Is the NRA it's own Political Organization, using the Second Amendment to influence the Public with? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only online debate website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the leading online debate website. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

Is the NRA it's own Political Organization, using the Second Amendment to influence the Public with?
in Politics

By TKDBTKDB 266 Pts

NASCAR Takes a Hard Left

FRIDAY, AUGUST 30, 2019

 NASCAR Takes a Hard Left
 
 
 
 
"After decades of NASCAR drivers literally turning left for hours every race day (road course races excluded, of course), the governing body appears to be taking a figurative left turn, politically.
View Related Articles

K-Var, a retailer in outdoor and shooting sports products, reports that it was told it would need to edit/change an ad submitted earlier this year it had intended to be included in NASCAR’s official program. The problem, apparently, is that the K-Var ad included depictions of “assault-style rifles/sniper rifles.” Presumably, the offending firearm is an AK-variant manufactured by Arsenal.

NASCAR’s official media sales agent told K-Var (as well as other potential advertisers), that the racing organization is undergoing a “gradual shift in (its) position on guns,” which would appear to include NASCAR determining it is now opposed to the lawful manufacture, sale, and/or possession of what it refers to as “assault-style rifles/sniper rifles.” Or, at least, the organization is opposed to advertising such items.

This seems to follow a trend of head-scratching corporate decisions to alienate a significant percentage of current and potential customers.

We’ve seen ’s Sporting GoodsLevi Strauss & Co., and several banks decide they needed to offer their corporate support to the extremist anti-gun agenda. In the world of automotive entertainment, we’ve seen monster truck promoters determine that they don’t need to worry about offending law-abiding gun owners and supporters of the Second Amendment. And who can forget Yeti?

As a business strategy, these decisions are odd, to say the least.

Granted, not everyone who wears Levi’s believes in the Second Amendment. Same goes for those seeking banking services, or someone who wants a new soccer ball. Perhaps the CEOs and marketing executives who decided to thumb their corporate noses at gun owners determined they could afford the loss of a large segment of the market.

But NASCAR fans?

If you were to construct a Venn diagram of NASCAR fans and those who support our Right to Keep and Bear Arms, the union would undoubtedly be quite significant. The average race fan likely owns firearms for hunting, sporting purposes, or personal protection; all categories covered under NASCAR’s “assault-style rifles/sniper rifles” misnomers.

The term “assault-style rifle” is simply a derivation of the anti-gun term “assault weapon,” used to describe modern semi-automatic rifles such as the AR-15 and AK platforms. These are the most popular rifles in America, with roughly 16 million of just AR variants in circulation as of 2018. Whether used for hunting, competitive shooting, plinking, or personal protection, law-abiding citizens have owned these kinds of firearms for over half-a-century.

The term “sniper rifle,” on the other hand may be even more troubling for NASCAR to be using. In plain English, they seem to be talking about rifles designed to be precise at great distances. In other words, hunting rifles. One of history’s most famous military snipers, Carlos Hathcock, regularly used a bolt-action .30-06 rifle, the Winchester Model 70. Many readers who hunt have likely used the same rifle when hunting game, and the caliber is one of the most popular hunting rounds.

Chris Kyle, the sniper played by Bradley Cooper in the movie American Sniper, also commonly used bolt-action rifles. One of his favorites was chambered for .300 Win Mag, another extremely common hunting round.

It is not clear if NASCAR is now taking an official position in opposition to semi-automatic rifles—with the AR-15 variants often referred to as America’s Rifle—and bolt action rifles. For years, NASCAR has allowed these items to be advertised in its official publications. Gander Outdoors sponsors the NASCAR Gander Outdoors Truck Series, and the sporting goods retailer sells a great many of what NASCAR seems to think are “assault-style rifles/sniper rifles.”

What does seem clear, however, is that NASCAR doesn’t want to see such things advertised in its official publication in the future: a decision that could easily alienate a great many of its most ardent fans. And considering there has been talk about the decline in popularity of NASCAR for several years, the racing organization may want to reconsider its “gradual shift…on guns.” 


Who do, some of these individuals, think they are? 

Are they maybe, trying, to politely dictate, persaude, or influence, some of NASCAR's fanbase? 

At how, some of that fanbase, should, maybe view NASCAR, through the lens of the NRA, at the behest of the NRA?

Because, that seems to be the probable impression, that is being made here?

This article also reiterates on "Dicks Sporting Goods, Wal-Mart, Levi Strauss and Co, Yeti, and the Monster Truck Promoters?

So, have they as well, been trying to dictate, persuade, or influence the consumers, who shop at Wal-Mart, Dicks Sporting Goods, Levi Strauss and Co, and so on, through the lens of the NRA, on how those consumers should view those companies, through the lens of the NRA, at the behest of the NRA? 

Being that some, of the political representatives, have been doing the same thing for years, by pandering, catering, and coddling, to their individual constituent, fanbases?

And then this organization name drops Chris Kyle, and Bradley Cooper, because of the movie "American Sniper?"

By using the movie as well, to apparently, reiterate their point even more? 


To me, there are 5 Political Movements in the United States:

The Pro illegal Immigrants, or Pro illegal Alien crowd. (22 million illegal immigrants, and 300 Sanctuary cities, and they're growing.)

The Pro illegal drug crowd (Recreational Marijuana, Cocaine, Meth, Heroin, Opioids, and so on.)

The DNC, the GOP, and the NRA.


So yes, I view the NRA (The National Rifle Association) as another Political Organization. 

Because of the consistency of the pandering, catering, and coddling, that they express towards their individual fanbase.


AlofRI



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
33%
Margin

Details +



Arguments

  • I don't know how you can call an agenda backed by 90% of the country "extremist". Extremist agendas are usually the MINORITY side. 70% of NRA members want background checks, over 90% of the country want them. Over 60% want assault weapons banned and more. Saying the majority of the country is wrong is like a madman saying everybody else is CRAZY!

    Mental illness is brought on by crazy gun laws. Saying the U.S. has more mentally ill people BY FAR than the rest of the world is an extremist statement. Saying the Second Amendment is the  most important Amendment, without the "flexibility" built into the other Amendments is an extremist view. The entire Constitution is "flexible, by majority rule", To say nothing can be changed 'cause some "minority" says it can't is extremist. We are supposed to work for "a more perfect union", not frozen where some radical minority wants U.S. to stay.

    I'm FOR the Second Amendment, but, it needs to be "amended" so that we can continue to be a "more perfect union" as intended. The United States does not have to be a country of casualties just so an extremist minority can have their favorite "toys". That's not FREEDOM, that's idiocy.
    CYDdhartaZombieguy1987TKDB
  • TKDBTKDB 266 Pts
    edited September 8
    @AlofRI

    "I'm FOR the Second Amendment, but, it needs to be "amended" so that we can continue to be a "more perfect union" as intended."

    "The United States does not have to be a country of casualties just so an extremist minority can have their favorite "toys". That's not FREEDOM, that's idiocy."

    The United States, is a country of casualties, being that we're the one country, with more Guns in it, than any other country in the world. 

    We have more gun violence crimes committed in the world, because of some of the legal gun owners, and the illegal gun owners who have victimized thousands with their gun violence crimes.

    The statistics are available, go look them up.

    The NRA, the DNC, and the GOP, all three Political Organizations, should have a nationwide meeting before the eyes of the Public, and get the overall gun violence crimes situation in the United States sorted out, once and for all.

    Including the Red Flag laws, the 1000% Gun Accountability Measure, and if need be, the Death Penalty?

    So why shouldn't these three Political Organizations get together, and come up with a combined stance that benefits the Public, as a whole?

    That benefits, the gun owners, and the non gun owners, that is fair, and equal, and is a representation of the country altogether.
    AlofRI
  • "I'm FOR the Second Amendment, but, it needs to be "amended" so that we can continue to be a "more perfect union" as intended."

    We? A bit selfish isn't it? the union is made of basic principle and legal precedent.
    Established the basic principle of the 2nd Amendment for every one please? what about the use of lethal force discovery needs changing?
    You are saying you are for the 2nd Amendment. What makes you believe that an amendment of American independence helps constitutional common defense to general welfare?

    A new united state placed in a perfect union may by in no doubt needed within constitutional context to American independence . It is doubtful it is needed by way of an amendment to amendment. It is hoped at sometime soon you may locate you basic principle of grievance to help TKDB.

    AlofRI
  • AlofRI said:
    I don't know how you can call an agenda backed by 90% of the country "extremist". Extremist agendas are usually the MINORITY side. 70% of NRA members want background checks, over 90% of the country want them. Over 60% want assault weapons banned and more. Saying the majority of the country is wrong is like a madman saying everybody else is CRAZY!

    Mental illness is brought on by crazy gun laws. Saying the U.S. has more mentally ill people BY FAR than the rest of the world is an extremist statement. Saying the Second Amendment is the  most important Amendment, without the "flexibility" built into the other Amendments is an extremist view. The entire Constitution is "flexible, by majority rule", To say nothing can be changed 'cause some "minority" says it can't is extremist. We are supposed to work for "a more perfect union", not frozen where some radical minority wants U.S. to stay.

    I'm FOR the Second Amendment, but, it needs to be "amended" so that we can continue to be a "more perfect union" as intended. The United States does not have to be a country of casualties just so an extremist minority can have their favorite "toys". That's not FREEDOM, that's idiocy.

    Actually, idiocy is reintroducing a ban that has already been tried and found to do nothing to reduce crime.  Idiocy is banning a class of firearms that is responsible for fewer deaths than hands and feet.
    AlofRIZombieguy1987Plaffelvohfen
  • TKDBTKDB 266 Pts
    edited September 8
    @CYDdharta

    "Actually, idiocy is reintroducing a ban that has already been tried and found to do nothing to reduce crime." 

    "Idiocy is banning a class of firearms that is responsible for fewer deaths than hands and feet."

    Prime examples of IDIOCY?

    Stephen Paddock.

    Nicholas Cruz.

    Seth Ator.

    And their idiocies, of killing and shooting citizens, through their mass shooting crimes.

    Prime examples of IDIOCY, the millions of illegal guns that are in the possession, of the criminals, and offenders, who illegally own those guns. 

    I could point out some other pro family, and pro Public safety talking points, but I'm going to pause to see what some of the citizens, from the pro gun extremists ranks, might say next?

    How is it that so many of citizens in the United States, will set up a verbal defense perimeter, around the Second Amendment that belongs to the entirety of the Public, of the U.S., but yet, certain pro gun extremists, the Far Right Pro Gun supporters, and the NRA, itself, apparently act as if the Second Amendment belongs to them?

    Again, the NRA, the DNC, and the GOP, all three Political Organizations, should have a nationwide meeting before the eyes of the Public, and get the overall gun violence crimes situation in the United States sorted out, once and for all!

    Including the Red Flag laws, the 1000% Gun Accountability Measure, and if need be, the Death Penalty?

    So why shouldn't these three Political Organizations get together, and come up with a combined stance that benefits the Public, as a whole?

    That benefits, the gun owners, and the non gun owners, that is fair, and equal, and is a representation of the country altogether!?

    Unless, some of the legal guns, and the illegal guns, maybe in a sense, mean more to both of those individual gun owners, than the millions families, or the Public safety overall, means less to them, than the rest of the Public in general? 

    Again, look at what the Second Amendment, says, verses what it doesn't say? 
    AlofRICYDdhartaZombieguy1987
  • TKDBTKDB 266 Pts
    edited September 8
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States_in_2019

    List of mass shootings in the United States in 2019

    Annual deaths in the United States from mass shootings 1980-2018, based on data from this article as of August 5, 2019. 

    "This is a list of mass shootings in the United States that have occurred in 2019. Mass shootings are incidents involving multiple victims of firearm-related violence. The precise inclusion criteria are disputed, and there is no broadly accepted definition.[2][3]

    Gun Violence Archive, a nonprofit research group that tracks shootings and their characteristics in the United States, defines a mass shooting as an incident in which four or more people, excluding the perpetrators, are shot in one location at roughly the same time.[4] The Congressional Research Service narrows that definition further, only considering what it defines as "public mass shootings", and only considering victims as those who are killed, excluding any victims who survive.[2] The Washington Post and Mother Jones use similar definitions, with the latter acknowledging that their definition "is a conservative measure of the problem", as many rampages with fewer fatalities occur.[5][6] The crowdsourced Mass Shooting Tracker project defines a mass shooting as "an incident where four or more people are shot in a single shooting spree. This may include the gunman himself, or police shootings of civilians around the gunman."[7]

    As of August 31, 2019, 297 mass shootings have occurred in 2019 that fit the inclusion criteria of this article. This averages out to 1.2 shootings per day. In these shootings, 1,219 people were injured and 335 died (for a total of 1,554 victims)."


    The information speaks for itself.



  • TKDBTKDB 266 Pts
    From Vox.com

    Try to scroll through this graphic and you’ll understand America’s gun problem

    "Since a gunman walked into Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, and killed 20 children, six adults, and himself, at least 1,065 people have died in mass shootings in the United States.

    This includes the 49 men and women killed early Sunday morning at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, according to data from the nonprofit Gun Violence Archive.

    GVA scours local news reports to track as many incidents of gun violence as possible. Its database shows that all but three states have experienced mass shootings (Hawaii, Idaho, and Wyoming). Mass shootings have killed at least 66 children under the age of 12 — and, at minimum, 85 teenagers.

    The first victim of a mass shooting after Sandy Hook identified in the GVA database is Bernard Gillis, a 20-year-old man killed early in the morning of January 1. He was shot and killed at a New Year’s Eve party outside of Los Angeles.

    The most recent victims of mass shootings are those who died on June 12 at Pulse. In between those deaths, there were more than 1,000 other victims of gun violence — and in this story, you’ll learn a bit more about them.

    For every one mass shooting death, there are more than three mass shooting injuries"



    "There are many casualties of mass shootings — but many more who suffer injuries after gun violence. The GVA database estimates that at least 3,942 people have been injured by gun violence since Sandy Hook.

    The most recent injuries actually happened after the Orlando massacre in two separate mass shootings on June 13. Shots broke out at a graduation party in Fresno, California, injuring four people. One woman was reportedly shot multiple times; a 14-year-old boy was also injured. A dog at the home also suffered a bullet wound.

    On the same day, five teenagers were injured in a shooting at a playground in New York City.

    The vast majority of mass shooting victims are male"


    "The GVA data shows that just over 70 percent of the victims of mass shootings are male and just under 28 percent are female.

    At least 66 children under the age of 12 have died in mass shootings since 2013"

     Adult
     
     Teen (12–17)
     
     Child (0–11)
     
     Unknown
    903
    85
    66
    11

    "Amiracle Williams was shot to death on October 17, 2014, when gunfire broke out on her front lawn in Detroit. She was 3 years old and is among the estimated 66 children under the age of 12 who died in mass shootings.

    Children under 18 make up a minority of mass shooting victims, about 14 percent. This includes at least 85 teenagers, 48 children between 5 and 12, and 18 children under the age of 5. But data doesn’t capture the heartbreak of these shootings, so here are the names of some of these kids:

    • Three siblings — ages 1, 4, and 5 — were killed in a murder-suicide in Montana in 2014.
    • Jamiyah Sims, a 9-year-old girl from Mississippi, was shot five times in the head early last year.
    • 8-year-old Alaysha Carradine was killed when a gunman opened fire in Oakland, California. She was at a sleepover at a friend’s apartment when she died.

    The youngest mass shooting victims that GVA has recorded are Hayden and Kayden Hiatt, twin girls killed at 5 months old in a murder-suicide by their father. The oldest was 91-year-old Luis Aguiar, killed during a Phoenix shooting spree in 2013.

    These are the 1,065 victims of mass shootings since Sandy Hook"

    "GVA has tracked mass shooting events since 2013. It uses the FBI definition of a mass shooting: incidents where four or more people (not counting the shooter) were shot at the same general time and location. The database’s researchers comb through hundreds of news stories, police reports, and other sources each day and individually verify the reports. Still, since some shootings aren't reported, the database is likely missing some shootings, and some are missing details.

    We combed through GVA’s data, removing duplicate entries and verifying numbers. Due to the nature of organization’s data collection methods, there may be some errors. Contact us if you have any more information about the shootings and victims.

    Below you’ll see the name, age, and location of death of every mass shooting victim we know about since January 2013."


    The amount of information that there is on the GUN violence crime epidemic, is ridiculously abundant. 

    It's as abundant, as the amount of gun violence crimes, that have been committed since 1966. 

    Thousands of them. 



Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch