• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

NRA Was 'Foreign Asset' To Russia

TurtleDude said:
second amendment bans on government actions has been the correct interpretation long before the NRA became political
Click to expand...

Again that's about the NRA's core values, which is neither the subject of this thread, nor my angle of debate. Their corruption - and association with Trump's corruption has become a problem for them. If they'd just stuck to guns...
 
calamity said:
Trash? You mean those who ignore 40,000 annual deaths as simply part of the price to pay for them to continue to play cowboys and indians? Or is that cops and robbers?.
Click to expand...

2/3rd of those deaths are suicides. Only trash would try to lump suicides which are self inflicted in with murders which are horrendous crimes in order to fraudulently give the impression we have 40 thousand murders. This is why anti-2nd amendment trash just say gun deaths instead of simply saying ten to twelve thousand murders and and twenty six to twenty eight suicides with the use of a gun.Because anti-2nd amendment know that most people won't pay attention to the number of deaths that are suicides. Eliminating guns would not stop those deaths. Seeing how the UK, Australia and other countries with gun bans did not cause a significant drop in the number of MURDERS in their countries then logic would dictate that our murders would not drop significantly as well. If anything murders went up a little bit before slightly dropping. There are 32 other countries with a high suicide rate than ours and I doubt those people are somehow better at suicide than ours.A lack of guns did not make suicides hard in those countries.
 
Last edited:
jamesrage said:
2/3rd of those deaths are suicides. Only trash would try to lump suicides which are self inflicted in with murders which are horrendous crimes in order to fraudulently give the impression we have 40 thousand murders. This is why anti-2nd amendment trash just say gun deaths instead of simply saying ten to twelve thousand murders and and twenty six to twenty eight suicides with the use of a gun.Because anti-2nd amendment know that most people won't pay attention to the number of deaths that are suicides. Eliminating guns would not stop those deaths. Seeing how the UK, Australia and other countries with gun bans did not cause a significant drop in the number of MURDERS in their countries then logic would dictate that our murders would not drop significantly as well. If anything murders went up a little bit before slightly dropping. There are 32 other countries with a high suicide rate than ours and I doubt those people are somehow better at suicide than ours.A lack of guns did not make suicides hard in those countries.
Click to expand...

On top of that, we both know that the avid gun banners don't even care about those deaths
 
uptower said:
jaeger19 said:
Naw.. as said before.. they are backing him in "matters unrelated".. because the more difficult the impeachment process for him..the less likely he will be to win the next election..which has big ramifications for gun owners... AND because the more difficult the impeachement process is for him..the more likely he is willing to make a deal on firearms with the democrats.

/QUOTE]

And therein lies the problem" the organization sells out to blatant corruption in order to further its goals? I think that would backfire and weaken its position instead.
Click to expand...

But it doesn't. AS has been shown. At the end of the day... if the anti gun folks didn't have the democrats in their pocket.. the NRA would not support Trump.. and would be more likely to support the democrat running for president.

It doesn't weaken their position at all. Everyone knows why the NRA supports Trump.. its because the democrats in the next presidential election are anti gun.
Click to expand...
 
uptower said:
Again that's about the NRA's core values, which is neither the subject of this thread, nor my angle of debate. Their corruption - and association with Trump's corruption has become a problem for them. If they'd just stuck to guns...
Click to expand...

Naw… they are sticking to guns. Its already been explained to you.
 
jaeger19 said:
Naw… they are sticking to guns. Its already been explained to you.
Click to expand...

Nope, it is not even the topic of this thread.

jaeger19 said:
But it doesn't. AS has been shown. At the end of the day... if the anti gun folks didn't have the democrats in their pocket.. the NRA would not support Trump.. and would be more likely to support the democrat running for president.

It doesn't weaken their position at all. Everyone knows why the NRA supports Trump.. its because the democrats in the next presidential election are anti gun.
Click to expand...

I understand they must bite their tongue and support any Republican in an election. But not in that politician's personal scandals. and As we can all see Trump is on the mother of all losing streaks at the moment...they don't need to be associated with that to protect the 2nd Amendment as they see it.
 
uptower said:
Nope, it is not even the topic of this thread.



I understand they must bite their tongue and support any Republican in an election. But not in that politician's personal scandals. and As we can all see Trump is on the mother of all losing streaks at the moment...they don't need to be associated with that to protect the 2nd Amendment as they see it.
Click to expand...

I realize you weren't here in 2016, but lots of posters whose posts are very similar to yours, promised us that Hillary had the election wrapped up. So pardon me if I dismiss your claims about Trump-especially more than a year before the election. At this time in 1991, Bush Senior was a 95% favored to win re-election.
 
TurtleDude said:
I realize you weren't here in 2016, but lots of posters whose posts are very similar to yours, promised us that Hillary had the election wrapped up. So pardon me if I dismiss your claims about Trump-especially more than a year before the election. At this time in 1991, Bush Senior was a 95% favored to win re-election.
Click to expand...

Yes he could win. Thru gerrymandering, voter suppression and Russian help just like last time. At no point was trump ever more popular than his opponent. It is only by gaming the system Republicans can win.

But we digress. By supporting Twump in his corruption battles, the NRA tarnishes itself and its cause. It doesn't have to side with the Dems, I get it: it doesn't really have that option. But if it had any integrity it would side with Republican never trumpers and drop that chump like a hot potato.
 
uptower said:
Yes he could win. Thru gerrymandering, voter suppression and Russian help just like last time. At no point was trump ever more popular than his opponent. It is only by gaming the system Republicans can win.

But we digress. By supporting Twump in his corruption battles, the NRA tarnishes itself and its cause. It doesn't have to side with the Dems, I get it: it doesn't really have that option. But if it had any integrity it would side with Republican never trumpers and drop that chump like a hot potato.
Click to expand...

The NRA should support the viable candidate who is most likely to support gun rights by the appointment of pro rights judges and by vetoing-if they are passed, anti gun bills. In the alternative, the NRA should support the viable candidate who is LEAST likely to appoint anti rights judges and least likely to sign anti gun bills proposed by Democrats. Both of those choices are clearly Trump given the views of the current stables of gun haters running for the dem nomination. Every single one of them supports some level of idiocy concerning gun rights and they range between awful and worse.
 
TurtleDude said:
The NRA should support the viable candidate who is most likely to support gun rights by the appointment of pro rights judges and by vetoing-if they are passed, anti gun bills. In the alternative, the NRA should support the viable candidate who is LEAST likely to appoint anti rights judges and least likely to sign anti gun bills proposed by Democrats. Both of those choices are clearly Trump
Click to expand...

In an election yes, I agree, if that's their shtick. What they shouldn't be doing is backing him in his personal corruption scandals and any impeachable offenses. That has nothing to do with 'gun grabbing Dems'.
 
uptower said:
In an election yes, I agree, if that's their shtick. What they shouldn't be doing is backing him in his personal corruption scandals and any impeachable offenses. That has nothing to do with 'gun grabbing Dems'.
Click to expand...

you despise Trump and hope he loses and you also realize that NRA support will increase his chances of re-election. So you pretend it is in the NRA's best interest not to support Trump: you don't care about the NRA, you just care about beating Trump.
 
TurtleDude said:
you despise Trump and hope he loses and you also realize that NRA support will increase his chances of re-election. So you pretend it is in the NRA's best interest not to support Trump: you don't care about the NRA, you just care about beating Trump.
Click to expand...

Turtle, we can usually count on a more civil response from you, so I'm somewhat surprised. Please keep what you think of me out of this.

Yes I am against Trump's policies, duh. I also think the NRA is somewhat misguided in its interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. I also think it has become more of a tool of the gun lobby - that is manufacturers and sellers - and has opened itself to foreign influence and financial corruption in a somewhat cynical pursuit of its aims. I also agree wholeheartedly that it must align itself the political right in an election, even Trump, in order to further its aims.

Yet whether I agree or not with its original aim I accept that it was honest: a rigid interpretation of the constitution that the organization and many of its members support.

My point here has always been that politics aside, by supporting Trump in his legal battles against blatant corruption charges and impeachment articles - all unrelated to politics as usual and the 2nd Amendment - the NRA is unnecessarily exposing itself to charges of further corruption. It could stay quiet because this particular matter is not helping its cause; it could support a potential republican challenger as anyone would surely still be in the NRA's corner. Instead it is throwing its already tarnished image [fairly or unfairly] wholeheartedly behind a corrupt, impeachable leader on the very matters of corruption he his charged with. The NRA can do better than Trump.
 
Last edited:
uptower said:
Turtle, we can usually count on a more civil response from you, so I'm somewhat surprised. Please keep what you think of me out of this.

Yes I am against Trump's policies, duh. I also think the NRA is somewhat misguided in its interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. I also think it has become more of a tool of the gun lobby - that is manufacturers and sellers - and has opened itself to foreign influence and financial corruption in a somewhat cynical pursuit of its aims. I also agree wholeheartedly that it must align itself the political right in an election, even Trump, in order to further its aims.

Yet whether I agree or not with its original aim I accept that it was honest: a rigid interpretation of the constitution that the organization and many of its members support.

My point here has always been that politics aside, by supporting Trump in his legal battles against blatant corruption charges and impeachment articles - all unrelated to politics as usual and the 2nd Amendment - the NRA is unnecessarily exposing itself to charges of further corruption. It could stay quiet because this particular matter is not helping its cause; it could support a potential republican challenger as anyone would surely still be in the NRA's corner. Instead it is throwing its already tarnished image [fairly or unfairly] wholeheartedly behind a corrupt, impeachable leader on the very matters of corruption he his charged with. The NRA can do better than Trump.
Click to expand...

It sounds like you're advocating for the violation of the 1st Amendment.
 
apdst said:
It sounds like you're advocating for the violation of the 1st Amendment.
Click to expand...

No I'm suggesting they choose battles that make them look better not worse. Nothing to do with freedom of speech or the press.
 
uptower said:
No I'm suggesting they choose battles that make them look better not worse. Nothing to do with freedom of speech or the press.
Click to expand...

Look better to who? You? You hate the NRA, anyway. You hated the NRA before Trump ran for office.
 
uptower said:
Turtle, we can usually count on a more civil response from you, so I'm somewhat surprised. Please keep what you think of me out of this.

Yes I am against Trump's policies, duh. I also think the NRA is somewhat misguided in its interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. I also think it has become more of a tool of the gun lobby - that is manufacturers and sellers - and has opened itself to foreign influence and financial corruption in a somewhat cynical pursuit of its aims. I also agree wholeheartedly that it must align itself the political right in an election, even Trump, in order to further its aims.

Yet whether I agree or not with its original aim I accept that it was honest: a rigid interpretation of the constitution that the organization and many of its members support.

My point here has always been that politics aside, by supporting Trump in his legal battles against blatant corruption charges and impeachment articles - all unrelated to politics as usual and the 2nd Amendment - the NRA is unnecessarily exposing itself to charges of further corruption. It could stay quiet because this particular matter is not helping its cause; it could support a potential republican challenger as anyone would surely still be in the NRA's corner. Instead it is throwing its already tarnished image [fairly or unfairly] wholeheartedly behind a corrupt, impeachable leader on the very matters of corruption he his charged with. The NRA can do better than Trump.
Click to expand...

Except.. as pointed out.. So far.. the NRA only has trump when it comes to the presidential election.

There is no downside to the NRA supporting trump.

There is a downside to the NRA not supporting Trump and ending up with an antigun president.
 
jaeger19 said:
Except.. as pointed out.. So far.. the NRA only has trump when it comes to the presidential election.

There is no downside to the NRA supporting trump.

There is a downside to the NRA not supporting Trump and ending up with an antigun president.
Click to expand...

Incorrect, LaPierre offered legal help to the Trump team for its scandals. Whether than happens I don't know, but it doesn't help the NRA's cause.
 
uptower said:
Incorrect, LaPierre offered legal help to the Trump team for its scandals. Whether than happens I don't know, but it doesn't help the NRA's cause.
Click to expand...

LaPierre's legal skills is not something I would accept. There are plenty of brilliant attorneys who would help Trump/ LaPierre isn't one of them
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom