Seems Like the NRA is Under Attack

[ltorlo64]

Here is what I have heard about the NRA in the last 4-5 days. First, they were not letting Senator Paul speak at the NRA National Convention. Next, they are in cahoots with the ATF on banning ammo and shotguns. Now they are suppressing information.

Gun owners face much higher murder risks, researchers said. Then the NRA silenced them.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/gun...hem/ar-AAaUFQx

I would bet that Bloomberg or one of his groups is behind these orchestrated attacks. I would also bet the timing is set to keep them from exerting influence, especially against Secretary Clinton, in the upcoming elections. Remember Bloomberg or one of his groups declaring war on the NRA? We need to be careful.

[alismith]

So, basically, if the CMSM is doing the reporting, then it's, probably, orchestrated?

Actually, that's what most of us do anyway. Watch the source, so to speak...

If it has any kind of libturd backing, it's a set up.

[deputyvaughn]

I wrote off the NRA in 1996.

Scott

[Schuetzenman]

I'm not always happy with them but I don't give up.

[Penguin]

As well I hate to say it I more or less wrote them off a long time ago. The whole Heller thing proved to be the last straw.

[jet3534]

Over time IMHO the NRA has been very effective in protecting our rights. Where would we be today if not for the NRA?

[FunkyPertwee]

Over time IMHO the NRA has been very effective in protecting our rights. Where would we be today if not for the NRA?

As I said in another thread, the bills they defended us from would have banned semi-autos from future sale and registered the ones we have. The same would happen to our magazines. Mail order ammunition would have been banned altogether as well. Those are only the ones I remember.

[Penguin]

Over time IMHO the NRA has been very effective in protecting our rights. Where would we be today if not for the NRA?

We would be in a worse position that is for sure. I just feel that my money is better spent in other directions.

[NAPOTS]

So, basically, if the CMSM is doing the reporting, then it's, probably, orchestrated?

Actually, that's what most of us do anyway. Watch the source, so to speak...

If it has any kind of libturd backing, it's a set up.

My thoughts exaclty. I wonder if this is a Bloomberg effort to discredit the NRA and divide gun owners.

[Krupski]

Here is what I have heard about the NRA in the last 4-5 days. First, they were not letting Senator Paul speak at the NRA National Convention. Next, they are in cahoots with the ATF on banning ammo and shotguns. Now they are suppressing information.



http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/gun...hem/ar-AAaUFQx

I would bet that Bloomberg or one of his groups is behind these orchestrated attacks. I would also bet the timing is set to keep them from exerting influence, especially against Secretary Clinton, in the upcoming elections. Remember Bloomberg or one of his groups declaring war on the NRA? We need to be careful.

Am I missing something here?

Gun owners face much higher murder risks, researchers said. Then the NRA silenced them.

I take that line to mean "NRA silenced bullshit 'research'".

Then this:

“The most common reason that people have a gun is because they have it for home protection,” he says. “Unfortunately, the data indicates that having a gun is associated with both an increased risk of homicide, but even more importantly, an increased risk of suicide. We know that, for example, if there’s a gun in the home, the risk of suicide among adolescents and young adults increases tenfold.”Back in 1993, Rivara and his colleagues released this information in a series of articles that appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine, one of the most highly respected medical journals in the world. The NRA quickly went after the research — as well as Rivara and his colleagues.

Rivara says 10 pro-gun senators worked to get the ear of Arlen Specter, then a senator from Pennsylvania and chairman of the Health and Human Services Committee.

“[Specter] approached the Centers for Disease and Control and discussed the idea that this research was biased,” says Rivara. Congress “ended up cutting the CDC budget by the exact amount of money that was used to fund the gun research. They had first threatened to cut all of the funding for injury research at the CDC. They didn’t do that, but they ended up cutting it by the exact amount that was spent on gun research.”

So some dumbass professor claims having a gun in the home is a risk and the NRA shuts it down and gets the CDC defunded by the same amount of $$$ they wasted on the bogus research.... where in any of this is the NRA in the wrong?

Am I missing something?

[weevil]

Am I missing something here?

So some dumbass professor claims having a gun in the home is a risk and the NRA shuts it down and gets the CDC defunded by the same amount of $$$ they wasted on the bogus research.... where in any of this is the NRA in the wrong?

Am I missing something?

Nah, just the usual NRA hate from gunowners who should know better.

Gotta try to find some reason to justify their foolishness.

I'm sure the libtards are pleased to see how gullible some gunowners are.

[ltorlo64]

Am I missing something here?



I take that line to mean "NRA silenced bullshit 'research'".

Then this:




So some dumbass professor claims having a gun in the home is a risk and the NRA shuts it down and gets the CDC defunded by the same amount of $$$ they wasted on the bogus research.... where in any of this is the NRA in the wrong?

Am I missing something?

As far as the NRA doing anything wrong, I don't think so. The study was slanted, was designed to be slanted, and was funded by the government in order to provide a reason to circumvent the Second Amendment. So, I think the NRA did the right thing by stopping biased research, that was politically motivated, and was being supported by the government.

If you are missing something it is the sudden uptick in specific, targeted attacks, against the NRA. The attacks are designed to show that the NRA silences decent and does not really support gun rights. As NAPOTS said, this seems like a tactic to discredit the NRA and to divide gun owners. The NRA is not perfect, no organization is, but it is one of the strongest. In the last 4 years they have added almost a million new members. I think the left is looking to do anything to lessen the number of members and silence the voice of the NRA.

If we are not careful and fall for this bait, we will fall into the plan and while we fight amongst ourselves about who is more conservative, who values gun rights more, the country will elect more people who disregard our Constitution. While I support the NRA and am a member, this thread is more about the orchestrated attack by the MSM. The MSM doesn't do anything like this without someone in the background providing the stories, at the right time, to lead the narrative that is desired, which is this case is that the NRA is bad and should not be trusted.

[alismith]

Am I missing something here?



I take that line to mean "NRA silenced bullshit 'research'".

Then this:




So some dumbass professor claims having a gun in the home is a risk and the NRA shuts it down and gets the CDC defunded by the same amount of $$$ they wasted on the bogus research.... where in any of this is the NRA in the wrong?

Am I missing something?

When this crap happened, I remember thinking, why is the CDC even studying this? They are there to work on diseases, not firearms. The CDC has nothing to do with firearms and should be re-directed back to their original purpose. If the re-direction doesn't work then de-fund them, totally, and start a new agency that will stick to the job it's supposed to do.

Getting the CDC involved was nothing more than a blatant, political move and I'm glad someone showed them their true purpose.