"The NRA just broke a 15-year fundraising record"

Which tells us just which way the wind is blowing in the USA.
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/broward/article209619234.html

Money definitely talks in the US of A!

The NRA is portrayed by the left leaning MSM (is there any other type) as a fringe extremist group.

But when the people's second amendment rights are threatened we find that the NRA is a lot more mainstream than any of the anti-gun groups and has a lot more support among the deplorables than the MSM can possibly admit or even understand.

The following link explains:

http://edition.cnn.com/2018/02/23/politics/nra-political-money-clout/index-html

My typo, sorry. Here's the link again:

http://edition.cnn.com/2018/02/23/politics/nra-political-money-clout/index.html

Foxy,

All that I got was

"Uh-oh!
It could be you, or it could be us, but there's no page here."

MSM are concentrating only on criminal use of guns and hidden the fact that use of guns to prevent crimes is by far greater than the figures how victims.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID3168611_code435909.pdf?abstractid=3168611&mirid=1

(have left above url complete so may need to copy and paste)

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3168611
Thee document is at near the top of page left side (Download This document)

An unpublished Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) study confirms Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck’s findings of more than two million defensive handgun uses (DGUs) per year.

Since the early 1990s, Kleck has maintained that there is a minimum of 760,000 DGUs annually. That is his low estimate; Kleck and research partner Marc Gertz have contended the actual number is closer to 2.5 million.

Kleck reaffirmed his numbers on February 17, 2015, explaining that while plenty of naysayers have criticized his findings, none have been able to offer empirical evidence to counter them.

Now, a CDC study conducted on data from 1996, 1997, and 1998 has been uncovered. The study, which was never released to the public, shows approximately 2.46 million DGUs per year.

In 1996, 1997, and 1998, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) conducted large-scale national surveys asking about defensive gun use (DGU). They never released the findings, or even acknowledged they had studied the topic. I obtained the unpublished raw data and computed the prevalence of DGU. CDC’s findings indicated that an average of 2.46 million U.S. adults used a gun for self-defense in each of the years from 1996 through 1998 – almost exactly confirming the estimate for 1992 of Kleck and Gertz (1995). Possible reasons for CDC’s suppression of these findings are discussed.

Con't

On April 20, 2018, Reason magazine quoted Kleck’s reaction to the unpublished CDC findings; he explained that a figure of 2.46 million DGUs a year “[implies] that guns were used defensively by victims about 3.6 times as often as they were used offensively by criminals.”

So it begs the question how many people killed or injured and crimes committed would have been prevented or not happened if the guns were not taken away from Australians.

Due to the admission of the wrong people in our immigration & refugee programs, we now see a couple of the major growth industries in Oz are car jacking & home invasions.

To overcome this we really do need to greatly increase our deportation of these imported criminals, & legalise the carrying of concealed hand guns, at least in the areas of most danger from this development, caused by stupid policies.

Issy, as a confessed member, and insider, of the Australian chapter of the NRA, do you expect plenty more cash to flow through the back door from the Yankee HQ to finance the far right candidates at the next Federal election, like last time.

No, Paul, because it doesn't happen, however if you have any evidence to the contrary or can post some links, go for it.

While you're at it you might post something about the finances of that most secretive organization, Gun Control Australia.

Foxy,

Thanks, it works.

Looks like a case of putting the money where the mouth is!!

Do Congressmen support the NRA's agenda because they give them money or do they give them money because they support the NRA agenda?

Its a standard conceit of those on the left to see the 'other' as either evil or stupid (or both).

"I'm smart, educated, intelligent, oozing common sense and compassion and I'm anti-gun.Therefore anyone who isn't anti-gun , who doesn't agree with me, is either stupid or evil".

Since Congressmen (generally) aren't stupid, they must be, according to this 'thinking', evil.

So they vote the NRA agenda because of the money. No money, so the 'thinking' goes, and they'd vote the way their moral betters would like.

Here's a thought. Perhaps they'd vote that way irrespective of the money, but the money helps them stay in Congress and therefore helps them support the policy goals.

Dear Is Mise,

It's all very complicated isn't it.

But that's America. The system allows vested interests
to try to influence the way individual legislators vote
on specific issues. The NRA uses a variety of tactics.
From collecting petitions, taking court action, advertising
in the media, organizing floods of letters to legislators
on particular issues, pledging their members' votes to certain
candidates, donating money on election campaigns, or even
resorting to outright bribery. Frequently they use lobbying,
the tactic of directly persuading decision makers. The
organisation also has highly-paid, full-time professional
staff of lobbyists who meet regularly with legislators
and government officials.

They're a very powerful group in the USA. It's a win situation.
And hard to beat.

Issy, the Australian chapter of the NRA, which goes under several erroneous names here, donates big time to far right politicians and parties. It Seeks to influence Australian politics in the same way as it influences the American political system. Some of that money has gone to One Nation, The Katter Australian Party and others. The shadowy group the Shooting Industry Foundation of Australia spent $550,000 on the Queensland election alone. Who are these turkeys? The SSAA, another mob from right field, poured $440,800 into the pockets of the Liberal Democrats, the Shooters Fishers and Farmers Party, the Katter Australia Party, and others. No wonder the likes of Senator Leyonhjelm is so pro gun!

Dear Is mise,

Oh come on mate just do the bloody math.

That is really a surprising small amount. Only $2.4 million from a nation wide 'Victory' campaign?

$1.9 Million from small donations of $200 or less works out to be probably just 19,000 people putting their hands in their pockets for the NRA if we assume $100 each.

Yet over 500,000 people marched in Washington for gun control.

The NRA are well versed in propaganda and lobbying but they are in no way representative of the wider community. The fact you are on here assisting them and gleefully touting their so called 'success' after the Parkland tragedy is deeply reprehensible and you should be ashamed.

Washington, headquarters of the swamp that Trump is draining, full of bureaucrats who desperately want the population disarmed so they can't exact suitable retribution on the bureaucrats, when they ultimately find out how much they are ripping being ripped off.

Of course they would march. The last thing they want is a switched on, armed population. God, they might demand justice, with the mussel to back the demand.

Republican congress(wo)men vote the way the NRA wants because of all the monetary support the NRA gives them in the same way that Democrat congress(wo)men vote the way the pro-abortion lobby decrees because of all the monetary support Planned Parenthood et al give them.

For a bit of perspective, out of a US population of about 245 million, there are only about 5 million who are actual members of the NRA - although as many as 15 million "claim" to be members.

Most of the NRA funding doesn't come from membership but from weapons manufacturers and the NRA "launders" much of this into the coffers of politicians for obvious reasons.

Ultimately the blood of mass shooting victims is on the hands of those politicians as well as those who love their guns more than each other.

When it come to their media, there are the right-wing zealots like Alex Jones who insist that incidents like Sandy Hook were faked to win support for the Democrats and obviously many are happy to believe him.
(He also claimed that Hillary Clinton personally raped, murdered and ate children and had some opponents killed and some believed that too.)

NRA supporters and other gun worshippers may have automatic weapons but the government the 2nd Amendment fanatics think they may wish to overthrow one day has bombers, missiles and drones. Good luck with that.

Thanks rache.

Well said.

Foxy

You said, "..., or even resorting to outright bribery..." when referring to the US NRA, care to back up the allegation?

Paul,

Found any evidence yet that the US NRA donates money to Australian political parties et al?

Steele,

The bloody math is that the support for the NRA has dramatically increased and every time some Australian politician or commentator trots out the Howard Gun Laws as an example to America, then the gun support goes up.

Dear mhaze,

I think Trump will be the best thing for swamp draining because his efforts in filling it with slime balls to further himself have become so brazen it is making ordinary Americans realise just how prevasive the corruption really is.

Your hero Pruitt is now the subject of 10 separate Federal investigations.

Even Republicans are looking seriously at him;

“Rep. Trey Gowdy, the Republican head of the the House Oversight Committee, isn’t a big fan of Pruitt. The committee Gowdy runs has asked the EPA chief to turn over all records related to the condo he rented from the wife of an oil and gas lobbyist for just $50 a night, as well as details about his security detail.”
http://news.vice.com/en_us/article/pax4pb/how-many-investigations-are-there-against-epa-chief-scott-pruitt

This man is the very epitome of a swamp dweller yet here you are wanting to bend down and polish his boots.

Just the other day Trump tried to flag his personal doctor for head of Veterans Affairs and a few months ago touted his own pilot for the head of the FAA.

“President Donald Trump is pushing to have his longtime personal pilot, John Dunkin, to head the Federal Aviation Administration”
http://edition.cnn.com/2018/02/25/politics/trump-pilot-faa-nomination/index.html

Actually mate I would love to hear your definition of what the 'swamp' really is. I haven't explored an alternative reality for a while.

rache,

One of the problems with believing any old data that tells you want you want to hear is that its rarely true.

"Most of the NRA funding doesn't come from membership but from weapons manufacturers "

That is patently and absolutely untrue. Here is a recent NRA tax return showing the error of your sources claim....http://990s.foundationcenter.org/990_pdf_archive/530/530116130/530116130_201312_990O.pdf

Total revenue - $347mill, membership dues - $183mill

The way your sources manipulate the data to misled the unsuspecting such as yourself (or those anxious to be misled) is to assume that all the other revenue comes from manufacturers. But it doesn't. A sizeable portion comes from donations by members or small donations from non-members who support the NRA's agenda. Other revenue is from advertising which does come from manufacturers but its, well, advertising. Its like saying the NRMA is run by manufacturers because they advertise in its magazines.

Still, these people don't need to justify their manipulation because it is all done in a 'good' cause. Right?

so:
"Thanks rache.

Well said."

" out of a US population of about 245 million"

Wow. It wasn't all that long ago that the US population was over 320 million. The gun violence is worse than I thought.

Oh well. If the mad buggers are that keen to get themselves shot I say leave 'em to it, and thank gods our society is marginally saner.

Dear Is Mise,

They're not allegations. They're facts. And they're
easily accessible on the web. Here's just two links.
One from the New York Times where the amounts listed
include money the NRA spends on behalf of candidates,
in addition to money it gives directly to candidates:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/04/opinion/thoughts-prayers-nra-funding-senators.html

And -

One from the LA Times:

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-nra-politicians-20180215-story.html

Dear rache,

You are correct of course. There are a myriad of ways that corporate donors can slip under the radar one of them is the "Ring of Freedom" path where memberships of a million dollars gets you a gold ring and perhaps your picture on a website full of images of older white people. Perhaps there is a black face in there somewhere.

http://www.nraringoffreedom.com/membership/membership-levels/

Paul,

Found any evidence yet that the US NRA donates money to Australian political parties et al?

Issy, I do not wish to repeat myself, the evidence has been provided previously.

BTW; Those in glass houses should not throw stones. what is "et al" Please enlighten. or get yourself an online spell checker, as you often advise others to do

Foxy,

Thise sites tell of political donations not bribes, get your facts straight.

Paul,

You have never provided any evidence of NRA funds going to Australian politicians, firearms supporters et al.

I had supposed that being an educated comedian that you would be familiar with 'et al'.

However as you do not seem to be then here it is,

"Et al. is an abbreviation for et alia (neuter plural). But it can also be an abbreviation for et alii (masculine plural), or et aliae (feminine plural). This phrase means “and others.”

Dear Is Mise,

You're the one having trouble with facts.

The amounts listed as explained not only included money
the NRA spends on behalf of candidates, they also included
in addition the money it gives directly to candidates. And by
the way, direct contributions arent' the only way to wield
clout. The NRA are master's of it. Do your research.

As one American poster wrote on the web -

"In any other civilised country the way the NRA funds
politicians would be seen as corruption. Any politician
supporting policies that cause children to die because
of that political funding would be in prison. America
has lost the plot on this one."

"As I see it the NRA ... it's a protection racket!"

And you defend them?

Incredible. And very sad.

Foxy.

None the less what the NRA does with its money is not bribery, look up the legal definition of bribery.

Political donations are not bribery in the USA, nor, for that matter, are political donations in Australia.

Do I defend the NRA?

Yes!!

They are after all defending their Constitution against those who would subvert it; are they not right to defend their Constitution?

Issy, given you are into abbreviations, and noting your last load of hog wash. Here's on for you; ROTFLMFAO

Dear Is Mise,

They are not defending their Constitution. What they're
doing is defending their belief in their right" to bear
arms." Which amounts to their belief to use weapons in
whatever way they choose - for that they buy the support
they need. And that in anyone's books amounts to bribery.
And if you can't see that, you have a problem.

BTW: I did look up the definition of bribery. And it does fit.
Paying money to induce someone to do what you want, to
achieve your ends - amounts to bribery -
and calling it a "donation" does not change that fact.

//They are after all defending their Constitution against those who would subvert it//

Amending the Constitution is not 'subverting' it. Stop being so melodramatic. There have been 27 amendments so far, with the most recent being ratified in 1992. The world is not going to end if they introduce a 28th amendment to repeal the 2nd, in the same way that the 21st was used to repeal the 18th after it turned out to be a well-intentioned but bad idea.

The NRA are bribing congress(wo)men to defend the rights to bear arms in the same way as Planned Parenthood are bribing congress(wo)men to defend their rights to market baby body parts.

"Amending the Constitution is not 'subverting' it. "

So why don't they get on with amending it then rather than trying to do an end run around 2A by incrementally strangling gun owner's rights. Might I suggest that the reason they don't propose a constitutional amendment is that they know they've got precisely no chance of getting it passed. Hence the need to use the law and lawfare to subvert intent of 2A.

The following link might help:

http://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2018/2/27/17051560/money-nrs-guns-contributions-donations-parkland-march

"Your hero Pruitt is now the subject of 10 separate Federal investigations."

That's quite a segue there SR. We were talking about guns and lobbying and you go off on some entirely unrelated sojourn. Fantasising about a Pruitt assassination? Or just unable to follow a logical argument?

Yes, the deep state are trying very hard to find some way of getting Pruitt out of the EPA. That to me shows what a great job he's doing and how dangerous he is to their standing. After all, if the EPA is forced to follow the real science and is forced to justify its attacks on the economy, all their previous decisions might go up in smoke, if you'll forgive the expression. And since they can't mount a logical (there's that word again) argument, they try to get him on bogus charges.

Oh he spent all this money on travel. What a disaster. But don't mention that he's spending roughly the same amounts as his predecessors.

Get back to me when something is proven.

"Even Republicans are looking seriously at him;"

Yes this must be very confusing to you since the other side would never do this. Rather than decide to gather the evidence and try to see if there's any there there, the Democrats always seek to hide the evidence and circle the wagons to protect their guilt. Ever heard of the Imran Awan? Probably not. The media you read/trust are trying very hard to hide that story. As Jim Treacher says "Modern journalism is all about deciding which facts the public shouldn't know because they might reflect badly on Democrats."

" here you are wanting to bend down and polish his boots. "

I don't know that I've ever wanted to polish anyone's boots, left or right. At least no one alive today. Perhaps Churchill, maybe Augustus, certainly Themistocles (did he wear boots?).

I think your hyperbolic ranting is revealing a degree of panic at how well the Trump administration is doing. Have a Bex and a lie down.

How well the Trump administration is doing?

By all means lets ignore the scandals, staff exodus, blasts
on twitter, and all the perceived instability all round.

//in the same way as Planned Parenthood are bribing congress(wo)men to defend their rights to market baby body parts.//

I see you've been drinking the runner juice (or 'jizz' as it was originally pronounced) there, mhaze.

But in reality, nobody markets baby body parts anymore. Bit of a shame really, their little skulls once made for fine snuffboxes for the gentry (I've still got mine, from before it became 'unfashionable' and 'politically incorrect' to take snuff in that manner), and there is no finer parchment then 'baby vellum'.

//So why don't they get on with amending it then rather than trying to do an end run around 2A by incrementally strangling gun owner's rights.//

Because it's their system, and they're free to conduct it in the manner they see fit.

//Might I suggest that the reason they don't propose a constitutional amendment is that they know they've got precisely no chance of getting it passed.//

Of course. Suggestions are always welcome. Feel free to post them straight into the suggestion box, which is definitely not attached directly to a shredder.

//Hence the need to use the law and lawfare to subvert intent of 2A.//

Oh, the humanity. Lawyers, using the law, to dispute the validity of other laws? Something is clearly amiss! Alarumums! Divers!

You've gotta give them something to keep them busy, mhaze. Left to their own devices, lawyers have an unfortunate tendency to engage in anti-social behaviour.

Foxy,

OK, donations are bribes, therefore why single out the NRA?

All of our major political parties take bribes then, fortunately, the SF&F Party do not do so.

Paul,

I got your abbreviation, the second 'F' is neither necessary or polite; what's your problem with 'et al'?

Have you found any evidence to back up your allegations of NRA involvement in Australian politics?
The Greens and Gun Control have been saying that for years but neither has ever come up with any proof, so either there is no NRA involvement or else their accusers are really dumb (or both).

Dear Is Mise,

You ask - why single out the NRA?

The topic of this discussion is - "NRA and Politics>"

"OK, donations are bribes, "

Well it seems to those of a certain leaning, all donations paid by those they don't like are bribes and donations paid by those they do like are the height of philanthropy. But don't think for a moment there's any hypocrisy there. Perish the thought.

Toni,

"But in reality, nobody markets baby body parts anymore. "

http://thefederalist.com/2017/04/26/planned-parenthoods-organs-lamborghinis-exec-busted-trying-sell-baby-body-parts/

It seems like a good, if not very intelligent, policy to always forget those things that don't suit the narrative.

"the runner juice (or 'jizz' as it was originally pronounced)"

'Jizz' had a different meaning in my day, although given we are talking about parenthood, a not inappropriate meaning.

SR,

"Just the other day Trump tried to flag his personal doctor for head of Veterans Affairs"

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/385289-white-house-says-no-evidence-that-ronny-jackson-crashed-government

The really sad or disturbing thing about this episode is that Jackson worked for Obama for eight years and Obama treated him like a friend and often spoke highly of him. But when these false allegations were aired by immoral Democrats, Obama stayed silent. The man is a morality free zone.

Of course, to the Democrats and people like SR, the fact that their accusations were entirely fraudulent is immaterial. They achieved their aims and that's all that counts. Morality or the good of the nation runs a distant second.

"NRA supporters and other gun worshippers may have automatic weapons but the government the 2nd Amendment fanatics think they may wish to overthrow one day has bombers, missiles and drones. Good luck with that."

It makes life so much easier if you can misrepresent the views and aims of those you oppose.

In fact 2A supporters don't wish to overthrow governments although they do know that they may some day have to resist an unconstitutional government.

But their main reason for keeping guns is to provide the personal protection that the government is unable or unwilling to provide. This of course is reasoning that is suppressed by those who want to misrepresent the views of their opponents - see above.

http://dailycaller.com/2018/04/24/cdc-study-anti-gun-lobby/

Foxy,

"You ask - why single out the NRA?

The topic of this discussion is - "NRA and Politics>"

Fair enough, but in the finer traditions of OLO, one may broaden the subject and ask "What about the Donations (bribes) paid to our major parties?

Regarding the Second Amendment?

Here's a link that explains this further:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2016/06/how_the_nra_perverted_the_meaning_of_the_2nd_amendment.html

The Second Amendment Hoax.

Dear Is Mise,

You've asked - "What about donations paid to our
major parties?"

There is so much we don't know about
political donations. We do need disclosures
which add to transparency and the Sam Dastyari episode
is just one example that shows the need for clear-cut
rules.

We need to prevent those with links to foreign
governments as well as any powerful lobbyists
from using money to influence the
political process. I believe that the Victorian
Government is getting serious on its political donations
rules, hopefully this will lead to the federal government
doing the same.

Why don't you start your own discussion on this topic?
I'm sure that many people would be interested in having this
discussion as well.

Foxy,

You're the one that intimated that the NRA's donations were also bribes, so are donations to our major parties Bribes?

On the 2nd Amendment, it's not what it is thought to mean or has been thought to mean, but what it actually means that is the important thing,

"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."

How do you interpret it?

Dear Is Mise,

Read the link I've given on the 2nd Amendment -
Its quite self explanatory.

As are my comments on donations.

I have nothing further to add on that subject.

If you're looking for more input - you can start
your own discussion on that subject - which I
suggested you do.

Foxy,

"Read the link I've given on the 2nd Amendment -
Its quite self explanatory"

I read it and I think that it is waffle.

How do you interpret the 2nd Amendment, personally?

Issy, in the 21st century there is no legitimate reason for the citizens pf any country to bear arms. The conditions that existed in the United States in 1791 were far different that the conditions that exist there today.

The call for a private army, aka "citizens militia", smacks of a totalitarianism, is that something you support for Australia?

The present system of political donations has always favoured those in power, or potentially in power, the Liberal and Labor parties. The big two parties have a vested interest in maintaining the present system of discloser. Large political donations by business, unions or organisations are not made to political parties for any altruistic reasons. They are an investment, an investment made to hopefully further the vested interests pf the donor.

Paul,

"Issy, in the 21st century there is no legitimate reason for the citizens pf any country to bear arms. The conditions that existed in the United States in 1791 were far different that the conditions that exist there today."

You're right there, conditions are much worse today.

Self defence is not a reason?

How would you feel walking the streets of Kabul or any other Afghani town/countryside unarmed?

What's your thoughts on resisting home invasion?

Have you found any evidence to back up your/Greens' allegations of the NRA being involved in Australian politics?
Specifically the giving of monies.

Dear Is Mise,

You again ask me - how do I interpret the Second
Amendment of the American Constitution?

In my opinion the Second Amendment is a relic of the
founding era more than two centuries ago. It's
purpose is long past. The Amendment should not block
the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun
control legislation. That was never its intent.

Of course the language of the 2nd Amendment has created
considerable debate regarding the Amendment's intended
scope. It's up to the courts to interpret .

Foxy,

The Courts have interpreted it.

Why don't you give us your interpretation based on your knowledge of English?

Don't you believe that people have a right to defend themselves?

Dear Is Mise,

Yes the courts have interpreted it.

In fact -

The term "self-defence" does not appear in the Second
Amendment. It's writers tied gun ownership to "a well-regulated
militia being necessary to the security of a free state."

The Supreme Court has used the militia phrasing to support
gun-control laws. The Supreme Court (via Justice Scalia)
argued very clearly that like most rights the Second Amendment
rights are not unlimited. That it is not a right to keep and
carry any weapon whatsoever, in any manner whatsoever and for
whatever purpose.

But I shan't go into this here.

I suspect that all you really want to do is stir.

I'll leave you to it.

Foxy,

I asked if you believed in the right to self defence not what some judge thought, so do you believe that people have the right to defend themselves and if they are genuinely in fear for their lives to kill their assailant/s?

Can't you work out the meaning of the 2nd Amendment; and you a librarian?

Dear Is Mise,

I have no interest in any further discussion
with you.

Find someone else to give you the platform for
the agenda you so strongly support.

I'm not interested.

Cheers.

Issy, stop upsetting Foxy please.

Also as you know I am a sensitive soul, and easily offended, so go easy on me Old Turkey! BTW what happened to your sidekick on this nonsense, and brother in arms, Unterfuhrer Leo(the wombo)J. Did you send him pack'n, off to the Russian Front.

I'm no longer living in Kabul, got a nice little bed/sit in downtown Baghdad now, so I no longer fear the Home Invasion Mob (HIM for short), just Chariton Heston look-a-likes dressed as Rambo from America invading my digs. I lie, I'm still living in Sydney, until home invasions reach saturation point which is well above the present level of 0.001% I wont bother sitting facing the front door with a loaded shotgun 24/7 incase. Besides I don't own a Chinese takeaway business, and don't have a big wad of cash stuffed down the back of the lounge, The HIM wont get much, not even a blast of shotgun pellets should they come screaming through my front door. It's more likely Unterfuhrer Leoj will return from the Russian Front, and bust down my door with the citizens militia and drag me off to a concentration camp.

"What's your thoughts on resisting home invasion?" Don't keep wads of cash stuffed down the back of the lounge, or don't live in Kabul.

"Have you found any evidence, yarda, yarda, yarda," I've given you the good oil on that one many times. Keep it up and you'll be off to joint Leoj on the Russian Front for insubordination.

Paul,

"Have you found any evidence, yarda, yarda, yarda," I've given you the good oil on that one many times. Keep it up and you'll be off to joint Leoj on the Russian Front for insubordination."

Same old Green tactic, repeat a lie till it becomes confused with the truth.
You have never given any evidence to back your claims of NRA involvement in our politics, so put up or shut up.

Foxy,

Doing a runner again?

Don't you have sufficient English skills to sort out a relevantly simple sentence?

"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."

Which is the subordinate clause?

Go on it's easy.

Issy, I even gave you the amounts they slipped in to the back pockets of various far right ratbags in Aussie, your mob included. What more do you want, the serial numbers on the bills?
That's it, pack your winter woollies, and don't stop until you reach Siberia!

BTW, what rank do you want for yourself in that cornball citizens militia? Generalissimo no less, so you can out rank Field Marshal Leo?

Paul,

Keep up the BS, someone may believe you eventually, you gave no references nor did you give any evidence in support of your wild allegations.

All that you gave were suppositions based on nothing more than Green propaganda et al.

So put up or shut up.

Generalissimo Issy, the references were in all quality journalistic publications, The Guardian, The SMH, ABC etc. You probably did not pick up on those facts in the Murdoch gutter press, your favorite read,the Beat Up Bolt column in the Daily Telecrap. Those QJP's are hardly publishers of Green propaganda.

Just give a reference, Paul, and stop beating around the bush.

The facts are that there is no evidence what-so-ever that the NRA has put money into trying to influence Australian politics.

If there were then the Greens and Gun Control Australia would be shouting it from the rooftops.

So put up or shut up.

Issy, the bush has been well and truly beaten, and what was flushed out was big political donations in Australia by the local chapter of the NRA. I am sure the head of the local branch does not get out of bed in the mornings until first checking with US command that it is okay to do so. The local gunnie organization sold out to the NRA a long time ago, The locals needed NRA dosh to run their pro gun campaign here, something they can't do with only the Saturday avo profits from the meat raffle of Koala chops and Wombat steaks, all supplied by that days hunting expedition down at the local shoot em up club!

Paul,

So once again your foot is in your mouth, good job that you can still type!

You can't put up but you won't shut up.

No evidence = no credibility.

need peace in the whole world

Issy, it is a well know fact that you cannot beat the bush while having your foot in your mouth at the same time. And, the bush has been well and truly beaten. What were flushed out were big donations from the Australian chapter of the NRA to varies political drongos and parties. A shameful intrusion into Australian politics by a sinister foreign organisation. As the curiosity of Australian politics would say please explain! Please explain the huge sums of money fed to ratbag right politicians from the pro gun lobby. Where did the money come from?

Paul,

"Where did the money come from?"

You tell us and tender some proof at the same time; Greens et al lie and lie and lie in the vain hope that someone will believe them.

Put up or shut up!

Issy,

"Where did the money come from?".... "You tell us"

I told you where the money came from, it came from a sinister foreign entity that wants to meddle in Australian domestic politics, by influencing local far right political ratbags. Of course they feed the dosh through front orgs, trying to give the whole dirty business some air of respectability, which it does not have!

I hope this explanation is to your satisfaction. As all reasonable persons will agree.

Paul,

"I hope this explanation is to your satisfaction. As all reasonable persons will agree."

Cut the BS, you have absolutely no evidence for your ridiculous assertions, if there was any evidence then you, the Greens et al would have published it long ago.

Give one credible reference, just one.

Not a big ask, as all reasonable people would agree.

Issy, just for your edification let me refer you to the beliefs of that much loved gunnie supporter, former National Party leader Tim Fisher. Tim is "deeply concerned" about the emergence of a US inspired firearms lobby in Australia. Tim believes “NRA-inspired” lobbying coupled with the increased influence of right wing parties such as One Nation in Canberra and the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers party in New South Wales had influenced a “pushback” against Australia’s gun laws.
Tim's warning comes in the context of an increasingly well-funded and organised gun lobby with ties to weapons importers and manufacturers.

Paul,

You are really weak, fancy quoting that well-worn source, Tim Fisher the co-founder of the Australian Gun Lobby; next you'll be quoting Howard himself as an authority.

Come on, just one teensy-weensy bit of evidence.

Go on, Paul, just shew us what the Greens, GCA et al have in the way of evidence or even one vague, but checkable, reference.

Issy, if Tim Fisher is the co-founder of the Australian Gun Lobby then I take it, such a person is pro gun, rather than anti gun. Mr Fisher is an elder statesman of Australian politics and his word is beyond question.

Suck it in son, I've got you on toast. What are you up to today? I'm off to the markets this morning and down to the RSL in the avo, an old mate, a country singer is on. I'll have a beer for you and me.

Try this one, its "Elvis", but our mate Brian always does a top rendition of it for "T", it was her Mums Elvis favourite (Mum passed away in 1969 aged 42).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31hrz8a_uUI

The version I like;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Or-J_nf1Riw

Paul,

"Issy, if Tim Fisher is the co-founder of the Australian Gun Lobby then I take it, such a person is pro-gun, rather than anti-gun..."

There was no such thing as an Australian Gun Lobby until John "Flack Jacket" Howard fathered it, I could hardly call Tim the 'co-father' and Tim was pro-gun but just gutless and afraid to stand up to Howard.

"...Mr Fisher is an elder statesman of Australian politics and his word is beyond question."

How naive can you get?

How are you going on the evidence quest?

Ten days of blather about a foreign organisation in a foreign country. There are no parallels with U.S gun nonsense in Australia, because Australians are too pathetic to stand up for themselves. What John Howard was allowed to get away with following the one-off shooting event in Tasmania wouldn't have happened in a country where the citizenry had a backbone. Australians would have to be the wettest, most gutless bunch of people in the world when it comes to standing up to political thugs. We even meekly accepted the wearing of a silly looking helmet if we wanted to ride a bike. But, you just go on chuntering about things you have no control over to cover the fact that you are too frightened to stand up to the evil bastards ruining your own country and treating you like the idiots you are.

ttbn,

What do you think that Australians should have done?

Armed insurrection?

Australian gun owners chose the path of being law-abiding and politically active, that's why Australia is the only country that has a political party devoted to firearm owners' rights with elected Members of Parliaments.

"Australian gun owners chose the path of being law-abiding" Here is a list of some of those law abiding gun owners;

Martin Bryant
Ivan Milat
Ian Turnbull

Will you deny these people did not own a gun?
Will you claim they were law abiding?

Paul,

Don't be so stupidly desperate!

Why don't you be a good chap and go and find some evidence for your wild assertions that the US NRA meddle in Australian politics?