82 replies to this topic

[Yamato]

[aztek]

imo it is a lot simpler.
we, the NRA members, gunowners\people, bring money to political fight.

i wonder how many of antigunners here, are ready to put their money where their mouth is, cuz we progunners do it all the time.

[Yamato]

aztek, on 22 January 2013 - 10:25 PM, said:

i wonder how many of antigunners here, are ready to put their money where their mouth is, cuz we progunners do it all the time.

You might pay regular NRA membership dues and receive individual benefits and selective incentives both, just like you would buy your own guns to economically represent your position on gun ownership --> putting your money where your mouth is.   As Professor Munger alluded to, failing all three of Dr. Olson's factors for overcoming the free-rider problem, antigunners want the free ride, and the gun owners are expected to pay in part for their own civil rights violations.   Antigunners might donate to Obama/political campaigns and regularly pay their taxes, but on this particular issue it looks like another federalized "Everybody pay their share of what I want to do" complex.

[coolguy]

The nra has there own lobbyist in DC. They have many backers from big shots from DC

[Yamato]

coolguy, on 23 January 2013 - 04:57 AM, said:

The nra has there own lobbyist in DC. They have many backers from big shots from DC

Our representatives on Capitol Hill have millions upon millions of gun-owning constituents in every district of the United States too.

Better to lobby for what's explicitly guaranteed by law than to lobby for something that's not.   I don't see drugs listed anywhere in our Constitution.  I don't see Israel either.   Except drugs and Israel don't kill anyone, I almost forgot that.

[AsteroidX]

Quote

imo it is a lot simpler.
we, the NRA members, gunowners\people, bring money to political fight.

i wonder how many of antigunners here, are ready to put their money where their mouth is, cuz we progunners do it all the time.

thats it in a nutshell. If the NRA does not do as its constituents ask it to then they dont exist as they wont have there membership

[The Silver Thong]

aztek, on 22 January 2013 - 10:25 PM, said:

imo it is a lot simpler.
we, the NRA members, gunowners\people, bring money to political fight.

i wonder how many of antigunners here, are ready to put their money where their mouth is, cuz we progunners do it all the time.

How has the NRA ever cleaned up after a gun party gone wild.

Did they help clean up after 20 shot kids, no they asked for more guns and a bigger party they don`t have to clean up after.

Edited by The Silver Thong, 23 January 2013 - 06:07 AM.

[The Silver Thong]

Yamato, on 23 January 2013 - 05:41 AM, said:

Our representatives on Capitol Hill have millions upon millions of gun-owning constituents in every district of the United States too.

Better to lobby for what's explicitly guaranteed by law than to lobby for something that's not.   I don't see drugs listed anywhere in our Constitution.  I don't see Israel either.   Except drugs and Israel don't kill anyone, I almost forgot that.

The guns fighting a lost cause does though.

[Yamato]

The Silver Thong, on 23 January 2013 - 06:06 AM, said:

How has the NRA ever cleaned up after a gun party gone wild.

Did they help clean up after 20 shot kids, no they asked for more guns and a bigger party they don`t have to clean up after.

http://programs.nra.org/

[Simbi Laveau]

Cause they all have guns ?
*runs away*

[Order66]

They are gaining support because they haven't to caved Obama as most of the GOP has. They don't define patriotism as the highest form of dissent when Republicans are in power, then call the opposition obstructionists when the Democrats are in power. They don't define bipartisanship as being conceding on everything to avoid being demonized into coercion by the left. They stand up for the Constitution and feel that this right was guaranteed because our founding fathers considered it to be essential and important, not because its some passing whim that could be dispensed with later, so that politically correct suits could question why it's a necessary right and abuse executive power to try and toss it out the window.

Edited by Order66, 23 January 2013 - 12:00 PM.

[questionmark]

If I had the backing of America's last successful industry (gun making) I would be pretty powerful too...

The fight is not about liberty, it is about preserving Smith&Wesson.

[lightly]

ya  ,    i was going to say....  $.     (in a nutshell)

[Yamato]

questionmark, on 23 January 2013 - 01:32 PM, said:

If I had the backing of America's last successful industry (gun making) I would be pretty powerful too...

The fight is not about liberty, it is about preserving Smith&Wesson.

2nd Amendment: Founded in 1789
Smith & Wesson: Founded in 1852

The last successful industry?   You're quite the America basher.   And you say you're in Des Moines.  Have you seen any signs of the US corn industry lately?

[questionmark]

Yamato, on 23 January 2013 - 01:40 PM, said:

2nd Amendment: Founded in 1789
Smith & Wesson: Founded in 1852

The last successful industry?   You're quite the America basher.   And you say you're in Des Moines.  Have you seen any signs of the US corn industry lately?

That is very little successful lately because of the drought and American products not really competitive on the international market because overpriced. But that is OK...

Yes, there are very few things that we, the once biggest exporter in the world, can still successfully export. And the biggest demand is American guns... sometimes they even try to smuggle them out... something we cannot say for the rest of our industrial products.