Posted by 79 at 10:55pm Sep 12 '13sure, they take money from their members. why wouldn't they?
but they then throw that money on the side of the gun manufacturers - even when their membership disagrees! a majority of NRA members were in favor of expanding background checks to include gun shows. the NRA opposed it with vehemence.
why? because the NRA isn't there to represent its members. it's there to make sure the gun manufacturers make as much money as possible....and it's not in their best interests to have background checks.
if *any* organisation pulled that kind of crap, i'd be against it. it just so happens that i advocate for more gun control, as well. (cue NRA-built paranoia that "gun control" = "dismantle the second amendment and take away everyone's guns"....THIS is actually my primary beef with them - and gun nuts in general. it's impossible to have dialog with someone who believes that everything you say is just "code" for "the most drastic infringement of constitutional rights in the entire history of the country".)
and i never said anything in support of a certain NYC mayor, or those like him. i felt no need to weigh in on that, as my post was focused on the fact that two recalled state senators do not a state majority prove. hell, we recalled two of them here - and walker stayed in office because a solid majority of the voters supported him.
i just thought it was strange that you took the leap from two recalls to "the wishes of the people of Colorado." as proved here in wisconsin, the two are definitely not the same.
(and yeah, i do think high-capacity magazines are pointless and i support banning them.)
it's my view of the NRA - 79