I don't think anyone disputes this.
Also, it's not the point.
Really? Interesting.
Guess who keeps a gun-owner registry? The NRA
- Thread starter QueEx
- Start date
I don't think anyone disputes this.
Also, it's not the point.
Really? Interesting.
I view it more as splitting heads. Its a massive difference when you consider the extent of the consequences associated with a private organization having a database for marketing information and the government having a database for it's typical purposes that usually involve anything but passive actions.
Remember, you're splitting hairs to point this out.
But when the private organization uses that database to push their agenda they're just as guilty as the government if they use it for their non passive actions.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 4
The mechanisms for pushing the agenda is different for non-government and governmental actors.
When I or someone else brings up that there is a difference between the two everyone goes, "yea yea," "no one disputes," "everyone clearly realizes."
However, every one of all of your responses insinuates a lack of difference. A private organization does not have the capabilities to exploit that database in the same way the government can.
We see what the government does with massive amounts of information on its citizens. Unfortunately, this board view the NRA as more of a threat than the NSA.
You're equating getting marketing information as soon as you buy a gun with what the government is capable of with the same information.
Man the nra with this database has already impacted legislation. I'll post the article when i find it again.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 4
You don't need to post it. I believe you. That doesn't change what I said regarding the mechanisms being different.
If you're saying the results from the NRA and federal government are the same because the NRA acts through the government, then blame your government. However, this board doesn't blame the government unless someone they didn't vote for is in charge.
So which one of your congressman or senator support the NRA?
I don't know. All of them. None of them. Doesn't matter at all.
So your talking point of:
...is broad and inaccurate. Because of:
Media Myth; Both Political Parties Are Equally Intransigent .
Do you blame capitalism because of a few?
No shit Sherlock.
So, your comment essentially boils down to, "they want to take our guns"
I agree with you that the NRA itself has no legislative authority to confiscate any personal property, but it is without question that it has used its personal property $$$ to effectively buy those in the legislature to its POV to aid and abet the proliferation of weapons of obvious mass destruction to the detriment and peril of every American -- -- And that's not appalling ???
You seem so at peace, having NO IDEA what its gathering and how it may be using it.
Meanwhile, the public-at-large is warned daily to guard personal information because there are those scouring the internet to obtain it and WILL use it against us.
But oh no, not the NRA . . . not an entity whose conduct on its face reeks of bribery and intimidation of those opposed to its well-promoted arms race.
We get it thoughtone. It's always the Republicans, no matter what. They trick Democrats into having pro-corporate policies. They tricked Obama into keeping and escalating Bush policies. We get it.
This is why I prefer to avoid those thread. People who pretend to care and pretend to research the issues invariably come up with the convenient conclusion that it's the fault of the guy they didn't vote for.
Democrats good. Republicans bad. We get it.
Now it's about conspiracy theories?
You don't have to have an "idea" of what they are doing. All you need to know is who is doing it. When comparing it to the government, if the who is private, then the consequences are far more limited than they would be with the government.
We have an idea and concrete evidence of what the government does with its database of citizen information. What, by comparison, are you worried about from the NRA? Lobbying by the NRA to corrupt politicians? Your values are really skewed.
The NRA having a database and the government having a database produce fundamentally different results because the NRA and the government are fundamentally different entities. Conducting a marketing campaign and undermining Due Process are fundamentally different. There is no hypocrisy unless you see no difference. Or do you have evidence that the NRA is doing something sinister with the information that's not in your original post? In reality, there is only an organization you don't like.
You do realize that you're making your argument against yourself in your post, right? I mean, you don't see that?
Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 4
In what way?
Sorry if I held up your day by not responding.
Do you? I don't think you do.
Let me make it simpler, even for you:
source: Mediaite
Senator Tim Scott Turned Down Invitation to 50th Anniversary of MLK Event
One of the controversies surrounding the 50th anniversary celebration of the March on Washington and Dr. Martin Luther King‘s “I Have A Dream” speech has been the absence of Republicans at the event, despite many of them having been invited. One prominent Republican, Senator Tim Scott (R-SC), told Roll Call through a spokesperson that he had not been invited, but the paper reported, Thursday afternoon, that an email confirms that Sen. Scott’s office declined an invitation to the event earlier this month.
On Wednesday, Roll Call reported on the status of invitations to Republican leaders like Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor, but had this to report about Sen. Tim Scott:
While Cantor and Boehner were among the Republicans who were invited, Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., the only African-American in the Senate, was not invited, his office told CQ Roll Call.
A snub of Sen. Scott would seem particularly egregious, given his status as the only African American currently serving in the U.S. Senate. As it turns out, though, Scott wasn’t snubbed. Roll Call reports today:
The Senate’s only black lawmaker wasn’t invited to speak at Wednesday’s 50th anniversary March on Washington, because Tim Scott’s office declined an invitation to attend the ceremony as a spectator, according to a source connected to the event.
“Much of the speaking program was created based on those who were able to confirm availability to attend the event, and thus were able to speak at the event,” the source explained.
And based on an email exchange obtained by CQ Roll Call, the South Carolina Republican did receive an invitation to attend the festivities commemorating Martin Luther King Jr.’s delivery of the famous “I Have a Dream” speech.
The invitation, sent Aug. 8 from the Coalition for the 50th Anniversary of the March on Washington, appears to have been a form letter to all members of Congress, with invitees listed as “Representative” rather than by name.
Within a day, Rachel Shelbourne, a staff assistant to Scott, had replied to the email with the following message:
“Much of the speaking program was created based on those who were able to confirm availability to attend the event, and thus were able to speak at the event,” the source explained.
And based on an email exchange obtained by CQ Roll Call, the South Carolina Republican did receive an invitation to attend the festivities commemorating Martin Luther King Jr.’s delivery of the famous “I Have a Dream” speech.
The invitation, sent Aug. 8 from the Coalition for the 50th Anniversary of the March on Washington, appears to have been a form letter to all members of Congress, with invitees listed as “Representative” rather than by name.
Within a day, Rachel Shelbourne, a staff assistant to Scott, had replied to the email with the following message:
“Thank you for extending to Senator Tim Scott the invitation to the 50th Anniversary of the March on Washington on August 28th. Unfortunately, the Senator will be in South Carolina during this time, so he will be unable to attend the event. Please do, however, keep him in mind for future events you may be hosting.”
You were supposed to explain why this is bad.
This board taught me that Republicans want to reinstate Jim Crow and/or slavery and all black Republicans are self-hating house negroes, but you also want them to go to a March commemoration?
After you're done with that conundrum, explain why it's good that Democrats did show up.
No shit Sherlock.
So, your comment essentially boils down to, "they want to take our guns"
I agree with you that the NRA itself has no legislative authority to confiscate any personal property, but it is without question that it has used its personal property $$$ to effectively buy those in the legislature to its POV to aid and abet the proliferation of weapons of obvious mass destruction to the detriment and peril of every American -- -- And that's not appalling ???
You seem so at peace, having NO IDEA what its gathering and how it may be using it.
Meanwhile, the public-at-large is warned daily to guard personal information because there are those scouring the internet to obtain it and WILL use it against us.
But oh no, not the NRA . . . not an entity whose conduct on its face reeks of bribery and intimidation of those opposed to its well-promoted arms race.
What bullshit you posted. This saddens me, especially for a gun owning lawyer not to get the difference between a private entity wanting to get a mailing list and an official organization with the largest military ever known that has often taken actions to COMPEL others unconstitutionally.
The juxtaposition should be self evident.
It does not matter if some private entity wants to get a mailing list to advertise a product or promote itself.
Whether the gov. should be selling it is another matter altogether.
If the Brady Center wanted to do the same thing, I would have the same problem. NONE AT ALL.
And why the indignation with the NRA wanting to keep the Gov away from folks, but much less bile for the industries and PAC's on the left that constantly goes rent seeking for shit. The latest example are some of the gov. unions (and Congress itself) trying to get out being included in the same Obamacare that they so fervently tried to get passed.
Pot calling the kettle black indeed.
What's self-evident is the extremes that some people of the anti-government-in-the-name-of-Libertarianism stripe will go to justify tenents at the center of their ideological bent.
I noticed that throughout your indignation, not once did you challenge the point that your chief complaint is that silly notion that "they want to take away your guns." Instead, you went off making comparison to reasonable gun control and Sears catalogue mailing lists. Truth is, you still have no idea what the NRA is doing with its Secret List -- yet, in the Libertarian logic, whatever that secret activity and purpose might be -- it is justifified when juxtaposed against anything that might threaten your pipe-dreams of unfettered access to and regulation of the readily available domestically distributed weapons of mass destruction.
In the meantime, innocent people who neither oppose or want to end responsible gun ownership are unreasonably exposed to foolish policy that promotes death and maiming, simply because of some misguided interpretations of the 2nd Amendment.
Again, YOU have no personal knowledge whatsoever what purpose the NRA has for that information. You've assumed handily what you think the purpose might be, but not a shred of evidence as to how that Secret List is being or will be put to use. Bribing/blackmailing members of Congress to keep skewing the laws against the protection of Americans health, safety and welfare ???
Why NOT indignation -- when the NRA has shown it uses its influence to "OWN" government
???The NRA has shown it will go to every extreme to promote its view of unfettered and unreasonable ownership of guns to the detriment of innocent people. You propose that a Noble Goal
Wow! It never ceases to amaze me when you gun nuts put left/right political ideology OVER the health and safety of people.
Innocent men, women and children mean absolutely ZERO.
Your argument boils down to Politics - over - People. I could give one F about left, right or center politics or anything on either side of them. I'm only interested in reasonable restraints against the unreasonable exposure of the American populace to a very dangerous instrumentality. Nothing more. Private enterprise has neither the duty or the motivation to do that. What is self-evident is that a sufficient number of those NRA-influenced souls in government lack the motivation, but it is undeniable that government has that duty.
This has absolutely shit to do with the subject at hand. Go post that in a thread of the same subject.
THIS is about guns, reasonable restrictions and innocent lives.
Kinda like AAA is tired of being the only "Black" at the young republican party rallies!
Similar threads
