The NRA is some evil, lying, no good corporate lobbyist group right?

[Fenixgoon]

"will find some way to do the incomprehensible."

Except in places like Britain, which have insanely lower gun violence. The excuse that people will do illegal things anyway just doesn't hold weight when you look at actual statistics of gun violence in countries with very strict gun laws.

they just have a significantly higher violent crime rate instead.

and did britain have, at minimum, 0.6-1 firearms per person in the country? because that's about the most conservative estimate - 200 MILLION firearms in the US. you would never be able to get rid of them even if confiscation were enacted.

 

[blankslate]

Because lobbyist groups aren't democracies? A better question is why the private members go along with the NRA in spite of that. The answer can be found in the rhetoric spouted by those proposing most of the gun control legislation.

Thanks for making my point the leadership of the NRA is basically interested in Lobbying.

I'm thinking the regular members like the safety training that can be had as well as discounts from participating firing ranges and possibly a complementary subscription to some magazine.

While a lot of regular members aren't averse to more comprehensive checks as it might help keep some weapons out of the hands of some people who shouldn't have them the leadership of the NRA being more interested in promoting firearm sales wouldn't like them because one sale stopped by a background check is less revenue to their real masters.

 

[shadow9d9]

they just have a significantly higher violent crime rate.

and did britain have, at minimum, 0.6-1 firearms per person in the country? because that's about the most conservative estimate - 200 MILLION firearms in the US. you would never be able to get rid of them even if confiscation were enacted.

We are talking about gun violence, not violence in general. The only reason it is often brought up is as a way to try to muddy the waters.

And yeah, we would have to get rid of our guns like they did. So what?

 

[LunarRay]

"will find some way to do the incomprehensible."

Except in places like Britain, which have insanely lower gun violence. The excuse that people will do illegal things anyway just doesn't hold weight when you look at actual statistics of gun violence in countries with very strict gun laws.

I'm aware of the statistics as well as the restriction on weapons in the UK and Ireland...
My point is that in those places there IS a restriction that seems to work and it is permissible to enact those restrictions. In the UK there is Common Law versus Constitutional Law... That IS a difference to here... I am from the mind set that if we can limit a Right in one area we find it easy to limit a Right in another. We seem to need the Constitution to protect all rights from the folks who'd deny Rights when they are in power and able to do so.

The fix... as I see it, relates to the person... Felons and others who'd have a propensity to use a weapon illegally and those underage and of unsound minds should be restricted...

 

[monovillage]

Have you some beef with the poll itself? Polls aren't fair or unfair, they are measures of public opinion at the time they are taken. People adjust their opinions according to things that happen. Do you say that's unfair. It seems to be just a fact to me.

I think the NRA dude who spoke to the nation, in my opinion, made most people sick and more amenable to the notion of gun control.

I think most polls are skewed Moonie. Usually skewed in favor of who paid for the poll and which direction they want it to go. I bet if the NRA came out with their own poll or one they funded you'd see enormous changes in the numbers.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Yes, what about giving a firearm to a son or a daughter or a friend? Those aren't sales, but would be included in a "Universal background check", but wouldn't be included as a "gun sale".

Even if I accept this distinction (which is minor at best), then it can still be said that the poll showed nearly 75% of NRA members supported checks on all sales -- which would include gun shows, and something the NRA opposes.

The point about the NRA leadership being out of sync with its membership stands. IIRC, this also applies to some other issues in that poll.

How about the honesty and/or accuracy of a poll that was conducted less then a month from the time of the Sandy Hook massacre and after the media frenzy? Do you think that put an unfair skew to that poll?

It's entirely honest as long as they are clear about when the poll was done.

Here, the poll is entitled "After Newtown — Public Opinion on Gun Policy and Mental Illness". It is dated. And it was conducted about six weeks after Newtown -- not the day after.

I see no issue with honesty here.

Of course, attitudes could change, and maybe people will be less supportive of checks on all sales in six months than they are now. But for now, that poll is pretty damned clear.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

It's OK by me if you want to elaborate on why I'm the asshole.

There isn't any real need for elaboration. You said that "protecting gun ownership is like protecting assholes instead of the rights of responsible citizens". Calling a huge chunk of the country "assholes" for no reason other than political differences, and saying they aren't responsible citizens is, well, assholish.

I use the term to vividly represent the nature of a person who kicks himself in his own ass. It's nothing personal for me.

Oh, stop with the bullshit, will you? That's not what the term means, and I doubt you'll find a single person here who believes that's what you meant when you said it.

If it really is, you should stop using the word until you learn to use it the way everyone else does.

My intent is to initiate the reaction.

A nice euphemism for "making outlandish, sweeping, insulting statements just to piss people off".

Also known as "trolling".

 

[monovillage]

Even if I accept this distinction (which is minor at best), then it can still be said that the poll showed nearly 75% of NRA members supported checks on all sales -- which would include gun shows, and something the NRA opposes.

The point about the NRA leadership being out of sync with its membership stands. IIRC, this also applies to some other issues in that poll.

In another thread shira seems to think the "Universal Background Check" would require a 10 day waiting period. It's impossible to believe the poll can accurately assess NRA members opinions if it's never mentioned in the poll and never defined as to what it is. An accurate poll has to have it's terms defined and understood by the people taking it.

 

[irishScott]

sorry you left rational a loooong time ago.

Dismissal without a counter-argument. Ah, good morning P&N.

 

[irishScott]

Thanks for making my point the leadership of the NRA is basically interested in Lobbying.

I'm thinking the regular members like the safety training that can be had as well as discounts from participating firing ranges and possibly a complementary subscription to some magazine.

While a lot of regular members aren't averse to more comprehensive checks as it might help keep some weapons out of the hands of some people who shouldn't have them the leadership of the NRA being more interested in promoting firearm sales wouldn't like them because one sale stopped by a background check is less revenue to their real masters.

Uh, NRA safety training isn't free for members. Nor even discounted last I checked. And the magazines they offer are nice, but you can just as easily subscribe to any number of quality gun magazines (there's a whole section of them in Barnes & Noble).

Lobbyist groups all around are first and foremost interested in lobbying. You want to take them out of the equation? Sounds good to me, without lobbyists the Clinton AWB likely would never have happened.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

In another thread shira seems to think the "Universal Background Check" would require a 10 day waiting period. It's impossible to believe the poll can accurately assess NRA members opinions if it's never mentioned in the poll and never defined as to what it is. An accurate poll has to have it's terms defined and understood by the people taking it.

This is spin, and not particularly good spin at that.

Again, the question was clear: "Do you support requiring a background check system for all gun sales to make sure a purchaser is not legally prohibited from having a gun?"

And NRA members said yes by roughly a 3 to 1 margin.

Other polls have shown similar results.

Most of America wants to see the private sales loophole closed. Including most gun owners. Only the absolute zealots oppose it.

 

[lotus503]

The NRA along with all other Lobby orgs should be crushed and outlawed.

I'm tired of lobby influence in politics and government.

 

[blankslate]

You want to take them out of the equation? Sounds good to me, without lobbyists the Clinton AWB likely would never have happened.

It might never have happened but we'd probably also have closed the background check loophole that exists between private sellers and very large capacity magazines might not be so easy to be either.

Lobbyists have prevented reasonable compromises for quite a long time so it would be fine by me too.

 

[monovillage]

This is spin, and not particularly good spin at that.

Again, the question was clear: "Do you support requiring a background check system for all gun sales to make sure a purchaser is not legally prohibited from having a gun?"

And NRA members said yes by roughly a 3 to 1 margin.

Other polls have shown similar results.

Most of America wants to see the private sales loophole closed. Including most gun owners. Only the absolute zealots oppose it.

Is there, or is there not a 10 day waiting period included in it? You won't even define it your fucking self.
Maybe it's one of those "i'll know it when I see it"

 

[xj0hnx]

We are talking about gun violence, not violence in general. The only reason it is often brought up is as a way to try to muddy the waters.

And yeah, we would have to get rid of our guns like they did. So what?

So you don't care that more people are violently hurt or killed, only if it's done with a firearm? What an agenda driven scumbag.

 

[BoberFett]

We are talking about gun violence, not violence in general. The only reason it is often brought up is as a way to try to muddy the waters.

And yeah, we would have to get rid of our guns like they did. So what?

So increased violence is OK to you as long as guns aren't involved?

And just because you're too stupid to understand what was said, they didn't have to get rid of guns like we would have to. They already didn't have guns like we do. Gun ownership was already low.

 

[Moonbeam]

I think most polls are skewed Moonie. Usually skewed in favor of who paid for the poll and which direction they want it to go. I bet if the NRA came out with their own poll or one they funded you'd see enormous changes in the numbers.

I believe you. I have noticed that no matter what kind of data is provided to you, you have an autonomically generated answer instantly handy to deflect it.

There are no honest scientific polls. Nate Silver merely accidentally biases his polls to reflect reality. Romney won in the real unaltered reality of conservatives. I'm waiting for you here in the real world, my friend, when you get lonely. I love people with good hearts.

 

[Moonbeam]

CharlesKozierok: There isn't any real need for elaboration. You said that "protecting gun ownership is like protecting assholes instead of the rights of responsible citizens". Calling a huge chunk of the country "assholes" for no reason other than political differences, and saying they aren't responsible citizens is, well, assholish.

M: Glad I asked. That's not what I said at all. What I said is in this context, that there is a debate going on now between two segments of the population, those who want to protect their second amendment rights and those looking for a way to take guns. Also, we note, that the folk who want to take them away are growing in number, in part because of what is happening in reality, the high profile gun killings, and a negative reaction to the irrational and insane response of the NRA. What I said was this:

"All it will take is for the notion to cement that protecting gun ownership is like protecting assholes instead of the rights of responsible citizens. You assholes will bring about what you fear."

What that meant is that if that belief cements in the mind of the public the right to bear arms will be taken. I did not say anything at all as to where I stand on the issue. All I said is that if the public comes to the conclusion that the right to bear arms is only a privilege desired by assholes they will take those so called rights away. It's about the 'notion cementing', where the polls we speak of won't move, where a majority of voters are ready to act to apply perhaps even drastic restrictions, when the public views gun owners as intransigent assholes. Me, I'm a gun owner and I know that my guns pose almost no risk to the public. If they were taken away I would lose some unimportant things. You will have to search the world for somebody less biased on this issue than me. It's a tempest in a tea pot to me.

CK: Oh, stop with the bullshit, will you? That's not what the term means, and I doubt you'll find a single person here who believes that's what you meant when you said it.

M: I used the term properly, to define whom I was speaking about, those who may cement in the minds of the public that they are assholes and unworthy of the right to bear arms. Note how the words I chose seem to cement in your mind that I'm the asshole? Hehe

CK: If it really is, you should stop using the word until you learn to use it the way everyone else does.

M: It's not my definitions that are unusual, it's my search for ways around the blinders people wear that make me appear that way. I do not believe that your straight on application of logic, and I believe you are extremely good at it, is one way effective only in some cases and not in others. I just think we are at different places in our faith in it. I believe that people are logic proof for a reason. Those reasons are what interest me.

CK: A nice euphemism for "making outlandish, sweeping, insulting statements just to piss people off".

Also known as "trolling".

M: I have already expressed myself on trolling. Calling folk stooges etc as mono accused you of was in my opinion exactly as valid as your accusations of him or me. Only a logical person would try to grade what is proper and improper butt hurt. But butt hurt is what an individual decides for himself. You disrespected his emotional feelings without regard to the fact that your barometer in this regard is also emotional. This troll business does not interest me. Everybody is a troll to somebody and not to somebody else.

When somebody decides they themselves are the barometer of who is a troll and who isn't, it strikes me as a simple step away to decide the gun issue and everything else too. I am very wary of the certainty, or more exactly those who are willing what they think it is to others.

 

[Moonbeam]

Scalia has a way with words that make what he says appear to be the rational thinking of a Justice of the USSC. He spoke to 'head axes' and 'frightening' type weapons. He went on elsewhere to say that hand held rockets could bring down an airplane. And rhetorically asked if that kind of weapon should be allowed.... "We'll see," Was his final word...

The clear meaning of the 2nd does not seem to limit what can be carried... And, the commentary at the time seemed to support the notion that the lack of explicit granting of Rights wording should not be seen as a limiting factor on the people. The broadest interpretation should be used and it should be seen as the broadest restriction on the power of the government to limit Rights.

We see a few very sad events occur where children are the target and Liberals and others react emotionally and would probably support some limits even banning of weapons or extreme limitation as in Ireland.... Similar arguments support banning Abortions... from those who see a fetus as a child. Freedom has its consequences...

I don't care if someone wants to hunt bunnies with assault weapons or defend their home against intruders with them... The people who'd use a weapon (of any kind) against another human in an illegal manner
are nutty and will find some way to do the incomprehensible. The answer to restricting them seems to be restricting us all... That is my problem with all this... IF we ALL agree to act in the broadest restrictive way... then ok... but until then I'd support the Right.

We used to have, us Founding Father types, the right to own slaves. But dictator Lincoln limited our rights and started up down the slippery slope to slavery for all of us. I don't see the issue as limits on freedom or not, but on the consequences that accrue with each freedom. Are the consequences of the right to bear arms better or worse than restriction. Personally, if I were forced to chose I think I would opt to live in a country without guns. But there is one other issue at stake, would it be better or worse if we tried to take guns away.

Maybe we should do a calculation, take all the good people who die from guns every year and subtract from that all the good people saved, and have a national SuperGun day, where we burn that number at the stake, as a payment to the gods for our freedom. Only gun owners, of course, would be chosen at random. I would be at risk and you would be safe.

 

[xj0hnx]

We used to have, us Founding Father types, the right to own slaves. But dictator Lincoln limited our rights and started up down the slippery slope to slavery for all of us. I don't see the issue as limits on freedom or not, but on the consequences that accrue with each freedom. Are the consequences of the right to bear arms better or worse than restriction. Personally, if I were forced to chose I think I would opt to live in a country without guns. But there is one other issue at stake, would it be better or worse if we tried to take guns away.

Cute, comparing owning a human being to owning a multipurpose inanimate object.

The simple fact is that living in this country without guns just isn't going to happen. If I could snap my fingers and make every firearm, and knowledge about them, in the world disappear, I might snap away but, that isn't going to happen. Now we are left with a couple possibilities, we can disarm law-abiding citizens through law, and hope that maybe within a couple hundred years all the guns in the country are accounted for and gone, and during that time as few defenseless law-abiding civilians are murdered by the criminals that aren't going to follow the law, to make it worth it, or we continued to allow law-abiding citizens the right to arm themselves as they see fit. I am going with the latter.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

We used to have, us Founding Father types, the right to own slaves. But dictator Lincoln limited our rights and started up down the slippery slope to slavery for all of us.

If you want to take away guns, it's easy. Pass a constitutional amendment repealing the second and specifically removing the personal right to bear arms.

Oh, what's that? You'd never get it through Congress, much less get the states to ratify it?

Show me the gun equivalent of the 13th amendment, and then maybe your analogy will have some validity. Until then, it's bullshit.

 

[shadow9d9]

So you don't care that more people are violently hurt or killed, only if it's done with a firearm? What an agenda driven scumbag.

Notice how this guy added "or killed" when talking about violent crime, as if it is somehow the majority of his stats? Notice how he tries to equate a fistfight including crime statistic with a statistic specifically about using a highly efficient machine made specifically for killing?

Then he tries projection/insults.

This is why the US political system is in shambles.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

M: I used the term properly, to define whom I was speaking about, those who may cement in the minds of the public that they are assholes and unworthy of the right to bear arms. Note how the words I chose seem to cement in your mind that I'm the asshole? Hehe

I never called you an asshole. I said you were acting like one.

An assessment based on behavior.

You called tens of millions of law-abiding citizens assholes for no reason other than owning guns.

An assessment based on prejudice.

If you're back to the stupid word games, and jumping in to every thread to flame conservatives left and right without any justification, then I guess I'll have to put you back on ignore. Your posts are starting to resemble cybrsage's, only politically reversed -- and that's not a good thing.

 

[shadow9d9]

Cute, comparing owning a human being to owning a multipurpose inanimate object.

The simple fact is that living in this country without guns just isn't going to happen. If I could snap my fingers and make every firearm, and knowledge about them, in the world disappear, I might snap away but, that isn't going to happen. Now we are left with a couple possibilities, we can disarm law-abiding citizens through law, and hope that maybe within a couple hundred years all the guns in the country are accounted for and gone, and during that time as few defenseless law-abiding civilians are murdered by the criminals that aren't going to follow the law, to make it worth it, or we continued to allow law-abiding citizens the right to arm themselves as they see fit. I am going with the latter.

It isn't multi-purpose any more than food is a multipurpose item. It is designed specifically to kill. You could use food to throw at people, but that doesn't make it mtuli-purpose. Do you really think ANYONE with a brain thinks that a gun is "multi-purpose"? You could keep repeating something absolutely ludicrous.. but it only reflects your willingness to be blatantly dishonest.

 

[shadow9d9]

So increased violence is OK to you as long as guns aren't involved?

And just because you're too stupid to understand what was said, they didn't have to get rid of guns like we would have to. They already didn't have guns like we do. Gun ownership was already low.

Fistfights are not on the level of gun deaths, no.

And just because you're too stupid to understand that the argument of "but, but.. it would be haaarder to get rid of guns here" is ludicrous. If something is tougher, you just dismiss it? The american way it seems.