Reply to Barbara Comstock's NRA $

Forum Index » Metropolitan DC Local Politics

Reply to "Barbara Comstock's NRA $"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]So on the one hand we have lobbying that results in mass murder-- or maybe you prefer American carnage-- and on the other we have lobbying against a cabinet secretary that you feel is adequate. I can see how those are of equivalent concern. [/quote]

I wasn't aware it was a stated policy of the NRA to advocate mass murder.

Can you show us, exactly, where in any NRA literature or mission statement it specifically says "to engage in lobbying which results in mass murder"?

You'll need to point to something specific, not some contrived, conflated, round-the-block-in-fifty-steps answer. Just something from the NRA that says "we lobby for mass murder".

We'll wait while you busy yourself doing that.....

And another thing - have you ever worked on a congressional campaign of any kind? One with lots of ad buys in large media markets? $10K doesn't buy much in the DC market. It's chickenfeed. A few dozen commercials on a top rated radio station in a prime AQH, maybe more on a less highly rated station. But it's still pathetic. It won't even approach your equipment and office furniture leasing costs for your HQ.

[/quote]

So your defense is that
1. The words "mass murder" aren't in the NRA's language, so therefore they don't support policies that lead to high kill rates.
2. $10,000 isn't that much.

So, for #1, I'm just not even sure what to say about that. If the phrase "mass murder" is a problem for you, whatever, but the NRA's repeated, consistent fight against any level of gun control, and their desire to actually put in place legislation that makes it EASIER for killers, i.e. the current legislation to allow more silencers. (So now it would be even harder for police to find a shooter) it absurd. If you support the NRA, you have to own what that support means. My dad is a gun owner, and he dropped his membership years ago, because he (and many other gun owners) don't share the beliefs of the NRA. NRA's main source of donations right now are gun manufactures.

For #2. It's a very weak defense for Comstock that $10,000 isn't that much money. The point is that she is still one of the lawmakers that receives the most money from NRA.
Also, since I posted this (yes, I'm the OP) I've found even more information.
Here's another website that shows not only contributions from NRA, but also other anti-gun control organizations
http://www.politico.com/interactives/2017/gun-lobbying-spending-in-america-congress/

On this list, you see that Comstock actually has received $28,407, that's combined NRA and an organization called Gun Owners of America.
Of the 435 members of Congress, Comstock is ranked 14 on this list.
14!

To be clear, I would be unhappy to learn my representative took one penny from one of these organizations. The fact that she is one of their biggest recipients? She needs to go. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics