricultural news from a PETA source seriously. Don't you think that the fundamentalist jihadist nations would rather find any venue to get America to be disarmed to the fullest?

A news source like A-Jazeera may be "experts" when it comes to Mid-East news, but they don't know s**t when it comes to news on our own soil. I'd wait to see if a non-Arabic news source has anything to say about the NRA like they are.

Ape
02-06-2011, 7:56 AM
Perhaps his final quote was most apropos. Levy said a high-capacity clip ban "…may stop a few of these loony tunes." One wonders if he was talking about the Jared Loughers of the world or the "charity" organisation who would put these weapons of mass destruction in their hands.

This is the conclusion of a two-part series.

Cliff Schecter is the president of Libertas, LLC, a progressive public relations firm, the author of the 2008 bestseller The Real McCain, and a regular contributor to The Huffington Post. The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.

Come on, really?!?!?!?

Is anyone here reading this actually taking any of it seriously?
This is dribble slanted towards anti gun agenda's with mostly half truths as usual.

I mean come on, a story written by a notriously anti gun idiot and published by a "supposed" news agency bent on world domination for Muslims extremists?

If truly freedom loving 2A supporters are reading this and taking it seriously then it's no wonder we have problems standing together to fight for freedoms! :rolleyes:

hawk1
02-06-2011, 7:57 AM
Not news: A non-profit organization is accused of funneling millions into the pockets of its executives. News: It's the NRA. Fark: Al Jazeera called them on their shiat

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/02/20112375421439250.html

You're really living up to your screen name. Do a bit of investigating BEFORE you get in bed with aljazeera.

Oh, I bet if you ask them real nicely they'll send you on all paid vacation to a Yemen, Syria, or Somalia training camp free of charge...:rolleyes:

Jack L
02-06-2011, 8:10 AM
Without the NRA we would be using slingshots by now. They are worth every penny we send them regardless of who makes what, where the money goes, and all else. All liberal anti's are scared when their name is mentioned. They actually are a very reasonably priced 'gun muscle' in Washington when you read what other lobbyists cost to get a bill approved or killed.

God Bless the NRA

todd2968
02-06-2011, 8:15 AM
Kinda like the KKK news reporting on the NAACP or vise versa isn't it?

The Shadow
02-06-2011, 8:19 AM
Not news: A non-profit organization is accused of funneling millions into the pockets of its executives. News: It's the NRA. Fark: Al Jazeera called them on their shiat

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/02/20112375421439250.html

You mean the same Aljazeera that gave Baghdad Bob airtime to spread his propaganda during the offensive into Iraq ? Or maybe you're talking about the same Aljazeera that gives Osama Bin Laden air time when he pokes his nose out of his cave.

Those people at the NRA, lobby and fight off the wolves that would extinguish the second amendment. That requires manpower and support, so yeah, it takes a lot of money to do that.

You have a choice to join or not join the NRA. But if you're using Aljazeera to reinforce in your own mind the reason not to join, that's pretty lame.

Mikeinblack
02-06-2011, 8:21 AM
Not news: A non-profit organization is accused of funneling millions into the pockets of its executives. News: It's the NRA. Fark: Al Jazeera called them on their shiat

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/02/20112375421439250.html

Wow, rarely does one find a troll with such a post count... "News" hasn't been unbiased in decades...

Ape
02-06-2011, 8:22 AM
Look, I have sent more than my fair share of letters and phone calls to the NRA over some of their political dancing. But I'm still a Life Member because they're the biggest dog we have in the fight. But R3dn3ck, if you are seriously siding with a progressive liberal anti gun idiot and a middle east news org that wants nothing more than for America to fall......Then you need to seriously re-evaluate your stance on America and it's freedoms. That, or you're just a troll looking for a good stir of the pot?

Oceanbob
02-06-2011, 8:29 AM
Look, I have sent more than my fair share of letters and phone calls to the NRA over some of their political dancing. But I'm still a Life Member because they're the biggest dog we have in the fight. But R3dn3ck, if you are seriously siding with a progressive liberal anti gun idiot and a middle east news org that wants nothing more than for America to fall......Then you need to seriously re-evaluate your stance on America and it's freedoms. That, or you're just a troll looking for a good stir of the pot?

Good, very good.! ^^^^^^^
Bob

maddoggie13
02-06-2011, 8:30 AM
Al jazzeera is not news....it is all FUD.:ban:

hoffmang
02-06-2011, 8:31 AM
The CEO of the Joyce Foundation (who founds all the anti's) makes $700K/year and that is supposed to be a non profit... http://philanthropy.com/premium/stats/salary/index.php?searchFoundations=Search&showall=1&Year=2009&order=compensation

NRA's 4.3M members are the only reason we're winning.

-Gene

Code7inOaktown
02-06-2011, 8:32 AM
Sounds like bad reporting.

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk

sevensix2x51
02-06-2011, 8:36 AM
1.2 million isnt that much money, anyways. i make 100k+ and im doing little better than scraping by. for the amount of work it must be to hold a position like that, i feel that WLP might be slightly underpaid. :shrug:

themailman
02-06-2011, 8:37 AM
Not news: A non-profit organization is accused of funneling millions into the pockets of its executives. News: It's the NRA. Fark: Al Jazeera called them on their shiat

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/02/20112375421439250.html

Did you read the piece? Are you kidding?

RobG
02-06-2011, 8:39 AM
you trust what al-jezzera has to say about the nra? seriously? isn't that like getting agricultural news from peta?

Wow, rarely does one find a troll with such a post count... "News" hasn't been unbiased in decades...


You are using an Al-Jezeera "news" story to base whether or not you should join the NRA:confused: That has to be the most ridiculous post ever on Calguns. And thats saying a lot.

G60
02-06-2011, 8:39 AM
The two recent AJ articles on the NRA are full of ****, and I read AJ regularly. It's easy to see through the BS when reading AJ.

OleCuss
02-06-2011, 8:42 AM
Not a huge fan of some of what the NRA does - but I am a member (even though I didn't get the card after renewing). But that Al Jazeera piece sounded like it might have come from the Brady Bunch's version of The Onion. Stupid funny!

magsnubby
02-06-2011, 8:42 AM
Not news: A non-profit organization is accused of funneling millions into the pockets of its executives. News: It's the NRA. Fark: Al Jazeera called them on their shiat

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/02/20112375421439250.html

If you believe one word of this you've already lost. You should just turn your firearms into your local PD and move to Iran.

The NRA may not be perfect but they are our best line of defense against gun control.

Skidmark
02-06-2011, 8:42 AM
Al jazzeera is not news....it is all FUD. :ban:

Speaking of FUD... :rolleyes:

Al-Jazeera has some of the best reporting on Arab world you'll find. Steer clear of the opinion pieces, such as were referenced in the OP, and you'll learn a great deal about the forces driving events in that region.

G60
02-06-2011, 8:44 AM
Oh and you can thank all the paying members of the NRA for you actually being able to still own a gun. It seems anti-NRA gun owners try to find any ridiculous excuse they can to get out of a measly $25-35 a year. You're welcome.

highpowermatch
02-06-2011, 8:45 AM
Look, I have sent more than my fair share of letters and phone calls to the NRA over some of their political dancing. But I'm still a Life Member because they're the biggest dog we have in the fight. But R3dn3ck, if you are seriously siding with a progressive liberal anti gun idiot and a middle east news org that wants nothing more than for America to fall......Then you need to seriously re-evaluate your stance on America and it's freedoms. That, or you're just a troll looking for a good stir of the pot?

Thanks Ape, well said.

RobG
02-06-2011, 8:46 AM
Al-Jazeera shows why I will never join NRA.

You think of that statement everytime you are able to order ammo online.

gef
02-06-2011, 8:51 AM
Just three words, consider the source.

Tarn_Helm
02-06-2011, 9:02 AM
Not news: A non-profit organization is accused of funneling millions into the pockets of its executives. News: It's the NRA. Fark: Al Jazeera called them on their shiat

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/02/20112375421439250.html

Twaddle, with a capital T, that rhymes with B, that spells bullspit.

Y'all got trouble! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LI_Oe-jtgdI)
LI_Oe-jtgdI

joe_sun
02-06-2011, 9:12 AM
The OP is full of fail

OP are you trying to justify why you aren't a member of the largest organization protecting the 2nd amendment?

Jack L
02-06-2011, 9:22 AM
Al-Jazeera and their contacts see what is happening in their area now with Egypt. If Egypt had 2A type rights, Mubarak would be toast by now. The kings and so called presidents would be totally freaked if their serfs had firearms. Trace the $ and writer and one would find anti gun involvement linked to this.

ConfucianScholar
02-06-2011, 9:40 AM
So American culture hating Al-jazeera puts up some NRA executives salaries to try and see if they can provoke resentment in pro gun people who don't make as much...and it worked on r3dn3ck at least.

Man, if you think those people are undeserving of the money they earned and you think you should be making as much, just quit your job and find one that will pay figures similar to those you read on the piece. That of course is not going to happen because you don't have the skills for it. If you think you can sit on a board and help plan strategy to beat the anti-gun lobby like the NRA does, yet you can be swayed by simple minded propaganda in an Al-Jazeera piece, you are dreaming.

CalBear
02-06-2011, 10:09 AM
The NRA is an enormous organization. Non profits of this size typically have executives that make quite a bit of money. The same thing happens at large companies to a high degree. There's a requirement for executive talent, and top execs are very costly. I don't know why this is such a surprise. The NRA very important to gun owners, and every gun owner should join it, along with state level orgs and orgs like Calguns / SAF.

elSquid
02-06-2011, 10:21 AM
It's clearly labelled as an opinion piece, and it was written by a regular contributor to Huffington. BFD. There are more cogent anti-gun articles in SFgate than this twaddle...

-- Michael

justMike
02-06-2011, 10:22 AM
Quote: Al-Jazeera has their own agenda and is not an impartial legitimate news organization.
IMO, that an impartial legitimate news organization exists is a mythology. Doesn't exist!

bwiese
02-06-2011, 10:27 AM
NRA's 4.3M members are the only reason we're winning.

-Gene

Bingo.

And I recall there was survey awhile back that showed that there was at least 1 non-NRA member claiming membership for every current NRA member. - meaning there's *at least* 8+ million people *claiming* NRA membership.

IF NRA could convert these wannabe tagalongs into members, an 8+ million member organization in our national political scene could demand ATF provide free gun cleaning services at their field offices.

Membership means something at the state level too. If we can get folks to join the CRPA and get it up to 100K we can do a LOT of pushback.

When you join CRPA, that "+1" increment MEANS SOMETHING. It's a bit more wind at the back of our CRPA lobbyist, Tom Pederson (and helps our NRA lobbyist Ed Worley too.)

Let's get it on....

Apocalypsenerd
02-06-2011, 10:27 AM
If the NRA was a public company, the salary would be 5-10 times higher. Considering the size and effectiveness of the NRA, I think Wayne is underpaid.

gunsmith
02-06-2011, 10:32 AM
Not news: A non-profit organization is accused of funneling millions into the pockets of its executives. News: It's the NRA. Fark: Al Jazeera called them on their shiat

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/02/20112375421439250.html

LOL, Al Jazeera!!??

LOL hahahahahahah if you're that gullible please do not join the NRA anyway. hahahahahahahah LOL!!!!


PS, Santa isn't real & did you know that "bowling for columbine" isn't 100% accurate?

LOL LOL LOL!!!!

Deadred7o7
02-06-2011, 10:58 AM
Good luck OP there are to many LaPierre boot lickers on here to sway them away. If you want a good read try this.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=192358

UBFRAGD
02-06-2011, 11:06 AM
Good luck OP there are to many LaPierre boot lickers on here to sway them away.

I'd like to be counted as one, please. I just ordered from MidwayUSA with a HUGE NRA Round-up, and, to top it all off, I CAN SPELL TOO!!!

berto
02-06-2011, 11:13 AM
That was amusing, thanks for the laugh. I especially liked the part where NRA was attacked for becoming a "no compromise" organization. Isn't that the money maker fund raising line for GOA's attack on NRA? And a question for the GOA crowd, how much is their leadership paid and why don't they let members vote?

Having issues with NRA is one thing. Believing the illicit substance induced comedy from the posted link can only mean the Reynolds wrap is on too tight.

Grumpyoldretiredcop
02-06-2011, 11:22 AM
Quoting Al-Jazeera as a reliable news source - thought I'd seen it all here on Calguns... I should have known better. Just when you think that, along comes something new and more idiotic, like this OP.

Congratulations on "Fail Post of the Day"!

MontClaire
02-06-2011, 11:24 AM
So what would Al Jazeera's vested interest be in putting the NRA in a bad light?

First rule when reading opinion pieces disguised as news reporting...... consider the source.

:rolleyes:

You must think that cnn, msnbs and fox is beteer source.:rolleyes:

bwiese
02-06-2011, 11:30 AM
Good luck OP there are to many LaPierre boot lickers on here to sway them away. If you want a good read try this.


Deadred707 has never made any valid (nor very literate) attacks on the last 3 decades of NRA work.

He has to dredge back to the pre-1970s era when the NRA was a plain shooter's organization and not that involved nor needing to be especially skilled in politics.

As gun control evolved, the NRA's skill sets did as well - and at a faster race. It's why they've become the political powerhouse today. Sure, every large organization will make a mistake here & there - but when you essentially OWN congress, a few folks did way more than a few things right.

Oh, I see absolutely no bootlicking involved here:

84803

CalBear
02-06-2011, 11:32 AM
Quoting Al-Jazeera as a reliable news source - thought I'd seen it all here on Calguns... I should have known better. Just when you think that, along comes something new and more idiotic, like this OP.

Congratulations on "Fail Post of the Day"!
Al Jazeera is a good news outlet for bringing pretty unbiased and complete news coverage. But this is an opinion article written by Cliff Schecter, who also writes for Huffington Post. You have to take any OpEd article with a huge grain of salt.

tonelar
02-06-2011, 11:37 AM
Not news: A non-profit organization is accused of funneling millions into the pockets of its executives. News: It's the NRA. Fark: Al Jazeera called them on their shiat
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/02/20112375421439250.html

You're really living up to your screen name. Do a bit of investigating BEFORE you get in bed with aljazeera...

I know a couple rednecks. They wouldn't be caught dead reading Al Jazeera's propaganda, much less believing it.

CalBear
02-06-2011, 11:40 AM
I just bumped my NRA membership up to life member with the $500 discount price after reading this thread. Thanks for reminding me to do that. :D

Drey
02-06-2011, 11:50 AM
Not news: A non-profit organization is accused of funneling millions into the pockets of its executives. News: It's the NRA. Fark: Al Jazeera called them on their shiat

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/02/20112375421439250.html

I wouldnt trust this source at all. One!

I dont care how much the person gets paid while protecting my freedom. Two!

Anyone for Three, Four etc?

GOEX FFF
02-06-2011, 11:53 AM
Al-Jazeera shows why I will never join NRA. Not news: A non-profit organization is accused of funneling millions into the pockets of its executives. News: It's the NRA. Fark: Al Jazeera called them on their shiat

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/02/20112375421439250.html

WOW, just Wow. IBTL

I assume you're not really a true red blooded American with the name "redneck" (even if it is a "technical r3dn3ck") using Al Jazeera as your source for believing Anti US propaganda??? :puke:

Sorry, but the Second Amendment shows WHY I will ALWAYS be a member of the NRA.
You can take your Al Jazeera dribble away with you that has apparently rotted your American mind. :mad:

In honor of this thread, I'm kicking of another donation to the National Rifle Association of America.


ETA: The OP is quoted in a thread that reads -

"shakes head and leaves. "not be infringed.", the sentence ended there."

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=5674045#post5674045

Just WHO do you think is the leading organization that is preserving those rights? (Nope, not your beloved Al Jazeera that would love to trash a U.S. pro-gun association)
You wouldn't be a gun owner muchless a free public today if it wasn't for the NRA since 1871 fighting for YOUR 2A rights and civil liberties, that fight protect the "shall not be infringed" clause you appear to carry so importantly.

hawk1
02-06-2011, 11:57 AM
Good luck OP there are to many LaPierre boot lickers on here to sway them away. If you want a good read try this.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=192358

Looks like the second pea to that pod has posted...:rolleyes:

Tarn_Helm
02-06-2011, 12:00 PM
Not news: A non-profit organization is accused of funneling millions into the pockets of its executives. News: It's the NRA. Fark: Al Jazeera called them on their shiat

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/02/20112375421439250.html

In the Fight Against Terrorism, Some Rights Must Be Repealed
March 4, 2005 By Junaid M. Afeef Research Associate at the Institute for Social Policy & Understanding
http://www.altmuslim.com/a/a/a/2188

The newly appointed CIA Director Porter Goss, believes that terrorists may bring urban warfare techniques learned in Iraq to our homeland. If he is right, we could have a whole new war on our hands. The prospect is indeed scary.

The idea of terrorist cells operating clandestinely in the United States, quietly amassing handguns and assault rifles, and planning suicide shooting rampages in our malls, is right out of Tom Clancy’s most recent novel. If not for the fact that the 9/11 attacks were also foreshadowed in a Clancy novel, I would have given the idea no further thought.

However, rather than facing this potential threat publicly, the Bush administration is only focused on terrorist attacks involving missiles, nuclear devices and biological weapons. Stopping terrorists with WMDs is a good thing, but what about the more immediate threat posed by terrorists with guns? The potential threat of terrorist attacks using guns is far more likely than any of these other scenarios.

This leads to a bigger policy issue. In the post 9/11 world where supposedly “everything has changed,” perhaps it is time for Americans to reconsider the value of public gun ownership.

The idea of public gun ownership simply does not make sense anymore. The right to bear arms, as enumerated in the Second Amendment, was meant for the maintenance of a “well-regulated militia.” At the time the amendment was adopted, standing armies were viewed with a great deal of suspicion, and therefore, gun-owning individuals were seen as a protection mechanism for the public. These gun owners were also seen as guardians of the republic against the tyranny of the rulers. The framers of the Constitution saw the right to bear and use arms as a check against an unruly government. That state of affairs no longer exists.

Today, only a handful of citizens outside of neo-nazi and white supremacist goups view gun ownership as a means of keeping the government in check. Even those citizens who continue to maintain such antiquated views must face the reality that the United States’ armed forces are too large and too powerful for the citizenry to make much difference. Quite frankly, the idea of the citizenry rising up against the U.S. government with their handguns and assault rifles, and facing the military with these personal arms is absurd. The Branch Davidian tragedy at Waco, Texas, was one such futile attempt.

The more important consideration is public safety. It is no longer safe for the public to carry guns. Gun violence is increasingly widespread in the United States. According to the DOJ/FBI’s Crime In The United States: 2003 report, 45,197 people in the United States were murdered with guns between 1999 and 2003. That averages out to more than 9,000 people murdered per year. Nearly three times the number of lives lost in the tragic 9/11 attacks are murdered annually as a direct result of guns.

Examples of wanton violence are all around.
. . .

The idea of curtailing rights in the name of homeland security does not seem implausible given the current state of civil liberties in the United States. The war on terror has already taken an enormous toll on the First, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments, and thus far, very few Americans have objected. In light of this precedence, it seems reasonable that scaling back or even repealing the right to bear arms would be an easy task.

In fact, it will be a very difficult task. So far the civil liberties curtailment has affected generally disenfranchised groups such as immigrants, people of color and religious minorities. An assault on the Second Amendment will impact a much more powerful constituency.

According to the DOJ’s Bureau of Justice Statistics, in 2002 41 percent of American households owned at least one gun. According to these same statistics, 50 percent of the owners were male, 43 percent were white and 48 percent were Republican. More than 50 percent of the gun owners were college educated and earned more than $50,000 per year. Regrettably, these folks are going to marshal their considerable resources to protect their special interest.

This is a shame. Instead of laying waste to the civil rights and civil liberties that are at the core of free society, and rather than squandering precious time and money on amending the U.S. Constitution for such things as “preserving marriage between a man and woman,” the nation ought to focus its attention on the havoc guns cause in society and debate the merits of gun ownership in this era of terrorism.

So long as guns remain available to the general public, there will always be the threat of terrorists walking into a crowded restaurant, a busy coffee shop or a packed movie theater and opening fire upon unsuspecting civilians.

The Second Amendment is not worth such risks.

Junaid M. Afeef is a Research Associate at the Institute for Social Policy & Understanding. His articles are available at www.ispu.us. He can be reached at junaid.afeef@gmail.com.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only.

[Ref. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml]

Cali-Shooter
02-06-2011, 12:03 PM
Looks like the second pea to that pod has posted...:rolleyes:

I'd say so too. Both of them are propping up a very unpopular position here...

CalBear
02-06-2011, 12:12 PM
In the Fight Against Terrorism, Some Rights Must Be Repealed
March 4, 2005 By Junaid M. Afeef Research Associate at the Institute for Social Policy & Understanding
What an idiot. When in history have tools and machines been more important to crime and society than the people themselves? It's all about the people.

Also, his comment about the collective right nonsense is classic. Amazing how many 2nd amendment scholars there are who haven't done any research beyond reading the text (if that) and reading OpEd articles from the Huffington Post.

dunndeal
02-06-2011, 12:14 PM
In the Fight Against Terrorism, Some Rights Must Be Repealed
March 4, 2005 By Junaid M. Afeef Research Associate at the Institute for Social Policy & Understanding
http://www.altmuslim.com/a/a/a/2188

The newly appointed CIA Director Porter Goss, believes that terrorists may bring urban warfare techniques learned in Iraq to our homeland. If he is right, we could have a whole new war on our hands. The prospect is indeed scary.

The idea of terrorist cells operating clandestinely in the United States, quietly amassing handguns and assault rifles, and planning suicide shooting rampages in our malls, is right out of Tom Clancy’s most recent novel. If not for the fact that the 9/11 attacks were also foreshadowed in a Clancy novel, I would have given the idea no further thought.

However, rather than facing this potential threat publicly, the Bush administration is only focused on terrorist attacks involving missiles, nuclear devices and biological weapons. Stopping terrorists with WMDs is a good thing, but what about the more immediate threat posed by terrorists with guns? The potential threat of terrorist attacks using guns is far more likely than any of these other scenarios.

This leads to a bigger policy issue. In the post 9/11 world where supposedly “everything has changed,” perhaps it is time for Americans to reconsider the value of public gun ownership.

The idea of public gun ownership simply does not make sense anymore. The right to bear arms, as enumerated in the Second Amendment, was meant for the maintenance of a “well-regulated militia.” At the time the amendment was adopted, standing armies were viewed with a great deal of suspicion, and therefore, gun-owning individuals were seen as a protection mechanism for the public. These gun owners were also seen as guardians of the republic against the tyranny of the rulers. The framers of the Constitution saw the right to bear and use arms as a check against an unruly government. That state of affairs no longer exists.

Today, only a handful of citizens outside of neo-nazi and white supremacist goups view gun ownership as a means of keeping the government in check. Even those citizens who continue to maintain such antiquated views must face the reality that the United States’ armed forces are too large and too powerful for the citizenry to make much difference. Quite frankly, the idea of the citizenry rising up against the U.S. government with their handguns and assault rifles, and facing the military with these personal arms is absurd. The Branch Davidian tragedy at Waco, Texas, was one such futile attempt.

The more important consideration is public safety. It is no longer safe for the public to carry guns. Gun violence is increasingly widespread in the United States. According to the DOJ/FBI’s Crime In The United States: 2003 report, 45,197 people in the United States were murdered with guns between 1999 and 2003. That averages out to more than 9,000 people murdered per year. Nearly three times the number of lives lost in the tragic 9/11 attacks are murdered annually as a direct result of guns.

Examples of wanton violence are all around.
. . .

The idea of curtailing rights in the name of homeland security does not seem implausible given the current state of civil liberties in the United States. The war on terror has already taken an enormous toll on the First, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments, and thus far, very few Americans have objected. In light of this precedence, it seems reasonable that scaling back or even repealing the right to bear arms would be an easy task.

In fact, it will be a very difficult task. So far the civil liberties curtailment has affected generally disenfranchised groups such as immigrants, people of color and religious minorities. An assault on the Second Amendment will impact a much more powerful constituency.

According to the DOJ’s Bureau of Justice Statistics, in 2002 41 percent of American households owned at least one gun. According to these same statistics, 50 percent of the owners were male, 43 percent were white and 48 percent were Republican. More than 50 percent of the gun owners were college educated and earned more than $50,000 per year. Regrettably, these folks are going to marshal their considerable resources to protect their special interest.

This is a shame. Instead of laying waste to the civil rights and civil liberties that are at the core of free society, and rather than squandering precious time and money on amending the U.S. Constitution for such things as “preserving marriage between a man and woman,” the nation ought to focus its attention on the havoc guns cause in society and debate the merits of gun ownership in this era of terrorism.

So long as guns remain available to the general public, there will always be the threat of terrorists walking into a crowded restaurant, a busy coffee shop or a packed movie theater and opening fire upon unsuspecting civilians.

The Second Amendment is not worth such risks.

Junaid M. Afeef is a Research Associate at the Institute for Social Policy & Understanding. His articles are available at www.ispu.us. He can be reached at junaid.afeef@gmail.com.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only.

[Ref. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml]




The threat of armed terrorists attacking Americans at will in our malls and restaurants is precisely why we need the 2nd A more than ever.

odysseus
02-06-2011, 12:15 PM
Weird. Just weird the OP would take this AJ news piece and push it as the ultimate truth. What are you thinking???

CalBear
02-06-2011, 12:16 PM
The threat of armed terrorists attacking Americans at will in our malls and restaurants is precisely why we need the 2nd A more than ever.
Ya it's incredibly lame to pin terrorism on guns, when they commonly use explosives and other means of attack. It's a pretty recurring theme: pin a problem -- drug cartels, terrorism, etc. -- on an American right. Clearly our freedom is to blame for everything.

Cali-Shooter
02-06-2011, 12:19 PM
The threat of armed terrorists attacking Americans at will in our malls and restaurants is precisely why we need the 2nd A more than ever.

WubEFsN5pk8

Tarn_Helm
02-06-2011, 12:32 PM
What an idiot. When in history have tools and machines been more important to crime and society than the people themselves? It's all about the people.

Also, his comment about the collective right nonsense is classic. Amazing how many 2nd amendment scholars there are who haven't done any research beyond reading the text (if that) and reading OpEd articles from the Huffington Post.

FYI: This guy is NOT a Second Amendment scholar.

He is probably still a lawyer.

But that does not mean that he is or even claims to be a Second Amendment scholar or any kind of expert in Constitutional law, which is a special field.

He looks more like a litigator than anything else.

I found the paragraph below at this address: http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/afeef_junaid_m/

But like I said, it looks like the OP, the article posted by the OP, and the guy described below all share the same antipathy toward the NRA.

That, in itself, speaks volumes.

"Junaid M. Afeef is an attorney, activist and writer based in Illinois. (http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/afeef_junaid_m/) Over the past 11 years Junaid has amassed extensive civil and criminal litigation experience from private practice as well from public service with the Cook County Public Defender’s Office and the Chicago Transit Authority Law Department. Presently Junaid is in solo private practice. He is also a Research Associate with the Institute for Social Policy & Understanding. Junaid is a founding member of the Muslim Bar Association in Illinois, and he is also one of the original members of the National Association of Muslim Lawyers. Over the years he has served on the boards of numerous civic, social and religious organizations. Junaid’s advocacy and activism have been reported on in newspapers such as the Chicago Tribune, the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, and many other newspapers and magazines across the United States and in Europe. His essays and commentaries have appeared in the Chicago Tribune, the Islamic Horizons, the Dallas Morning News, as well as numerous online magazines. He can be reached at junaid.afeef(at)gmail.com."

from http://www.altmuslim.com/opinion_afeef.php

Themandalorian
02-06-2011, 12:35 PM
Oh god the quote saying the NRA supports High capacity magazines because of manufacturers is so funny. This article is ridiculous

CalBear
02-06-2011, 12:35 PM
FYI: This guy is NOT a Second Amendment scholar.

He is probably still a lawyer.

But that does not mean that he is or even claims to be a Second Amendment scholar or any kind of expert in Constitutional law, which is a special field.

He looks more like a litigator than anything else.

I found the paragraph below at this address: http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/afeef_junaid_m/

But like I said, it looks like the OP, the article posted by the OP, and the guy described below all share the same antipathy toward the NRA.

That, in itself, speaks volumes.

"Junaid M. Afeef is an attorney, activist and writer based in Illinois. (http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/afeef_junaid_m/) Over the past 11 years Junaid has amassed extensive civil and criminal litigation experience from private practice as well from public service with the Cook County Public Defender’s Office and the Chicago Transit Authority Law Department. Presently Junaid is in solo private practice. He is also a Research Associate with the Institute for Social Policy & Understanding. Junaid is a founding member of the Muslim Bar Association in Illinois, and he is also one of the original members of the National Association of Muslim Lawyers. Over the years he has served on the boards of numerous civic, social and religious organizations. Junaid’s advocacy and activism have been reported on in newspapers such as the Chicago Tribune, the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, and many other newspapers and magazines across the United States and in Europe. His essays and commentaries have appeared in the Chicago Tribune, the Islamic Horizons, the Dallas Morning News, as well as numerous online magazines. He can be reached at junaid.afeef(at)gmail.com."

from http://www.altmuslim.com/opinion_afeef.php
I forgot the quotation marks. What I meant was it's amazing how many people with little to no knowledge of 2A history confidently make these sweeping statements about the 2A's intent.

jmsenk
02-06-2011, 12:35 PM
My mom has spent her entire career in a non-profit, the United Way, and I am a member of a few other lobbying groups, like Cigar Rights of America, in addition to being an NRA member. What I have gathered from being associated with these organizations is that the NRA is the model against which nearly every other non-profit measures itself. They are the single most effective political lobbying group in the nation, and every group, even the United Way, openly wishes they could have the same level of organization, passion, and dedication that is attributed to the National Rifle Association.

I actually spoke to the head of the CRA, and asked him if their organization was set up to be a group similar to the NRA. he replied that if they were a tenth as effective, within 20 years, it would be a dream come true. He flat out said that the NRA is the best there is.

Sounds like pretty compelling evidence to pay the Executive Vice President a salary worth his skills.

GOEX FFF
02-06-2011, 12:36 PM
"In the Fight Against Terrorism, Some Rights Must Be Repealed"


"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Thanks, but I'll live in a world of Liberty from the great founders of this country like Ben Franklin.

Rather than a world of the destruction of Liberty by an activist like "Junaid M. Afeef".

chris
02-06-2011, 12:51 PM
Not news: A non-profit organization is accused of funneling millions into the pockets of its executives. News: It's the NRA. Fark: Al Jazeera called them on their shiat

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/02/20112375421439250.html

So what would Al Jazeera's vested interest be in putting the NRA in a bad light?

First rule when reading opinion pieces disguised as news reporting...... consider the source.

:rolleyes:

you should always look at the source and this one is a dead give away.

Tarn_Helm
02-06-2011, 1:21 PM
. . . What I meant was it's amazing how many people with little to no knowledge of 2A history confidently make these sweeping statements about the 2A's intent.

I would bet that neither the OP nor the dude I quoted actually believe anything they say or post.

They just pretend to.

They are not trying to speak authoritatively from a solid base of knowledge.

They are most likely just trying to fake people out and lie convincingly.

This is an approved strategy.

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 269; Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah: The Prophet said, "War is deceit." (http://www.jihadwatch.org/islam-101.html)

But more importantly, this sort of deceit has been happening in our own judiciary since at least 1942, with respect to the Second Amendment.

See page 188 of the book That Every Man Be Armed, by Stephen P. Halbrook (http://www.amazon.com/That-Every-Man-Armed-Constitutional/dp/0945999380).

If you read Chapter 7, which is the one about "State and Federal Judicial Opinions," you will find that when the First Circuit Court of Appeals had to make a decision that would have constrained them if they would have yielded to U.S. v. Miller (http://ayoungwhig.blogspot.com/2007/04/peculiar-story-of-united-states-v.html), the First Circuit simply said, in so many words, U.S. v. Miller cannot possibly be correct in ruling that the 2nd Amendment is not to be infringed, because if U.S. v. Miller is right, then the "Second Amendment limits the federal government to [making] regulations concerning only weapons which can be classed as antiques or curiosities . . . [and what U.S. v. Miller does, is,] in effect to hold that the limitation [on Federal regulatory power] of the Second Amendment is absolute."

The quote immediately above is from Cases v. United States (1942).

The First Circuit literally wrote, regarding U.S. v. Miller (1939), "[T]he rule of the Miller case . . . would seem to be already outdated, in spite of the fact that it was formulated only three and half years ago."

In other words, the First Circuit simply overruled the SUPREME (i.e., HIGHEST) court, when doing so served the agenda of the Circuit court.

The First Circuit simply arrogated to itself the power to overrule any decisions it considered to be obsolete or "outdated."

So our own government practices outright denial of our rights when outright lying about them seems implausible.

jaymz
02-06-2011, 1:42 PM
I'm speechless. And that is rare, even if it means sticking my foot in my mouth. At least the op hasn't been back trying to argue his point,maybe he's:hide:

jonyg
02-06-2011, 1:42 PM
Al-Jazeera shows why I will never join NRA.

Al-Jazeera shows why I have joined the NRA.

Sonic_mike
02-06-2011, 2:04 PM
so will the Al-Jazeera push for 10 round magazines and bullet buttons for all the "freedom" fighters in the middle east?

FirstFlight
02-06-2011, 2:06 PM
Oh and you can thank all the paying members of the NRA for you actually being able to still own a gun. It seems anti-NRA gun owners try to find any ridiculous excuse they can to get out of a measly $25-35 a year. You're welcome.

+1 Thank you G60...very well said

CalNRA
02-06-2011, 2:12 PM
ahem



This is the conclusion of a two-part series.

Cliff Schecter is the president of Libertas, LLC, a progressive public relations firm, the author of the 2008 bestseller The Real McCain, and a regular contributor to The Huffington Post.

Bruce
02-06-2011, 2:33 PM
Looks like the second pea to that pod has posted...:rolleyes:

Or possibly the same pea with an "extra" CGN account??? :rolleyes:

nick
02-06-2011, 2:44 PM
Not news: A non-profit organization is accused of funneling millions into the pockets of its executives. News: It's the NRA. Fark: Al Jazeera called them on their shiat

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/02/20112375421439250.html

Have you actually read the article? Here's a few choice bits:

Conflict of interest:
Ronnie Barrett, an NRA board member, shows a conflict of financial and corporate interest by also manufacturing the REC7 - which is similar to the popular AR-15 semi-automatic rifle (pictured)

Sources:
In February of 2006, a blog called Gun Guys run by the Freedom States Alliance, a 501(c)(3) organisation working "to reduce gun violence in America" found that LaPierre's then-million dollar package was the equivalent of 35,000 NRA membership renewals.

The terrible changes at the NRA:
With their decision to reject the calculated negotiation of their previous "old guard" board members, who for example, came out publicly in support of a proposed ban on .38 Specials by then-senator Birch Bayh of Indiana, they embarked upon a "no compromise" plan of action for the future.

And more useful information:
It's no accident the National Rifle Association staunchly supports high-capacity magazines - it gets money from their manufacturers every day. Missouri-based gun company MidwayUSA pioneered a fund-raising tactic called "Round-Up." The program involves asking customers to round up their purchases to the nearest dollar. The company then donates the difference to the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action, a lobbying arm of the gun rights group. Since 1992, MidwayUSA, along with other firearm companies, have funnelled a total of $7.5 million to the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action using the "Round-Up" tactic. MidwayUSA's wares include high-capacity magazines similar to those used in the Arizona shooting spree…

And some more:
Arguably the best evidence is provided by Tom Diaz, author of Making A Killing and former NRA member and "gun nut" by his own admission. That is until he discovered in the course of working as an attorney on the House Crime Subcommittee that:
the gun industry and manufacturers had changed the profile of who their target market was. It was not about self-defence or the right to bear arms. They were hyper-marketing very lethal guns and they flooded the US with them. The NRA doesn't represent sport shooters and hunters. They were selling these killing machines.

And finally, the author:
Cliff Schecter is the president of Libertas, LLC, a progressive public relations firm, the author of the 2008 bestseller The Real McCain, and a regular contributor to The Huffington Post.

You, Sir, need to learn some reading comprehension. Unless, of course, you find the above agreeable. Or did you just see that LaPierre makes more than you do, and got outraged? Well, guess what? Most executives do.

BoxesOfLiberty
02-06-2011, 2:44 PM
Not news: A non-profit organization is accused of funneling millions into the pockets of its executives. News: It's the NRA. Fark: Al Jazeera called them on their shiat

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/02/20112375421439250.html

Seriously? You thought the article made a compelling argument?

The article complains principally about the fact that the NRA has a hardline stance on gun control, and that its interests parallel the interests of American Firearms Manufacturers (citing the fact that Ronnie Barret is on the NRA Board, while his company makes firearms) as if this is somehow a conflict of interest and does not serve the interests of the NRA's members.

This is actually what makes the far better, far more effective, and far stronger than it was before the "Cincinnati Revolt" when members sick of the NRA board caving and cooperating with the antis on "reasonable gun control measures" seized control of the NRA and changed its politics.

I personally would never have supported the weak-kneed and spineless organization that the NRA was before the revolt.

Back to the story you linked...

The author of this particular steaming pile is the notorious and shameless Cliff Schecter.

He is a partisan progressive who has appeared regularly (1000s of appearances) on MSNBC, NPR, Air America, etc. He is a regular contributor to The Huffington Post, and has been printed in The Washington Post, Salon.com, and The American Prospect. Despite all of this, the only media outlet he could get to print this piece of drivel was Al Jazeera...

Schecter is now the head of his own PR firm -- Libertas LLC -- where his clients include Michael Bloomberg, the American Association for Justice (formerly the American Trial Lawyers Association), former Vice-President Al Gore's Alliance for Climate Protection, and one of my favorites MAIG (Mayors Against Illegal Guns).

Clearly a fair and balanced piece of reporting.

nick
02-06-2011, 2:47 PM
And, as expected, Robert Levy will be brought up time and again. I bet he's regretting ever saying this:

Even Robert A. Levy of the libertarian Cato Institute, who served as co-counsel in the Supreme Court case that established a second amendment right to bear arms, stated that "I don't see any constitutional bar to regulating high-capacity magazines…The Second Amendment is not absolute."

But then again he is not in the business of manufacturing guns. He is actually trying to protect what he sees as constitutionally granted rights.

Skidmark
02-06-2011, 2:48 PM
:beatdeadhorse5:

Really, is there anything else to add?

nick
02-06-2011, 2:52 PM
THIS^^^^^^

'Funneling 7.5 million since 1992..'..heck..that's not much money at all over a 19 year time-frame....

I like Wayne and his leadership; no compromise and no excuses.

JMO

Actually, it's a pity that they haven't funneled more. Come on, people, it's only a few dollars.

CJ7Dude
02-06-2011, 4:02 PM
**** Al-Jazeera I am going to donate another 50 to NRA right now.

thearmedrebel
02-06-2011, 4:33 PM
I would rather have the NRA funnel millions into the hands of it's executives. Instead of Muslims Funneling Billions into the hands of Muslim Terrorist organizations during the same time period. This article is FUD plan and simple.

Amen.

The NRA has had their share of faux pas, but they are THE one group that has proven time and again they are worthy of sending money to. Ask the former Congressmen who voted for the original AWB.

Robert

Jack L
02-06-2011, 6:04 PM
http://www.nrahq.org/history.asp

While widely recognized today as a major political force and as America's foremost defender of Second Amendment rights, the NRA has, since its inception, been the premier firearms education organization in the world. But our successes would not be possible without the tireless efforts and countless hours of service our nearly four million members have given to champion Second Amendment rights and support NRA programs. As former Clinton spokesman George Stephanopoulos said, "Let me make one small vote for the NRA. They're good citizens. They call their Congressmen. They write. They vote. They contribute. And they get what they want over time."

jdberger
02-06-2011, 6:16 PM
It brings me joy that everytime someone prints an article like this, thousands of folks decide to send the NRA a little cash.

otteray
02-06-2011, 6:56 PM
Thanks for a reminder to re-up my NRA membership before it expires and to get more folks I know to sign up!

C.W.M.V.
02-06-2011, 7:01 PM
Anyone who would take anything that Al Jazeera prints at face value is an idiot, plain and simple.
They are a terrorist support organization, plain and simple.

goober
02-06-2011, 7:07 PM
RIGHT HERE (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=393586)

jl123
02-06-2011, 8:06 PM
The NRA is the very best way to fight the anti gun crowd. This article is just a very good example of the anti crowd at work. Making the NRA good bad is a good tactic to split off gun owners who do not understand how devious the anti gun folks are. Of course the firearms industry supports the NRA, why would they not? Most if not all firearm business owners are shooters and gun enthusiasts themselves. It only makes sense to support like minded groups.

As I recall, Al-Jazeera praised the 9-11 bombers. Let's remember who and what Al-Jazeera is and who they support. Al-Jazeera has their own agenda and is not an impartial legitimate news organization. If the anti's need to use an organization like Al-Jazeera to publish their drivel then it shows how little influence they really have.

Source? You can't just pull an "as I recall" on this type of accusation.

C.W.M.V.
02-06-2011, 8:48 PM
They are all about it in the middle east. Many many articles and reports about praise for killing Americans when I was over there.
Remember that anything you read from them in english is cleaned up ALOT.

Sniper3142
02-06-2011, 9:13 PM
Not news: A non-profit organization is accused of funneling millions into the pockets of its executives. News: It's the NRA. Fark: Al Jazeera called them on their shiat

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/02/20112375421439250.html

Total BS from a totally corrupt source.

I wouldn't believe Al-Jazeera if they told me water was wet. :mad:

Hunt
02-06-2011, 9:14 PM
cough up the money didn't you know we have to purchase our rights.

Patrick-2
02-07-2011, 4:30 AM
As people of the Middle East stand and demand rights from autocratic governments, it is important for some of those who wish to step into power to curb the ability of the people to demand rights.

So why does AJ try to sully the NRA?

Easy. South Asia (India, in particular) has new organizations sprouting that openly admit they are patterned after the US NRA. People there understand that leadership is often attained and maintained with the muzzle of a gun. Some of this is making its way across North Africa and the Middle East at large. People want to check the power of the governments that rule them.

The US Bill of Rights is a corrosive document. Even those who hate the USA (the nation and even the people) can fall in love with it. I have met several of them, some with respectable positions of power in foreign nations. They'll blather on incessantly about our post-WWII history but then wax poetic about the concepts we enshrine in the 4th, 5th, 8th and 2nd Amendments (the 1st is often ignored, ironically).

The fact that the USA now views gun ownership for personal defense as a fundamental civil right has not escaped notice the world over. Even those who don't like America will look to us when it comes time to talk civil rights. And now we got something else to talk about, at a time when history demands change in certain locales.

The Second lives on. And it's allure grows.

Cali-Shooter
02-07-2011, 6:48 AM
Thank you, Al-Jazeera!

Your article, so chock full of BS, finally got my lazy azz to get up and officially join the NRA!

You're Welcome!

G60
02-07-2011, 9:37 AM
You guys didn't see the first of that two-part opinion piece did you? it's even worse:

Shoot first, ask questions never: The NRA is responsible for fomenting much of the gun violence found in the US.
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/01/20111241084358958.html

Fictitious Simily
02-07-2011, 9:50 AM
Really... Al Jazerra....
All your guns are belong to us.
Of course they hate the NRA its hard to force sharia law on an armed population.

dfletcher
02-07-2011, 11:22 AM
You guys didn't see the first of that two-part opinion piece did you? it's even worse:

Shoot first, ask questions never: The NRA is responsible for fomenting much of the gun violence found in the US.
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/01/20111241084358958.html

The thought process of basing one's decision to not join the NRA on what's found in Al Jazeera reminds me of the Cheech & Chong bit that ends with "good thing we didn't step in it ...." :p

GOEX FFF
02-07-2011, 11:46 AM
So, after 104 Comments and 3 pages later...did the OP only want to drop a troll bomb and then run to hide under his Al Jazeera bridge or what?

C.W.M.V.
02-07-2011, 11:51 AM
So, after 104 Comments and 3 pages later...did the OP only want to drop a troll bomb and then run to hide under his Al Jazeera bridge or what?

Either that or hes secretly trying to drum up NRA membership's.

corrupt
02-07-2011, 12:24 PM
The title of this topic is hilarious.

That is all.

Ape
02-07-2011, 12:25 PM
Well he's been on here nearly ever day since sending out his troll line.
So I'd say he either purposely trolled for his own amusment.....ORRRRRR....He's learned a bit about taking some due dilligance and studying some facts before randomly making ludicrous statements based on one sided biased publications. IE: He embarrased himself to no end with his ignorance. ;)

stix213
02-07-2011, 12:41 PM
I stopped reading at "Al-Jazeera shows why..." Might as well tell us what Michael Moore thinks of the NRA and pretend that is fact. No different.

dunndeal
02-07-2011, 1:22 PM
It's 2:20 and the OP is on board right now, probably snickering but clearly not man enough to stand up to the critcism his post has generated.

Back under yoiur bridge troll.

GOEX FFF
02-07-2011, 1:27 PM
Well he's been on here nearly ever day since sending out his troll line.
So I'd say he either purposely trolled for his own amusment.....ORRRRRR....He's learned a bit about taking some due dilligance and studying some facts before randomly making ludicrous statements based on one sided biased publications. IE: He embarrased himself to no end with his ignorance. ;)

Either that or hes secretly trying to drum up NRA membership's.


Yeah,... I guess if anything I see, it helped generate a few more donations and a couple new memberships to the NRA. :thumbsup:

Bruce
02-07-2011, 1:31 PM
It's 2:20 and the OP is on board right now, probably snickering but clearly not man enough to stand up to the critcism his post has generated.



+1 :thumbsup:

Ape
02-07-2011, 1:33 PM
I stopped reading at "Al-Jazeera shows why..." Might as well tell us what Michael Moore thinks of the NRA and pretend that is fact. No different.

:smilielol5: :thumbsup:

Sad part is, I've met people who believe Moores' opinions are fact based too! :rolleyes:

Yeah,... I guess if anything I see, it helped generate a few more donations and a couple new memberships to the NRA. :thumbsup:
:thumbsup:

Who said the ignorant and the anti's aren't helping our cause? ;)

Glock22Fan
02-07-2011, 2:37 PM
And, having listened to the local Wahhabi Iman, I have decided to give up my weapons, as it is clear that Allah wants us demonic children of the Great Satan to simply lie down and die, or let ourselves be easily killed without fighting back.

He also gave several plugs for Al-Jazeera's unbiased reporting of all the dreadful sins we are committing in the Middle East.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

(For those of you who are challenged by sarcasm, this was written with tongue very firmly in cheek)

Wherryj
02-07-2011, 3:10 PM
I wasn't aware that the pictured AR-15 was an NRA design. I could have sworn that it was Eugene Stoner.

Yes, how laughable that you might want to have the same capacity magazines as a criminal that uses them against you.

There is that "hunters and sportsmen" argument again. They fail to recognize the right to self defense.

This "article" is full of the same jingles we hear from openly anti-gun organizations. Also, it is an opinion - stated clearly at the top of the page. Pure FUD.

I also didn't realize that the NRA was involved in weapon development. If I donate enough money, am I able to suggest which type of weapons platform I would like developed?

p_shooter
02-07-2011, 3:35 PM
With gun owners like these, who needs Anti's?

NRA member here and I felt that my membership money for, at least, the next 5 year was earned when AB962 fell.

That Al Jazeera hit piece just motivated me to sign up for CRPA as well.

Probably time for another CGF Donation too. Thanks r3dn3ck!

dwtt
02-07-2011, 5:15 PM
With gun owners like these, who needs Anti's?

NRA member here and I felt that my membership money for, at least, the next 5 year was earned when AB962 fell.

That Al Jazeera hit piece just motivated me to sign up for CRPA as well.

Probably time for another CGF Donation too. Thanks r3dn3ck!

There's no proof r3dn3ck is a gun owner. He's just a NRA hater, and I wouldn't be surprised if he was a member of the Brady Bunch. Anyone have the latest Hamas or Hizzbollah news releases for him to read? They are so informative.:rolleyes:

cbn620
02-07-2011, 5:30 PM
Source? You can't just pull an "as I recall" on this type of accusation.

Yeah I mean this article is clearly dumb but do we really have to call Al-Jazeera terrorists? I remember back before 9/11 when Al-Jazeera was worshiped. Now everyone calls them a terrorist supporting Islamist front. I think it's a crock. They have a left-of-center angle and they're very close to being a 100% independent news organization, not something the middle east has a lot of. They got accused of a lot of stuff after 9/11 and all of it turned out to be myths. They have actually run pro-western pieces. The only thing they've been criticized for that they actually did is when they aired tapes of Osama bin Laden. Everyone has done that though, and they should.

C.W.M.V.
02-07-2011, 7:07 PM
/\ I guess its easy to defend an organization when they havent tried to glorify the people that are trying to kill you.
Me, I'm not a fan.

cbn620
02-07-2011, 8:45 PM
/\ I guess its easy to defend an organization when they havent tried to glorify the people that are trying to kill you.
Me, I'm not a fan.

I do not understand this mentality, it happens way too much on Calguns. I do not think Al Jazeera are terrorists =/= I support terrorists. Me saying "I do not think Al-Jazeera are terrorists" =/= "I'm defending Al-Jazeera." I'm condemning the article, and if and when Al Jazeera supports terrorists, I will condemn that. But in all honesty I've never seen them support terrorists, I've seen their journalists criticize the Iraq/Afghanistan wars and criticize Israel from a secular-left standpoint, and again that is not de facto terrorist support. That is a logical fallacy. Criticizing Israeli policy is not support automatically support for Palestine, it's not anti-Semitism, and it's not even necessarily anti-Israel as in "Israel shouldn't exist." For that matter I've personally seen on Al-Jazeera English a very fairly moderated panel discussion between peace activists from both the sides on the Israel/Palestine conflict that was extremely fair to both sides. I have even seen programming on Al-Jazeera critical of Islamism, sharia law, human rights violation and Islam itself.

After 9/11 people started to paint Al-Jazeera as a terrorist organization where the news casters wear shemaghs wrapped around their faces, waiving AKs and screaming "Allahu akbar!" I'm merely saying that's an unfair way to paint an organization. They are the MSNBC or BBC of the middle east. If you dislike that kind of news reporting, then that is completely fine. But we wouldn't call MSNBC and BBC terrorists, why would we call Al-Jazeera terrorists?

Now if I'm missing specific things they have done that were pro-terrorist please feel free to point them out. I am prepared to condemn that kind of behavior, I just haven't seen it.

Cali-Shooter
02-07-2011, 8:49 PM
With gun owners like these, who needs Anti's?

NRA member here and I felt that my membership money for, at least, the next 5 year was earned when AB962 fell.

That Al Jazeera hit piece just motivated me to sign up for CRPA as well.

Probably time for another CGF Donation too. Thanks r3dn3ck!

Nice, the anti's attempts will only make us more pro-gun, if that's even possible, lol!

C.W.M.V.
02-07-2011, 8:49 PM
I do not understand this mentality, it happens way too much on Calguns. I do not think Al Jazeera are terrorists =/= I support terrorists. Me saying "I do not think Al-Jazeera are terrorists" =/= "I'm defending Al-Jazeera." I'm condemning the article, and if and when Al Jazeera supports terrorists, I will condemn that. But in all honesty I've never seen them support terrorists, I've seen their journalists criticize the Iraq/Afghanistan wars and criticize Israel from a secular-left standpoint, and again that is not de facto terrorist support. That is a logical fallacy. Criticizing Israeli policy is not support automatically support for Palestine, it's not anti-Semitism, and it's not even necessarily anti-Israel as in "Israel shouldn't exist." For that matter I've personally seen on Al-Jazeera English

There you go, English. Go watch the genuine article. Much more about the great satan, the occupiers of palestine, American war criminals, etc...

a very fairly moderated panel discussion between peace activists from both the sides on the Israel/Palestine conflict that was extremely fair to both sides. I have even seen programming on Al-Jazeera critical of Islamism, sharia law, human rights violation and Islam itself.

This isn't even allowed on the air in most of the mid east, so don't think that they broadcast it everywhere. Its fluff for our more "progressive" western folks.

After 9/11 people started to paint Al-Jazeera as a terrorist organization where the news casters wear shemaghs wrapped around their faces, waiving AKs and screaming "Allahu akbar!" I'm merely saying that's an unfair way to paint an organization. They are the MSNBC or BBC of the middle east. If you dislike that kind of news reporting, then that is completely fine. But we wouldn't call MSNBC and BBC terrorists, why would we call Al-Jazeera terrorists?

If Anti-American is a definition of terrorist then ya, Id say MSNBC fits in nicely

Now if I'm missing specific things they have done that were pro-terrorist please feel free to point them out. I am prepared to condemn that kind of behavior, I just haven't seen it.

What don't you understand? Al Jazeera canonized the people that were trying to kill me and mine. They went to great lengths to extol the virtues of the insurgents and demonize us as murderers and war criminals.
Ill make it a little bit clearer, its easy to defend an organization when you don't really know anything about it.
Go to baghdad and watch a broadcast. Last time I did (2004-2005) they weren't very friendly towards Americans, even the "enlightened" progressives.

Booshanky
02-08-2011, 8:13 AM
So what would Al Jazeera's vested interest be in putting the NRA in a bad light?

First rule when reading opinion pieces disguised as news reporting...... consider the source.

:rolleyes:

See, I think that's just lazy. I consider the information.

Glock22Fan
02-08-2011, 8:17 AM
See, I think that's just lazy. I consider the information.

You can't judge the authenticity of most "information" until you consider the source.

When some of my in-laws say (as they do from time to time, even though they have been told otherwise) that Sarah Palin shoots moose with machine guns, I know that they have twisted a picture they saw once of Sarah with a semi-auto AR15. The source invalidates the information.

Ape
02-08-2011, 8:21 AM
See, I think that's just lazy. I consider the information.

:confused:
How is that lazy?????? I consider the laziness from not fact checking and simply making uninformed decisions from a biased piece of opinonated blogging.

oni.dori
02-08-2011, 1:28 PM
Al-Jazeera, REALLY? You are actually giving them credit as a reputable and trustworthy news organization; especially when they are spouting anti-American rhetoric?

Ape
02-08-2011, 7:41 PM
WOW?!?!? I thought this thread was deleted mysteriously last night?!?!

Merovign
02-08-2011, 7:58 PM
See, I think that's just lazy. I consider the information.

And by what strange magic do you know how to judge whether the information is correct and in the correct context if you don't consider the source?

Obviously no one platitude teaches you how to judge what you read or see, but the motives and history of the source are certainly a good starting point.

"Information" can be incomplete, or irrelevant, or for that matter a lie.

Peter W Bush
02-08-2011, 8:07 PM
right and Al Jazeera is such an unbiased source of news about the US and western world :rolleyes:

Al Jazeera is the most reliable news source in the world and like it or not, they are THE best source for middle east news. They are in Qatar, not Sudan or Afghanistan. A lot of YOU people are the ones who are bias.

Peter W Bush
02-08-2011, 8:08 PM
Al-Jazeera, REALLY? You are actually giving them credit as a reputable and trustworthy news organization; especially when they are spouting anti-American rhetoric?

Oh ya because CNN and NBC are less biased and more reputable :rolleyes:

Please. Al Jazeera is second to none when it comes to being reliable with the facts.

Ape
02-08-2011, 8:18 PM
Oh ya because CNN and NBC are less biased and more reputable :rolleyes:

Please. Al Jazeera is second to none when it comes to being reliable with the facts.

Admittedly I'm no regular viewer of AJ, nor do I want to be. But are you telling us that AJ has no slanted biased reporting? Because from what I have watched and read from AJ they are just as biased in their reporting as any other corrupt news agency. Only difference for them is their slant is towards islam rather than the typical biased reporting we've had to endure here.

C.W.M.V.
02-08-2011, 8:48 PM
Al Jazeera is the most reliable news source in the world and like it or not, they are THE best source for middle east news. They are in Qatar, not Sudan or Afghanistan. A lot of YOU people are the ones who are bias.

Sweet jesus tap dancing christ.
:rofl2:
:nuts:

Peter W Bush
02-08-2011, 8:57 PM
Admittedly I'm no regular viewer of AJ, nor do I want to be. But are you telling us that AJ has no slanted biased reporting? Because from what I have watched and read from AJ they are just as biased in their reporting as any other corrupt news agency. Only difference for them is their slant is towards islam rather than the typical biased reporting we've had to endure here.

I've been following it semi-regularly over the past 7 or 8 years. They are less biased and more reliable with facts than ANY major US news agency. I HATE the koran and would definitely notice them skewing facts to promote it. Like it or not, they get access to things that NO other major media outlet could get access to. That said, I am a proud member of the NRA and will continue to round up at midway and donate to the NRA.

Sweet jesus tap dancing christ.
:rofl2:
:nuts:

Wow what a well written response. You seem like a smart guy :rolleyes:

GW
02-08-2011, 9:10 PM
Wow libtards and Islamosocialist uniting to destroy the American way of life
Glenn Beck is RIGHT:willy_nilly:

Seriously guys, Al Jazeera puts out a hit-piece on the NRA and people take it seriously?
Thats like some high-school rumor-mill.AJ may report middle-east news better than American or European sources but come on, that isn't that difficult a feat. And their editorials are just that editorials--opinions and like most every other editorial I've ever seen, it pushes an agenda not news. F' em!

OH yeah and OP That's a cheap way to dodge paying NRA dues:rolleyes:

blofeld42
02-08-2011, 9:36 PM
That the article appeared in al Jazeera is the least of its problems. The author is a flack, a professional lefty spinner that hires out to politicians who want to take away our guns and gun rights. Anyone who lends credence to his arguments is a fool or a knave.

WLP is compensated in line with other, similar organizations. He makes about the same as the head of the Joyce Foundation, which funds most of the anti-gun propaganda. But he also runs a multi-million voluntary member organization with many revenue generating business operations and some well-done magazines. The head of the Joyce foundation doesn't really have to deal with any pesky members; they're just a creature of the foundations, and rake in money by glad-handing rich people in board rooms. Considering how much WLP has done to kick the asses of anti-gun politicians for a couple decades, and how much he pisses off the likes of the hack that wrote the article, he probably deserves a raise.

The other great revelation of the article is that people in the gun industry are themselves gun enthusiasts and don't want to see it legislated out of existence. Color me shocked. In fact, what makes the NRA powerful isn't money; it's members that vote. The anti-gun nitwits like the author try to portray it as a matter of money because it makes it easier to demonize the NRA to the mouth-breathing idiots whose vote they are trying to gain. In fact it's quite straightforward: the NRA has members, they vote, and in swing states they provide the margin of victory against politicians who want to grab guns.

Peter W Bush
02-08-2011, 10:03 PM
Al-Jazeera, REALLY? You are actually giving them credit as a reputable and trustworthy news organization; especially when they are spouting anti-American rhetoric?

Ya? Find me a news article they published that has false information about America and I will reconsider what I think about Al Jazeera. For the poster who said to watch their Arabic programming- I have, in Arabic. This thread goes to show that a lot of people on here know NOTHING about the Middle East. Keep watching Fox for your news. No bias there....

C.W.M.V.
02-09-2011, 12:27 AM
Wow what a well written response. You seem like a smart guy :rolleyes:

Actually ya, I'm fairly bright. More than that Ive actually seen al jazeera in its true form. But of course they write the exact same things for the english speaking world as they do the muslim world...right....

gunsmith
02-09-2011, 3:12 PM
Al Jazeera is the most reliable news source in the world and like it or not, they are THE best source for middle east news. They are in Qatar, not Sudan or Afghanistan. A lot of YOU people are the ones who are bias.


The last time I looked at AJE they seemed like an offshoot of the DNC.
( that was years ago )
Based on your comment I looked at it again
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2011/02/201129232328623769.html

The article was fair enough but the picture was total propaganda, made to look as if ppl walk around AZ like that when in fact if you look close the guy/gal is simply going to or from a gunshow.

So far PWB I am far from convinced you're right, you do seem to be correct in that they have MORE middle east news. As far as the most reliable?? you haven't swayed me yet

Jack L
02-09-2011, 3:43 PM
Donate to the NRA even after joining.

Peter W Bush
02-09-2011, 4:24 PM
Actually ya, I'm fairly bright. More than that Ive actually seen al jazeera in its true form. But of course they write the exact same things for the english speaking world as they do the muslim world...right....

Please tell us more about their "true form." Do understand Arabic at all? Show me an article where Al Jazeera mentioned "the Great Satan."

Glock22Fan
02-09-2011, 4:33 PM
Well, PWB, I don't speak Arabic, Farsi or any similar languages. However, without understanding any of the words, I can see and hear the tenor of the glorified televising of the beheading of westerners and others who appear to be relatively blameless.

They may be the best news source in the middle east, but that isn't necessarily saying a lot.

I've seen enough to know that they aren't friends of mine and aren't welcome in my vicinity.

C.W.M.V.
02-09-2011, 6:57 PM
Please tell us more about their "true form." Do understand Arabic at all? Show me an article where Al Jazeera mentioned "the Great Satan."

A little, but most watching the daily broadcasts with our interpreters. Too bad they aren't still around, seeing as they were murdered by the same people al jazeera glorified.
Hell honestly alot of it you didn't even need an interpreter. When they run long photo and video montages of the insurgents shooting at Americans to militaristic music and follow it up with video's of burning HMMWV and HEMMET tankers you get the picture.
Their true form is a support organization for the forces that kill our soldiers, period. And of course for duping gullible westerners ;)