Advertisement
Because I'm a business owner, I get lots of calls from the NRA and other PACs spinning information. Since I'm a business owner, surely I'm a little Limbaugh....
So today I got a call from the NRA about the Gun Show bill. They played me a tape of utter falsehoods and then asked what I felt about it.
Their question regarding my feelings was likewise spun as "Do you agree with Democrats like Hillary Clinton that Gun Shows should be banned?"
I told the woman, "No, I agree with republicans like Jim Baker who agree that gun shows should not be allowed to sell semi-automatic weapons to people without proper background checks and documentation."
She said, "So you do believe that gun shows should be banned?"
I said, "No, that's not what the bill says. It's misleading at best to claim that it does. The bill closes a loophole that allows gun shows to sell guns without proper background checks."
I get these calls about once every three months from groups who make assumptions on my political stances based on the fact that own a company. I am never rude and I always let them know that I already understand the issue. Even when I've agreed with them, I've been disappointed by their outright lies.
It surprises me even after the last 15 years that such things persist.
If anything, the NRA shouldn't worry because President Bush won't sign the bill anyway.
So today I got a call from the NRA about the Gun Show bill. They played me a tape of utter falsehoods and then asked what I felt about it.
Their question regarding my feelings was likewise spun as "Do you agree with Democrats like Hillary Clinton that Gun Shows should be banned?"
I told the woman, "No, I agree with republicans like Jim Baker who agree that gun shows should not be allowed to sell semi-automatic weapons to people without proper background checks and documentation."
She said, "So you do believe that gun shows should be banned?"
I said, "No, that's not what the bill says. It's misleading at best to claim that it does. The bill closes a loophole that allows gun shows to sell guns without proper background checks."
I get these calls about once every three months from groups who make assumptions on my political stances based on the fact that own a company. I am never rude and I always let them know that I already understand the issue. Even when I've agreed with them, I've been disappointed by their outright lies.
It surprises me even after the last 15 years that such things persist.
If anything, the NRA shouldn't worry because President Bush won't sign the bill anyway.
Advertisement
Advertisement
-
Re: Got a Call from the NRA
Mon, December 29, 2003 - 12:49 PMFalse dilemmas. Many people fall for that stuff hook line and sinker. It's no wonder they keep trying to polarize the uninformed.
-
Re: Got a Call from the NRA
Sat, January 17, 2004 - 1:35 PMBeing uninformed is chronic, even for those of us who would rather be educated. Wherever you try to find your information, you can't believe it because you second-guess the motives and funders of the group/person presenting it. -
-
Re: Got a Call from the NRA
Fri, January 23, 2004 - 1:45 PMThe reason this occurs is pollsters can't ask detailed polls, it would take to much information, and the average voter doesn't have a clue anyway. That is why politicans need to get away from the pollsters running campaigns and so many times the legislative agenda.
-
-
Unsu...
Re: Got a Call from the NRA
Sat, April 10, 2004 - 5:51 PMxxx
So why do you not list the "utter falsehoods" you THINK they said?
It could be that you, and many
(nearly all?) are the ones who are misinformed.
Or perhaps those who are members of the "Do not confuse me with facts as my mind is already made up." and so do not care about facts.
xxxx
xxxxxx -
-
Re: Got a Call from the NRA
Fri, April 16, 2004 - 2:07 AMOUCH! Are we always directly to the warpath? Even if you don't agree, shouldn't you give someone a chance to defend their viewpoint before blasthing them? This is the first post I've seen and it's pretty poisenous. -
-
Unsu...
Re: Got a Call from the NRA
Fri, April 16, 2004 - 5:44 PMxxx
I am sorry you think that my post was "poisenous"
What did I say that was so "poisenous"
Asking him to post some of the
"falsehoods" he was told?
Or that it seems that most of the anti-gun people do not care about facts?
I am 69 years old and that is what I have learned. Should I dsregard facts?
Is a FACT "poisenous"?
Or is it only that way when you do not agree with it?
-
-
Re: Got a Call from the NRA
Tue, April 20, 2004 - 11:27 PMIf poisenous was to non-specific for you, would you perfer harsh, attacking, aggressive, angry, violent, unaccepting, not encouraging of dialog, unlikely to change anyones opinion because of sheer rudeness? I've got a few dozen more, but the concept is the same: Picking a fight vents your spleen (good for you) but pisses others off (bad for your cause) which doesn't change anyones mind or encourage thought (bad for everyone).
I'd also have to add I find stereo-typing "anit-gun people" is also non-conductive to dialog, hence the poisenous. Of course, that, like your posting and anyone else's, is only opinion.
As for facts--"A fact is anything you can measure with numbers. Anything else is hokum." (paraphrased, Lazarus Long in Time Enough for Love by Robert A. Heinlein, ) Show me the numbers.
As for agreeing or not agreeing, where did I state I didn't agree? Or that I did? With anyone/where/group/idea/etc? I was reacting more to the poisen pen style writing that to the actual opinions contained.
I'm all for a direct quote (or as direc as you can be from memory) but again, show me the numbers. Facts, like expert witness, will testify for the opposition. Or, if you perfer, truth, like beauty is in the eye of the beholder. -
-
Unsu...
Re: Got a Call from the NRA
Thu, April 22, 2004 - 2:14 AMxxxxx
My, my, I did not even come close to being as vindictive as your post
but thne I have come to expect that.
Does the word hypocrite ring a bell.
The FACTS are what caused a professor, who stated out doing reseach to back up his
anti-gun postiton to change his mind and ended up writng a pro-gun book.
When I find the name of the book & the author,
I shall post it.
In the mean time, if you want to see someone who seens to be very poisenous, look in the mirror. -
-
Re: Got a Call from the NRA
Sat, April 24, 2004 - 11:11 PMVindictive? Hardly. Verbose in the face of your dislike of my choice of wording perhaps, but vindictive? You didn't care for the word poisenous, I gave you other options to choose from. But vindictive? Never!
Vindictive is defined Merriam-Webster Dictionary as "disposed to seek revenge" or "intended to cause anguish or hurt". I really can't bring myself to care enough about you or your opinion(s)to seek to hurt you. As for revenge, what would I be getting revenge for? You proving my point through your rudeness?
Origanally, my point was your overall nastiness and attack dog style did nothing to promote dialog or change anyones view. As you continue to try for the emotional response, you have yet to address any of the issues I've brought up in either post. Nor have you actually presented any facts. Posting links don't constitute facts. Changing the subject to introduce the work of someone who supports your veiwpoint is not presenting facts. Promoting your own book really isn't presenting facts.
Please, stop trying to be insulting. I'm all for mud slinging, but at least give me something to respond to. A flaw in my logic. My spelling errors. H-ll, even something as purile, but accurate, as a personal appearnce comment. And if you could produce some actual facts, I'd appreciate it.
-
-
-
-
-
Unsu...
Re: Got a Call from the NRA
Thu, April 22, 2004 - 3:00 PMxxx
Oh, how "Politically Incorrect"
this post is;
Sadly, far toom many people believe what they want to believe in spite of the facts.
Then there those who believe what they do because the facts prove it is true.
This first professor started out doing research to back up his anti-gun stance.
Still, being an oen-minded person and being a person who believes what the facts prove, he changed his position.
Articles by Dr. John Lott, Jr.
Dr. John Lott Jr. Page John R. Lott Jr. -- American Enterprise Institute (AEI) - General, 1150 Seventeenth Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20036
www.tsra.com/LottPage.htm
John Lott's Website
On this site I will post most statements regarding my work and gun control. Also included is a list of my op-eds, and information on The Bias Against Guns, my new book.
www.johnrlott.com
More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-Control Laws at Amazon
Multiple regression analyses are rarely the subject of heated public debate or 225-page books for laypeople.
John R. Lott, Jr.'s study in the January 1997 Journal of Legal Studies showing ...
www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0226493636
An interview with John R. Lott, Jr., author of More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws, Second Edition. Also available on website: online catalogs, secure online ordering, ...
www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chi...3636.html
-----------------
Interview wth Prof. Kleck
www.shadeslanding.com/firearms/...rview.html
GunCite-Who is Gary Kleck?
A brief description of Gary Kleck and his research.
www.guncite.com/gcwhoGK.html
Gary Kleck - FSU Criminology and Criminal Justice
Gary Kleck, Professor of the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Florida State University.
www.criminology.fsu.edu/ccjfaculty/kleck.htm
-
-
Re: Got a Call from the NRA
Tue, April 20, 2004 - 3:30 PMThis is really a variant on the political technique known as "push polling". It's a relatively recent innovation made possible my modern telemarketing software.
In 2000, the Bush campaign used it very effectively to defeat John McCain in the South Carolina primary. Under the guise of conducting public opinion research, they'll ask the voter questions like 'Would you be more or less likely to vote for McCain if his propensity for sodomy with farm animals were more widely reported by the liberal media?' Using IVR and speech synthesis technology, often you don't even need a real person to place the calls.
Worked like a charm for Bush, and McCain bowed out shortly after.
Without question one of the most effective campaign techniques.
- Pablo -
-
Re: Got a Call from the NRA
Tue, April 20, 2004 - 11:30 PMIt's also used with fund raisers also. I got a call recently asking for my opinion on national charities. After a couple of questions, it became apparent they were pushing the American Red Cross. Every question was aimed at them, using them as examples. They even asked what groups I would be interested in getting info about and if I was willing to give a mailing address, etc for free info.
-
-
Re: Got a Call from the NRA
Fri, March 17, 2006 - 9:04 PM<<I said, "No, that's not what the bill says. It's misleading at best to claim that it does. The bill closes a loophole that allows gun shows to sell guns without proper background checks.">>
Umm, defining an intentional limitation in the law as a "loophole" is disingenuous at best. They just tried a law like this in WA state and it well have shut down gun shows in the state because it would have made them responsible for preventing any sales within reasonable parking distance from the show. But they wouldn't have any legal right to enforce that outside of the property they rented.
The chairman if the senate judiciary committee (a democrat) gave Washington Ceasefire several days advance warning of the hearing date. He also described all private sales as "loopholes". Fortunately, the bill was killed, largely because rural democrats vites against it too.
I'm socially liberal in many areas, including the idea that achieving gun ownership ought not be too onerous a process, as our other rights should not.
-
Re: Got a Call from the NRA
Fri, March 17, 2006 - 11:05 PM[quote]Their question regarding my feelings was likewise spun as "Do you agree with Democrats like Hillary Clinton that Gun Shows should be banned?"
I told the woman, "No, I agree with republicans like Jim Baker who agree that gun shows should not be allowed to sell semi-automatic weapons to people without proper background checks and documentation." [/quote]
I think we aught to get back to this standard: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"
If they use those guns to commit crimes then KILL them, but until they do something illegal let them have a bazooka if thats what they want. -
-
Unsu...
Re: Got a Call from the NRA
Tue, March 21, 2006 - 12:05 AMVlad,
If only we lived in a society where people still understood what liberty and self-responsibility are. Hell, in our society people don't even understand how our nation was formed or the prices that have been paid for our freedoms. We live in a world that thinks that joining the military is just a regimented way to pay for college, not an opportunity to build a real career or to serve their country. I am sick to death of all the whining vietnam protesters who now have kids in the military because mom and dad were so busy being hippies that they didn't put away any money for college for their kids so they signed them up for the military thinking it was just a way to pay for school.
I come from a military family - and all of us are deeply offended by the mentality towards military service in our country today. We have become a society of self-serving, cry babies - who really do need big brother to change our diapers.
Blake
-
Re: Got a Call from the NRA
Sun, August 13, 2006 - 9:21 AMSince context makes all the difference, I think we ought to remember the full text of the second amendment:
Amendment 2: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
It doesn't read like the blank check to allow Americans armements on demand that many assert it to be. I thikn that a reasonable arguement could be made that gun owners should be automatically members of the national guard (aka: A well regulated milita). -
-
Re: Got a Call from the NRA
Mon, August 14, 2006 - 1:39 PM[quote]It doesn't read like the blank check to allow Americans armements on demand that many assert it to be. I thikn that a reasonable arguement could be made that gun owners should be automatically members of the national guard (aka: A well regulated milita).[/quote]
In a way they are. Dont you think that in the event of an actual invasion that all of the armed Americans would make the resistance in Iraq and Afganistan look like it was being done by the Boy Scouts? Though I dont have a problem with the system used in Norway (think it was Norway or possibly Sweeden) where every house hold is issued an automatic weapon and required to under go specific training in its use so that in the event of a purely defensive war calling up reserves would be totally uncessairy. Not a compulsory draft so to speak but rather a compulsory defense requirement. -
-
Re: Got a Call from the NRA
Mon, August 14, 2006 - 1:46 PMI think you're thinking of Switzerland.
Everyone has a rifle there, safely locked away, ready to fight in the event of an invasion!
-
-
Re: Got a Call from the NRA
Mon, August 14, 2006 - 5:16 PMThanks I knew it was some militarily insignificant country that had come up with an unconventional self defense plan.
-
-
-
-
