Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Kowalski

'Culture war' more than gun rights

139 posts in this topic

NRA's new president has penchant for bold words

HOUSTON (AP) — The incoming leader of the National Rifle Association has a long history with the powerful gun rights lobby and a penchant for bold statements that are sure to inflame an already explosive national debate over gun control.

James Porter, an Alabama attorney and first vice president of the NRA, assumes the presidency on Monday after the group's national convention wraps up in Houston. He didn't wait until then to ignite a new furor over gun control, telling the NRA grassroots organizers on Friday they are the front line of a "culture war" that goes beyond gun rights.

"(You) here in this room are the fighters for freedom. We are the protectors," Porter said.

Porter, 64, whose father was NRA president from 1959-1961, is part of the small, Birmingham, Ala., law firm of Porter, Porter & Hassinger. The firm's website notes its expertise in defending gun manufacturers in lawsuits.

Porter takes over the organization as the NRA finds itself in a national fight over gun control in Washington, D.C., and state capitols around the country. The NRA had a major victory regarding gun control with the defeat in the U.S. Senate of a bill that would have expanded background checks for gun sales. But it lost ground in some places as several states passed laws expanding background checks and banning large ammunition magazines after December's mass shooting at a Connecticut elementary school.

Glen Caroline, director of the NRA's grassroots division, noted the coming fight over gun control in the 2014 elections. "Our senators are on record. They cannot hide from those votes," Caroline said.

As shown by his "culture war" comment Friday and others in his past, Porter's style is likely to be one that fans the flames of an emotionally combustible debate.

Porter has called President Barack Obama a "fake president," Attorney General Eric Holder "rabidly un-American" and the U.S. Civil War the "War of Northern Aggression." On Friday, he repeated his call for training every U.S. citizen in the use of standard military firearms, to allow them to defend themselves against tyranny.

Taken from http://news.yahoo.com/nras-president-penchant-bold-words-060450994.html

NRA official: 'Culture war' more than gun rights

HOUSTON (AP) — The National Rifle Association kicked off its annual convention Friday with a warning to its members they are engaged in a "culture war" that stretches beyond gun rights, further ramping up emotions surrounding the gun control debate.

NRA First Vice President James Porter, a Birmingham, Ala., attorney who will assume the organization's presidency Monday, issued a full-throated challenge to President Barack Obama in the wake of a major victory regarding gun control and called on members to dig in for a long fight that will stretch into the 2014 elections.

More than 70,000 NRA members are expected to attend the three-day convention amid the backdrop of the national debate over gun control and the defeat of a U.S. Senate bill that would have expanded background checks for gun sales. It was introduced after December's mass shooting at a Newtown, Conn., elementary school. A small gathering of gun control supporters were outside of the convention in Houston.

Porter's remarks came in a short speech to about 300 people at a grass-roots organizing meeting and set the tone for a "Stand and Fight"-themed convention that is part gun trade show, political rally and strategy meeting.

"This is not a battle about gun rights," Porter said, calling it "a culture war."

"(You) here in this room are the fighters for freedom. We are the protectors," said Porter, whose father was NRA president from 1959-1960.

Rob Heagy, a former parole officer from San Francisco, agreed with Porter's description of a culture war.

"It is a cultural fight on those 10 guarantees," he said, referring to the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution. "Mr. Obama said he wasn't going after our guns. As soon as the Connecticut thing happened, he came after our guns."

That theme carried throughout the day and reached a crescendo in a 3 ½-hour political rally punctuated by fiery speeches from state and national conservative leaders.

"You stood up when freedom was under assault and you stood in the gap, you made a difference," former U.S. senator and Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum told the cheering crowd of more than 3,500 at the rally.

"This is a critical time in American history. Something big is happening in America," Santorum said. "Stand for America. Fight for America."

Texas Gov. Rick Perry criticized gun control supporters as opportunists who prey on the raw emotions of tragic events.

"You can almost set your watch for how long it takes for people who hate guns, who hate gun owners, to start a new campaign," after a mass shooting, Perry said.

Obama, who has pushed for gun control measures, was a prime target for criticism the entire day. NRA Executive Director Chris Cox bragged about the organization's political victory.

"It was great to see the president throw a temper tantrum in the Rose Garden," Cox said.

Taken from http://news.yahoo.com/nra-official-culture-war-more-gun-rights-163302097.html

:clap: :clap: I love the NRA....

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gun manufacturers only care about profit, they dont care whether you live or die, anti gun or not. The same with drug companies only care about profit.

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Fighters for freedom", is an unrealistic position since it is doubtful these wannabe revolutionaries can out match a professional military force equipped with UAVs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they substituted one massive marroon for one even bigger

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Fighters for freedom", is an unrealistic position since it is doubtful these wannabe revolutionaries can out match a professional military force equipped with UAVs.

They don't "wannabe" revolutionaries, they might have to be and consider these everyday "american-fighters for freedom- revolutionaries" will be defending against american military forces with UAVs.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gun manufacturers only care about profit, they dont care whether you live or die, anti gun or not. The same with drug companies only care about profit.

The NRA does not support gun manufacturers they support the MILLIONS of gun owning citizens in this country!

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they substituted one massive marroon for one even bigger

Moron is the woid, Moron.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The NRA does not support gun manufacturers they support the MILLIONS of gun owning citizens in this country!

"(You) here in this room are the fighters for freedom. We are the protectors," Porter said.

Porter, 64, whose father was NRA president from 1959-1961, is part of the small, Birmingham, Ala., law firm of Porter, Porter & Hassinger. The firm's website notes its expertise in defending gun manufacturers in lawsuits"

Thats pretty much the same thing

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never had a gun, they scare me. I wasn't brought up around them. But I'm all in favor of preserving the rights that the Founding Fathers saw fit to enumerate. I know and appreciate that my rights have many times been defended by people who have been forced to take up arms. Others have chosen to do so. If we're going to have any rights at all then we have to defend all of them. A right is not an obligation. As of now, and since the beginning of the country, citizens have the right to bear arms. I choose not to exercise that right but it is not my place, or anyone's for that matter, to take it away from others. We seem to be living in an era when our rights, God given and otherwise, are under assault. Whenever someone does something bad there is a rush to punish the entire populace by limiting our rights rather than dealing with the person responsible. The extension of this way of reacting will make us all prisoners of hysteria. Don't speak, someone might be offended. Don't have a gun, someone might get shot. Don't think, stay with the group. The erosion of our rights and freedom in general is as slow as the erosion of the soil but one day you look around and there is a canyon where once was a field. The time to stand up for our rights is while we still have them. Today's issue may not affect you but tomorrow's might. As a country we need to defend the right of all citizens before we, as a country, lose them.

8 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never had a gun, they scare me. I wasn't brought up around them. But I'm all in favor of preserving the rights that the Founding Fathers saw fit to enumerate. I know and appreciate that my rights have many times been defended by people who have been forced to take up arms. Others have chosen to do so. If we're going to have any rights at all then we have to defend all of them. A right is not an obligation. As of now, and since the beginning of the country, citizens have the right to bear arms. I choose not to exercise that right but it is not my place, or anyone's for that matter, to take it away from others. We seem to be living in an era when our rights, God given and otherwise, are under assault. Whenever someone does something bad there is a rush to punish the entire populace by limiting our rights rather than dealing with the person responsible. The extension of this way of reacting will make us all prisoners of hysteria. Don't speak, someone might be offended. Don't have a gun, someone might get shot. Don't think, stay with the group. The erosion of our rights and freedom in general is as slow as the erosion of the soil but one day you look around and there is a canyon where once was a field. The time to stand up for our rights is while we still have them. Today's issue may not affect you but tomorrow's might. As a country we need to defend the right of all citizens before we, as a country, lose them.

Great post!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never had a gun, they scare me. I wasn't brought up around them. But I'm all in favor of preserving the rights that the Founding Fathers saw fit to enumerate. I know and appreciate that my rights have many times been defended by people who have been forced to take up arms. Others have chosen to do so. If we're going to have any rights at all then we have to defend all of them. A right is not an obligation. As of now, and since the beginning of the country, citizens have the right to bear arms. I choose not to exercise that right but it is not my place, or anyone's for that matter, to take it away from others. We seem to be living in an era when our rights, God given and otherwise, are under assault. Whenever someone does something bad there is a rush to punish the entire populace by limiting our rights rather than dealing with the person responsible. The extension of this way of reacting will make us all prisoners of hysteria. Don't speak, someone might be offended. Don't have a gun, someone might get shot. Don't think, stay with the group. The erosion of our rights and freedom in general is as slow as the erosion of the soil but one day you look around and there is a canyon where once was a field. The time to stand up for our rights is while we still have them. Today's issue may not affect you but tomorrow's might. As a country we need to defend the right of all citizens before we, as a country, lose them.

So you support the NRA that EVERYONE needs a gun? the NRA does not care what you think nor your rights, it only cares about itself and its rights. A company or organisation only cares about itself and no one else. A right is what your choice is, what you do not someone else to choose it for you

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The NRA are just losers and upset that everything has gone against them, a spoilt child wants attention.

If the NRA had their way, well it would be a disaster

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The NRA are just losers and upset that everything has gone against them, a spoilt child wants attention.

If the NRA had their way, well it would be a disaster

Yawn...another troll... :passifier:

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you support the NRA that EVERYONE needs a gun? the NRA does not care what you think nor your rights, it only cares about itself and its rights. A company or organisation only cares about itself and no one else. A right is what your choice is, what you do not someone else to choose it for you

I know very little about the NRA. I've never been a member and I can neither support or dispute them without knowing, in detail, what their position is. Perhaps I didn't make myself clear enough. I was not writing in support of the NRA or any group. I was writing in support of our rights as Americans as delineated in the Constitution. My thoughts on the subject are my own, neither sanctioned or informed by the NRA or anyone else. As far as I'm concerned the NRA can support anything it wants to. And so can I. As Patrick Henry so famously said "I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Today you and I have both exercised the right to free speech, but only one of us has defended it. Enjoy.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't understand why they resist so virulently stricter background checks.

Yes the Second Amendment says "shall not restrict", but you have to balance rights from one area against rights from another - the right to life and liberty being on the first line of the Consitution IIRC (I'm an Aussie so please don't shoot me if I'm wrong).

You want people to be able to buy bazookas? Fine. Just accept that there's going to be a 12 month waiting list with all sort of checks.

See, no restriction on what you can buy, just a delay on when you can get it. Everyone wins in the end, noones life is risked by something easily prevented and everyone who wants a kalashnikov can have one.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't understand why they resist so virulently stricter background checks.

Yes the Second Amendment says "shall not restrict", but you have to balance rights from one area against rights from another - the right to life and liberty being on the first line of the Consitution IIRC (I'm an Aussie so please don't shoot me if I'm wrong).

You want people to be able to buy bazookas? Fine. Just accept that there's going to be a 12 month waiting list with all sort of checks.

See, no restriction on what you can buy, just a delay on when you can get it. Everyone wins in the end, noones life is risked by something easily prevented and everyone who wants a kalashnikov can have one.

We already have those types of laws! Enforce the ones on the books!

More background checks wouldn't have prevented what happened at Newtown. We already have good gun control laws in place. Enforce these!

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't matter if gun manufactures or gun owners, it is the basic thought that our 2nd amendment is under attack by Liberals who uses a front of death and misery to propose their agenda upon the victims, basically telling them what to say and what to do to make them feel safe. Like Benjamin Franklin once said, "Who shall give up their liberty for small safety devices deserve neither safety or liberty."

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's right. It's all about culture. Many countries have high rates of gun ownership without the problems that America has. So, why is America so different?

The answer's clearly complex and is not something so simple as gun ownership. Making it more difficult for people to get their hands on firearms will likely make very little difference.

Americans quite rightly love their constitution. But they've lost sight of the historical context in which it was first drafted. The world changes, and the rights to bear arms were historically important to protect it's civilians from tyranny - a real prospect at that time. But that is hardly the case now. Do Americans think that they're going to need their guns to defend their homes from invading North Koreans?

The vast majority of American gun owners are, I'm sure, totally responsible. But it's not them that cause the issues.

Americans need to figure out why they kill each other at triple the rate of comparative nations. I can't see that gun control measures would do much about that.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like Benjamin Franklin once said, "Who shall give up their liberty for small safety devices deserve neither safety or liberty."

That's a good quote. Makes a lot of sense. Isn't it ironic then, that in the pursuit of "freedom" so many Americans are willing to compromise on it?

metal-detectors-effective-schools-800x800.jpg

ih4B6xH__GKA.jpg

Eisenhower_on_armed_guards_in_schools.jpg

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Americans quite rightly love their constitution. But they've lost sight of the historical context in which it was first drafted. The world changes, and the rights to bear arms were historically important to protect it's civilians from tyranny - a real prospect at that time. But that is hardly the case now. Do Americans think that they're going to need their guns to defend their homes from invading North Koreans?

No, not foreign invaders. Americans think they will need their guns to defend their own homes from an overreaching Federal Government.

That's the purpose of the 2nd Amendment.

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, not foreign invaders. Americans think they will need their guns to defend their own homes from an overreaching Federal Government.

That's the purpose of the 2nd Amendment.

I know. I understand that. I was being a little facetious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, not foreign invaders. Americans think they will need their guns to defend their own homes from an overreaching Federal Government.

That's the purpose of the 2nd Amendment.

I tend to doubt that it is the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. The purpose was not having a standing army and being able to call people to arms in case of invasion or insurrection. That one or two of the founding fathers were of another opinion does not change that.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know, but wasn't there an overreaching British monarchy around the time we drafted the bill of rights?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know, but wasn't there an overreaching British monarchy around the time we drafted the bill of rights?

No, because, believe it or not, at that time the British already had their Bill of Rights since 1215 AD, just not for the colonies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know very little about the NRA. I've never been a member and I can neither support or dispute them without knowing, in detail, what their position is. Perhaps I didn't make myself clear enough. I was not writing in support of the NRA or any group. I was writing in support of our rights as Americans as delineated in the Constitution. My thoughts on the subject are my own, neither sanctioned or informed by the NRA or anyone else. As far as I'm concerned the NRA can support anything it wants to. And so can I. As Patrick Henry so famously said "I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Today you and I have both exercised the right to free speech, but only one of us has defended it. Enjoy.

If one law says you can have free speech and the other one says you can have guns that means what?... both are right? You are relating two very very different things... There is freedom of speech and then there is mass making violent killing machines and making them readily at hand to be in the hands of children and unstable people... Yea i know the owner should be more careful... some parents are idiots... etc etc.. blah.. blah.. blah... the fact is if the gun isn't there it remove the possibly however remote of 20 children being shot... or a 4 year old kid shooting his sister and now having to grow up with that burden on him. No one was saying you couldn't speak your mind.. but equally other people can speak their mind... and relating freedom of speech to gun ownership is likening ice cream to sharp objects. Enjoy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.