NRA Enemies List

[nehalem256]

Maybe they should label their list "Hate Groups"?

 

[zinfamous]

Maybe they should label their list "Hate Groups"?

I agree! It would be hilarious if the NRA, listing groups like this:

Ambulatory Pediatric Association
American Academy of Pediatrics
National Coalition Against Domestic Violence
National Association of Social Workers
National Association of Children’s Hospitals and Related Institutions
National Association of School Psychologists
National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA
National Council on Family Relations
National Council of Jewish Women
National Organization for Women
National Political Congress of Black Women
National Peace Foundation
National Urban League, Inc.
National Parent, Teachers Association*
National SAFE KIDS Campaign
National Organization on Disability
National Spinal Cord Injury Association
NETWORK: A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby
Unitarian Universalist Association
United States Catholic Conference
United Methodist Church, General Board & Church Society
United Church of Christ, Office for Church in Society*
etc...

tries to label these people as "hate groups."

Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

 

[irishScott]

tell you what. We'll have this discussion when Uncle Sam actually comes around trying to take our guns, K?

Please don't try to compare this to Civil Rights....

I'm sorry, I thought we were discussing the content of the cartoon you specifically commented on. If you want to end your own discussion that is of course your prerogative.

Why not? Because in your mind one is more righteous than the other? How about some philosophical consistency? Since the "need" argument is so prevalent in gun control advocates, why did blacks "need" to be able to wash their laundry in the same places as whites? It's just laundry after all, wouldn't hurt to go an extra mile or two, and it would promote job growth by increasing demand for laundromats.

Sounds fucking stupid doesn't it? So do most gun control arguments.



The biggest obstacle to gun control is gun control advocates, because most of them refuse to so much as spend 30 seconds googling the very thing they want to regulate, and their lack of knowledge is painfully apparent to anyone with any knowledge of guns. It's also quite easy to demonstrate. I've converted more than one person on the fence to anti-gun-control just by going through an article they showed me and pointing out every flaw. I didn't even need to touch on the 2nd amendment, fundamental rights, self defense, etc, I just pointed out how factually ignorant the other side was. People don't like to follow leaders who are demonstrably full of shit.

 

[zinfamous]

I'm sorry, I thought we were discussing the content of the cartoon you specifically commented on. If you want to end your own discussion that is of course your prerogative.

Why not? Because in your mind one is more righteous than the other? How about some philosophical consistency? Since the "need" argument is so prevalent in gun control advocates, why did blacks "need" to be able to wash their laundry in the same places as whites? It's just laundry after all, wouldn't hurt to go an extra mile or two, and it would promote job growth by increasing demand for laundromats.

It's very simple, and you're stretching.
The difference is between removing a right that is already granted via paper, vs removing laws that intentionally disenfranchise people based on who they are.

The comparison could not be more asinine, and insulting.

Rosa Parks didn't sit on a bus because she wanted to protect a right that she thought might be taken away from her--she wanted to be legally treated like a human being.

 

[irishScott]

It's very simple, and you're stretching.
The difference is between removing a right that is already granted via paper, vs removing laws that intentionally disenfranchise people based on who they are.

The comparison could not be more asinine, and insulting.

Rosa Parks didn't sit on a bus because she wanted to protect a right that she thought might be taken away from her--she wanted to be legally treated like a human being.

First off, the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right. It is enshrined in the Constitution, not "granted" by it.

So to translate, you see a difference between protecting a right by preventing infringement, and protecting a right by fighting infringement already in place? That makes no sense. At the end of the day the effect is the same. Preserving and defending a fundamental right.

You're trying to rationalize a philosophical discrepancy. That's also why you call it asinine and and insulting. You were called out and that pisses you off.

As a gun owner, I'd like to be legally treated as a human being, and not equated with the likes of Adam Lanza. Preventing me from obtaining a black rifle under any circumstances is, to me, essentially saying "We don't trust you. No, there's nothing you can do to prove yourself. There's a good chance you'll kill kids or shoot senators if you buy one, and we can't take that risk."

You want to talk about asinine and insulting?

 

[WelshBloke]

First off, the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right. It is enshrined in the Constitution, not "granted" by it.

So to translate, you see a difference between protecting a right by preventing infringement, and protecting a right by fighting infringement already in place? That makes no sense. At the end of the day the effect is the same. Preserving and defending a fundamental right.

You're trying to rationalize a philosophical discrepancy. That's also why you call it asinine and and insulting. You were called out and that pisses you off.

As a gun owner, I'd like to be legally treated as a human being, and not equated with the likes of Adam Lanza. Preventing me from obtaining a black rifle under any circumstances is, to me, essentially saying "We don't trust you. No, there's nothing you can do to prove yourself. There's a good chance you'll kill kids or shoot senators if you buy one, and we can't take that risk."

You want to talk about asinine and insulting?

Rights are a weird thing and something most people take for granted but they differ culture to culture.

Is owning guns a "Fundamental right"?

What are fundamental rights compared to regular rights?

Edit: The above is not meant as an argument, more an appeal for information.

 

[zinfamous]

First off, the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right. It is enshrined in the Constitution, not "granted" by it.

So to translate, you see a difference between protecting a right by preventing infringement, and protecting a right by fighting infringement already in place? That makes no sense. At the end of the day the effect is the same. Preserving and defending a fundamental right.

You're trying to rationalize a philosophical discrepancy. That's also why you call it asinine and and insulting. You were called out and that pisses you off.

As a gun owner, I'd like to be legally treated as a human being, and not equated with the likes of Adam Lanza. Preventing me from obtaining a black rifle under any circumstances is, to me, essentially saying "We don't trust you. No, there's nothing you can do to prove yourself. There's a good chance you'll kill kids or shoot senators if you buy one, and we can't take that risk."

You want to talk about asinine and insulting?

I still don't see how I was called out on anything...

comparing Rosa Parks, who was protected under no rights; to a gun owner, who is protected under the constitution, remains an asinine assertion.

that is all.

Again, when you lose these rights, then it might be worthy of discussion. You do see the gulf of difference between fighting for keeping a right that you already have--and will, in all reality, continue to have--and fighting for the rights that you do not currently have, don't you?

Also--the difference in these rights is just, just...petty. You weren't born a gun owner. I hope you don't use it to define you as a human. Some people are born black. And for centuries, the constitution and common laws declared that they were not even human, let alone citizens.

In the absurdly improbable reality that guns are banned in this country, you feeling that you are less than human for owning one is surprisingly different than Rosa Parks feeling that she is less than human under Jim Crow.

Hell, I'm a gun owner. I am completely ambivalent to the utter lack of things that will actually happen here.


and fundamental rights....sorry. fundamental rights are not fundamental simply for being in the constitution. firearm ownership...yeah, no way this can be logically interpreted as fundamental.

 

[irishScott]

I still don't see how I was called out on anything...

comparing Rosa Parks, who was protected under no rights; to a gun owner, who is protected under the constitution, remains an asinine assertion.

that is all.

Again, when you lose these rights, then it might be worthy of discussion. You do see the gulf of difference between fighting for keeping a right that you already have--and will, in all reality, continue to have--and fighting for the rights that you do not currently have, don't you?

Also--the difference in these rights is just, just...petty. You weren't born a gun owner. I hope you don't use it to define you as a human. Some people are born black. And for centuries, the constitution and common laws declared that they were not even human, let alone citizens.

In the absurdly improbable reality that guns are banned in this country, you feeling that you are less than human for owning one is surprisingly different than Rosa Parks feeling that she is less than human under Jim Crow.

Hell, I'm a gun owner. I am completely ambivalent to the utter lack of things that will actually happen here.


and fundamental rights....sorry. fundamental rights are not fundamental simply for being in the constitution. firearm ownership...yeah, no way this can be logically interpreted as fundamental.

Rosa parks was fighting for an at-the-time unrecognized fundamental right. She was fighting to, in effect, gain recognition/protection of that right in the Constitution.

You seem to think that defense and defensive-offense are fundamentally two different things despite the fact they accomplish similar goals.

Alright, going back a couple of posts ago, you commented on how the cartoon should be made more accurate by lumping the "law abiding citizen" in with the criminal. In my mind we were already discussing a scenario in which guns were banned and/or confiscated.

I'm relating concepts and philosophies, not events. The Spanish American War is extremely insignificant compared to World War Two. However, they are both wars. Likewise the right to bear arms is a right, same as the rights to equality that Rosa Parks and others fought for. Just because one was historically more oppressed than the other doesn't mean one's a right and one isn't.

Yeah, gun ownership will never be banned. Especially in New York. You seriously look at the current situation and determine that gun rights are in no danger? That we don't need to worry? That the NRA and all pro-gun organizations/supporters could just evaporate and the 2nd amendment would still be secure? There's a word for that: denial.

I have a fundamental right to self defense and to overthrow a tyrannical government (both of which were recognized by the Greeks over a thousand years before the Constitution). In the modern era, that means, at minimum, small arms suited for each role. Unless you would "logically" assert that those two things are equally effective with torches, swords, and pitch forks. The UK's gone that route, and now if you take a criminal's gun and use it shoot him, you go to jail. And when there's a riot, people don't get shotguns, they get Aluminum baseball bats.

If all gun owners were as "ambivalent" as you, we'd have Canadian and European style laws, where you can't even keep a loaded gun in your own house.

 

[irishScott]

Rights are a weird thing and something most people take for granted but they differ culture to culture.

Is owning guns a "Fundamental right"?

What are fundamental rights compared to regular rights?

Edit: The above is not meant as an argument, more an appeal for information.

Well given that this is a philosophical topic, I'm not sure how much "information" can be provided. However, just looking at that wikipedia page there are notable conceptual similarities among many parties.

In my view, self defense with a gun and violent overthrow of a tyrannical government are covered under:

The UN's "Right to liberty".
The Indian "Right against exploitation"
The EU's "Right to Life"

 

[zinfamous]

why is the "minimum requirement" to overthrow a tyrannical government the ownership of small arms? Does the constitution not offer a diverse system of checks and balances that essentially makes firearm ownership negligible in this circumstance?

To be completely fair, the only "threat" I see is the presence of a standing military in this country, which is a fundamental rejection of our founders' vision of this country. It made the generals sick up until the 50s, and yet here we are. In one sense--I get it because we have created an absurdly armed government entity. One might argue that we need to arm ourselves against our own government military, but neither you nor I are afraid of our military going out and doing the government's bidding if it so chooses to go dictator on us....or are we afraid? :hmm:

Further, if we are to believe the hawkish people here in P&N and in the world of gung-ho republicanism, a citizenry armed as we are wouldn't have a chance to stand up against our highly trained, well-armed military with the most advanced weapon systems. I mean--look at how our advanced military thoroughly trounced the stone-age Taliban! ...:hmm:

so, I don't know...perhaps we can adequately defend ourselves with pistols and rifles, should the need come?

Or, will the military protect us against a tyrannical government? that was the point of arming the militia, right? right? To use the militia as protection against government? Now we don't need, or have a militia, because we have a standing army. So, do we arm ourselves to protect against the government, or the government's army? what happens if the army stages a coup over a tyrannical government? Do we trust the new military dictatorship?




----
riots with shotguns vs riots with aluminum bats. ...which is more deadly? I know you don't think a weapon is a weapon is a weapon, right? Of course you don't...

 

[rudder]

An excellent example of the continued failed logic of liberal thinking. Someone needs to rethink this picture and come up with a different idea.

 

[PowerEngineer]

Is there a point to this post, or are you just spouting how awesome think you are for prospectively being proud of something completely meaningless?

Maybe I just wanted to rattle the P&R cage and incite viceral reactions of some "proud" NRA member gun owners here. If so, it's worked.

Or perhaps I think that the people and organizations that the NRA (or any other group or person) counts among their enemies is just as revealing as those they count as their friends.

Food for thought that you are free to spit out.