Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 04 Mar '13 10:55
    don't know if anyone does take the NRA seriously but this should make for an entertaining read.

    basically, for the TL;DR folks, it argues(among other things) that NRA represents the big gun manufacturers instead of the people owning guns.

    http://www.cracked.com/quick-fixes/3-reasons-its-time-to-stop-taking-nra-seriously/
  2. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    04 Mar '13 11:42
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    basically, for the TL;DR folks, it argues(among other things) that NRA represents the big gun manufacturers instead of the people owning guns.
    The political reality is that lobby groups representing manufacturers and suchlike are almost invariably taken more seriously than lobby groups representing ordinary people. If the NRA is able to serve gun manufacturers and successfully frame it in such a way that the ordinary people who own guns feel their fears and aspirations and assertion of rights are being catered to, then surely there is every reason to take the NRA seriously.
  3. 04 Mar '13 12:06 / 1 edit
    All I saw in the article was a lot of ho-hum so what claims that were couched in a tone of condemnation like it was something really bad but didn't actually mean much of anything.
    Even worse, it wasn't funny or entertaining , the article fails miserably, and cracked is a humor site that I like.
  4. 04 Mar '13 13:29
    Originally posted by FMF
    The political reality is that lobby groups representing manufacturers and suchlike are almost invariably taken more seriously than lobby groups representing ordinary people. If the NRA is able to serve gun manufacturers and successfully frame it in such a way that the ordinary people who own guns feel their fears and aspirations and assertion of rights are being catered to, then surely there is every reason to take the NRA seriously.
    one of the reasons presented in the link actually does demonstrate that NRA doesn't cater to the needs of the gun owners: the fact that they are trying to limit lawsuits against manufacturers for accidents caused by faulty weapons.
  5. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    04 Mar '13 13:34
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    one of the reasons presented in the link actually does demonstrate that NRA doesn't cater to the needs of the gun owners: the fact that they are trying to limit lawsuits against manufacturers for accidents caused by faulty weapons.
    So what? It's certainly not a reason to 'not take them seriously'. I would say that the NRA is clearly one of the most successful and effective political lobby groups in the U.S. If you oppose what they advocate, or seek to reduce the weight they are able to throw around, I suggest step no.1 is NOT to attempt to declare that one should not take them seriously.
  6. 04 Mar '13 13:36
    Originally posted by KilgoreTrout15
    All I saw in the article was a lot of ho-hum so what claims that were couched in a tone of condemnation like it was something really bad but didn't actually mean much of anything.
    Even worse, it wasn't funny or entertaining , the article fails miserably, and cracked is a humor site that I like.
    what are you reffering to as ho-hum? the fact that they represent a very low percentage of gun owners? the fact that they are trying to limit gun manufacturers responsibility for faulty weapons?

    to me it does represent at least a little more than "not much of anything"



    if it was funny or not, that depends on one's sense of humor, i am less picky that way
  7. 04 Mar '13 13:41
    Originally posted by FMF
    So what? It's certainly not a reason to 'not take them seriously'. I would say that the NRA is clearly one of the most successful and effective political lobby groups in the U.S. If you oppose what they advocate, or seek to reduce the weight they are able to throw around, I suggest step no.1 is NOT to attempt to declare that one should not take them seriously.
    i am arguing that gun owners take the nra seriously when they shouldn't for the reason that the nra doesn't represent them. they represent the gun manufacturers.
  8. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    04 Mar '13 13:49
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    i am arguing that gun owners take the nra seriously when they shouldn't for the reason that the nra doesn't represent them. they represent the gun manufacturers.
    Yes, but they frame it so that gun owners feel their gun owning rights are attended to and defended by the work of the NRA. No one forces millions and millions of people to pay their membership fees. The reality of the non-stop and muscular rights advocacy for those people probably far outweighs misgivings some of them may have about compensation claims and manufacturers getting away with stuff. If you think the way to address this stark political reality is to "not take the NRA seriously", then that is your prerogative.
  9. 04 Mar '13 14:00 / 3 edits
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    what are you reffering to as ho-hum? the fact that they represent a very low percentage of gun owners? the fact that they are trying to limit gun manufacturers responsibility for faulty weapons?

    to me it does represent at least a little more than "not much of anything"



    if it was funny or not, that depends on one's sense of humor, i am less picky that way
    Yes, the claim that there were only 4 and a half million members out of 50 million gun owners was very much a "ho-hum" claim.
    So what? Do you expect everybody who buys a gun and puts it in their sock drawer to join the NRA? Membership in the NRA is for gun owners that want the monthly magazine American Rifleman and wish to keep up on gun laws, product reviews, etc. It's for people who take gun ownership seriously.
    As for the tort reform claims limiting product liability, no real specifics were given but I suspect they are trying to put an end to the silly and spurious lawsuits that the NRA mentions in it's magazine, the "gee I shot myself or a friend by accident I wanna sue someone" crowd.
    The other claim that made me yawn was the "oh gee some private gun clubs
    (like maybe a handfull nationwide I'm guessing) require NRA membership,
    So........What? What's wrong with a private club doing that?

    Of the three claims that condemn the NRA as being evil in a hysterical tone only the tort reform might qualify as something that needs looking at but even that has no specifics to cause concern, more info is needed.
  10. 04 Mar '13 17:10
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    one of the reasons presented in the link actually does demonstrate that NRA doesn't cater to the needs of the gun owners: the fact that they are trying to limit lawsuits against manufacturers for accidents caused by faulty weapons.
    Supporting unlimited litigation against manufacturers of anything, isn't supporting the consumer. Certainly, nobody asks that manufacturers of defective products get a pass. On the other hand, unlimited awards tend to drive up costs to every consumer, whether you are talking guns, cars or medical care.

    A manufacturer who is driven out of business by a host of frivolous or overly large awards is not going to be around to serve the consumer with good products.
  11. 04 Mar '13 17:14
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    i am arguing that gun owners take the nra seriously when they shouldn't for the reason that the nra doesn't represent them. they represent the gun manufacturers.
    Actually, it is rare that any lobbying group represents directly a majority of people in that discreet group. Could it be said that the Sierra Club represents a higher percentage of environmentalists, or that Planned Parenthood represents a majority of sexually active people, or that the Triangle foundation represents a majority of gay and lesbian people?
  12. 04 Mar '13 17:46
    Originally posted by FMF
    Yes, but they frame it so that gun owners feel their gun owning rights are attended to and defended by the work of the NRA. No one forces millions and millions of people to pay their membership fees. The reality of the non-stop and muscular rights advocacy for those people probably far outweighs misgivings some of them may have about compensation claims and manu ...[text shortened]... his stark political reality is to "not take the NRA seriously", then that is your prerogative.
    obviously i am not arguing that those who do not want guns not take them seriously. ignoring them is not the answer. i am saying that gun lovers yelling how awesome the nra is need to realize they are not quite that awesome.
  13. 04 Mar '13 17:51
    Originally posted by normbenign
    Supporting unlimited litigation against manufacturers of anything, isn't supporting the consumer. Certainly, nobody asks that manufacturers of defective products get a pass. On the other hand, unlimited awards tend to drive up costs to every consumer, whether you are talking guns, cars or medical care.

    A manufacturer who is driven out of business by ...[text shortened]... lous or overly large awards is not going to be around to serve the consumer with good products.
    sorry dude, that is hardly the case. once you file a lawsuit, you still need to win it. you need to prove that the gun exploding in your face is the manufacturer's fault. by limiting (whatever they mean by it) it could mean that the manufacturer can be held responsible in fewer and fewer cases or perhaps not at all.


    if my car breaks down and maims (or splatters) me through no fault of my own, i (or my kin) have the right to sue the manufacturer for selling me a deathtrap and not stating clearly "this is a deathtrap".
  14. 04 Mar '13 18:06
    Originally posted by KilgoreTrout15
    Yes, the claim that there were only 4 and a half million members out of 50 million gun owners was very much a "ho-hum" claim.
    So what? Do you expect everybody who buys a gun and puts it in their sock drawer to join the NRA? Membership in the NRA is for gun owners that want the monthly magazine American Rifleman and wish to keep up on gun laws, produc ...[text shortened]... needs looking at but even that has no specifics to cause concern, more info is needed.
    "It's for people who take gun ownership seriously. "
    so basically what you are saying is that the majority of gun owners don't take owning a gun seriously.

    setting that aside, i have a different theory: maybe membership in the nra is only for people who like owning guns just to own guns. the other might simply be scared people who think having a gun is the only way to protect their homes. or not having them is not worth the risk that one day they might need one. as such, they don't need the nra asking for lax gun buying. in fact i would suspect quite the opposite.


    the gee i shot myself crowd is not mentioned. only "my gun exploded in my face because it was defective" crowd. perhaps the way to go is to prove that the article is lying and that gun lobbyists are not in fact trying to limit the manufacturers' responsibility in those cases. just a debating tip. i will wait patiently for that.
  15. 04 Mar '13 18:14
    http://news.yahoo.com/u-gun-clubs-nra-membership-privileges-151226441.html

    The NRA has rejected President Barack Obama's efforts to ban the sale of military-style assault rifles


    seriously? assault rifles? one needs to own an assault rifles? this is something that a european will never understand. in a first world country, one is allowed to buy assault rifles. military style. for what? for self-defense? if you need an assault rifle to defend yourself, don't you think that your society has kind of crumbled?