Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Stinky The Clown

(67,808 posts)
Thu Jan 10, 2013, 10:35 PM Jan 2013

Does anyone think its possible to politically separate the NRA from gun policy?

I was shocked to hear, just today on the radio, that funding for gun safety research by the Centers for Disease Control has been cut by NINETY SIX PERCENT since a mid 1990s agreement between the NRA and the Clinton administration.

Everywhere one turns when one looks into gun safety, gun proliferation, increasing gun deregulation, there is the NRA.

They are no more about sporting firearms use than the DoD is about competitive ballroom dancing.

Kudos to Biden for working more seriously on gun issues than anyone I can recall ever doing before. I am grateful for that. I understand that it is pretty much required that a talk with the NRA has to be on his agenda, too.

And *that* is what I'm wondering about. Can we find a way to keep them away from the table?

I don't think Obama can do it. I don't think any one person can do it. But I do think if there was a concerted effort by everyone who is anyone and who is in favor of common sense gun laws to discredit the NRA, we'd be far better off.

Ditto, by the way, for the National Sport Shooting Association, the NRA's silent but equally influential, equally monied, lobbying group.

Yeah, I know. A pipe dream.

By the way, I'd really like that CDC funding to be restored.

18 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Does anyone think its possible to politically separate the NRA from gun policy? (Original Post) Stinky The Clown Jan 2013 OP
They are a lobbying organization. Nothing else. Buzz Clik Jan 2013 #1
We are not doing what is needed to solve the problem of gun-need. rhett o rick Jan 2013 #2
Are you saying gun ownership thucythucy Jan 2013 #8
I absolutely agree we need to reduce the number of guns. But the problem is that we rhett o rick Jan 2013 #13
In general, I would say the perceived need arises thucythucy Jan 2013 #14
My point is that taking away guns is only treating a symptom. We need to fix the cause. rhett o rick Jan 2013 #16
Well, I think guns are both a symptom thucythucy Jan 2013 #17
NRA leadership includes Norquist, Bolton, Ollie North, Nugent, gun profiteers, etc. Hoyt Jan 2013 #3
No, you can't keep them or any other constituents from the table 1-Old-Man Jan 2013 #4
There are alternatives to the NRA. GreenStormCloud Jan 2013 #5
Are any of those SANE alternatives? n/t SwankyXomb Jan 2013 #10
The NRA is bought and paid for by the Gun Industrial Complex. Anyone spouting their talking points madinmaryland Jan 2013 #6
Because it can't be said often enough -- FUCK THE NRA! MotherPetrie Jan 2013 #7
KnR, Stinky Hekate Jan 2013 #9
Having the NRA at the bargaining table B Calm Jan 2013 #11
Sure: campaign finance reform, overturn citizens united, and public funding of campaigns Recursion Jan 2013 #12
And The ATF Has Been Without A Director For Six Years, Courtesy Of The NRA. Paladin Jan 2013 #15
they are the grover norquist of weapons... spanone Jan 2013 #18
 

Buzz Clik

(38,437 posts)
1. They are a lobbying organization. Nothing else.
Thu Jan 10, 2013, 10:37 PM
Jan 2013

They will always be there.

They did not always used to be that way, but no question about it now.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
2. We are not doing what is needed to solve the problem of gun-need.
Thu Jan 10, 2013, 10:39 PM
Jan 2013

Like drugs, just arresting those that partake isnt going to solve the problem. As a society we need to find out why so many of us need to turn to drug (or guns) and fix that.

thucythucy

(8,069 posts)
8. Are you saying gun ownership
Thu Jan 10, 2013, 11:58 PM
Jan 2013

is an addiction? That it is a physiological dependence caused by chemical changes in the brain, induced once the user has imbibed enough times to develop such a dependence? That taking guns away from people will induce withdrawal symptoms that will have to be controlled through medication and therapy?

If that's the case, maybe we can come up with something like a methadone program. Instead of lethal firearms, perhaps we can get gun owners to turn in their guns for something less lethal, like, say, a security blanket?

My point is that the guns = drugs analogy is spurious, and is generally intended to demonstrate the supposed impossibility of controlling guns.

We live in a violent, fucked up society, but I don't see it as any more violent or fucked up than, say, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Japan, Australia... We DO have a much higher rate of gun violence and gun deaths--because we have more guns.

Let's work on reducing the immediate availability of guns, while at the same time examining the demented souls and twisted emotional needs of gun owners, as per your suggestion.

The one approach shouldn't preclude the other.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
13. I absolutely agree we need to reduce the number of guns. But the problem is that we
Fri Jan 11, 2013, 01:52 AM
Jan 2013

have a great number of our citizens that think they need a gun. Why is that?

thucythucy

(8,069 posts)
14. In general, I would say the perceived need arises
Fri Jan 11, 2013, 11:52 AM
Jan 2013

from several sources:

1. Changes in society that make many uncomfortable, leaving them with a feeling that they're not in contol of their lives. These would include demographic changes (percentage of white men going down, percentage of most everybody else going up); social changes (rising acceptance of GLBTs and gay marriage, among other things); economic changes (outsourcing of manufacturing jobs, the gutting of pensions and benefits); changes in race relations, epitomized for some by the election of the nation's first African American president:

2. Various fears and apprehensions which have been stoked for decades now by a billion dollar gun industry and its lackeys at the NRA, and right wing media outlets such as Fox News. Much like the tobacco industry paid huge dollars for advertising and product placement, and employed a veritable army of PR flacks and lobbyists to both promote their product and stymie attempts to regulate it, the gun lobby, through advertising and other marketing techniques, and through the clever manipulation of the above factors in item #1, and through the use of strategic lobbying, has both created a perceived need for their product, and prevented anything approaching a sensible public policy to minimize the attendant social damage. In addition, we have innumerable TV shows and movies that portray America as a crime ridden dystopia, where criminals are given free reign by "liberal judges" and the like--many people see these programs ("Law and Order" "Criminal Minds" and such) as being factually accurate, as opposed to being what they are--that is, fiction; and

3. A long history in this culture of using and portraying violence as the ultimate cure for all problems foreign and domestic. This third factor however is in no way unique to American culture (though it is perhaps stressed more than in most). But obviously any solution to violence in general will have to include both an examination of and amelioration of our culture of violence.

The above is just off the top of my head, but it's my sense of where much of this horror comes from. It is no doubt superficial, and I'm sure there are other factors that could be added, but it's a start.

Best wishes.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
16. My point is that taking away guns is only treating a symptom. We need to fix the cause.
Fri Jan 11, 2013, 05:38 PM
Jan 2013

Doesnt mean I dont also want to take away guns.

thucythucy

(8,069 posts)
17. Well, I think guns are both a symptom
Fri Jan 11, 2013, 06:10 PM
Jan 2013

and a root cause. Their possession can foster both a false sense of security, and an increased risk for violence.

But it seems fundamentally we agree. I would say rational gun control is one issue we have to address, perhaps the easiest to address, but we definitely need to address these other areas as well.

 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
3. NRA leadership includes Norquist, Bolton, Ollie North, Nugent, gun profiteers, etc.
Thu Jan 10, 2013, 10:51 PM
Jan 2013

They own many in Congress over more than just guns.

1-Old-Man

(2,667 posts)
4. No, you can't keep them or any other constituents from the table
Thu Jan 10, 2013, 10:54 PM
Jan 2013

They have just as much right to access to their elected representatives as anyone including you and me.

GreenStormCloud

(12,072 posts)
5. There are alternatives to the NRA.
Thu Jan 10, 2013, 10:58 PM
Jan 2013

Here is a list of national gun organizations:

Second Amendment Foundation
Gun Owners of America (“The only no compromise gun lobby in Washington” That’s what they call themselves.)
Gun Owner’s Action League
Second Amendment Police Department (Cops who are pro-RKBA)
National Association of Gun Rights
Students for Concealed Carry
Students for Second Amendment
Constitutional Rights Enforcement & Support Team
Second Amendment Sisters
Pink Pistols (Armed gays don’t get bashed.)
Armed Females of America (They want to repeal ALL gun laws including NFA 1934)
Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (They are a “never again” group)
Liberty Belles
Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership
Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws (Note: Not same organization as above but both have the same purpose. Strongly pro-gun)
Citizen's Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Mothers Arms
The Paul Revere Network
NRAWOL (They think the NRA is AWOL in the fight for gun rights.)
The Liberal Gun Club

madinmaryland

(64,933 posts)
6. The NRA is bought and paid for by the Gun Industrial Complex. Anyone spouting their talking points
Thu Jan 10, 2013, 11:03 PM
Jan 2013

is a fucking republican.

FUCK THE NRA.

 

B Calm

(28,762 posts)
11. Having the NRA at the bargaining table
Fri Jan 11, 2013, 01:35 AM
Jan 2013

will not make things any better. Regardless of the outcome of the meetings, the NRA will still be at war against the democratic party.

The NRA have nothing good to add by having them at the table for common sense gun law regulations!

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
12. Sure: campaign finance reform, overturn citizens united, and public funding of campaigns
Fri Jan 11, 2013, 01:35 AM
Jan 2013

That would take the wind out of LaPierre's sails right fast, along with all the other K street scumbags. Though also the K street good guys, but there aren't nearly as many of those.

Paladin

(28,264 posts)
15. And The ATF Has Been Without A Director For Six Years, Courtesy Of The NRA.
Fri Jan 11, 2013, 12:33 PM
Jan 2013

Way too much power for an extremist organization.
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Does anyone think its pos...