Just like McCain and Palin with the “Strip civil rights from americans accused of terrorism” and their “Paperz please!” bill that, like the anti gun laws, came right out of the Nazi play book. See the problem is that the NRA is not just a pro gun lobby. It is a CONSERVATIVE pro gun lobby. It supports conservative politicians and conservative ideals directly and indirectly via contributions and support of conservatives like Sarah Palin, John McCain, Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck. These people are paid with NRA money to speak at NRA events. Are given political contributions from NRA pocketbooks and that comes from NRA dues. So exactly why as a liberal/libertarian would we support this group?
Well, your problem is that the 1968 gun ban DID come EXACTLY from the same ban the Nazi’s put in place. BOTH are on the net, and you can read them.
YOUR off point comment about the immigration laws (fatuous on its face, EVERY cop when they pull you over asks for your drivers license, your “papers,” or the terrorist bill that not only has Obama renewed but actually made stronger, and taking away more civil rights. However, with a progressive its all ok as long as a progressive does it. Still, it has NOTHING to do with gun rights, so can we stay on point?
As to what you support as a liberal, I spoke to that in the second post on this thread. I neither need or want your support. Just the defeat of your notions.
If you were not a libertarian in name only, we would not be having this discussion at all. The true libertarians such as Penn Jellete all support gun rights as put forth by the founding fathers.
Finally, lets take a walk down memory lane:
<<<One source of gun advocates’ concern about Ms. Kagan is that she, as a Clinton aide, helped draft a presidential directive temporarily suspending imports of semiautomatic assault-type rifles. In the directive, the president raised concerns that the rifles weren’t suitable for “sporting purposes,” and thus could be restricted.
“The number of weapons at issue underscores the potential threat to the public health and safety that necessitates immediate action,” the directive said.>>>
Here of course was the left, stating that the second amendment was about duck hunting. There were several “sportsman” groups who tried to smear the NRA, just like you see here. They ALL took the idea that it was about duck hunting. However, that is a progressive notion, not a legitimate one based on the founders.
So, again, I am not trying to change your mind. Just going to keep speaking the truth about the NRA, the Gun Debate, and the lies the progressives tell…
[quote=hapkido_keith;2371164](bold added)
False Dilemma[/quote]
My reply? Notice he was unable to refute a single point, just play the tired old progressive game of “see how smart we are and how dumb the other guy is.”
Nice try, but I reject the premise. On the issue of who supports the right of the people to keep and bear arms, there is no question who is for it and who is against it.
But thanks for making my point…
As an outsider living in a country where the gun laws are very simple:
- You can carry a gun when you need it for your profession.
- sportshooters leave their weapons in a personal safe (preferably) at the shooting range
- hunters have only access to hunting type of weapons.
- semi/full-automatic assault weapons are prohibited for the general populations (civilians) to own.
- EVERY weapon/owner connection is documented.
I find this black and white view that I see on these forums weird.
I’ve got nothing against gun owners and 2nd amendments, NRA etc, but I believe that some weapon types should be banned from a civilezed society, to be exact the (semi/full) assault riffle and that .50 contraption that is in Gezere’s avatar.
These two types of weapon have got nothing to do with:
- hunting: if you need an AR to hunt deer…start fishing as a new hobby.
- home defense: a lot of homes are made out of wood, most of the time the childrens bedroom is at the other side of the stairs than the parents bedroom. So maybe it’s not a good idea to have them grab an AR when they hear a suspisios sound downstairs
- self-defense: carrying ARs in public as a legal self-defense weapon…only if your name is Salmon Rhusdie.
- sport shooting: you don’t need a .50 to do some clay pigeon shooting, for clay pteradactyl shooting yes, for clay pigeon shooting no.
- defense against the goverment: The weapon of choice is called voting. Don’t like the programs of the two main parties…vote on a third.
If you say that the criminals will have access to those weapons, make it simple: you get caught with an AR or a .50, it’s 5 years hardtime, no parool, no time of for good behaviour and you will see that weapon dissapear also from the criminal side and from the gangs. Get caught a second time, congrats you’re going away for 10 years.
If you say that the 2nd amendment garentees you from having the same weapons as your Militairy has and is a right, where do you say stop? Can your neighbour that hates your guts because your dog always shits on his lawn buy himself an Abrahams M1 Tank? Can Wallmart start selling small tactical nuclear weapons? Where do you draw the line?
Pistols, revolvers, shotguns, hunting riffles are more than enough to have in a civilized society. Leave the ARs and other (heavier) weaponry in the hands of the Militairy, who should be trained to use them and have to leave them on the base when they are on r&r. But it would be a funny sight to see the wife of an Apache pilot takes the gunship to K-Mart for her weekly shopping.
$0.02
[quote=Zendokan;2371289]As an outsider living in a country where the gun laws are very simple:
- You can carry a gun when you need it for your profession.
- sportshooters leave their weapons in a personal safe (preferably) at the shooting range
- hunters have only access to hunting type of weapons.
- semi/full-automatic assault weapons are prohibited for the general populations (civilians) to own.
- EVERY weapon/owner connection is documented.
I find this black and white view that I see on these forums weird.
I’ve got nothing against gun owners and 2nd amendments, NRA etc, but I believe that some weapon types should be banned from a civilezed society, to be exact the (semi/full) assault riffle and that .50 contraption that is in Gezere’s avatar.
These two types of weapon have got nothing to do with:
- hunting: if you need an AR to hunt deer…start fishing as a new hobby.
- home defense: a lot of homes are made out of wood, most of the time the childrens bedroom is at the other side of the stairs than the parents bedroom. So maybe it’s not a good idea to have them grab an AR when they hear a suspisios sound downstairs
- self-defense: carrying ARs in public as a legal self-defense weapon…only if your name is Salmon Rhusdie.
- sport shooting: you don’t need a .50 to do some clay pigeon shooting, for clay pteradactyl shooting yes, for clay pigeon shooting no.
- defense against the goverment: The weapon of choice is called voting. Don’t like the programs of the two main parties…vote on a third.
If you say that the criminals will have access to those weapons, make it simple: you get caught with an AR or a .50, it’s 5 years hardtime, no parool, no time of for good behaviour and you will see that weapon dissapear also from the criminal side and from the gangs. Get caught a second time, congrats you’re going away for 10 years.
If you say that the 2nd amendment garentees you from having the same weapons as your Militairy has and is a right, where do you say stop? Can your neighbour that hates your guts because your dog always shits on his lawn buy himself an Abrahams M1 Tank? Can Wallmart start selling small tactical nuclear weapons? Where do you draw the line?
Pistols, revolvers, shotguns, hunting riffles are more than enough to have in a civilized society. Leave the ARs and other (heavier) weaponry in the hands of the Militairy, who should be trained to use them and have to leave them on the base when they are on r&r. But it would be a funny sight to see the wife of an Apache pilot takes the gunship to K-Mart for her weekly shopping.
$0.02[/quote]
You are creating a solution for a problem that doesn't exist. .50 rifles are massively expensive to buy along with the ammunition. Add in the fact that they are extremely heavy and long and you have a piece that isn't very useful for the common criminal. To use a .50 rifle during a crime is almost unheard of; in fact I've read there have only been 2 instances in America where a .50 rifle was used in a crime. Your assertion that .50 rifles do not have a civilian purpose is also false. There are organized mega long range target shooting competitions where .50 calibers are used.
Why do you think AR-15's shouldn't be allowed for the general public? Is it the caliber, magazine capacity, or its negative portrayal in the media? Keep in mind that AR are only semi automatic. They are not a fully auto gun.
This is a semi-automatic which shoots a caliber far more powerful than an AR. Do you think this gun is acceptable for ownership? <a href="http://35cal.com/gunpics/rem_mod750_lg.jpg">http://35cal.com/gunpics/rem_mod750_lg.jpg</a>
You are stuck in this black and white all or nothing mindset that I can’t be pro gun if I am not pro NRA or a liberal/progressive/libertarian. And that if I consider myself a liberal then I must suport all the decisions of others that you call liberal as well. I am pro gun and have many liberal views. My previous “off point” comments was to show that the NRA supports people who consider some rights to be more important than others. To them their right to bear arms is more important than anyone else’s right to free speech, or miranda, or due process and they will threaten you with death if you speak an opposing view. Look at the gun/violence based rhetoric coming out of the right wing about taking aim at liberals and issuing permits to thin out the liberal heard. If the NRA backs that kind of politician and political message how can you expect rational people to listen to an association that approves of such thinly veiled threats. You have already said you want to defeat my notions without knowing what the hell they are purely based on me NOT being as conservative as you.
You keep using progressive as a negative term but its root word is progress or to move forward. The term has just been given a negative connotation just like socialist and marxist and communist and the rest by right wingers needing camera time. So when you keep harping on progressives you just reinforce that you are more concerned with political affiliation than actual political views. Just say anti gun. It is more specific especially for this topic because as shown there are progressives and liberals and non conservatives that are also pro gun who want to show their pro gun feelings without being lumped in with conservatives and tea baggers.
[quote=Zendokan;2371289]As an outsider living in a country where the gun laws are very simple:
- You can carry a gun when you need it for your profession.
- sportshooters leave their weapons in a personal safe (preferably) at the shooting range
- hunters have only access to hunting type of weapons.
- semi/full-automatic assault weapons are prohibited for the general populations (civilians) to own.
- EVERY weapon/owner connection is documented.
I find this black and white view that I see on these forums weird.
I’ve got nothing against gun owners and 2nd amendments, NRA etc, but I believe that some weapon types should be banned from a civilezed society, to be exact the (semi/full) assault riffle and that .50 contraption that is in Gezere’s avatar.
These two types of weapon have got nothing to do with:
- hunting: if you need an AR to hunt deer…start fishing as a new hobby.
- home defense: a lot of homes are made out of wood, most of the time the childrens bedroom is at the other side of the stairs than the parents bedroom. So maybe it’s not a good idea to have them grab an AR when they hear a suspisios sound downstairs
- self-defense: carrying ARs in public as a legal self-defense weapon…only if your name is Salmon Rhusdie.
- sport shooting: you don’t need a .50 to do some clay pigeon shooting, for clay pteradactyl shooting yes, for clay pigeon shooting no.
- defense against the goverment: The weapon of choice is called voting. Don’t like the programs of the two main parties…vote on a third.
If you say that the criminals will have access to those weapons, make it simple: you get caught with an AR or a .50, it’s 5 years hardtime, no parool, no time of for good behaviour and you will see that weapon dissapear also from the criminal side and from the gangs. Get caught a second time, congrats you’re going away for 10 years.
If you say that the 2nd amendment garentees you from having the same weapons as your Militairy has and is a right, where do you say stop? Can your neighbour that hates your guts because your dog always shits on his lawn buy himself an Abrahams M1 Tank? Can Wallmart start selling small tactical nuclear weapons? Where do you draw the line?
Pistols, revolvers, shotguns, hunting riffles are more than enough to have in a civilized society. Leave the ARs and other (heavier) weaponry in the hands of the Militairy, who should be trained to use them and have to leave them on the base when they are on r&r. But it would be a funny sight to see the wife of an Apache pilot takes the gunship to K-Mart for her weekly shopping.
$0.02[/quote]
I personally think the idea of an “assault rifle” is bogus. :phil2:
Who wants a plastic modern finicky rifle in a dinky caliber instead of a heavy durable reliable .30 caliber WWII rifle anyway?
[quote=BadUglyMagic;2371240]Actually, the anti-civil rights people use “outrage”, rhetoric and theater to motive an otherwise unmotivated citizenry to remove their civil right. The NRA and other organizations have to adhere to a stricter standard simply to maintain organizational credibility. The anti-civil rights organizations may make and have made, written and published information and statistics that were later shown to be false or misleading.
In this case the advantage is held by the anti-civil rights organizations. They have nothing to lose and the most to gain.[/quote]
Any political group uses theater.
I’m saying is cut through ignorance with truth. Give people the experience and the reality. Replace the false abstractions in their heads put there by movies and the 10:00 PM news.
[quote=Wounded Ronin;2371367]Any political group uses theater.
I’m saying is cut through ignorance with truth. Give people the experience and the reality. Replace the false abstractions in their heads put there by movies and the 10:00 PM news.[/quote]
You specifically wrote:
[quote=Wounded Ronin;2371367]In the long term if the NRA or any one else wants to put “gun control” on the rocks they need to harness truth, honesty, and knowledge against ignorance, and not focus on rage, rhetoric, and theater…[/quote] (bolding mine)
[quote=Hooded Justice;2371259]Just like McCain and Palin with the "Strip civil rights from americans accused of terrorism" and their “Paperz please!” bill that, like the anti gun laws, came right out of the Nazi play book. See the problem is that the NRA is not just a pro gun lobby. It is a CONSERVATIVE pro gun lobby. It supports conservative politicians and conservative ideals directly and indirectly via contributions and support of conservatives like Sarah Palin, John McCain, Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck. These people are paid with NRA money to speak at NRA events. Are given political contributions from NRA pocketbooks and that comes from NRA dues. So exactly why as a liberal/libertarian would we support this group?[/quote] (bolding mine)
Whoohoooo! ! ! ! ! I get to use the same post twice in a row!
Actually, the anti-civil rights people use “outrage”, rhetoric and theater to motive an otherwise unmotivated citizenry to remove their civil right. The NRA and other organizations have to adhere to a stricter standard simply to maintain organizational credibility. The anti-civil rights organizations may make and have made, written and published information and statistics that were later shown to be false or misleading.
NOTE: The NRA is MY lobby. It is your lobby. It is the civil right lobby of all US citizen who may or may not value that right.
As a liberal? How about as a citizen? If you feel a different face or message should be made, become a member, donate time, money or both. Change the message.
What kind of weapons do the Swiss citizens keep at home?
Can I refute the ties to “leftist” politics in the things in your post? No. But if you’d like, I can list a whole heap of civil rights infringments that “rightist” politics have produced, and you know damn well I can. There is more to politics than gun rights and more reason to back one party over the other than gun rights. If you insist that gun rights must be packaged with the rest of conservative ideology, then you risk alienating the public, who will vote against you, and your rights may be stripped from you by popular demand.
If you cannot accept this, you can stop reading my post now, go on your merry way, take a nice big swing of the NRA’s kool-aid, and think me whatever kind of gun-grabbing socialist liberal progressive Marxist commie (did I leave anything out?) you want me to be.
just play the tired old progressive game of “see how smart we are and how dumb the other guy is.”
Who said I was progressive?
And on the note of refusal you didn’t even try to understand what I posted, much less refute it. Just the old neo-con game of “that sounds like edumacated talk thar, I dun need nun of that edumacation”
Nice try, but I reject the premise.
What premise would that be? That not all the world is evenly and neatly divided into left and right? Perish the thought.
On the issue of who supports the right of the people to keep and bear arms, there is no question who is for it and who is against it.
But thanks for making my point…
Thanks for missing mine, utterly, and completely.
I am not trying to troll you Mr. Tripp. I am not trying to mock you. I am trying to point out where you are using faulty logic, in hopes that you may re-evaluate your thinking, and adjust accordingly.
You seem to be under the impression that:
conservative = pro gun = NRA supporting
and that:
not NRA supporting = anti gun = liberal.
But this is not necessarily the case. Such as:
Penn Jillete supports gun rights, clearly. Penn Jillete is also a hard-core atheist. He’s pro-legalization of drugs. He’s pro-sex education. He has many other views that would make Glenn Beck rant about what a pinko-communist this Jellette guy is. He is NOT conservative, not by any stretch of the imagination. Yet, somehow, he’s pro-gun.
The dilemma that I must choose between right or left, and accept everything that goes with it, in order to protect my gun rights, is false. There are other choices.
HOLY FUCKING SHIT! I have stated very plainly why I will not support the NRA and your solution is for me to support the NRA with absolutely no new reasoning as to why???
The stated reason why was to promote change from within.
However, I wonder if the person making this suggestion would reciprocate with…ohhhh let’s say the ACLU
[quote=Shamash;2371317]You are creating a solution for a problem that doesn’t exist. .50 rifles are massively expensive to buy along with the ammunition. Add in the fact that they are extremely heavy and long and you have a piece that isn’t very useful for the common criminal. To use a .50 rifle during a crime is almost unheard of; in fact I’ve read there have only been 2 instances in America where a .50 rifle was used in a crime. Your assertion that .50 rifles do not have a civilian purpose is also false. There are organized mega long range target shooting competitions where .50 calibers are used.
Why do you think AR-15’s shouldn’t be allowed for the general public? Is it the caliber, magazine capacity, or its negative portrayal in the media? Keep in mind that AR are only semi automatic. They are not a fully auto gun.
This is a semi-automatic which shoots a caliber far more powerful than an AR. Do you think this gun is acceptable for ownership? http://35cal.com/gunpics/rem_mod750_lg.jpg[/quote]
![http://35cal.com/gunpics/rem_mod750_lg.jpg[/quote]](http://35cal.com/gunpics/rem_mod750_lg.jpg%5B/quote%5D){kind=link}
Maybe because there are kits on the market that turn an semi-automatic into a full automatic. Yet a trained person will make more casualties with a semi-automatic than with a full-automatic.
The ARs are designed for Militairy use, not for hunting, sportshooting or home/personal defense.
If you want to shoot ARs, join the Militairy, you will even get paid for using them.
But hey if it’s in the second amendment I want to buy a Thunderbolt A10 since it would be my right if I naturileze me to become a US citizen.
<<<Maybe because there are kits on the market that turn an semi-automatic into a full automatic. >>>
Bull crap. When has it happened, EVER? Total lie spread for years and now it passes as truth.
Now, if you had said there is an airsoft version on the market that the lower part of could be added to an upper part, and it would work for a bit, ok, maybe. But the idea that there is a conversion kit is FALSE and has NEVER been done. Its possible in a highly advanced machine shop with highly advanced skills, but possible is not likely.
<<<Yet a trained person will make more casualties with a semi-automatic than with a full-automatic.>>>
Again, your proof of this claim?
<<<The ARs are designed for Militairy use, not for hunting, sportshooting or home/personal defense. >>>
They are EXACTLY what the framers had in mind when they framed the second amendment. Again, it is NOT about hunting or sporting. They are excellent for personal defense, and if one is forced to defend their home or property from a large mob (say like during the Rodney King riots) they are excellent.
<<<If you want to shoot ARs, join the Militairy, you will even get paid for using them. >>>
In point of fact, most people who learn to use a rifle these days, learn with an M-16. People who then wish to exercise their rights IN THIS COUNTRY find they are more comfortable with what they know.
<<<But hey if it’s in the second amendment I want to buy a Thunderbolt A10 since it would be my right if I naturileze me to become a US citizen.>>>
Phui, showing you are clueless about the second amendment. A fatuous assertion that adds nothing…
In closing…
-
The assertion that the NRA is failing is devoid of evidence and is a ploy of the left from the days of Clinton till now. It is plain the NRA is doing just fine without people who are clueless about their mission and how well they perform it.
-
If you have a problem with the NRA, then don’t join. We neither need or want your support. We’re doing just fine.
-
As I have said before, I spend NO time telling people who live in another Country how they should run their Country; please excuse me if I ignore the comments of people who DO NOT LIVE HERE, but seem to think they know how to fix all the ills of the US. You will see how we fix things here this November…
<<<Can I refute the ties to “leftist” politics in the things in your post? No.>>>
Of course you can’t. That is my point. You will now attempt to change it again…
<<<But if you’d like, I can list a whole heap of civil rights infringments that “rightist” politics have produced, and you know damn well I can.>>>
But that is not on point now is it?
<<<<There is more to politics than gun rights and more reason to back one party over the other than gun rights.>>>
But there is only ONE subject in this thread.
<<<If you insist that gun rights must be packaged with the rest of conservative ideology, then you risk alienating the public, who will vote against you, and your rights may be stripped from you by popular demand.>>>
No, as I reject this premise on its face, it is not in keeping with the subject of this thread, to wit, the NRA and what they stand for.
<<<If you cannot accept this, you can stop reading my post now, go on your merry way, take a nice big swing of the NRA’s kool-aid, and think me whatever kind of gun-grabbing socialist liberal progressive Marxist commie (did I leave anything out?) you want me to be. >>>
Shall I now link the Wiki part about “straw man” for you? If you can’t focus on THIS point, you are the one who needs to go on.
<<<Who said I was progressive? >>>
You did with everything you have just posted.
<<<And on the note of refusal you didn’t even try to understand what I posted, much less refute it. Just the old neo-con game of “that sounds like edumacated talk thar, I dun need nun of that edumacation”>>>
You saying it doesn’t make it so. You had no way to refute my point, and said so here, so you changed the subject. I called you on it, and we get more of this. That is the real game, sorry, not playing.
<<<What premise would that be? That not all the world is evenly and neatly divided into left and right? Perish the thought.>>>
Straw man again. Its the subject changing I reject. But when you can not refute the points…
<<<Thanks for missing mine, utterly, and completely.>>>
Projection, yet again. It is the person changing the subject that is still missing the point.
<M<<I am not trying to troll you Mr. Tripp. I am not trying to mock you. I am trying to point out where you are using faulty logic, in hopes that you may re-evaluate your thinking, and adjust accordingly.>>>
Wow, just leftist progressive clap trap. Now I need to be re-educated? How communist of you. See how easy it is to play your game with you? If there is a flaw in MY POINT ABOUT WHO SUPPORTS GUN RIGHTS AND WHO DOES NOT please make that.
<<<You seem to be under the impression that:
conservative = pro gun = NRA supporting
and that:
not NRA supporting = anti gun = liberal. >>>
Straw man yet again. Why not answer the questions I asked and lets see where that takes us…
<<<But this is not necessarily the case. Such as:>>>
Again, you are about to make my point
<<<Penn Jillete supports gun rights, clearly. Penn Jillete is also a hard-core atheist. He’s pro-legalization of drugs. He’s pro-sex education. He has many other views that would make Glenn Beck rant about what a pinko-communist this Jellette guy is. He is NOT conservative, not by any stretch of the imagination. Yet, somehow, he’s pro-gun. >>>
Not somehow, he is. YOU want to change my point. All I asked was who in the US put forth the anti-gun items I listed. YOU took off because, you can’t handle the truth. My point in bringing up Penn was EXACTLY that even though there are MILES of differences between Penn and Glenn, Glenn has him on the show all the time and even Penn knows they anti gun crowd has it wrong. So it is ONLY ONE group pushing the anti gun agenda, now, let me know when you want to discuss that.
<<<The dilemma that I must choose between right or left, and accept everything that goes with it, in order to protect my gun rights, is false. There are other choices.>>>
Can you at least admit you have no answers, or at least don’t like the answers, to the questions I asked?
How about I ask another one; name the leftist group that has done 1/2 of what the NRA has done to support gun rights? Hell name ANY group that has done 1/2 of what the NRA has done?
Sorry, but you see, from where I sit, this is a ONE ISSUE discussion. Who, EXACTLY, supports the second amendment as the framers wanted it.
There is only ONE clear answer to that question.
You mean the same Heller decision that the NRA originally opposed and tried to stop the Cato Institute from attempting?
The NRA are not a civil rights organization and have done as much damage through polarization as they have helped the issue.
[quote=Zendokan;2371504]Maybe because there are kits on the market that turn an semi-automatic into a full automatic. Yet a trained person will make more casualties with a semi-automatic than with a full-automatic.
The ARs are designed for Militairy use, not for hunting, sportshooting or home/personal defense.
If you want to shoot ARs, join the Militairy, you will even get paid for using them.
But hey if it’s in the second amendment I want to buy a Thunderbolt A10 since it would be my right if I naturileze me to become a US citizen.[/quote]
Stop. Instead of talking bluster and bullshit do research. If you took the time to research “kits,” research the numbers and look at how many crimes, were created with assault weapons before, during, and after the assault weapons ban.