I just got a robo call - "they" want to stir something up!

[katanalori]

I made it past the first automated question: "Would you describe yourself as a left-leaning Democrat(press #1), a Moderate (press #2) or a Conservative Republican (press #3)." I pressed #2 - I now suspect that if I had pressed #1, the call would have ended right then and there.
Onward to question #2: "Do you think the Obama Administration will take away your guns? Press #1 for yes and press #2 for no."
I pressed #2 - the robot hung up on me.
The robot was a gloomy-sounding male - very low-tech and unprofessional for a robot!
I now wish I had pressed #1 on the gun question, just to see what they are up to. I suspect they are looking to compile a data base of people who fear that "the government will take your guns away."
What will they do with this list? I don't know, but I fear the worst (riling people up for their revolution?).
Anyone else who received this call? Anyone push #1 on the gun question to see where it goes?

:wtf:

[FSogol]

1. Its simple, if you don't think Obama is going to round up everyone's guns,

it is unlikely that you'll give them money to stop it. They are looking for the gullible and will give them the hard sell.

[Poll_Blind]

2. What was the # on the Caller ID?

PB

[katanalori]

4. not sure

"Opinion One" in caller i.d. phone # 435 area code I THINK - something is wrong with the caller i.d. display and I cannot read it - all faded out.

[tridim]

3. Even worse, I bet your answer will be thrown out.

And it will be reported as fact that "A new poll found that a majority of Moderate Democrats think Obama is going to take away your guns".

Almost exactly like the DU poll that says more than 50% of DU'ers own guns. Later we found out that it was skewed by RW gun forums all over the web.

[DonP]

5. "We found out ..."? Really?

"Later we found out that it was skewed by RW gun forums all over the web."

Do you have some actual facts to back up that belief? Or is it more important to you to ignore realities and believe that more people think like you do than actually own guns and are law abiding folks?

Or are you going by a post or two that agreed with your POV and suggested they had seen other posts suggesting that we might have trolls here from gun boards like AR15.com?

Let's see, less than 20,000 Brady members, versus over 4 million NRA members and more Democrats in Congress voting for pro gun bills. I'd say your POV is definitely in the minority, but take comfort, I'm sure you have the delusional moral high ground.

[baldguy]

6. Let's give the Brady campaign the GOP-subsidized NRA marketing budget & see how it plays out.

[Raskolnik]

8. I don't like my constitutional rights to be determined by who has the better marketing department

thanks all the same.

[baldguy]

9. Welcome to the real world - that's what's happening right now.

[Raskolnik]

10. Please explain.

[baldguy]

11. Read the OP.

[Raskolnik]

14. Thanks, but I already did. My constitutional rights are not defined by robo-calls. Are yours?

You suggested that if the Brady campaign had access to funding similar to that of the NRA, "it" would play out differently.

While I'm not at all certain what "it" is, my position remains: I don't care who has the better marketing department. My constitutional rights are what they are.

[baldguy]

16. Turn off the Republican marketing lies you get from the NRA & you'll be much better off.

If you toe the GOP-party line, then you're a victim of GOP propaganda.

[Raskolnik]

18. Your post contained no content, just buzzwords.

The Bill of Rights is not a "Republican marketing lie" and protecting the civil rights outlined in the Constitution is not "GOP propaganda."

If you think the Constitution protects too many rights, then you should work to amend that document. Unless and until you do, you're just engaging in precisely the same type of salad-bar approach to the Constitution that Bush used to undermine the rule of law over the last eight years.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

25. Did the OP say who made the call?

[benEzra]

12. Like they don't have it already?

The MSM prints Brady Campaign talking points for free. The NYT has already run several pro-Bradyite editorials and stories this week alone.

[baldguy]

13. That's the good thing about the truth

You don't need a multi-million dollar propaganda campaign to make people believe it.

[Raskolnik]

15. Then why is the Brady Campaign losing at almost every turn? n/t

[benEzra]

19. Oh, is THAT why the Brady Campaign says

that the Reagan/James Watt national park regs should not be reversed because "families should not have to face down loaded AK-47's on nature hikes"?

Or why the MSM conflates modern looking civilian rifles with automatic weapons, and suggests rifles (3% of total murders) are "the weapons of choice of criminals"?

Uh-huh. You and those who agree with you are the Noble Purveyors of Truth, and those who disagree with you are Sinful Pawns of Evil Lobbyists. Got it.

[one-eyed fat man]

22. Brady can't pay the help..........

without its subsidy from the Joyce Foundation. The NRA has money because it has over 4 million dues paying members. Between 1996 and 2006, the Violence Policy Center received U.S. $4,154,970 in funding from the Joyce Foundation, a non-profit foundation based in the Great Lakes region of the US that funds several gun control organizations.

http://www.joycefdn.org/Programs/GunViolence/GrantList.aspx

Because VPC has no public membership revenues, the term “direct public support” is misleading.

Two people perform most of VPC’s public outreach: Executive Director Josh Sugarman and Legislative Director Kristen Rand. Between 2003 and 2007, as revenues decreased 49.9%, both Sugarman’s and Rand’s salaries increased 5.9%. But because revenues decreased, these two top earners––each of whom earned $132,894 in salary and $3,987 in benefits in 2007––went from 15.5% of total revenue in 2003 to 32.7% in 2007, more than doubling their slice of the pie (111.3% increase).

Having just two employees taking home about one-third of total revenue may not be a long-term success strategy for a normal business, but it works when normal profitability concerns don’t exist.

To understand the financial circumstances of VPC, one must understand their definition of “public support,” which accounted for 91.8% of VPC’s total revenue between 2003 and 2007.And to understand VPC’s “public support,” one must understand the Joyce Foundation, because VPC’s primary “public donor” is the Joyce Foundation.

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

[DonP]

17. GOP subsidized? - nice fantasy world you live in there

I'm sure oyu have something to back that big old slice of baloney up, right?

Or is this another one of your "everyone knows" claims?

The Brady campaign has already pissed away tens of millions from the Joyce and Annenberg Foundations since the early 90's. They have folded their Grass Roots Million Mom organization and laid off all but two of their formerly 8 person PR department. They are struggling and failing to stay relevant.

In the 2008 election the NRA donated more than 10 times the $ to Democrats than the Brady Bunch raised. But you stick with them, they'll come back strong any minute now, right after Oldsmobile makes their big comeback.

Brady had their chance in the '90's and successfully made the AR-15 the most popular sporting rifle in America with over 15 million sold so far.

[katanalori]

7. not sure

about the 4 million NRA members - here is why:
My husband is a registered Republican. He got a letter "welcoming him to the NRA' and he never joined!
Bless him, he DID vote for Obama.

[DonP]

20. Good for him

The rest of us have to pay $35 a year to join. Unless you get a one year free membership from one of the big sporting goods suppliers, like Sportsman's Warehouse, Cabela's, Bass Pro Shops or Gander Mountain et. al. as a premium.

[Tim01]

21. The democratic leaders should just become pro 2nd amendment and call it a day.

The republicans would be hard pressed to find a valid issue to use against the democrats. And the NRA would gladly transfer their support from the republicans to the democratic candidates.

I know lots and lots of voters who vote on one issue, the second amendment.

[Euromutt]

23. I don't know about that...

Bear in mind the NRA does sponsor CPAC; there are some distinct conservative tendencies in the organization, particularly the leadership. That having been said, I wonder how sustainable those tendencies would be if the Democratic party weren't widely identified with gun control. I do have to admit that the NRA's Political Victory Fund is about as objective as you can be in rating political candidates' positions on the RKBA; there are plenty of Democrats here in Washington state (especially from more blue-collar districts) who get A or B ratings. Stance on gun control is to a very large extent determined more by geography than party affiliation: urban and north-eastern Republicans are frequently less supportive of the RKBA than rural and western Democrats (just compare Rudy Giuliani to Bill Richardson, say).

But there are certainly plenty of individual NRA members who would happily transfer their vote to a Democratic candidate if that candidate came out as pro-RKBA.

[Tim01]

24. The NRA guys I know are very pro-gun, party is incidental.

They are hostile toward democrats who are hostile toward gun rights. I can tell you I know some really hard core gun guys who have been on this board and were shocked to find some serious democrats who are also very knowledgeable pro-gun guys.

The NRA would turn on the republicans in a heartbeat. It has turned into a corporation with an interest is self preservation. The NRA needs somebody to fight to justify its own existence. They would be just as happy going after republicans if it meant more donations. "THE REPUBLICANS HAVE TURNED ON AMERICAS GUN OWNERS. SEND MONEY SO WE CAN PROTECT YOUR RIGHTS FROM THEM!! THE NRA IS YOUR ONLY HOPE NOW!!"

I'm trying to think of what I would dislike about the democratic party if they were gun friendly. I'm having a hard time. Oh, wait the whole Patriot Act. No, that was the republicans wasn't it. Oh, allowing corporations to destroy the environment.Nah, that was the republicans too. Still thinking.........