Calguns.net

Calguns.net (https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/index.php)
-   California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism (https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/forumdisplay.php?f=71)
-   -   "NRA vs. America," a Rollingstone politics article critical of the NRA (https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=693288)

KLF 01-31-2013 4:42 PM

"NRA vs. America," a Rollingstone politics article critical of the NRA
 
Hi all!

I generally enjoy and respect Rollingstone's politics reporting. Here is a link the January 31, 2013 article by Tom Dickinson. I believe it's worth a read. You may or may not agree with this but it's out in the popular press and it's worth your attention.

http://rol.st/14wEi90

Carry on!

KLF

Clinton 01-31-2013 4:55 PM

They seem to forget that the NRA is not some faceless entity. The NRA is the face of Americans voicing their opinion.

steamerjames 01-31-2013 5:06 PM

What did you expect? It's a DEMOCRAT party rag thru and thru.My daughter takes it and i read a little of it now and then.a very leftist party rag, i'd would not be suprized if they put the hammer and sickle on the cover.

Moonshine 01-31-2013 5:08 PM

Fortunately for us Rolling Stone lacks the pull it used to have. Thanks to video game developers and TV the new generation has a love affair with firearms. Ask any kid in their 20s why they bought an AR and I guarantee you 9 out of 10 times the answer is "call of duty". I wouldn't necessarily say that this means that Generation Y seems more conservative, just that my observation is they love guns... I've certainly done my part and introduced a lot of them to the second amendment on gun ranges and to date have no complaints heh!

SanPedroShooter 01-31-2013 5:14 PM

Millions and millons of Americans.

And counting.

The NRA is not some corporation or the sole property of Wayne LaPierre.

The left and the media forget that on purpose.

tcrpe 01-31-2013 5:14 PM

You owe me 15 minutes. I suppose some will be along to defend that hatchet job.



Quote:

Originally Posted by KLF (Post 10383932)
Hi all!

I generally enjoy and respect Rollingstone's politics reporting. Here is a link the January 31, 2013 article by Tom Dickinson. I believe it's worth a read. You may or may not agree with this but it's out in the popular press and it's worth your attention.

http://rol.st/14wEi90

Carry on!

KLF


SanPedroShooter 01-31-2013 5:16 PM

****ing trash article. I even read part of it... ;)

sandman21 01-31-2013 5:22 PM

Hey guys the NRA has a time machine. No duty to retreat see John Bad Elk v. US

PhalSe 01-31-2013 5:43 PM

Those of you on the fence about joining the NRA should read this and understand why it's important to do so.

Moonshine 01-31-2013 6:00 PM

The fact that there are 80+ million gun owners and only 4.25 million are in the NRA is totally unacceptable.

sl0re10 01-31-2013 7:17 PM

all of their political reporting is terrible imo.

phamkl 01-31-2013 7:31 PM

This article is in the public, but it's not worth the read. It's the same tired crap bemoaning the power of the NRA and all its money and power. I almost stopped reading after the subtitle, but understanding that this is an article with a targeted audience, I cut a little slack and kept going hoping that it was just subtitular hyperbole; unfortunately, the entire article is more of the same.

For the condensed version, just watch one of these damned Piers Morgan "debates."

ETA: I feel like the purpose of the article was to gin up support for people to donate to gun control advocates. It becomes especially illuminating when he accuses Wayne La Pierre of, and describes the subversion of the NRA and how it's tricking the membership into this massive money-making conspiracy. It was almost like a I reached a point where the article was metatextually mirroring itself. It'd be an interesting exercise in literature were it not so politically driven and blatantly reliant on inflammatory language.

To the the writer's credit, I really did think it was interesting how the article reads like it's doing exactly the same thing it's describing. It's inspiring how starkly (if unintentionally) he's able to depict the divide in the USA about firearms.

DFF 01-31-2013 7:39 PM

Interesting... "The NRA vs. America"... The way I see it, I am the NRA and America.

bomb_on_bus 01-31-2013 7:51 PM

Poorly written article and utter nonsense IMO. Seems like another author is not sy at all to stand on the graves of others to push an agenda or sell a story. Absolute trash in a garbage magazine.

epilepticninja 01-31-2013 8:33 PM

Rolling Stone can't even publish decent articles on the music. Why would I want to read their crap about the NRA? No thanks.

KLF 01-31-2013 9:14 PM

Well folks, I'm glad some of you read it even if it seems none of you like it. It's easy to say Rollingstone simply doesn't matter. Maybe, but I know many who take Rollingstone seriously. I've also seen many cites and points to articles from far less-mainstream sources. When people are going after my rights I read and listen to what they have to say. Anyhow, on Page 3, the author writes about something called "The Tiahrt Amendment." I heard about this on Terry Gross' NPR show, as well as disperate other sources. I suppose I'll see many gruff blurts from people, but it would be gratifying if someone added to this. To me, this seems like an effort to completely undermine a body of facts that are commonly cited in this cultural debate. I believe I know the facts, but what of this movement to write those facts off as methodologically flawed and therefore without foundation? What of this? Is this a thing?

MrTokarev 01-31-2013 10:20 PM

NRA vs America? What do they thing the NRA is composed of, Russians?

radioburning 01-31-2013 10:47 PM

I stopped reading at the sub-headline, where it says "military grade".

Obviously a Plant 01-31-2013 11:31 PM

The Tiahrt Amendment was a provision attached to a 2006 spending bill that limits the ways gun related data can be used, specifically, requiring certain background checks for guns be destroyed within 24 hours, limiting the access to ATF data and statistics, including those of guns lost/stolen from FFL's, to criminal investigations.
Probably one of the only laws regarding or increasing the privacy of a citizen passed in the last 13 years.

stix213 01-31-2013 11:52 PM

The comments are about 5 to 1 pro-gun.

nssurge 02-01-2013 12:04 AM

"How the country’s biggest gun-rights group thwarts regulation and helps put military-grade weapons in the hands of killers"

No need to read past this point

CDFingers 02-01-2013 5:56 AM

If the NRA were a true activist and true friend of gun owners, it would not have let California and New York and several other states pass stringent gun laws.

But the NRA did indeed let these states pass stringent gun laws. Why?

From the article:

>Much like elite funders of a major political party, these Golden Ringers enjoy top access to decision-makers at the NRA. Their interests, not the interest of the $35-a-year member, rule the roost. "They've got this base of true believers that they mail their magazines out to," says policy analyst Diaz. "But the NRA is really about serving this elite."

(CDF): Full disclosure: I used to be an NRA member. Before I joined, I feared they were just a lobbying arm of gun manufacturers, an organization that merely paid lip service to fighting gun laws.

I was correct. So I bailed.

I read American Rifleman every single month for three years. All they did was to publish hyperbole in their editorials. They would send me fund raising notes all the time.

What did they do with that money?

A true organization fighting stringent gun laws would not pay its leaders six figure salaries while gun owners have to get show ID to buy ammo.

Follow the money.

Nope. They're going to have to work MUCH HARDER to get another single cent from me.

CDFingers

scrubb 02-01-2013 6:30 AM

Makes me even more happy to be an NRA member when a worthless rag like Rolling Stones ( who reads that rag anyways) is bashing them....maybe they can have tea with Feinstein and talk about their mutual hatred for the NRA?

tcrpe 02-01-2013 6:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tcrpe (Post 10384250)
You owe me 15 minutes. I suppose some will be along to defend that hatchet job.

And there it is.

zuchaka 02-01-2013 6:46 AM

uhh ohh rolling stone doesn't like us, that's a shame

Stonewalker 02-01-2013 6:49 AM

CDFingers, CA is the *only* state where the NRA employs a full time lobbyist. Respectfully, you are entirely wrong.

Capybara 02-01-2013 6:50 AM

Perhaps right now is the appropriate time for the NRA to run some ads in the mainstream media that show who the NRA is. All of the libtard friends and relatives I have are convinced that the NRA is just a faceless, evil, corporate lobbying group for the gun manufacturers.

They don't get it that the NRA is us, all of us who are members.

CDFingers 02-01-2013 7:09 AM

If the NRA employs a full time lobbyist, what has he or she been doing, lo, these many years?

Not enough. Waste of my money.

CDFingers

Mulay El Raisuli 02-01-2013 7:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KLF (Post 10383932)
Hi all!

I generally enjoy and respect Rollingstone's politics reporting. Here is a link the January 31, 2013 article by Tom Dickinson. I believe it's worth a read. You may or may not agree with this but it's out in the popular press and it's worth your attention.

http://rol.st/14wEi90

Carry on!

KLF


Yes, it IS out there. MILLIONS of people will read it. That being reality, counter arguments should be at the ready. Here's a couple.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Rolling Stone
The NRA is not simply working for the industry on the national stage. In 1987, only 10 states had "right-to-carry" laws permitting citizens to pack heat. By 2010, the NRA celebrated its efforts in converting the 40th state. A former NRA lobbyist once crowed to The Wall Street Journal: "The gun industry should send me a basket of fruit our efforts have created a new market."


The NRA is NOT an industry shill. People who talk of what they should get do so because its something that they don't get.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Rolling Stone
To beat the NRA in Washington, however, the gun-control crowd is going to need more than constituent visits. It's going to need money. In the 2012 election cycle, the NRA spent more than $24 million in both regulated and dark money. Compare that to just $3,000 in campaign spending by the Brady Campaign. And such yawning disparities don't begin to account for the NRA's advantage in organizing activists at the level of every congressional district in the country. "If you think about politics as a tug of war," says Lee Drutman, a senior fellow at the Sunlight Foundation, "when all the strength is on one side, it's not surprising where the rope ends up."


This is all donated money, whether from our dues or from corporate sponsors. Which means that every penny the NRA spends is given to them. Politics isn't a money game. Its a numbers game. More people on your side (usually) means you win.

Take a look at the money here. The Bradys spent a mere $3,000. That's because their sponsors are few in number. We were able to spend $24 MILLION because we have more people on our side giving more money.

Mr. Drutman is completely correct. It IS a tug of war. Because its supposed to be. That's the way a free society works. The "rope" ends up where it does because more of We The People want it there then don't. Yet, instead of celebrating the fact the system is working just as it should, Rolling Stone decries the results.

Hmmm.


The Raisuli

Hoooper 02-01-2013 7:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KLF (Post 10383932)
I generally enjoy and respect Rollingstone's politics reporting.

you lost me here :confused:

tankarian 02-01-2013 7:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CDFingers (Post 10389534)
If the NRA employs a full time lobbyist, what has he or she been doing, lo, these many years?

Not enough. Waste of my money.

CDFingers

And what exactly did YOU do?

Wait don't tell me, I believe I know the answer already! You voted twice for a Chicago politician who as a State Senator supported a bill banning citizens from defending themselves inside their homes with a gun in case of a home invasion.
The same politician who was on the Board of the Joyce Foundation, the #1 sponsoring organization for anti-gun causes in the entire world.
The guy who promised a new AWB ban during his last electoral campaign and now has unleashed his lapdogs in the media to brainwash the masses to accept it as a necessary measure.

Yep, you certainly helped preserving the RKBA a lot more than the NRA lobbyist did. PM me your address, I want to mail you a check for your efforts.

http://www.dimensionsinfo.com/wp-con...ilet-Paper.jpg

Stonewalker 02-01-2013 7:44 AM

CD, you sure do take every opportunity to run your mouth. Regarding the NRA in CA - in one way or another you have Mr. Ed Whorley to thank for CA legal ARs. You should stop biting the hand that feeds.

zuchaka 02-01-2013 7:50 AM

Years ago when Britney Spears was still underage, rolling stone did a photo shoot with her in black and white with a damp sarong , well guess what you could totally see her bush, that meant that some execs at rolling stone had a nice long board meeting deciding what the allowable amount of underage bush they could get away with ....so after that afraid i just can't take them serious anymore.

CDFingers 02-01-2013 7:52 AM

What do I do?

Every single semester my students are treated to the "Responsible California Gun Owner" paper.

You're welcome.

I run my fingers. I no longer need move my lips as I type...

PM sent for check.

CDFingers

tankarian 02-01-2013 8:07 AM

I pity the fools who picked you to teach them. Another generation of gun-hating statist Obamazombies in the making.
PM reply sent. I'm on my way to CVS to pick up a bottle of Dulcolax. Promise is a promise.

Stonewalker 02-01-2013 8:07 AM

Look, in a lot of ways I have to hold my nose when I donate to the NRA. I've got no problem admitting that. But you can't say they are a waste of time. The stuff Ed works on is behind the scenes legislative stuff. It's a good thing you don't hear about him, that means he's doing his job well.

SgtDinosaur 02-01-2013 8:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CDFingers (Post 10389116)
If the NRA were a true activist and true friend of gun owners, it would not have let California and New York and several other states pass stringent gun laws.

But the NRA did indeed let these states pass stringent gun laws. Why?

From the article:

>Much like elite funders of a major political party, these Golden Ringers enjoy top access to decision-makers at the NRA. Their interests, not the interest of the $35-a-year member, rule the roost. "They've got this base of true believers that they mail their magazines out to," says policy analyst Diaz. "But the NRA is really about serving this elite."

(CDF): Full disclosure: I used to be an NRA member. Before I joined, I feared they were just a lobbying arm of gun manufacturers, an organization that merely paid lip service to fighting gun laws.

I was correct. So I bailed.

I read American Rifleman every single month for three years. All they did was to publish hyperbole in their editorials. They would send me fund raising notes all the time.

What did they do with that money?

A true organization fighting stringent gun laws would not pay its leaders six figure salaries while gun owners have to get show ID to buy ammo.

Follow the money.

Nope. They're going to have to work MUCH HARDER to get another single cent from me.

CDFingers

The NRA does not "let" the states do anything. How do you expect the NRA to stop rabid Democrat leftist legislators from voting the way they want to? Your comment is either trolling or incredibly ignorant. Aren't you one of the Obamistas on here? Surprised you are still around spreading your BS.

tcrpe 02-01-2013 8:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tankarian (Post 10390010)
I pity the fools who picked you to teach them. Another generation of gun-hating statist Obamazombies in the making.
PM reply sent. I'm on my way to CVS to pick up a bottle of Dulcolax. Promise is a promise.


I'll chip in . . . . . . .

tankarian 02-01-2013 8:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SgtDinosaur (Post 10390024)
The NRA does not "let" the states do anything. How do you expect the NRA to stop rabid Democrat leftist legislators from voting the way they want to? Your comment is either trolling or incredibly ignorant.

The guy votes for and supports Democrat-liberal gun grabbing politicians, then blames the NRA for being ineffective in its efforts to stop them from passing anti-gun laws. :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:
This kind of lack of logical thinking just blows your mind away. And what's even worse, this guy gets paid with our tax money to educate indoctrinate the young generations.

HKC 02-01-2013 8:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scrubb (Post 10389276)
Makes me even more happy to be an NRA member when a worthless rag like Rolling Stones ( who reads that rag anyways) is bashing them....maybe they can have tea with Feinstein and talk about their mutual hatred for the NRA?

Matt Taibbi has actually done some great work trying to expose the institutionalized corruption on Wall Street. That's the only reason I even bothered to click on the link.

Couldn't get past the 3rd paragraph though.

I will say though, I love reading the "comments" section of articles like this. The author is just getting owned by an overwhelmingly pro-gun majority. It's refreshing to see so many not giving this garbage propaganda any quarter.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 2:37 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.