On Thursday Adolphus Busch IV, an heir to the Busch family brewing fortune, resigned his lifetime membership in the National Rifle Association, expressing his belief that the NRA had disregarded the “overwhelming will of its members” by opposing universal backgrounds checks for gun buyers.
Here’s another snippet from Busch’s resignation letter.
“The NRA I see today has undermined the values upon which it was established,” wrote Busch. “Your current strategic focus clearly places priority on the needs of gun and ammunition manufacturers while disregarding the opinions of your 4 million individual members.”
No one cares that Adolph has resigned or not. It’s a free country. But Adolph and the liberal media are wrong, the overwhelming will of NRA members is to fight crime, criminals, murderers and mass murderers. Fluff legistlation that is not enforced does nothing to impact crime, criminals, murderers and mass murderers. That is why citizens oppose further background checks, the checks currently in place are not enforced so what is the point in piling on more? But connect mental health records to the FBI data base? Nooooo, that is a violation of privacy. Seriously folks?
Realistically, the liberal gun grabbers are not interested in stopping or impacting crime, criminals, murderers and mass murderers at all. All they are interested in is their life long selfish wish to ban and confiscate all guns everywhere. They are not kidding anyone except maybe themselves. Newtown is a perfect example. Ban, ban, ban is all we heard. When enforce enforce enforce is where energies should be spent.
I realize that the contributing writers here and many of their readers subscribe to naive and uneducated beliefs with regard to the 2nd ammendment and crime & criminals. Again, it’s a free country. However, as one citizen who was willing to include further back ground checks among other solutions toward human on human violence in the USA, I now will not and do not support further back ground checks because they are only facet in the continued gun grabber divide and conquer agenda. So rather than potentially having a conversation, attempting to understand and be understood, I will simply say 2nd ammendment,..nah nah nah boo boo.
Gee, and here I thought the NRA started to provide marksmanship training to citizen soldiers. Little did I know that it was their secret plan to protect all of us weak and servile citizens from those great threats that plague us today. And yet somehow the NRA finds it perfectly acceptable that criminals and lunatics can get all the weapons (and ammunition and even gunpowder) they want without impedance.
So thanks, IG, for enlightening me. Keep up the good fight!
Oh, one question. What is the maximum allowable number of innocent dead citizens is the acceptable cost of protecting all of us from the boogeyman?
Hey Rich, Planned Parenthood has been responsible for far more deaths than the NRA, yet we don’t blink an eye. I’ll be waiting to see how many liberals and contributors to Planned Parenthood will resign their support as a result of the Gosnell case or the recent remarks made by Planned Parenthood lobbyist Alisa LaPolt Snow when asked if a baby is born on a table as a result of a botched abortion. Her answer? “We believe that any decision that’s made should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician.”
After all, if it worth discussing gun restrictions as a result of recent gun violence, why can’t we also discuss restricting abortion as a result of Gosnell? Except for the fact that the case is being ignored so all you “pro-choice” folks aren’t confronted with the difficult question of, if it’s so bad killing a baby outside of the womb, what makes it ok to do otherwise?
So I will ask you -“What is the maximum allowable number of innocent dead citizens is the acceptable cost?”
Nice deflection having absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. Please try another thread.
There’s one section there I didn’t word properly in my haste – regarding NRA’s effort to thwart law enforcement efforts at seizing firearms from individuals who have restraining orders issued against them. Also opposing law enforcement efforts aiming to seize weapons and ammunitions from persons charged with drug offenses. Sorry for my sloppiness. Point being you made an extremely importation observation. The NRA doesn’t protect the rights of law abiding citizens. It protects criminals, terrorists, and munitions industry profits.
And, Rich, sorry for the typo in this blurb too. 🙂
Rich,
The number of innocent dead citizens shall not be infringed. So it is divinely inscribed in the Constitution – an unlimited citizenry, an unlimited munitions industry… unbound, unhindered by a limited government…. therefore no maximum limit to the number of victims shall be tolerated… there’s irrational anti-logic for you. But…
Rationalism will prevail. You are right on point by identifying soft-on-crime radicals hailing from the vicinity of the NRA.
NRA consistently backs measures that impede law enforcement while simultaneously facilitating crime, criminals, terror, and terrorism. Among them:
Background Checks. On one hand the NRA wails we should “enforce existing laws” but shuts those efforts down at every turn. Like when they opposed closing the loopholes for gun shows, private, and internet sales – all efforts to better enforce an existing law. The ATF notes that less than 15% of guns used in crime are stolen. The other +85% are legally purchased then trafficked. Yet, enforcing penalties for straw purchasing requires universal background checks which the NRA opposes.
In 2009, the NRA opposed the “Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists ACT” which would have disallowed anyone on the government’s terrorist watch list to purchase a gun. In proposing the bill, lawmakers cited the previous five year period when 963 individuals on that list attempted to purchase firearms. 865 were successful. That’s an 89% success rate. The unsuccessful 11% of potential terrorists were denied for reasons other than being on the terrorist watch list.
The NRA opposes any effort to restrict law enforcement from confiscating firearms from individuals who have restraining orders issued against them. Also from restricting law enforcement from seizing firearms from those who have committed drug crimes.
NRA opposition to specific taggants – (identifying agents used in manufacturing gunpowder and other explosive components) is notable this week given the tragedy in Boston. Had the introduction of taggants not been prevented, the FBI’s investigation of that heinous crime could have proceeded more quickly than it did. NRA’s lobby has halted government research in taggants since at least the 1980s despite the empirical success of taggants in solving crime. The NRA doesn’t oppose taggants in any product sphere outside of the munitions industry. Only those that potentially impact their profit margin.
NRA hostility toward and subversion of justice, law enforcement, and the rule of law itself is pretty much epitomized by the NRA’s rabid opposition to a national gun registry. In California alone, where a gun registry is in place, justice officials have identified 20,000 gun owners in the state who have lost their ownership rights. Nationwide estimates for gun owners no longer qualified to possess guns stands at approximately 200,000. Though that number isn’t easy to calculate in absence of data collection capabilities. Opposition to a national gun registry is support for criminal possession of firearms. Bottom line.
The NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action touts the successful state-by-state strategy they’ve employed in the last decade – over 200 state laws adopted, revealing a federal solution which cannot be subverted by state tyranny need be enacted. It will happen. The NRA has exhausted any rational capital it may have accumulated, and the undemocratic nature of the recent senate nonsense has already led to more cogent analyses of precisely how the democratic process failed. So, a more serious answer to your question is we’ve maxed out the allowable number of innocent dead citizens. Gun deaths in this country will be tolerated no further.
Independent Guy,
“They’re Coming To Get Your Guns!” NRA propaganda myth. Read all the proposed legislation. Expanding background checks and weapons/ammunitions bans haven’t anything to do with rounding up your guns or creating a gun registry. There’s no grand plan to roll back the misnomer of “gun rights”. That’s a pity. There should be. If you know of a cogent strategy, enlighten us. What is it precisely? How does it work? Are you able to articulate it, describe it? Or are you just simply satisfied with absorbing empty and unsubstantiated propaganda? If you can detail the “gun-grabbing grand plan, you’ll be taken seriously. If you can’t, your opinion shall be disregarded forthwith and hereafter.
You’re projecting right wing tactics where they do not belong. Divide and conquer has been and continues to be the tactic of right wing extremists and the corporate agenda. The paranoid delusion of sensible gun legislation as a component of the “grand gun-grabbing plan” is nothing more than propagandist projection at its most hilarious height. Grand planning is located squarely in the far-right agenda. It reflects the Tea Party’s 40 Year Subversion Plan. It mirrors dismantling public education, unions, and a woman’s right to choose. It echoes state by state subversion – all Right Wing tactical maneuvers. All coordinated, step by step plans to roll back the rights of American citizens.
You’re on the wrong side of the facts, “Independent” Guy. 90% of Americans support expanding background checks because background checks have a proven track record of success. They work. Your sentiments don’t echo the will of the American people. You’re disseminating the propaganda of gun profiteers. Rational Americans recognize it when they see it. Think for yourself “Independent” Guy. The weapons profiteers are catching on. That’s why they’re ratcheting up the discourse that you so laughably lap up. They know they’re doomed. They need you to lick at their heels so they can hang on just a little longer.
Like it or not gun fanatics are on the wrong side of history. Perverting the 2nd Amendment to justify a Neo-Confederate/profiteering agenda won’t stand the test of time. Regulating the weapons/ammunition industry and repealing the Second Amendment won’t come from some kind of long term dismantling effort, it will occur in a few punctuated moments. The more fanatics writhe and obfuscate, obstruct and resist, the more momentum they build for those moments of big, irreversible change. So by all means, “independent” Guy, tell me more about the grand plan.
And while you’re at it, tell us about those big solutions you have for resolving gun deaths in this country. And tell us about your deep understanding of the Second Amendment. You needn’t say nah nah boo boo. I will gladly have those conversations with you. I am not altogether uneducated about the Constitution or about the Revolutionary Era. I don’t have beliefs. I have knowledge. I don’t believe anything about crime and criminals, but I know some things. The question is are YOU operating from knowledge or belief? Make your case. Edify me.
I’ll drink to that !
2nd ammendment nah nah nah boo boo……..
I am in the process of drafting a proposal to expand back ground checks for the purchase of pressure cookers. And it will close the garage sale loophole. 40% of all pressure cookers are sold at garage sales. This is unacceptable. …does this “logic” sound familiar?
You are not interested in edification. You are only interested in forwarding your agenda based on your “belief”.
“Independent” Guy,
Yes, the anti-logic you’re struggling with is entirely recognizable. You’ve employed that all too familiar strand of incoherent irrationalism that Conservative propagandists rely upon. Your pressure cooker proposal perfectly reflects your incapacity for rational thought. Your intent is to cast your irrationalism onto your opposition, but you’ve succeeded only in revealing how feeble are you own abilities. Your “logic” is a reflection of your own propagandist methodologies and has no bearing on your opposition. You’ve strayed outside the bounds of logic, would you care to enter the realm of sound argumentation?
More to the point, however, you’ve blatantly displayed another feature characteristic of right wing propagandists – fear of debate. Why, yes of course, I should like to forward my agenda. You have one too. Given this is a forum for discussing agendas one would suppose you’d be interested in making an intelligent case for yours. But, unfailingly, as all right wing propagandists do, you shrink at the prospect of rational discussion. At the point you must actually defend your position with logic and reason you cower because there is no reasonable defense for your beliefs.
But, I am cheerfully undeterred by your pettiness. I will ask you again for your explication of the Second Amendment. If you thoroughly understand it surely you are able to expound upon it. If you don’t actually comprehend the 2nd Amendment your ignorance will be laid bare in your exposition will it not? Therein lies the danger. You might actually prove your own ignorance with your own words. I will ask you again to enlighten us with your knowledge respecting the empirical reality faced by law enforcement and justice officials in handling the criminal element in this nation. If you do know something and you can synthesize all the complex matters at hand your defense will speak for itself. Again, therein lies the danger. You may reveal your own incapacity for critical thought and the credibility of your agenda shall be dashed. You are given the opportunity to forward your agenda based on whatever you see fit – belief or rationalism or a combination of both. Until you do your opinion now and in future will be disregarded as ignorance.
I eagerly await the details of your pressure cooker draft proposal. Please don’t delay in posting it. I should rather enjoy analyzing it piece by intricate piece.
Pfffft,…’ere.
Obviously you are smartest person in this thread, have forgotten more than I will ever know and whose crap does not stink.
As previously stated, “rather than potentially having a conversation, attempting to understand and be understood, I will simply say 2nd ammendment,..nah nah nah boo boo.”
“Independent” Guy
Once again you are projecting your own irrationalism and perhaps your own insecurities onto others.
I will repeat: I am attempting to have a conversation. It is you who are evading. The forum is yours. Trust that I will take you seriously, take your agenda seriously, and weigh your case with an open mind. I would be thrilled if you could present me with perspectives that I haven’t previously considered. I will honestly attempt to understand your position. Contrary to what you might think, I’m really not at all unfamiliar with the Conservative position on this issue. With that said, I will concede that you may possess some Conservative perspective that has eluded me. Edify me.
So does this mean you are not going to post all the salient and convincing details of your pressure cooker proposal?
Does this mean you are not going to construct a cogent argument for the 2nd Amendment – its historicity and its suitability for the 21st Century?
Does this mean you are not going to synthesize the challenges of the enforcement and judicial spheres for addressing crime, criminals, terrorism, and terrorists?
That’s okay, “independent” Guy. I’ll drop it. Your comments have sufficiently demonstrated enough. I give up. You win. Congratulations. Relish in your victory. Tastes kind of Cadmean doesn’t it? With a just a gentle tinge of Pyrrhic.