Gunshow Protest... - Page 4 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Woody Worker · #46 02-05-2013, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim B.

I think he could be "billybob" (now in a tuxedo) trying pretty hard NOT to insult people, keeping in mind that old habits oftentimes die hard.

I thought I made a particularly concerted effort to avoid any possible perception of insult to elchivito when I elected to not conflate your own parroting of of t walgamuth's position

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

There's nothing "wrong" with the gun mfgrs buying the NRA. That's just good business.

I just want to keep reminding folks who the NRA REALLY works for.

So that noboby ever gets to believe they are somehow unbiased or actually care about their members, without being reminded.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim B.

That is true.

(Unfortunately.)

And I never saw Wayne LaPierre's name on my ballot either. Not ever.

with elchivito's own earlier parroting of t walgamuth in this thread:

http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/open-discussion/333828-no-shots-fired-victim-holding-ar-15-a.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

The NRA will always act in a way to protect the interests of the gun and ammo manufacturers.

Not their rank and file members.

Not the country as a whole.

Its all about selling guns and ammo.

Quote:

Originally Posted by elchivito

Yes.

elchivito · #47 02-05-2013, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatterasguy

I have been to gun shows in several states and I have never seen one where this mythical cash and carry that the media is talking about happens. Most venders at gun shows are stores or guys that have internet based stores that sell out of gunbroker.com. Which means they are FFL's.

Pretty much its no different than buying one from a gun store.

The only time you can buy without any paperwork is from an individual walking around, but again that varies by state. In CT they still call it in regardless.

Lots of cash and carry at AZ gun shows. If a vendor is an FFL holder they are required to do BG checks on all sales. Most vendors are not FFL holders, so it's a free for all. I've never seen any illegal weapons.

t walgamuth · #48 02-05-2013, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Woody Worker

I wonder why you keep avoiding the substantative questions, would attempting to answer them would expose the lack of factual information and illogic upon which the unsupported opinions are based?

Why don't you simply tell everyone how and why an organization having corporate donors makes them de facto shills for such donors if that's your position? In your view there is no reason to provide any factual basis to show any cause and effect, the mere fact that an organization accepts corporate funding by default makes them corporate shills. You're either unwilling or incapable of demonstrating that the NRA after accepting corporate funding has altered their position away from supporting the interests of their membership and towards supporting a position not in the interest of their membership in response to accepting corporate funding.

Rather than showing where the NRA has placed the interests of its corporate contributors above that of its membership you've been reduced to relying on your own subjective interpretation of the "essence" of what LaPierre statements mean to you. Hardly objective, hardly logical, and hardly accurate.

I apologise if you interpreted my comments as personally insulting, such unwillingness and inability to provide any support for what is plainly nothing more than a subjective opinion based on little or no fact in my mind demonstrates a particular type of ignorrance perhaps willing or perhaps insurmountable that is often associated with people who are easily duped into believing things unsupported by fact. I'm sure if someone like that was able to make a coherent, cogent, and fact based arguement in support of their opinion, it would easily demonstrate the inaccuracy of my present assesment.

So rather than attempting to play and then cowering behind the "victim of insult card" why not address the question that has been posed in response to your unsupported claim, explain the where, why and hows of what supports your belief that the NRA is a "completely bought and paid for gun manufacturer/seller corporate shill". The only evidence you've claimed of the NRA's corporate shilling is the fact they have accepted corporate funding, do you base your claim of the NRA being a corporate shill on anything besides that? Is an organization accepting corporate funding in and of itself proof that it is nothing more than a corporate shill and as a result shills exclusively in that corporate interest?

I understand if you won't or can't support your position, but if I might be so bold as to suggest, perhaps you and Tom can get together and compare notes, formulate a co-response, and muster the effort and conviction to make your case, that way you both can get some credit even if it's only for the effort applied separate from the quality of any work product, as you two seem to have discovered something of a "meeting of the minds" regarding this issue.

I'll be jumping on your homework assignment as soon as i .......

hill · #49 02-05-2013, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mgburg

I bet there are a few out there that have been called a "Two-second Timmy."

Or...a "Three-thecond Thilly." (groooooooan.....)

Or like my favorite wine. Two buck chuck

elchivito · #50 02-05-2013, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Woody Worker

I wonder why you keep avoiding the substantative questions, would attempting to answer them would expose the lack of factual information and illogic upon which the unsupported opinions are based?

Your attempt to put me on the defensive is transparent. Nice try. You've offered no proof of your own position, how does it happen that MINE is the one that needs to be supported? Prove to me they are NOT a corporate shill, or your argument is "unsupported", "illogical".
I have posted elsewhere on this board a list of the NRAs corporate donors. They are virtually all gun and ammunition manufacturers. Gosh, I suppose that's coincidental. Purely happenstance that Remington would want to give millions to the NRA. Why, they could have just as easily given it to the Red Cross. Or the Brady Foundation.
Here is a list of bills the NRA lobbied in 2012. Sure, some of them are feelgood 2A stuff designed to swell the bubbas' chests, a few have to do with hunting, but all either directly or indirectly benefit the arms industry. It's all the evidence I need. Since your stridence in this matter makes it evident that you'll never accept ANY evidence offered, I couldn't care less whether it meets your approval or not.
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/lobby.php?id=D000000082

Cute apology too Billy. You can save it. Nobody's cowering behind anything here besides you and your chickens hit IP addresses

Woody Worker · #51 02-05-2013, 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elchivito

Your attempt to put me on the defensive is transparent. Nice try. You've offered no proof of your own position, how does it happen that MINE is the one that needs to be supported? Prove to me they are NOT a corporate shill, or your argument is "unsupported", "illogical".
I have posted elsewhere on this board a list of the NRAs corporate donors. They are virtually all gun and ammunition manufacturers. Gosh, I suppose that's coincidental. Purely happenstance that Remington would want to give millions to the NRA. Why, they could have just as easily given it to the Red Cross. Or the Brady Foundation.
Here is a list of bills the NRA lobbied in 2012. Sure, some of them are feelgood 2A stuff designed to swell the bubbas' chests, a few have to do with hunting, but all either directly or indirectly benefit the arms industry. It's all the evidence I need. Since your stridence in this matter makes it evident that you'll never accept ANY evidence offered, I couldn't care less whether it meets your approval or not.
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/lobby.php?id=D000000082

Cute apology too Billy. You can save it. Nobody's cowering behind anything here besides you and your chickens hit IP addresses

I appreciate you confirming my original assessment, it's been clear from the beginning that your position was little more than BS opinion. You've made the declarative statement the the NRA is a shill for their corporate funders and that it represents the interest of those funders and not the interest of it's membership. You have provided nothing except the fact that corporate funding has been accepted. You made the claim it is incumbent on you to support it.

The NRA is a corporate shill is a dishonest meme you are willingly propagating because if you had the courage to honestly discuss the basis for your opinion you and it would be exposed as such.

Let's face the facts, the NRA is an organization with over 4 million individual members, based on the information you have chosen to rely upon they receive from firearms industry at the most $38.9 million dollars and the NRA has annual budget of no less than $220 million dollars. So even when I use the largest figure for firearms industry contributions and the lowest estimated NRA budget, the reality is the NRA receives at the very most only 17.68% of its funding from the firearms industry, considerably less than 1/5th of it total funding. That means the membership and non firearms supporters provide at the very least 82.32% of the NRA funding!

So why don't you explain for everyone how less than 1/5th funding constitutes "bought and paid for by the gun industry"? Is it even plausible that an organization that depends on 80+% of it's funding, predominantly membership contributions could conduct it's operations in a way that contradicts the views and interests of its vast majority of primary funders and survive? Do you think all the 4 million + contributing members are too blind, deaf and stupid to see if the NRA was acting against their interests and only in the interests of the minority firearms industry corporate funders?

And I'm willing to use your source of information the VCP, you know that faux fact generator, wholly owned subsidiary of the anti 2nd Amendment left that has no membership, 100% liberal non-profit corporate funding The Joyce foundation, the Herb Block Foundation, the David Bolnett Foundation, Mayors Fund to Advance New York City, Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence among others which consists of a couple progressive activists who in return for direct funding produce "reports" detailing predetermined biases in accordance with their funder's wishes. This is how they operate:

http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/VPCandPeople.pdf

And you've got the audacity to call the NRA a corporate funding shill!

You've made the claim that the NRA acts in the interest of the gun industry and not in the interest of its membership, yet the info you've provided regarding the 2012 legislative activity does not show a single effort that did not benefit the interest of its membership any less than its corporate supporters. In fact you had to start by admitting there was support for legislation that benefited the interest of "bubbas" and hunters, and the rest either directly or indirectly benefited the gun industry. Of course you where completely negligent in providing a single example of the NRA supporting legislation that benefited the gun industry but did not also benefit their membership as well. The reality is legislation the supports the 2nd Amendment benefits the NRA membership as well as the gun industry that the 2nd Amendment relies upon to provide sustenance to the individual choosing to exercise their 2nd Amendment right.

Quote:

Originally Posted by elchivito

... Prove to me they are NOT a corporate shill, or your argument is "unsupported", "illogical".
I have posted elsewhere on this board a list of the NRAs corporate donors. They are virtually all gun and ammunition maufacturers....

Reading is fundamental! Maybe a little remedial reading would be a better investment of your time and effort? From your VCP “Report”:

“The vast majority of funds—74 percent—contributed to the NRA from “corporate partners” are members of the firearms industry: companies involved in the manufacture or sale of firearms or shooting-related products.

Contributions to the NRA from the firearms industry since 2005 total between $14.7 million and $38.9 million.”

So, if in your mind 74% is “virtually all” and the NRA gets at the very least 80% of its funding from “other than gun industry” wouldn't that prove that the NRA can't be a gun industry corporate shill because it gets “virtually all” its funding from “other than gun industry sources”?

Botnst · #52 02-05-2013, 10:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

I don't ever expect to convince you, but nevertheless it is true.

I don't ever expect to convince you but nevertheless it is false.

Botnst · #53 02-05-2013, 10:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elchivito

If a corporate donor's list isn't evidence, what anyone who disagrees with you will always have is "an unsupported position". In fact, your assertion that the NRA is NOT a shill for the gun industry is also unsupported by evidence. LaPierre showed his hand this time. What he called for in response to Sandy Hook tells the tale. In essence: "buy more guns".

You sure do take this personally. It's interesting and a bit sad how quickly you jump to the insults. Telling Tom he couldn't convince anyone, except of course "someone like" me.

If they get money from corporate donors then that proves it, right?

Let's talk about NPR....

Woody Worker · #54 02-05-2013, 11:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

If they get money from corporate donors then that proves it, right?

Let's talk about NPR....

Now! Now! Be merciful, the incurious and unobservant are not solely responsible for their state of blissful repose!

Jim B. · #55 02-05-2013, 11:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Woody Worker

Now! Now! Be merciful, the incurious and unobservant are not solely responsible for their state of blissful repose!

That will suffice.

You may step down.

Air&Road · #56 02-06-2013, 07:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

If they get money from corporate donors then that proves it, right?

Let's talk about NPR....

NPR is a great example. At least in the case of the NRA, donating money to them is voluntary as opposed to the government extorting money from us in the form of taxes and giving it to NPR whether we want to make the donation or not.

Txjake · #57 02-06-2013, 08:01 AM

OK, so the NRA speaks for the gun industry; WGAS? Who else does? It is in the best interest of the industry to have a strong support group. Your argument makes no sense.

Individuals who join support the right to own weapons, shoot, hunt, etc. They also have a vested interest in the gun industry. It is a symbyosis. I can't imagine ANY NRA member being suprised that the industry makes large contributions to the NRA

The NRA helps the industry stay alive. Advocacy gropus almost ALWAYS have representative industry members....

BTW, hunters make up less than 15% of all US gun owners.....