What is the NRA about?

[SlowSpyder]

Hope you will respond in the other thread...

I wasn't planning on it as after reading your response I feel we're just talking in circles. If you really want me to bring it back up, I will respond.

 

[jackstar7]

I wasn't planning on it as after reading your response I feel we're just talking in circles. If you really want me to bring it back up, I will respond.

If that's your takeaway, then never mind.

 

[Roflmouth]

I don't get why conservative types put Reagan on such a pedestal. He was a tax & spend type, doubled the debt, sold arms illegally, more or less created bin Laden, and he was extremely anti-gun. Lots of pro-2A'ers are very pro-2A until they realize that the 2A applies to all Americans, not just white conservative 'muricans.

Which "pro-2Aers" believe the Second Amendment only applies to white conservatives? I'm sure you can find even one espousing this belief that you totally didn't just pull out of your ass.

 

[xthetenth]

Which "pro-2Aers" believe the Second Amendment only applies to white conservatives? I'm sure you can find even one espousing this belief that you totally didn't just pull out of your ass.

Did you deliberately overlook the mention of gun control in California and how it started with the Black Panthers pulling the exact same open carry tricks as white conservative groups do all the damn time and Reagan leading the pearl clutching?

You might also want to take a look into the Oathkeepers having a minor schism over some of them siding with the protestors in Ferguson.

It takes a special kind to post asking for just one example when multiple groups have been provided.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Which "pro-2Aers" believe the Second Amendment only applies to white conservatives? I'm sure you can find even one espousing this belief that you totally didn't just pull out of your ass.

Mulford Act.

 

[SlowSpyder]

If that's your takeaway, then never mind.

Yes, that is my take away. You continue to ignore the hard fact that guns are more restricted and do less harm (especially rifles like the AR15) to society than other freedoms no one cares about restricting, that no political party candidate debates, (namely alcohol and tobacco) because they don't have political weight. You continue to want to limit other people's rights over something that likely accounts for fewer deaths each year than pen caps.

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/sunday-review/the-assault-weapon-myth.html?mcubz=0

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/assault-weapons-deaths_us_5763109de4b015db1bc8c123

https://unrealfacts.com/pen-caps-cause-100-deaths-year/

That is absolutely mind-boggling to me and our conversation is going nowhere.

 

[jackstar7]

Yes, that is my take away. You continue to ignore the hard fact that guns are more restricted and do less harm (especially rifles like the AR15) to society than other freedoms no one cares about restricting, that no political party candidate debates, (namely alcohol and tobacco) because they don't have political weight. You continue to want to limit other people's rights over something that likely accounts for fewer deaths each year than pen caps.

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/sunday-review/the-assault-weapon-myth.html?mcubz=0

https://unrealfacts.com/pen-caps-cause-100-deaths-year/

That is absolutely mind-boggling to me and our conversation is going nowhere.

You said you were done. I said I was done. So be done.

It's not fair to me to attempt to engage with you honestly.

 

[agent00f]

Because I support the 2A I want to hang out with racists? What are you even saying?

The 2A is clear, I support all of the rights expressed in the constitution, I don't pick and choose. I bet an AR15 is used in <1% of all gun crime, yet some people are very emotionally set on trying to limit my rights to own one because AR15 style guns scare them. I disagree with those posters. That has nothing to do with race. In fact I've expressed in this thread that I'd be happy to see more minority groups embrace their 2A rights.

It's just a fact that the 2A folks partner politically with racists to accumulate enough votes to win ballots, which is why ted nugent types are popular speakers. You know well as anyone the venn diagram of those groups approximates a circle.

 

[TheVrolok]

Yes, that is my take away. You continue to ignore the hard fact that guns are more restricted and do less harm (especially rifles like the AR15) to society than other freedoms no one cares about restricting, that no political party candidate debates, (namely alcohol and tobacco) because they don't have political weight. You continue to want to limit other people's rights over something that likely accounts for fewer deaths each year than pen caps.

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/sunday-review/the-assault-weapon-myth.html?mcubz=0

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/assault-weapons-deaths_us_5763109de4b015db1bc8c123

https://unrealfacts.com/pen-caps-cause-100-deaths-year/

That is absolutely mind-boggling to me and our conversation is going nowhere.

We've already been over the fact that there has been quite significant debate and restriction over tobacco, so I'm not sure why you continue to discuss it. If your contention is time spent on issue vs harm caused by issue, care to weigh in on TSA, terrorism, immigration bans? The data shows that we have no significant risk of harm from terrorism (especially when compared to any of the things you've listed), yet we spend quite a bit of our national discourse on it, no?

 

[Sunburn74]

Yes, that is my take away. You continue to ignore the hard fact that guns are more restricted and do less harm (especially rifles like the AR15) to society than other freedoms no one cares about restricting, that no political party candidate debates, (namely alcohol and tobacco) because they don't have political weight. You continue to want to limit other people's rights over something that likely accounts for fewer deaths each year than pen caps.

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/sunday-review/the-assault-weapon-myth.html?mcubz=0

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/assault-weapons-deaths_us_5763109de4b015db1bc8c123

https://unrealfacts.com/pen-caps-cause-100-deaths-year/

That is absolutely mind-boggling to me and our conversation is going nowhere.

I think I would agree with you that what it would cost to significantly reduce gun deaths is quite a bit of money and probably not worth the effort in comparison to all the other stuff out there that will kill the average American. Even more so it's such a political poisson pill that honestly I don't see it ever happening with the current levels of gun violence we see.

We mostly are terrified of being gunned down at work or at the mall by some crazy gun man but the sheer reality is that is in no way a credible threat to the majority of us whilst the psychological impact to society of such events is huge .

I personally am either way. Do nothing, do something. Whatever. I don't think America is a better place with assault rifles nor do I think it's a worse place. Just like prostitution, America with legal prostitution to me is no better or worse. All i ask is that people not lie to me by saying that 4 assault rifles they own are for home protection. Like Americans really give a shit about home protection.

 

[J.Wilkins]

Regarding your first paragraph, how do you know this? We've seen in the past that hasn't been the case. You really think Americans will indiscriminately bomb other American neighborhoods? I don't.

IF the US armed forces are to quell an insurgency within the US they are doing so without afterthought because IF they lose it's not a matter of whether they will go home and be OK at some point, they are home and they know the result of a loss.

You have never seen anything like that in the past.

If the US armed forces are not going to fight you then they are on your side and your guns are pointless. Either way, your guns are not going to make any difference what so ever and IF that is their intended purpose then why would you not just store them safely at all times until that time comes?

The US could easily win and control the land if we didn't care about the loss of innocent civilian life. But reality is what it is, and it supports my point of view, not yours. Just look at the world today to see this.

That is the point, the "wars" the US has fought have since WWII have been a matter of "I do this and then I go home" while if it happens within the US it's a matter of "I kill everyone or they will kill me, if we don't win we will hang".

Also... if you are part of an insurgency and using weapons to fight the standing army then you are NOT by ANY definition a civilian.

 

[SlowSpyder]

We've already been over the fact that there has been quite significant debate and restriction over tobacco, so I'm not sure why you continue to discuss it. If your contention is time spent on issue vs harm caused by issue, care to weigh in on TSA, terrorism, immigration bans? The data shows that we have no significant risk of harm from terrorism (especially when compared to any of the things you've listed), yet we spend quite a bit of our national discourse on it, no?

I think the TSA is a waste of money. I think most of how we react to terrorism is kneejerk reaction over something that kills us less than pencaps... like AR-15's. I think the immigration bans are anti-American in principle to a degree, more feel-good do-nothing laws that really do little more than appeal to a political base (again, like anti-gun laws). I am not a rightie thumping my chest about 'murica and freedumb. I'm being logical in looking at the harm to society standpoint vs. freedom and rights. I'm weighing that against other things. When I do that, guns are already heavily restricted relative to the harm they cause society, and that's not even considering all the benefit they bring people every day as well.

You say there has already been big restriction on tobacco. And yet we accept it kills well over 10x more people than guns, some 4x more innocent victims. And the restrictions? They can't advertise, you can't use their product in many public places, you have to be 18 to buy it. And do you feel guns haven't been already vastly restricted? I can share with you many rights-restricting pieces of legislation that have been passed over the years. How is the conversation for tobacco over, but guns need to be restricted further given the number they respectively kill and how much more restricted guns already are?

I think it has a lot more to do with emotion, this desire to continue to restrict guns. Every time someone dies from alcoholism or an innocent person dies from 2nd-hand smoke induced lung cancer, they don't get a news story. No political party runs a platform based on those things. But guns get a news story, political parties run on anti-gun platforms and steer the sheeple.

 

[TheVrolok]

I think the TSA is a waste of money. I think most of how we react to terrorism is kneejerk reaction over something that kills you less than pencaps... like AR-15's. I think the immigration bans are anti-American in principle to a degree, more feel-good do-nothing laws that really do little more than appeal to a political base (again, like anti-gun laws). I am not a rightie thumping my chest about 'murica and freedumb. I'm being logical in looking at the harm to society standpoint vs. freedom and rights. I'm weighing that against other things. When I do that, guns are already heavily restricted relative to the harm they cause society, and that's not even considering all the benefit they bring people every day as well.

You say there has already been big restriction on tobacco. And yet we accept it kills well over 10x more people than guns, some 4x more innocent victims. And the restrictions? They can't advertise, you can't use their product in many public places, you have to be 18 to buy it. And do you feel guns haven't been already vastly restricted? I can share with you many rights-restricting pieces of legislation that have been passed over the years. How is the conversation for tobacco over, but guns need to be restricted further given the number they respectively kill and how much more restricted guns already are?

I still don't agree with you with regard to your risk/benefit of firearm ownership in this county, but appreciate your point of view and consistency. Although, I'm somewhat of an oddity myself in that I'm a pro gun reform gun owner.

 

[SlowSpyder]

IF the US armed forces are to quell an insurgency within the US they are doing so without afterthought because IF they lose it's not a matter of whether they will go home and be OK at some point, they are home and they know the result of a loss.

You have never seen anything like that in the past.

If the US armed forces are not going to fight you then they are on your side and your guns are pointless. Either way, your guns are not going to make any difference what so ever and IF that is their intended purpose then why would you not just store them safely at all times until that time comes?



That is the point, the "wars" the US has fought have since WWII have been a matter of "I do this and then I go home" while if it happens within the US it's a matter of "I kill everyone or they will kill me, if we don't win we will hang".

Also... if you are part of an insurgency and using weapons to fight the standing army then you are NOT by ANY definition a civilian.

How you think it'd go, how you feel the US government forces would fight and what they'd use in the fight does not matter. What matters is that citizens have a right to defend themselves with firearms, which I know I'd feel better having a gun than not having one in such a situation. Everything you said is based on a hypothetical version of how you think a war between citizens and government forces would go.