#BoycottNRA

#727
#727
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
I’m not an NRA member, however, the demonization of this organization is, frankly, pathetic.

Screw it, gonna go join the NRA.
Click to expand...

Not an NRA member here either. With no intent to be one.

Having said that to say this, I will be perusing the Convention in Dallas this spring.
 
#728
#728
OuterBanksVol said:
* Don't blame the burgers for fat people. If burgers weren't available, they'd eat - I don't know - rice? Yet undeveloped countries with no McDonald's have a healthier, skinnier populace.

** No cause and effect. Pure coincidence.

*** Western Fast Food Chains Flourish in China, Rates of Obesity and Diabetes Skyrocket

Redirect Notice
Click to expand...

Facts are meant to make people like you look foolish:

The 13 countries where people live the longest in the world | The Independent

Wanna bet there's McDonalds in all those countries and they aren't living on rice alone?
 
#730
#730
OuterBanksVol said:
Morbidly obese man concerned he's going to die young due to being overweight. Does he:

(A) Do nothing about his diet?

(B) Reduce the number of burgers available for his consumption? or

(C) Ask his workplace to build a McDonald's within his office?

If you're a card-carrying NRA member, your answer of course is "C".

And what are the consequences of overweight people in our society?

(A) No cost to society.

(B) Increased diseases, early death and higher medical costs and insurance rates shared by everyone. Or

(C) Improved society with fewer 400 pound fat guys in their bedrooms in New Jersey.

You guessed "C"? Ding ding ding! You qualify for Trumps new Health and Human Services Cabinet position.

View attachment 154321
Click to expand...

The liberal way....

Morbidly obese man is morbidly obese because he doesn't have self control. Liberal solution... attack McDonald's. Morbidly obese man isn't to blame, it's not his fault. Punish the people that can eat at McDonalds and not become morbidly obese
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#732
#732
#733
#733
OuterBanksVol said:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...-card-f:homepage/story&utm_term=.fd4733febc0c

"...To seriously confront gun violence — save lives and prevent injuries — there have to be fewer guns. We would start with banning the semiautomatic rifles that — along with large-capacity ammunition magazines — have become the weapon of choice of mass shooters wanting to kill as many people as possible in the shortest period of time.

...These weapons are for war, not civilians. Those who say they enjoy the sport of shooting them as target practice need to ask themselves if their hobby is really worth the lives lost and the fear that has been instilled in such simple customs as going to school, worshiping at church or watching a movie.

The ban on assault weapons that was in place in the United States from 1994 to 2004 helped reduce the frequency and lethality of mass shootings, according to analysis by The Post’s Christopher Ingraham."
Click to expand...

The data states otherwise dumbass. But don’t let facts get in the way of a good made up bull**** rant.
 
#735
#735
#736
#736
Grand Vol said:
Hmmm

So, are you saying the NRA controlled a Democrat Congress during the other portions of that 20 years? Or Obama? Doesn't the CDC work for the President?

And since when are firearms considered a disease?
Click to expand...

I think it's mandate is broader than studying diseases. I think it can study just about anything that affects public health.
 
#738
#738
evillawyer said:
I think it's mandate is broader than studying diseases. I think it can study just about anything that affects public health.
Click to expand...

How about the FBIs own data as summarized and presented by a university academic (yank his tenure!) which shows that FAWB94 had no impact on the number of incidents or total numbers of “victims” (deaths and wounded). I have posted that data TWICE in the other thread and I think gave the professors name and you can read his source and methods! And you damn people just ignore it!

And Broward County Police Union president Jeff Bell earlier in this thread is on video stating GUNS ARE NOT THE PROBLEM!.

And you damn people want to keep quoting WaPo and want me to take their word over these?!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#739
#739
luthervol said:
And boost revenue to the companies that severed ties. The good will alone will have a positive impact on the company.
Click to expand...

There will be negligible impact on those companies revenue. No impact up or down but by being public about their decision they will increase NRA membership.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#740
#740
luthervol said:
I'm guessing the companies will gain business. The list just needs to be continuously distributed.
Click to expand...

I doubt it. I said earlier that the companies are not taking some kind of moral or political stand, they are making a financial gamble that they'll gain more than they lose. That may hold true but as the new wears off, these people that go out of their way to support these businesses for their actions will fade. On the other hand,the 2nd amendment advocates will remember those companies and many will never come back.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#741
#741
hog88 said:
There will be negligible impact on those companies revenue. No impact up or down but by being public about their decision they will increase NRA membership.
Click to expand...

To “boycott” an organization is laughable to me. They were already boycotting it! Yes if anything NRAs membership will swell as a result.

And I really want NRA to post a list of companies that pulled membership on their site “thanking them for support and wishing them will” so I have a list to focus where my money doesn’t go.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#743
#743
Grand Vol said:
A little research goes a long way.

This Is Why Most Military Personnel Aren’t Armed on Military Bases — and It’s Not Clinton’s Fault | TheBlaze

Are Firearms Prohibited at Federal Facilities? — Justia Law Blog — January 4, 2012

18 U.S. Code SS 930 - Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

Federal Gun Laws: What Places Are Off-Limits With The FEDS?

As to "why" they are gun free zones? Well, that's a good question that really nobody can answer. It happened under a DNC Congress and an anti-gun GOP President (Bush 41) in 1990.

Now, if Congress didn't act or hasn't acted after what happened with that turd Nidal Hasan and the Washington Naval Yard, what makes you think they give a flying **** all about this issue? Furthermore, they'll double down on "guns" being the problem and not see gun free zones as being the issue.

You can write your favorite Congressperson or Senator and ask the question. But I'm pretty sure the only answer you're going to get is "because it's the law."
Click to expand...

Thanks, I had already seen most of those articles when I researched it earlier. I was just wanting some others to do the same.

First, contrary to right wing attempts to convince otherwise, it was not Clinton's doing.

Second, the DOD, an entity that has complete and total knowledge about guns and their necessity, concluded that the harm done by people carrying guns on bases greatly outweighed any positive or any "right" the individual might have. Also, it's important to remember that we are talking about people who have been thoroughly trained on firearms.
 
#744
#744
NorthDallas40 said:
How about the FBIs own data as summarized and presented by a university academic (yank his tenure!) which shows that FAWB94 had no impact on the number of incidents or total numbers of “victims” (deaths and wounded). I have posted that data TWICE in the other thread and I think gave the professors name and you can read his source and methods! And you damn people just ignore it!

And Broward County Police Union president Jeff Bell earlier in this thread is on video stating GUNS ARE NOT THE PROBLEM!.

And you damn people want to keep quoting WaPo and want me to take their word over these?!
Click to expand...

NorthDallas40, we had a nice civil discussion yesterday on the Haab story. No reason to get nasty with each other.

I'm fairly new to the political forum, so I'm not familiar with all of your prior posts. However, because I like to base my beliefs on facts, as opposed to immediately dismissing something because of source (also called the genetic fallacy), I'd be more than happy to read the study you linked.

As a general matter though, studies of public health issues should be continuously updated as the forces that affect public health are continuously changing.

Do you think there's any good reason for the NRA to strenuously oppose studying the affect that guns have on public health?
 
#745
#745
evillawyer said:
I think it's mandate is broader than studying diseases. I think it can study just about anything that affects public health.
Click to expand...

Yeah, we've never had a government agency that oversteps its bounds or anything.

NASA, for instance, should be focusing on space exploration and stuff away from the planet. However, they somehow shifted into earth sciences in the past 20 years.

Kinda outside their scope of responsibility, wouldn't you think? Maybe NOAA's realm more than NASA? I mean, it is the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

Now, gun violence and whatnot. Wouldn't and shouldn't that fall under maybe the DOJ and specifically the ATF?

Still didn't answer the question of why a DNC Congress and DNC President didn't restore funding when they had the chance...

No, let's blame the NRA instead. Way easier to do that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#746
#746
InVOLuntary said:
I doubt it. I said earlier that the companies are not taking some kind of moral or political stand, they are making a financial gamble that they'll gain more than they lose. That may hold true but as the new wears off, these people that go out if the way to support these businesses or their actions will fade. On the other hand,the 2nd amendment advocates will remember those companies and many will never come back.
Click to expand...

I'm all for people voicing their position with their dollar.
 
#749
#749
evillawyer said:
NorthDallas40, we had a nice civil discussion yesterday on the Haab story. No reason to get nasty with each other.

I'm fairly new to the political forum, so I'm not familiar with all of your prior posts. However, because I like to base my beliefs on facts, as opposed to immediately dismissing something because of source (also called the genetic fallacy), I'd be more than happy to read the study you linked.

As a general matter though, studies of public health issues should be continuously updated as the forces that affect public health are continuously changing.

Do you think there's any good reason for the NRA to strenuously oppose studying the affect that guns have on public health?
Click to expand...
Sure, when they do a study on the affect of cars on public health, alcohol on public health, prescription drugs on public health, fast foods on public health, tobacco on public health, video games on public health, violent movies on public health, etc., and then recommend that they all be banned or rigorously controlled "for the public good."
 
Last edited:
#750
#750
luthervol said:
Thanks, I had already seen most of those articles when I researched it earlier. I was just wanting some others to do the same.

First, contrary to right wing attempts to convince otherwise, it was not Clinton's doing.

Second, the DOD, an entity that has complete and total knowledge about guns and their necessity, concluded that the harm done by people carrying guns on bases greatly outweighed any positive or any "right" the individual might have. Also, it's important to remember that we are talking about people who have been thoroughly trained on firearms.
Click to expand...

I posted those links absolving Clinton for a reason...

Second, the DoD, by and large, knows **** all about firearms except "lowest bidder" and "going with political winds." And at the time, the political winds were shifting more and more towards increased gun control. Starting in 1986 with the FOPA and Hughes Amendment and culminating in the 1994 AWB. Having said that to say this, there is no good answer as to "why" it happened other than gun control at work. I'll single out a specific part of your post:

Also, it's important to remember that we are talking about people who have been thoroughly trained on firearms.
Click to expand...

Which, common sense would dictate, would mean military bases should be zones in which concealed carry shouldn't be much of a problem, no? And furthermore:

concluded that the harm done by people carrying guns on bases greatly outweighed any positive or any "right" the individual might have.
Click to expand...

Is this you just making **** up again?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top