How The NRA Built A Massive Secret Database Of Gun Owners

[Jhhnn]

You can interpret my response however you please....I really don't care. You act like this forum is some kind of high school debate club and participants get points for their actions.

I'll say it just one more time. You know exactly the laws I'm speaking of....look them up yourself. There have been multiple posts on here discussing those very laws enacted by New York and California. I haven't dodged shit or pontificated anything I'm just not appeasing you which apparently must be frustrating for you. My words have been plainly written; no interpretation required.

Why don't you prove your statement for once. You doubt the government will take weapons? Prove that government hasn't enacted legislation at the very least the state level to take away citizens weapons. Make sure you have the correct spacing and cite all of your sources correctly....no plagiarism. Homework is due this time next week. Less sarcasm will get you extra points.

So convicted felons & the dangerously insane should be able to keep their guns?

That's a question requiring a yes/no answer, one you persist in going to great lengths to avoid answering.

Well?

 

[Angry Irishman]

So convicted felons & the dangerously insane should be able to keep their guns?

That's a question requiring a yes/no answer, one you persist in going to great lengths to avoid answering.

Well?

Ok...no. I wasn't aware I was avoiding (at great lengths) this question.

Now your turn. Why isn't the federal govt enforcing laws that are already on the books regarding convicts and the mentally unstable getting the weapons in the first place? Do we really need even more laws that won't be enforced? Do you acknowledge that citizens of New York and California are be subjected to new laws that take away guns from those that aren't criminals or mentally ill? Last one, do you really think the government can be trusted with even more leeway with control of weapons, private property of citizens, given the information regarding the NSA admittedly illegally monitoring privacy information of the same citizens? I suppose that's some kind of scandal as well?

 

[ultimatebob]

I'm an NRA member and I get sometimes two or three letters a week asking for money. I know others who have never been members and still get letters. Probably varies by state as to which ones sell your info.

I know that I strongly regret giving the NRA my e-mail address, because they put it on about 20 mailing lists. Everything from gun insurance offers to weekly rants about Joe Biden. They REALLY hate Joe Biden

I unsubscribed from most of them, but I kept the Joe Biden bashing mailing list going for my own personal amusement.

 

[irishScott]

So the second amendment is protected by irrational fearmongering rants? Or does that really do more to plump up gun manufacturer profits?

And it's worth a million bucks a year to get that when some of our forum members do it for free?

Might want to consider that nutcase spokesmen give all gun owners a bad name, particularly when the insanity is obvious & the New York Daily News & the New York Post comment on it-

http://www.mediaite.com/online/ny-p...-wayne-lapierre-is-the-craziest-man-on-earth/

He does a lot more than that behind the scenes; and those tabloids making fun of his press conference, well that's what tabloids do. If you'd turn your blinders off for a second, you'd realize that what he said at that press conference changed the conversation. Every second people were talking about his press conference, or armed teachers, or security guards, was one less second they spent talking about an assault weapons ban. And said conversations lasted many seconds.

This is public politics 101, and it helped a lot. But I suppose it has to drive someone like you nuts that his adversaries' capabilities might be worthy of his respect.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

So convicted felons & the dangerously insane should be able to keep their guns?

That's a question requiring a yes/no answer, one you persist in going to great lengths to avoid answering.

Well?

Well, when someone has his guns taken without being either of the above should the government immediately make restitution? Yes or no?

 

[Jhhnn]

Ok...no. I wasn't aware I was avoiding (at great lengths) this question.

Interesting grammar. Does "no" mean they shouldn't keep their guns, or does "no" mean feigned ignorance of your own avoidance?

 

[jackstar7]

Well, when someone has his guns taken without being either of the above should the government immediately make restitution? Yes or no?

Sure. What does restitution consist of?

I believe buy-back programs happen regularly.

 

[Fern]

I'd put dollars to dog-nuts that any list the NRA has would be old news to the NSA.

^^This^^

I fond it incredible that people would actually think the NSA would need to grab the NRA's list.

Fern

 

[Fern]

In other words, you got nothin' other than faith based innuendo & empty accusations of "radical gun legislation" that you can't even begin to substantiate. You merely refer to what you believe as if it were fact.

It's Truthiness through & through.

You're needlessly making yourself look stupid, or at least ill informed. We've had many threads on proposed anti-gun legislation here, particularly in the aftermath of the school shootings. No need to pretend that it didn't happen, or request that someone prove it.

Fern

 

[Jhhnn]

He does a lot more than that behind the scenes; and those tabloids making fun of his press conference, well that's what tabloids do. If you'd turn your blinders off for a second, you'd realize that what he said at that press conference changed the conversation. Every second people were talking about his press conference, or armed teachers, or security guards, was one less second they spent talking about an assault weapons ban. And said conversations lasted many seconds.

This is public politics 101, and it helped a lot. But I suppose it has to drive someone like you nuts that his adversaries' capabilities might be worthy of his respect.

Uhh, it wasn't just the Faux News tabloids. It's just that LaPierre's remarks were too over the top even for them. They are, after all, a propaganda organ of the Right Wing in this country.

 

[Jhhnn]

You're needlessly making yourself look stupid, or at least ill informed. We've had many threads on proposed anti-gun legislation here, particularly in the aftermath of the school shootings. No need to pretend that it didn't happen, or request that someone prove it.

Fern

Now the argument degenerates to raving about "proposed" legislation that never had a prayer of passage, with pretense that it did become law. It really didn't happen, meaning such never became law.

An enormous number of proposals are made every year, with the stupidest & most authoritarian finding their way into law only in Red States.

 

[Jhhnn]

Well, when someone has his guns taken without being either of the above should the government immediately make restitution? Yes or no?

Nice hypothetical based on paranoid fantasy, apparently.

If pigs have wings, should they fly?

Nobody's guns should be taken w/o just cause & due process. I never offered otherwise. That moots your loaded question.

 

[OverVolt]

I have this theory that the internet makes some people paranoid over time :awe:

Really though, the internet has largely replaced civic culture but without talking to other peers your opinions can get out of whack.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Sure. What does restitution consist of?

I believe buy-back programs happen regularly.

A NY resident was presented with an order to surrender his firearms. He was supposedly psychology unfit to own them. The legal basis? HIPAA and a very creative use of it. Well there's not much use fighting Cuomo, because he isn't interested in appropriate application, just do what he says. So he gave them up. Well oops! The bureaucracy messed up and he shouldn't have been targeted at all. This was about when Cuomo disregarded the usual procedures for pubic debate for his dictated gun bill. AFAIK they haven't been returned.

 

[marvdmartian]

There's only one little bitty problem with this "logic"....there's no requirement to own a firearm, in order to join the NRA.

Guess that blows that whole theory out of the water, eh?

 

[Jhhnn]

A NY resident was presented with an order to surrender his firearms.

Mistakenly. They have been ordered to be returned-

http://buffalo.ynn.com/content/top_...takenly-identified-as-violating-the-safe-act/

 

[Angry Irishman]

Interesting grammar. Does "no" mean they shouldn't keep their guns, or does "no" mean feigned ignorance of your own avoidance?

Holy shit, you asked yes/no.... I answered "no" and you still avoid my questions.

I'm done with this conversation. I go to bed, wake up, log on and it's still ongoing across many time zones. You're like a crazy high maintenance girl friend who is never pleased and who can never have enough bought for her. I'm kicking the crazy bitch out now....don't call.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Mistakenly. They have been ordered to be returned-

http://buffalo.ynn.com/content/top_...takenly-identified-as-violating-the-safe-act/

That's good, but why did a judge need to order a return? Unless this is pro bono a lawyer would charge thousands to right what should have not happened to begin with. The government should be paying him for their mistake.

 

[Jhhnn]

Holy shit, you asked yes/no.... I answered "no" and you still avoid my questions. I'm done with this conversation. You're like a high maintenance girl friend who is never pleased and who can never have enough bought for her.

Oh, so "no" means they shouldn't keep their guns. If that's true, how can that happen w/o govt demanding surrender? How can govt do that w/o appropriate statutes? Your questions?

Now your turn. Why isn't the federal govt enforcing laws that are already on the books regarding convicts and the mentally unstable getting the weapons in the first place?

Demonstrate that they're not.

Do we really need even more laws that won't be enforced? Do you acknowledge that citizens of New York and California are be subjected to new laws that take away guns from those that aren't criminals or mentally ill?

First you offer that the law isn't being enforced, they cast aspersions when it is. Can't have it both ways.

Last one, do you really think the government can be trusted with even more leeway with control of weapons, private property of citizens, given the information regarding the NSA admittedly illegally monitoring privacy information of the same citizens? I suppose that's some kind of scandal as well?

The NSA has something to do with States confiscating guns from felons & the mentally ill? You already said that they must surrender their firearms, and the NSA has nothing to do with it.

How many times can you push your own outrage buttons, anyway? When one doesn't seem to be working well, you just push another to maintain that yummy self satisfied superiority, huh?

 

[Angry Irishman]

Oh, so "no" means they shouldn't keep their guns. If that's true, how can that happen w/o govt demanding surrender? How can govt do that w/o appropriate statutes? Your questions?



Demonstrate that they're not.



First you offer that the law isn't being enforced, they cast aspersions when it is. Can't have it both ways.



The NSA has something to do with States confiscating guns from felons & the mentally ill? You already said that they must surrender their firearms, and the NSA has nothing to do with it.

How many times can you push your own outrage buttons, anyway? When one doesn't seem to be working well, you just push another to maintain that yummy self satisfied superiority, huh?

Jhhnn, I'm done. Continuing this with you is just an exercise in futility. You can't hold a rational/beneficial discussion and I'm not going to be dragged down to your level. You're sitting at your keyboard frothing at the mouth with gleeful anticipation to type your next response which again is consistently typical and fully expected.

I thought I was trying to have a constructive discussion on a forum. I'm no longer playing into your attempt to bait more by degrading/reducing all answers to yes/no as you and I both know this topic is far from a single layered onion. Classic bait and switch tactics. You have YET to answer even one of my questions without attempting to play games. In fact you haven't answered ANYTHING but are laying it on heavy with snarky comments. If you have discussions like this in real life with live people you'd have a hard time just getting directions as you'd argue every offer to assist. In fact, you may arrive to your destination with a fat lip.

I really hope you remember one of these days what it means to be American first and how lucky you are to have that privilege. Much of this country's success has been based on compromise. That premise is clearly not an option your interested in pursuing. You are so hell bent on your crusade against the righty or anyone who doesn't agree with you that I think you've lost your ability to hold a conversation that has any benefit or end.

Your last paragraph? Wow, so sorry you feel that way. You use the term outrage a lot; I don't see where I'm raging or attempting to gain a "yummy self satisfied superiority" to the next guy. If anything, based on the tone and pattern of your responses, I'd think it's safe to pin that agenda on you.

 

[blankslate]

If this list was ever on a computer connected to the internet maybe the NSA and by extension the Feds have this list as well.

Maybe.

 

[jpeyton]

They can compile a list with the names of gun owners just as easily as the FBI can through their NICS system.

But a list of names isn't very useful, nor is it what gun owners are concerned about. We don't want a list of firearms attached to those names.

That way, when states like CA and NY come up with cockamamie firearms bans, you can just tell them you lost yours in a boating accident. Or you never had one to begin with.

 

[irishScott]

Uhh, it wasn't just the Faux News tabloids. It's just that LaPierre's remarks were too over the top even for them. They are, after all, a propaganda organ of the Right Wing in this country.

When your objective is to change the message over the top, but not too over the top, is what you want. And actually more than a few commentators, including a few moderates, sided with some of his remarks (including security guards for schools and armed teachers).

In any case I fail to see how the opinion of tabloids (who will quite literally write anything to sell more tabloids) invalidates the end result. He shifted the message quite effectively. Instead of debating the merits/demerits of an assault weapons ban, people, including members of the mainstream media, were debating the merits/demerits of security guards and CCW for teachers about 1/4-1/3 of the time. So he basically sucked a good chunk of the wind out of the gun grabbers' sails with that single press conference.

Clearly such tactics are completely over your head though. I'd also point out that the NRA is not a purely right-wing organization. They've given A-ratings to more than a few Democrat politicians over the years, one of my state's Senators (whom I voted for) among them. I also know more than a few independent and even Democrat NRA members.

But if you ever admitted that you'd likely suffer a stroke. So please, continue foaming at the mouth over the opinion of some right-wing tabloids which supposedly justify your entire worldview of the NRA. It's like watching a house teeter on rotting foundations. You just can't look away as it sways back and forth on the verge of collapse. And the house, being little more than a bunch of unstable building materials, is completely oblivious.

 

[Zargon]

I think the difference is that gun-owners have ardently said they do not wish such a registry to exist. Should it be leaked... well... then the government has it.

Seems like it ought to at least raise some eyebrows. But I don't really give a toss personally.

the registry you refer to to us wanting to not exist would contain an inventory of what guns we own.

IL already has a registry of legal gun owners, since you have to have a FOID card to own a gun legally in Illinois.

I dont want them to know what I actually have because its none of their business if I actually own a gun at all, unless I get deemed mentally unstable or convicted of a felony

 

[jackstar7]

I dont want them to know what I actually have because its none of their business if I actually own a gun at all, unless I get deemed mentally unstable or convicted of a felony

At which point... what would you say would be the proper protocol?