Is the republican party a cult?

[gre]

I'm not big on politics, but in general it seems like there's much more ignorance surrounding the republican party...

 

Are democratic and independent voters as brainwashed as the republican party, or does it just seem that way?

 

The majority of the republican voters (fanatics) seem to be either.. A.) Gun owners who think Obama will take away their guns (which going by his voting record is a myth or conspiracy theory). Or B.) just political fanatics, who will overlook reality on all the issues just to maintain faith in their party.

[JillSwift]

Let's see:

cult

–noun

 

1. a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies.

Nope, not a religion or religious in nature.

2. an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, esp. as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult.

It may fit this definition. But so would the Democratic party.

3. the object of such devotion.

As above.

4. a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.

As above

5. Sociology. a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.

Nope. No rites, no sacred ideology.

6. a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader.

Again, not a religion.

7. the members of such a religion or sect.

As above.

8. any system for treating human sickness that originated by a person usually claiming to have sole insight into the nature of disease, and that employs methods regarded as unorthodox or unscientific.

Nope, not a panacea sales machine either.

 

So, I think a political party, no matter what its most extreme members are up to, would qualify as a cult unless it stopped being a political party first.

[ydoaPs]

Let's see:

cult

–noun

 

1. a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies.

Nope, not a religion or religious in nature.

 

The religious right, perhaps(aka, the nutjobs).

[JillSwift]

The religious right, perhaps(aka, the nutjobs).

Maybe, but the question was about the Republican Party - who do seem to coddle the religious right, but that doesn't make the party religious in nature.

[padren]

The religious right, perhaps(aka, the nutjobs).

 

I would have to disagree as they often differ on the particulars of religion - whether Mormon, Catholic, Baptist, etc. I think a system of religious worship implies some uniformity.

[gre]

I just think there is a common denominator between the "religious (right)", cults, and the overall mentality of the party. Maybe republicans are more likely (compared to democrates) to be manipulated by propaganda and the powers that be (Glenn Beck, NRA, etc) and use irrational thought processes to believe (or have faith) in what they say.

Edited September 21, 2009 by gre

[padren]

I just think there is a common denominator between the "religious (right)", cults, and the overall mentality of the party. Maybe republicans are more likely (compared to democrates) to be manipulated by propaganda and the powers that be (Glenn Beck, NRA, etc) and use irrational thinking processes to believe (or have faith) in what they say.

 

First, we have to move the goal posts, since you were asking about the republican party, not (albeit powerful) groups within it.

 

Second, you could be right (I am not asserting a case to the contrary, mostly out of lack of desire to put forth the energy) but I will say I don't find your arguments wholly compelling - while I do think rhetoric is accepted to a higher degree even when it may be irrational I don't know if it still qualifies as a cult. I may agree there are "cult like" aspects but I think those like Glenn Beck are playing off beliefs that already exist within the viewership, instead of instilling them.

I don't know how much power he really has to impact what people believe, other than to reinforce what they already do.

[JohnB]

So, what's it like to live in a nation where 50% of the population are ambulatory narcolepts, easily swayed by propaganda and generally incapable of intelligent, rational thought and the other 50% are shining examples of purity, light and rationality?

 

In every other nation on the planet there are whackos and nutjobs on both sides of the political divide.

 

Partisanship is so deep in the US that you'll need to devise new deep mining techniques just to find out how far down it goes.

[The Bear's Key]

In every other nation on the planet there are whackos and nutjobs on both sides of the political divide.

Are you saying every nation's political organizations have a fairly equal distribution of nutjobs?

 

I'd say that is leagues beyond inaccurate, if so.

 

Plus I don't see where anyone cliamed their side is pure.

[JohnB]

So it's your opinion that all the nutjobs are on only one side of the fence?

 

Both sides of the Left/Right divide have nutjobs and I would guess that they are in roughly equal proportions. Given the large population of a nation, I would expect there to be little statistical difference.

[The Bear's Key]

Pt 1

 

So it's your opinion that all the nutjobs are on only one side of the fence?

I'll let you be the ("educated guessing") judge of my fairness meter...

 

October 4th, 2008

I never voted before 2004, barely knew what a Republican or Democrat were, and thought Ross Perot was the only candidate who wasn't a total weasel politician in 1992 -- yet couldn't vote for him either.

........

Sorry, but I have defended faith, business and government to people who are right to be angry, and I still do.

........

But she knows those who seek power by luring with the attraction of holy scripture, they are more likely to be corrupt. She doesn't trust the prez nor this new Palin, and she has no idea what a Democrat or Republican is, nor even about world events.

.....

While I and others saw both candidates as a dreaded lesser of both evils choice, we had been unaware there was a huge following that idolized politicians of their party, and worse, tuning in solely to a.m. radio, conservative media, or evangelists who drilled over and over into their heads that the media was liberal and so it's safe to tune in only to the safe networks: the political machine using religion as tool after twisting a few key concepts.

 

 

February 19th, 2009

I agree both parties are bad -- that system is flawed. If it weren't Republicans, it'd be Democrats. And will be...because those who are corrupt flock towards power.

.....

First, I'm just as upset if Obama would continue this.

 

 

February 25th, 2009

 

But who cares, she's accomplished the task: forcing the person to decry something their beloved party did -- a quite almost impossible task. She does enjoy having paradoxes explode in their hopelessly stubborn minds.

 

If the person adopts her trick and uses it against Dems, so much the better. It's really great when people recognize *all* politicians are just that -- politicians. Not something to be idolized.

 

 

April 10th, 2009

Before the election, certain people went on about how Obama's a muslim and didn't trust him -- practically scared about it really. Bush followers (hanging on too much radio and emails). I used the opportunity to inform them how if elected, Obama was going to now have at his disposal all the executive powers amassed over the last 8 years....and how that's precisely why you don't f* around with Constitution, because if the wrong person gets in...

 

 

April 20th, 2009 (someone probably toked up good on this date )

During 2006-2008 I would point out (in conversation to Republicans) how the separation of powers is threatened when a single party has control of all branches of government -- by using the incoming possibility of a Dems majority government to illustrate the folly of seeking a permanent majority. Whenever I'd state that both Parties needed a deep cut in power, they'd insist all that's needed is for the Dems to go bye-bye.

.....

I'm willing to bet, more Dems (than Republicans/conservatives) would like either for all parties to be done away with, or for there to be more than just the two-party system (with national umph, at least).

 

 

June 11th, 2009

But in my view, government conspiracy doesn't actually exist. For a conspirer to me isn't really a legitimate part of government...which I believe is far and large a decent entity -- in a free nation of course (and the more it's open).

 

 

September 19th, 2009

As for me, I'm an Independent and never will join a party even if 100% of their moves and uttered words spoke to the very core of my interests. (They'd likely gain my vote, but that's about it)

 

Politicians are never to be fully trusted.

 

 

 

Pt 2

 

Both sides of the Left/Right divide have nutjobs and I would guess that they are in roughly equal proportions. Given the large population of a nation, I would expect there to be little statistical difference.

Well JohnB since you're such an expert on the U.S. from your comfy perch in Australia, you might easily find where Obama did any of the kind of things listed below. Anything of equal severity will do. Heck you could take the whole 8 years to answer

 

October 4th, 2008

91% supported the prez after the buildings went down. His crew used the opportunity to entrench their party and destroy the opposition, in a time when the nation needed their leadership.

 

You call that anger or jealousy by the people affected by the nonstop, bold scheming of this administration? Postponing explanations and then claiming it's old news when it's long due?

 

 

February 19th, 2009

You didn't hear us jump angrily about the witchunt over Clinton's relatively victimless blowjob (mostly bad for Hillary), instead many of us thought it silly and cracked jokes, and even the supposedly liberal media splashed it over the news for months on end, but -- every revealed misdeed by of the Bush gang (countless), resulted in angry backlash and denial by his supporters.

(minor correction )

 

 

March 9th, 2009

What you might ask yourself is, how does an 85+ % approval rating for Bush translate into major desire to see him fail?

 

Glad you asked So let's illustrate how.

 

The public didn't view the response to 9/11 attacks in a partisan manner. Who, under normal circumstances, ever would? But...once enough of us had seen Bush's party (under Karl Rove guidance/coersion) repeatedly treat 9/11 as a golden opportunity to push/shove their agenda -- the once-in-a-lifetime chance to gain a "permanent majority" -- and calling people traitors/unpatriotic who disagreed, the one thing I'm sure of is: you are correct, many people eventually did want the administraion to fail, because their success would've magnified the constitutional abuses they perpetrated.

 

As Scott McClellan wrote about, the Bush team was in campaign mode from day one in the White House. Nice to know their #1 priority when the nation is on high terror alert is to create a permanent Republican majority.

 

You see, if the Bush Administration hadn't used the attack on U.S. soil as a means to score heavy politically, or hadn't called any opposition to these schemes unpatriotic, or hadn't attempted to solidify many of those plans into law, or hadn't flooded the government positions with inexperienced yes-men in order to ensure their schemes, or hadn't written about the benefits of transforming Iraq, Iran and North Korea (years before Y2K) and then conveniently labelled those nations the "Axis of Evil", it's highly unlikely you would've encountered a poll today claiming 51% of Democrats wanted Bush to fail.

 

 

May 23rd, 2009

However....

 

• if Obama continually maneuvered secretively in a harmful way yet ideal for cementing the Democrats' majority
  
• if Biden granted huge contracts with no bidding to a number of politically allied businesses
  
• if Obama had admitted spying only after being exposed
  
• if the '08 - '12 White House paid journalists in tax money ($240,000) to promote Dems' ideologies (and to urge other like-skinned journalists to do the same)
  
• if Obama was found to have demanded connections to alQaida be found of a nation he wished to invade
  
• if the White House sent propaganda to be falsely aired as news to school kids
  -- or likewise deceived old people of a law change by using a fake reporter
  
• if Obama had contracted with a public relations firm to broadcast his agenda disguised as their own video news release
  -- or had a prepackaged "news" segment widely broadcast in rural areas*
  
• if White House memos secretly OK'd torture
  
• if they had unlawfully deleted a ton of White House emails
  
• if administration officials continually played strategic amnesia when questioned in criminal investigations
  
• if the Defense Secretary hellbent on toppling a regime had once been chummy with its tyrant leader
  
• if the Obama adminsitration were the most secretive in history and its officials regularly defied/ignored congressional subpoenas for legal testimony
  
• if the nation were attacked, then the President didn't really bother the nation from where all the hijackers originated, possibly because he's still chummy with that nation's leaders
  
• if the White House officials made every attempt to tie Iraq to 9/11, and kept changing the premise for the Iraq war...after each failure
  
• if Biden had colluded in an energy task force of suspicious/illegal nature and fought release of its documents all the way to Supreme Court
  
• etc (ad infinitum?)
  

....then I'd certainly move for impeachment proceedings against the entire Obama cabinet.

 

But that isn't so, and hopefully (plus likely, for now) will not be.

 

 

Congressional Record, Volume 150 Issue 73

http://fdsys.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2004-05-21/html/CREC-2004-05-21-pt1-PgS6088.htm

 

...the Bush administration illegally spent taxpayer dollars for political

propaganda in violation of two laws.

To make matters worse, these funds were taken from the Medicare Trust

Fund.

In other words, money reserved for our seniors' healthcare was

illegally used for political activity.

........

The President has raised plenty of money for his campaign. Over

200 million dollars. Why does he need to use Medicare funds?

 

With taxpayer money, the Bush administration produced so-called

"video news released'' --fake news stories that hailed the new

Medicare law--and distributed them to TV stations across the country.

This covert propaganda was never identified as being produced by the

administration. As a result many news stations ran this story as real

news and....viewers had no idea it was produced by the government.

 

 

 

No Dollar Left Behind

http://web.archive.org/web/20050113100325/http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000749251

Tribune Media Services (TMS) tonight terminated its contract with columnist Armstrong Williams, effective immediately. But Williams told E&P that he plans to continue his feature via self-syndication.

 

TMS' action came after USA Today reported this morning that Williams had accepted $240,000 from the Bush administration to promote the No Child Left Behind education-reform law on his TV and radio shows. E&P subsequently reported that Williams had also written about NCLB in his newspaper column at least four times last year.

........

 

 

*This one did include a snippet with USDA listed as the source, though usually at the end.

On Tuesday, Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii) and Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), whose states produce sugar, sent a letter to Johanns objecting to pro-CAFTA news reports produced by the government.

 

"These releases, which are produced and distributed with taxpayer dollars, are provided to 675 rural radio stations and numerous televisions stations where they are run, without disclosure of their source, as news reports," the senators wrote. "We are concerned that many listeners in rural America may believe these releases are objective news reports, rather than political statements from the USDA which are intended to advance a specific trade agenda."

 

 

What you might not realize about the innocently titled (as many Bush laws were, pretty sneaky) No Child Left Behind law, is that it allowed for military recruiters to get kids home address and phone info. Guess who knew about that little sneaky bit? Practically no one until the calls began. Of course if the schools refused to give out kids' info, their new funding was to be cut off. But who cares, it's only public education right?

 

Just a bit of perspective.

[gre]

Also.. imo.. Any lower/middle class republican who's number one concern is "their economic benefit" must be at least a little brainwashed to vote republican.

[bascule]

Is the republican party a cult?

 

Short answer: no.

[SH3RL0CK]

[

What you might not realize about the innocently titled (as many Bush laws were, pretty sneaky) No Child Left Behind law, is that it allowed for military recruiters to get kids home address and phone info. Guess who knew about that little sneaky bit? Practically no one until the calls began. Of course if the schools refused to give out kids' info, their new funding was to be cut off. But who cares, it's only public education right?

 

Just a bit of perspective.

 

Whats the big deal? The govt. gets this information anyway. You know, the selective service requirement that all men within +/- 3 months of their 18th birthday sign up so, if necessary, they can be drafted.

 

Of course, the govt. now gets this info a bit sooner than they once did by the selective service, but its not like they can't get this information anyway in the same way that all the other telemarketers keep getting my phone number despite being on the "do not call" list.

 

And why is it you think the kids, or the kids parents, simply cannot say "no thank you" to the recruiter? I had absolutely no problem telling them this when I was constantly being called by the recruiters many years before the no child left behind act. I think I was contacted by them for a period of about 10 years...they were calling me even after I had graduated with my masters degree! I find it very hard to imagine NCLB making any significant difference here given how easily they were always able to find me, even in college.

 

Just my perspective on this.

[The Bear's Key]

Originally Posted by gre

 

Is the republican party a cult

My answer's no too.

 

But the people who seemingly hijacked it might be. (a cult)

 

 

Whats the big deal? The govt. gets this information anyway.

Yet obviously the Bush underlings thought it a big deal enough to threaten withholding of school funds, bribing journalists to be cheerleaders for it, and then being so very secretive about the offending part.

 

I think I was contacted by them for a period of about 10 years...they were calling me even after I had graduated with my masters degree! I find it very hard to imagine NCLB making any significant difference here given how easily they were always able to find me, even in college.

Oddly, they never called me.

 

Perhaps somewhere along the line, you gave personal some info out before. I know a friend who talked to a recruiter only to be practically hounded by calls for a long while.

[SH3RL0CK]

My answer's no too.

 

Yet obviously the Bush underlings thought it a big deal enough to threaten withholding of school funds, bribing journalists to be cheerleaders for it, and then being so very secretive about the offending part.

 

The feds quite often threaten to withhold funding to get what they want. Its common practice and AFAIK its been going on for a very, very long time.

 

As far as bribing journalists, well I can't condone that behavior, though I think it also speaks volumes about the quality of the reporting the public receives. Who are they receiving money from this week and how is this influencing the debate on current hot issues like healthcare? Is it any wonder many people are skeptical about the news provided by mainstream media? I don't recall if anything happened to whoever was bribing the journalists, anyone know?

 

Regarding the secretive behavior, I suspect they felt if they ignored the questions, the questions would go away. And to an extent they were right because this isn't a big deal to me and to many other Americans. Or rather, I should say, it isn't new behavior by the military and the government. In vietnam, you could be outright drafted for service with no need for recruitment by the military.

 

Nothing at all new or unusual here...

 

Oddly, they never called me.

 

Perhaps somewhere along the line, you gave personal some info out before. I know a friend who talked to a recruiter only to be practically hounded by calls for a long while.

 

I think it is more likely I fit into some kind of profile they believed to be more likely to join. Perhaps you fit into a profile most unlikely to join?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Gre,

 

Clearly, the answer is no.

 

But what specific issue or topic or action by the republicans makes you ask if the republican party is a cult? There must be something here or you would not have asked.

[The Bear's Key]

I think it is more likely I fit into some kind of profile they believed to be more likely to join. Perhaps you fit into a profile most unlikely to join?

It's probably that I moved around lots

[JohnB]

TBK, there might be a terminology problem here.

 

Because the OP spoke about the "Republican Party" I am assuming the reference was to the entire party rather than just the President and some selected hangers on.

 

The usage in this and other threads would lead me to conclude that the reference actually includes all Republican voters. The rank and file of the party.

 

Down here we use different terminology for different aspects. If we mean the party as a whole, we would say "The Labour Party" or "Labour voters". These terms encompass everybody in the party from the current Prime Minister down to the bloke in Upper Whoop Whoop whose branch includes himself and his wife.

 

In most of the examples you give, we would say "Labour politicians" rather than the "Labour Party" is doing such and such. This separates the actions of politicians from the actions of the rank and file of the party membership.

 

(For those familiar with our parties, I'm not having a go at Labour. It's just that if you have to write the party name a number of times "Labour Party" is a hell of a lot shorter than "The Liberal and National Party Coallition".)

 

Also note that I said "Left/Right" and not "Republican/Democrat". Not all right wing nutjobs are members of the Republican Party and not all left wing nutjobs are members of the Democrats.

 

In most democratic nations the left/right divide splits the national population pretty evenly. The fact that governments change attests to this. Likewise there cannot be in the US, significantly more right leaning voters than left leaning ones, or Obama would not have won.

 

Given the large number of voters involved, and their spread over all demographics it would be astonishing if there significantly more nutjobs on one side rather than a roughly even split. The right has religious nutjobs, the left has Marxist and Greeny nutjobs. They're all nutjobs, only the flovour varies.

 

That was a nice bullet point list, but most of it is just politics. "Selective amnesia" is very common amoung politicians and their staffers. Wanting to bring down someone you were chummy with 20 years before? You are aware that 2 years before they blew Pearl to bits, the Japanese were your Allies in WW I, are you not? Times change and so do political alliances.

 

The last quote of yours doesn't really help your case as sugar is involved. (and I note, 2 Democrat reps)

 

They weren't upset about the "news" reports, they were defending sugar subsidies, which the US DOA has been trying to get rid of.

 

From a 1998 article.

Since 1980, the sugar program has cost consumers and taxpayers the equivalent of more than $3 million for each American sugar grower. Some people win the lottery; other people grow sugar. Congressmen justify the sugar program as protecting Americans from the "roller-coaster of international sugar prices," as Rep. Byron Dorgan (D.-N.D.) declared. Unfortunately, Congress protects consumers from the roller-coaster by pegging American sugar prices on a level with the Goodyear blimp floating far above the amusement park. U.S. sugar prices have been as high as or higher than world prices for 44 of the last 45 years.

 

Sugar sold for 21 cents a pound in the United States when the world sugar price was less than 3 cents a pound.

Emphasis mine.

 

Nothing has changed.

http://www.tampabay.com/specials/2008/graphics/sugar-prices/

20.83 cents per pound, U.S. raw sugar price, May 2008

 

12.23 cents per pound, world raw sugar price, May 2008

 

From the NYT (2007).

A little-noticed provision in the new farm bill working its way through Congress would oblige the Agriculture Department to buy surplus domestic sugar caused by the expected influx of Mexican sugar next year. Then the government would sell it, most likely at a steep discount, to ethanol producers to add to their fermentation tanks. The Bush administration is fighting the measure.

A "little noticed" provision in a Bill? Good Lord, the Dems wouldn't do that surely? Oh wait, politics at work.

 

The system does not cost taxpayers money directly, a point of pride for the industry. But it costs consumers money in the form of higher sugar prices. The system has been subjected to withering criticism for decades, but the sugar lobby has clout on Capitol Hill. Sugar producers donated $2.7 million in campaign contributions to House and Senate incumbents in 2006, more than any other group of food growers, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington group.

 

The sugar ethanol provision has won approval in the House. With the support of Senator Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa and chairman of the Agriculture Committee, it may get through the Senate despite opposition from the administration and the food industry.

Emphasis mine.

 

I guess you can find evidence for both sides playing politics, can't you? Governments put out fake news stories, they put out political advertising in the form of "information" packs. I'm not saying it's right for them to do so, but both sides do it, always have and always will.

 

BTW, I'll see your "deleted emails" and raise you a "White Board". A number of years ago one of our Federal Ministers (equivalent to your "Secretary of") was asked in Parliment how she allocated some $30 million in Federal Grant money. Her response that in her office she had a "great big whiteboard" has gone down in Aussie history.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sports_rorts_affair

Note: Down here, "Liberals" are right wing, "Labour" is left wing and "Democrats" are sort of centre left. (If they could ever make up their minds.)

[gre]

Well, there is probably a better word for this (not a "cult"). Here is a specific group and example..

 

The gun fanatics (and NRA, cheerleader) honestly believe that Obama will take away their gun rights, like it's his secret agenda or something. Yet, there is no proof that Obama wants to do this, and his voting record shows he's for "common sense" gun laws (which he admits) .. (the NRA are anti - common sense guns laws)

 

Ever since Obama was voted into office, all these people started buying guns and ammo by the pallet, starting militias, etc.. There's been a pretty bad ammo shortage lately, I couldn't find 9mm anywhere..

 

So here are a few more questions...

 

Is the NRA responsible for this ignorance, or is it just word of mouth via the bias ignorant folks (brainwashing eachother)?

 

Should propaganda sites like this be illegal? is it unethical?

 

What is the word this kind of manipulation?

 

Here is a N.R.A (propaganda site).

 

http://gunbanobama.com/

Edited September 22, 2009 by gre

[A Tripolation]

(the NRA are anti - common sense guns laws)

 

That's your opinion, sweetheart. Try not to sensationalize your next post as much.

 

Should propaganda sites like this be illegal? is it unethical?

 

Because there are absolutely NO liberal factions that do this. Michael Moore is a figment of my imagination.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

The gun fanatics (and NRA, cheerleader) honestly believe that Obama will take away their gun rights, like it's his secret agenda or something.

 

It's common knowledge that most liberals support incredibly strict gun laws, or no guns at all, just as it is common knowledge that most conservatives oppose abortion.

 

So yeah, I'm fairly certain Obama's views on guns are different than mine. I may be wrong, but what reason do I have to not think that when it is statistically true?

[Sisyphus]

So yeah, I'm fairly certain Obama's views on guns are different than mine. I may be wrong, but what reason do I have to not think that when it is statistically true?

 

You mean, what reason do you have to look something up rather than just assuming an answer? Some people like to base opinions on objective facts, when available.

[gre]

That's your opinion, sweetheart. Try not to sensationalize your next post as much.

 

What? Are you not familiar with the N.R.A at all?

 

They are absolutely anti-any_type_of_gun_regulations_what_so_ever ... This is a fact, not an opinion.. Their (from what I've seen) mentality is: Any sort of gun requirements or regulations, is just taking away little pieces of their 2nd amendment right.. After enough pieces are taken away, it will be easier to ban guns all together.. That is bad. This is how they think, and to a certain extent I agree with them.

 

It's common knowledge that most liberals support incredibly strict gun laws, or no guns at all, just as it is common knowledge that most conservatives oppose abortion.

 

The key word here is "most liberals" .. We're not talking about "most liberals". You are generalizing.

 

 

Look at Obama's voting history on gun related issues... Almost everything he has supported is "common sense".

Edited September 22, 2009 by gre

[SH3RL0CK]

What? Are you not familiar with the N.R.A at all?

 

They are absolutely anti-any_type_of_gun_regulations_what_so_ever ... This is a fact, not an opinion.. Their (from what I've seen) mentality is: Any sort of gun requirements or regulations, is just taking away little pieces of their 2nd amendment right.. After enough pieces are taken away, it will be easier to ban guns all together.. That is bad. This is how they think, and to a certain extent I agree with them.

 

IIRC, the NRA has supported some reasonable gun regulations. From my experience, they are not the rabid extremists you portray them as.

 

Please provide some links in context, most preferably from the NRA website itself (avoid Handgun control Inc. and the other anti-gun websites as they could be biased), to prove these statements of yours.

[gre]

IIRC, the NRA has supported some reasonable gun regulations. From my experience, they are not the rabid extremists you portray them as.

 

Please provide some links in context, most preferably from the NRA website itself (avoid Handgun control Inc. and the other anti-gun websites as they could be biased), to prove these statements of yours.

 

I haven't had any luck finding references that say the NRA has supported any common sense gun legislation (there might be a few out there), they might just support some gun legislation just to build their credibility.. The best thing I could find is a forum post of someone saying the NRA supports gun safety mechanisms.

[iNow]

Please provide some links in context, most preferably from the NRA website itself (avoid Handgun control Inc. and the other anti-gun websites as they could be biased), to prove these statements of yours.

 

Sherlock - This is such common knowledge that there's even a whole several sections on the NRA wiki page:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association#Past_campaigns