Hillary+Clinton+Democratic+Presidential+Candidate+fSKIU8AUdEkl

The NRA-ILA writes,

The Trump for President website offers a “Pantsuit on Fire” t-shirt. We don’t know how brisk the sales are, but it’s a safe bet that sales are outperforming Ms. Clinton’s ratings as an honest candidate (in one August poll, only eleven percent of registered voters described Hillary Clinton as “honest and trustworthy”).

Not too long ago, Shannon Watts, founder of the Everytown affiliate “Moms Demand Action,” responded to the NRA’s condemnation of Hillary Clinton’s gun control agenda by tweeting that “NRA lobbyists [are] paid millions to hack away at lifesaving gun laws” and implied that opposition to gun control laws is an “attack” on all Americans, before concluding with #ImWithHer. 

This myth of “lifesaving” gun laws (a.k.a. “common sense” solutions or “reasonable gun safety” measures”) is a cornerstone of the Everytown ideology. Everytown claims that “[t]he single most important thing we can do to reduce gun violence is to require a criminal background check for every gun sale.” 

Federal law already contains comprehensive background check requirements, and background checks did nothing to prevent recent massacres (Orlando’s Omar Mateen not only passed a background check but had been interviewed by the FBI).

Expanded background check laws, which Everytown and Moms Demand Action are currently promoting through ballot initiatives in Maine and Nevada, would do nothing to stop criminals from stealing guns or obtaining them in illegal straw purchases, on the black market or through gang affiliations.

Another “common sense” gun law, a ban on “assault rifles” (commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms) was found to be “ineffective rather than ‘lifesaving.’” This isn’t especially surprising, given that blunt objects and knifes are much more likely to be used in homicides than rifles of any type.  

Another myth is that of “the big bad gun lobby,” to use the words of Dr. John Lott, in which a money-loaded “gun lobby” defeats opponents and intimidates politicians through massive financial clout.

review of actual lobbying and political contributions in late 2015 concluded that the NRA is, in fact, a “relatively light spender compared to other corporations, interest groups and industries,” and trailed (by a large margin) outlays by the AARP, the dairy industry, the American Hospital Association, and various individual companies.

Dr. Lott notes that gun-control groups substantially outspend the NRA – billionaire Michael Bloomberg (founder of the Everytown group) donated $28.6 million to federal candidates in the two years leading up to the 2014 congressional elections, compared to the NRA’s $982,000, 1/30th the amount spent by Bloomberg. Looking at TV-advertising expenditures in 2013, gun-control groups outspent gun-rights groups “by 7.4 to one, with 85 percent of their money coming from Bloomberg.” 

Yet another myth is that most Americans support further gun control restrictions. In fact, a Pew Research Center survey in August found that the majority of respondents now agree that it is more important “to protect the right of Americans to own guns” than “to control gun ownership.”

The NRA “hack[ing] away at lifesaving gun laws” line is about as believable as a certain person’s claim about running to evade sniper fire in Bosnia. So it’s perfectly reasonable that Ms. Watts followed up with a later tweet, “@NRA is lobbying organization led by millionaires and shouldn’t be allowed to write legislative policy.” 

She’s with her.

About:
Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org

43 Responses to NRA-ILA: Hillary Clinton and Shannon Watts Lies Revealed. Again. Still.

  1. The basic difference between Liberals and Conservatives is fairly simple and yet profound:
    Liberals “feel” their way through to solve problems and see people and human nature as they wish they were not as they are. Their leaders are mostly community organizers, academics, and teachers with little real world experience. Some few are elitist ego-maniacs who want to be monarchs like Bloomberg and Obama.
    Conservatives “think” their way through to solve problems and see people and human nature as they really are. Their leaders are usually from the ranks of business owners and executives with a lot of practical experience making theoretical plans work in the real world.
    Who do you want running your country?

    • Don’t want anybody “running the country.” Don’t want anyone controlling my life or property. Don’t want anybody “representing” me against my will. Don’t need any sort of mob rule….

      I own my life and body, and am the only one who is responsible for them and my property. Integrity and non-aggression are the laws I apply to myself and everything I do. Self defense is what I have to respond to those who agress.

      Most of those who want to “run the country” are the greatest aggressors. Do the math.

    • Damn Holmes, the way you broke that down is just…so true…if the only liberals you come close to inttacting with are the loud minority on t.v. I’m pretty damn liberal, I love guns, I fucking hate Hillary more than Donald any day of the week but wouldn’t vote for either of them, maybe the Donald, cause he might fuck things up so bad it’ll take power away from the office of presidency and jump start some policy changes. I wonder if things like Hillary’s Correct The Record troll army or the fact that fox news (and this blog for that matter) tend to highlight the worst the liberal community has to offer have have had any affect on your opinion of “us” liberals. If I were to judge conservatives by what I saw on Bill O’Reilly or Rush Limbaugh would that judgment be accurate?

      • Yes, that brush was probably too broad. But there’s liberals and then there’s liberals. I used to call myself one, and I voted for a lot of Democrats — until I realized that today’s “liberal” is actually a totalitarian collectivist.

        If you you’re liberal in a way that Thomas Jefferson would’ve recognized or that accords with the dictionary definition, then I’m right there with you. I suspect that a lot of Democrats are with me too, but for the most part they can’t see the dangerous turn their party has taken (and they don’t want to).

        People who have actual liberal ideas resemble libertarians more than anything else these days.

      • Are you liberal? Or are you libertarian? There’s a huge difference and I think a whole lot more people are actually libertarian than they might want to realize.

        Interesting quiz to take at http://www.Isidewith.com. I’ve been a die-hard conservative for 40 years, but I found that once I actually evaluated my positions and compared them with the party’s positions, I side up with the libertarians (87%) much more than with the republicans (67%).

        So you may be pretty liberal on a lot of opinions, but that doesn’t necessarily make you a democrat. Try the isidewith poll, it might be interesting.

      • This is the fundamental reason we are divided in this country, and the corrupt stay in power.

        The media.

        They feed us on a steady diet of extremely repulsive examples from the other fringes of the other side, because if they can keep us REPULSED, they can keep us AFRAID, and if they can keep us afraid they can keep us OBEDIENT.

        • Current “liberals” are actually progressives, another name for socialists. What people think of when they mean liberal is actually Jeffersonian Liberals- Libertarians. Anybody who actively votes away rights is not a true liberal. Equal rights for all- But you have to do it yourself. The only thing a government should do is enforce contracts. Laws are there for recompense when someone is harmed, as judged by a jury of peers.

  2. Both sides of the spectrum regularly take irrational approaches to the issues they don’t understand or don’t want to deal with. So you have liberals who often understand little about firearms trying to ban cosmetic features and weapons rarely used in crimes, and then you have conservatives fighting against environmental protections because they think global warming is made up despite the volume of evidence to the contrary and by and large arguing against equal rights for gays and tran-gender people because “eewww.”

    • HellofromIllinois,

      I think global warming is made up BECAUSE of the science and evidence.

      One such supposed body of evidence is temperature data inferred from the width of consecutive tree rings samples taken from old trees. First of all, the width of tree rings vary widely from one point to another along the circumference of a tree’s cross section. Which location around the circumference of a tree is the “right” location to measure the width of the rings? Second, and far more importantly, the width of tree rings is GREATLY dependent upon how much precipitation was available on a given year. That alone eliminates the width of successive tree rings as a dependable predictor of relative temperature from one year to the next.

      Another such supposed body of evidence are ice core samples. First of all, each layer in an ice core is NOT a year. Second of all, what does a layer tell us? How much snow and ice fell? How does that tell us temperature to any degree of accuracy?

      And what of temperature measurements today? Do we really know the average temperature of our globe? Do we really know the temperature of every square meter of sea water all the way down to the bottom of the oceans? Do we really know the temperature of dirt everywhere to a depth of several meters? The air to several meters of depth? To what extent do man-made structures (which Meteorologists commonly call the “heat island” effect”) affect the temperature of a large metropolitan area and skew temperatures compared to 100+ years ago? How accurate were thermometers 100+ years ago?

      I could go on and on.

      • Global Warming is real. The extent to which human behavior has influenced the tempature shift is what’s debatable. However small that percentage of extra heating is caused by humans is almost irrelevant in the sense that at this point almost nothing we do to curb pollution will change the rate of global warming, however, you still shouldn’t shit where you eat, as in the air in Beijing, the pollution of fish in the gulf, polluting of well water from fracking etc. I’m all for cleaning up pollution, I just wish the media would concentrate on raising awareness of how to survive an inevitable temperature change rather than have us believe if we just all drive electric and recycle everything will be fine, it won’t. Learn to swim.

      • The vast majority of the scientific evidence points towards increased climate change caused by human activity. Plain and simple. And besides, as others have said, why should we want to flood our air with toxins and waste limited resources to begin with?

        • Actually it doesn’t. The data has been so manipulated that it tells us nothing about temperature trends. The only data that is reliable is the 37 years of satellite data which doesn’t show much warming and we have to wait to see if the La Nina brings temperatures back down to 2013 levels.

        • I would only possibly trust the satellite data as the climate scientists cherry pick the weather stations to manipulate the data and apply the global warming constant if the data does not fit the preordained correlation.

        • HellofromIllinois,

          Did you even read my comment? Temperature data based on tree rings is totally bogus. Temperature data based on ice core samples is totally bogus. Temperature data based on thermometers that were not reliably calibrated to national standards are bogus. Temperature data based on calibrated thermometers that were in regions which were largely agricultural/forested 125 years ago and largely urban today are bogus.

          It doesn’t matter how much data there is or what the data tells us when it is bogus data.

          More importantly, did you ever read the leaked e-mails that exposed the fraudulent climate “science” activity?

          Final question: how can we be experiencing global warming when a region of the United States experienced two of the coldest winters (2013-2014 and 2014-2015) on record … including the coldest temperature ever recorded in that region the winter of 2013-2014?

    • 1. The fact that “global warming” has been conveniently renamed to the catch-all term “climate change” is suspicious.

      2. The most commonly proposed solution is for us to cede our wealth and resources to a clique of international socialists. Give up your freedoms and prosperity to the state, it’s “the only concrete solution” to climate change. My my, how convenient for those in Washington.

      3. The founder of Green Peace, one of the first organized environmentalist groups, resigned because he saw the movement being infiltrated by closet marxists and soviet cheerleaders after 1991. They saw the movement as the next great way to control people and destroy the western world from within.

      4. Most “go green” initiatives are just an excuse for added bureaucracy and tax dollars for the state. A buddy’s parents bought solar panels to have installed on their house years ago. They were lied to about all the additional fees, permits, inspections, etc. It took at least a year for the things to get installed and cost much more than predicted. This was in deep blue (and corrupt) NJ.

      Do I believe climate change exists with its human component? Duh. Do I think the “solution,” is today’s popular marriage of subversive marxism and fanatical misanthropy? Nope.

    • you have conservatives fighting against environmental protections because they think global warming is made up despite the volume of evidence to the contrary
      Which is why climate study scientists keep proving that there is less ice at the poles by always getting stuck in the increasing ice packs.

      • You would be right if that data wasn’t being manipulated. It has and the reason….? How else are they going to get their grants from the government.

  3. (U) Never let the truth get in the way of a good lie.

    (TS) As soon as I am elected I will write an EO outlawing all firearms and send them to the middle east, saving the taxpayer from having to buy them and send them.

    (U) What’s the letters) in front of the paragraph mean Huma? And I lost another Crackberry, can you bring me another one please, I’m in that SCIF thingy.

    (TS) Invite Shannon over for our next sleepover, she seems to be our type of girl.

    Love
    Hitlerary

  4. As a gun owner, I am all for common sense gun safety legislation.
    1. ALWAYS keep the gun pointed in a safe direction.
    2. ALWAYS keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot.
    3. ALWAYS keep the gun unloaded until ready to use.
    4. Know your target and what is beyond.

    I just don’t think gun safety means what these people think it means.

  5. Lifesaving gun laws… Those same progressive guns laws have killed thousands in Mexico, yet never thinking that disarming them got them killed.

  6. “NRA lobbyists [are] paid millions to hack away at lifesaving gun laws”

    Sadly, peaceful hobbyists gotta pay lobbyists millions to counter your relentless drive to disarm mothers protecting their kids.

    • She says that invalidates them from having a say in policy, but the fact that her entire side of the ‘argument’ is funded by millionaires and billionaires (Bloomberg, Soros, Feinstein, in some cases Gates, etc) is a total non-issue, of course. Hard to reconcile that except in the mind of a lefty, I suppose.

      • “Hard to reconcile that except in the mind of a lefty, I suppose.”

        Not really, Jeremy.

        Progressives have much in common with fundamentalist Islam.

        In Islam, deceit and-or lying is permitted, if not not an outright duty, if done in the interest of Islam as a whole.

        The exact same thing applies to Progressives.

        The ends, they justify the means.

        They sleep just fine at night, with a clean conscience, a lot like sociopaths…

  7. Everytown for Gun Safety has yet to field a gun safety course.

    Also, a lot of these people simply don’t realize the folly of universal background checks. Those that do are playing it as a stepping stone to mandatory registration.

    UBCs don’t work without registration. For example, if the purported “effective” date for a UBC is June 30th 2018, how do you know a gun was privately transferred after that. Of course, it’s easy if the gun was made after that date, but for the 400 million guns made before that, how can you prove it was transferred post-UBC? I could give my cousin a pistol made in 1999 on July 4th, 2018 – he could get “caught” with not having done a proper transfer, but the cops would have no proof we did the transfer post-UBC. Unless there was mandatory registration.

    Which again, isn’t really possible in this country since most people aren’t wont to line up and wait DMV-style to register their guns.

    UBC = ineffective.
    Registration = ship sailed ages ago.
    AWBs = do nothing.

    The pols know this though and are playing the long-term game..

  8. The sheeple will elect the Hildebeast, it’s a done deal and has been for years. When you think about it though, they are not electing Hillary. They, like ISIS, are worshipping an ideology of Statism. That’s why regardless of if Hildebeast is a liar, criminal, egoist, viper, kills puppies and babies live on TV, none of it matters. The mindless will elect their ideology, it’s just that Hildebeast is the convenient figurehead. If she keels over before election day, how much do you want to bet the mindless masses would gladly elect Chelsea in her place? Egomaniac, smug, Anti civil rights, Statist, corrupt, professional liar, Female Frank Underwood, call her what you will, she is your next President of the United States.

    • As it stands now the Electoral College will elect Clinton but with this four way race and Clinton’s declining appeal even to Democrats it is very likely Trump will outpoll her with the “Sheeple.”

      FYI, anybody who uses the word sheeple is more than likely a member of that tribe.

  9. “This myth of “lifesaving” gun laws (a.k.a. “common sense” solutions or “reasonable gun safety” measures”) is a cornerstone of the Everytown ideology.”

    So why did the NRA endorse the NFA, GCA, LEOPA, and UFA then?

  10. Hillary getting elected would be the final item to start the civil war for thousands of patriots. Prepare.

    IMO, the elites know this and might hold off another election cycle because there is still too much resistance. They might plan on waiting another four years of soul/spirit crushing government opression before they completely take over. That or they might go ahead and steal the election now thinking this is their last good chance for awhile. Prepare.

  11. Stopped reading when I saw the name “John Lott.” The man destroyed his credibility with the whole Mary Rosh fiasco, and it’s likely he pulled data for his book out of thin air. We don’t need him or his untrustworthy numbers to make our case. Please stop using him as a source. He’s a very poor one.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *