To assist your fellow man - what do you think about automobiles, which have been involved in the death of roughly 2 million Americans since 1968? For/Against?
I agree with the fraudulent actions statement. It is a completely self-serving donation wrapped in customer appreciation.
The amoral comment smacks of an attack-so I can see why he took a swipe.
I also don't see this post as a like it - don't like it. To me, this donation allows me to rationalize my thoughts on not supporting the NRA (all my money used to go to mailers-wtf, over?) as I support MidwayUSA, and they then can financially support the gun lobbyists.
Oh, and Redbar, I can appreciate your thoughts on this, but what you "think" you know and what you "actually" know are two different things.
My .03 Sing cents
With all respect, have you ever see someone hit by a .556 mm round? I have.
Starting with a demonstration where hitting a 55 gallon drum full of water, at over a quarter of a ton, actually moves it, and puts a little pencil hole in the front, and a hole about as big as a pie plate in the back . . . Because of the dimensions of the round, it has a little more arc to its trajectory than some rounds, but when it hits it does significant damage. I used to have all the statistics memorized, but the round travels with such momentum, and the forces on the projectile are so great due to the instability of its shape that the round tumbles inside its target. A small entry wound in one area may not lead to a large through and through exit wound. I once saw a target shot in the left arm/shoulder area with a gaping right gluteal exit wound. I cannot even see the need for the use of that for hunting. It does too much damage. So that leaves you with a weapon that is designed for one thing.
My father told me that the reason he opted for the heavier Enfield rifle, instead of the M1 Carbine, .30 cal, was that all the carbine did was **** the Japanese off. His description is the Japanese kept coming until they were dead. I knew a family friend who served in Korea; it was the same with the Chinese. In Viet Nam the NV regulars would have civilians case battlefields for copper. They would smelt it into copper wire, in which they would wrap themselves before going into battle. The ones in front, often would use it to "strap on" sapper charges, including captured Claymore mines. The US needed a weapon with longer rage killing power, and the ability to do catastrophic damage with a wound. They got it with the M-16. The side benefit of course, is how much more ammunition a soldier or marine can carry.
Oft times in these discussions poor logic, or illogic is used. Comparing a combat weapon to an automobile is a non sequitur, from a logical or moral standpoint. The closest you can come is to the purposeful mis-operation of a motor vehicle, like the driver who drinks to such excess or the driver who constantly texts, or maybe the manufacturer who designs in fatal flaws, such as the Corvair or Pinto. But that even fails. There is no good use for a military assault weapon other than military application. There is for any car or driver.
This is exactly the success of the NRA, distraction from the real issue. Let's compare apples to oranges and all of a sudden your rotten apple becomes a citric problem, or more to the point fruit salad!
So far, again with no disrespect intended, every person that I saw that thought the "amoral" comment was a swipe, does not understand the definition or the context of the word. Everybody wants big-boy debate of these issues. Here is amoral as simple as I can do it: Good guys give one million dollars to an organization which can demonstrably only show intent to arm more Americans to kill other Americans. No one can show that the NRA does anything but help the manufacturers to put more guns in more peoples hands; and no one can show doing that does anything but make people (all of us) more unsafe. So the stance that these guys are Good guys, is
at best amoral.
