HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » $1000 reward for a gun qu...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 02:17 PM

$1000 reward for a gun quote no one can seem to find

I've heard time, after time, after time, after time the NRA advocates for "Guns anywhere, anytime for anyone". Prove it and get $1000.

The reward is based on someone, somewhere, finding on the NRA website, their statement that supports "Guns anywhere, anytime for anyone".

The link MUST come from the NRA site. Blogs or personal opinions don't count. Someones "interpretation" doesn't count. "Feelings" don't count. "You know what they mean" doesn't count. Show me the quote WITH a link.

I've heard that statement more times than I have appendages to count.

It's time to prove it.

The flip side? Everyone that looks and can't find it owes me $1. (I'll make a bunch).

37 replies, 3787 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 37 replies Author Time Post
Reply $1000 reward for a gun quote no one can seem to find (Original post)
shadowrider Apr 2012 OP
Meiko Apr 2012 #1
Glaug-Eldare Apr 2012 #2
shadowrider Apr 2012 #3
Glaug-Eldare Apr 2012 #4
pscot Apr 2012 #12
Glaug-Eldare Apr 2012 #14
shadowrider Apr 2012 #18
Straw Man Apr 2012 #25
PavePusher Apr 2012 #30
SATIRical Apr 2012 #36
shadowrider Apr 2012 #37
Permanut Apr 2012 #5
shadowrider Apr 2012 #6
Permanut Apr 2012 #8
ManiacJoe Apr 2012 #11
Permanut Apr 2012 #13
Straw Man Apr 2012 #26
The Straight Story Apr 2012 #10
pipoman Apr 2012 #35
Cirque du So-What Apr 2012 #7
PavePusher Apr 2012 #31
Cirque du So-What Apr 2012 #33
riverbendviewgal Apr 2012 #9
beevul Apr 2012 #19
rl6214 Apr 2012 #27
gejohnston Apr 2012 #24
rfranklin Apr 2012 #15
Logical Apr 2012 #16
Glaug-Eldare Apr 2012 #17
Oneka Apr 2012 #20
Glaug-Eldare Apr 2012 #23
Hoyt Apr 2012 #21
shadowrider Apr 2012 #22
rl6214 Apr 2012 #28
PavePusher Apr 2012 #32
ileus Apr 2012 #29
shadowrider Apr 2012 #34

Response to shadowrider (Original post)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 02:30 PM

1. ...and it is suppose

 

to be on the NRA site? That means I would actually have to go there. No thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Meiko (Reply #1)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 02:31 PM

2. It is a pretty poorly-designed site...

Hard to find anything you do want to find on that thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glaug-Eldare (Reply #2)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 02:34 PM

3. I don't disagree, but the point is, people insist the NRA is for that

All I want is proof.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shadowrider (Reply #3)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 02:44 PM

4. Just hyperbole -- don't expect it to ever be backed up.

I hate the NRA and I'm loath to defend them, but I'll translate the real meaning:

"Guns anywhere, anytime for anyone"

They believe NRA is pushing for "guns anywhere" because they believe your home should be a mandated "gun-free zone." Anything else is unreasonable to them.

The believe NRA is pushing for guns "anytime for anyone" because they believe that ownership of firearms is purely the right of the government, to be delegated only to on-duty military and police. Anything else is unreasonable to them.

Anything less than a total prohibition is "returning to the Wild West!!! Blood on the streets!!!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shadowrider (Reply #3)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 03:09 PM

12. The proof lies in the fact

that as a result of the NRA's efforts we have guns everywhere, all the time for anyone who wants one. PM me and I'll tell you where to send the check.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pscot (Reply #12)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 03:50 PM

14. Except for a few significant exceptions



Everywhere except the handful of holdout states and counties, most school zones, public buildings, hospitals, shopping malls, and many other "civil-right-free zones," and everyone except felons and those adjudicated mentally unfit (excepting those who carry illegally) and residents of the red zones above.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pscot (Reply #12)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 04:36 PM

18. Wrong. But thanks for playing. You didn't provide the quote from the NRA

website.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pscot (Reply #12)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 09:47 PM

25. Fact?

The proof lies in the fact

that as a result of the NRA's efforts we have guns everywhere, all the time for anyone who wants one. PM me and I'll tell you where to send the check.

Do tell. Why then do I have to undergo a background check every time I buy a firearm? Might that be an indicator that guns are not legally available "for anyone who wants them"? Why can't I carry a gun into an educational institution or a post office? Why can't the residents of many states carry a gun into an establishment where alcohol is served, even if it's a restaurant and the person isn't drinking? Why can't I travel outside of my state with a handgun, despite being able to legally carry one in my state? We have "guns everywhere," according to you. What's up?

There are plenty of laws restricting firearms. Now if we could only get criminals to abide by them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pscot (Reply #12)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 10:43 PM

30. You seem to be either terribly confused....

 

or ignorant of the current laws.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pscot (Reply #12)

Sun Apr 15, 2012, 11:28 AM

36. Felons can have guns everywhere?

 

Really?

How about prisoners?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SATIRical (Reply #36)

Sun Apr 15, 2012, 11:33 AM

37. Guns for everyone, everywhere at anytime says the NRA, except no one can prove it

So I guess that means felons, prisoners, children still in the crib, etc. can and should have guns.

Oh well, guess I'll tear up this check.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shadowrider (Original post)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 02:45 PM

5. Or how about this one....

Romney says that President Obama will "erode the rights of gun owners. Given that President Obama has signed one piece of legislation relating to gun rights, which allows visitors to carry guns in national parks, and that he has earned an "F" grade from the Brady group, where is the evidence that President Obama will "erode" the rights of gun owners"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Permanut (Reply #5)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 02:51 PM

6. Not germaine to this conversation. I suggest you start a thread asking that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shadowrider (Reply #6)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 02:59 PM

8. Okay, sublety doesn't work, let's try "germaine"...

When a person says they have heard something "time, after time, after time, after time", without giving even one example, and then challenging us to refute those mysterious claims, or to substantiate them, that's a classic example of a straw man argument. You should be able to cite at least four examples. I'm not saying that you can't do that, just that you didn't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Permanut (Reply #8)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 03:07 PM

11. Your post count suggests you are relatively new.

Stick around. You well eventually see lots of anti-gun folks claim "guns for everyone, everywhere".

Or you can try the the search feature, if you don't want to wait.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ManiacJoe (Reply #11)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 03:42 PM

13. Word to the wise acknowledged, ManiacJoe...

I get what you're saying. I've seen the "guns for everyone, everywhere", meme, and you're right, a search brings up several examples. OP has a valid point in that those who make that claim should be able to back it up

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Permanut (Reply #13)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 09:53 PM

26. You are a refreshingly honest person.

I salute you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Permanut (Reply #5)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 03:01 PM

10. Not sure about all that, but I do remember this about rmoney:

http://radiopatriot.wordpress.com/tag/mitt-romney-gun-control/

GUN CONTROL

 In 1994 Senate race, Romney backed Brady bill and assault weapons ban, saying “I don’t line up with the NRA” and “that’s not going to make me the hero of the NRA.”

 Romney called Clinton crime bill “a big step forward.”

 As governor, Romney quadrupled gun licensing fees and vowed not to “chip away” at tough gun laws

 In 2004, Romney signed permanent state-level ban on assault weapons that was mirrored after federal assault weapons ban.

 In January 2006, Romney said he owned a gun – then two days later admitted he did not and the gun belonged to his son.

 Romney bragged about being member of the NRA but later revealed he didn’t join until August 2006, just before launching his presidential campaign.

 Romney recently said he’s “been a hunter pretty much all my life” but later admitted he hunted only twice in his life, later clarifying remarks by claiming he has hunted “small varmints … more than two times.”

 In 2006 press conference, Romney claimed he had been hunting “many times” after returning from quail hunt in Georgia.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Reply #10)

Sun Apr 15, 2012, 08:59 AM

35. Anyone (including the NRA) who would back Romney

over Obama because of 2nd Amendment issues based on statements and voting records is simply a freeper who would vote rethug no matter what.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shadowrider (Original post)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 02:58 PM

7. I spent a good deal of time perusing the neocons' website

www.newamericancentury.org

and I couldn't find anything there either about 'sexing-up' the intelligence to show that Saddam Hussein was busily making WMDs for propagandizing purposes - justifying the invasion & occupation of Iraq - but we all know how that turned out.

Why would we expect anything different from another organization just as sleazy in its own way as the neocons are in theirs?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to PavePusher (Reply #31)

Sun Apr 15, 2012, 01:07 AM

33. Yep

Yours is a dodge alright, but there's nothing 'artful' about your own attempt to deflect my observation that strikes at the root of the specious argument contained in the OP. Are you 'Me-Too' to shadowrider's 'Big Dog?'

Woof!

Big Dog is a bully who doesn't hesitate to use his superior strength to intimidate other combatants. Big Dog may be smart, articulate or just plain mean, but in any case he is a remorseless fighter, brutally ripping into even the weakest of combatants. Once Big Dog securely fastens his powerful jaws on a hapless victim, Me-Too will join the attack. Me-Too is far too weak and insecure to engage in single combat, and must ally himself with Big Dog or a pack of other Warriors to bring down his quarry.


Perhaps you're just smaller fry 'round here - part of the nebulous 'Swarm.'

BZZZ!

A Swarm hive is almost impossible to detect. When a hapless victim stumbles on a forum that houses a Swarm and disturbs it with an offending message, the Swarm will erupt and fly at their victim from all directions. Taken one at a time the irrelevant, often mindless individual attacks can be easily brushed aside, but because of the sheer volume of the assault even the strongest Warriors must eventually yield. WARNING: Only those who are highly skilled in Swarm management techniques should attempt to wade into a Swarm hive. but even with protective clothing opposing Warriors should expect to suffer a few stings.


...although, instead of a Swarm, I see most discussions 'round here more like this:


Howlers generally populate academic, technical or special interest forums. Newbies to such forums often wander in thinking they have found some devastating new argument or special insight on the forum topic on interest, but unless the forum has been recently formed an active discussion group will probably have heard and debated the argument at length. So instead of being welcomed into the bosom of the group the newcomer is forced to flee under a shower of invective.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shadowrider (Original post)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 02:59 PM

9. I have my Canadian firearms license

for a long gun...I could get a M-16 but nothing automatic or a hand gun.

A couple decades ago I knew someone who had a friend who owned a baretta....That is quite a gun...The weird thing was I never held a gun before that day and I have to admit I felt so powerful holding that gun.

My boyfriend says I could not get a hand gun firearms license here in Ontario...They are given for specific reasons , not just for wanting one.

I am getting my boyfriend to take me out to a shooting range to shoot a long gun....I never actually had shot a gun even though I have a firearms licence...

I just watched a documentary on the guns in America...It is hard to believe that there are 250 MILLION guns in America...!!!!!1

The documentary filmed NRA meetings and gun shows and all I saw were White faces, mostly old ones. Very sad.

I am feeling that I need a gun and it is not for protection from blacks but from these crazy Americans who advocate owning guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riverbendviewgal (Reply #9)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 06:06 PM

19. Uh...I'm not sure if you're aware...

"I could get a M-16 but nothing automatic or a hand gun."

An M-16 IS fully automatic.

They fire either three round burst, or full auto, depending on which variant.

Were you thinking an AR-15 perhaps?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beevul (Reply #19)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 10:02 PM

27. I don't think she really knows what she's saying...

 

You can't tell one thought from the next in that rambling rant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riverbendviewgal (Reply #9)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 07:36 PM

24. IIRC, an AR-15 needs a restricted PAL

like a pistol. The RCMP has a complete list. From what I understand, you have to be a member of a shooting club to get a restricted PAL.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shadowrider (Original post)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 03:55 PM

15. The NRA used to be sane about gun control...they were taken over by hard righties

 

who preyed on the fears of supporters by predicting gun confiscation, as they are doing today to campaign against President Obama...

The leadership of the early NRA often supported gun control. In the 1920s and 1930s, as the legal movement for uniformity of state laws blossomed, Karl T. Frederick, a former Olympic gold medalist and the NRA's president, helped write model gun control legislation for states to adopt. The Uniform Firearms Act required anyone wanting to carry a concealed weapon to first obtain a permit, which would only be available to "suitable" people with "proper reason for carrying;" imposed a waiting period on the delivery of handguns; and required gun dealers to disclose to police records of handgun sales. The modern NRA is strongly opposed to every single one of those measures....

....Opponents of gun control became an important part of the emerging New Right coalition, which would eventually propel Ronald Reagan to the White House. Not only would Reagan be the first presidential candidate endorsed by the NRA in over a century, he would frequently proclaim proudly his membership in the organization.

The marriage was, however, really only one of convenience. As governor of California, Reagan had strongly supported restrictive new gun laws and, after leaving office, would endorse more. Yet, as president, Reagan understood the political potency of the gun issue and the NRA was willing to align itself with the popular president so long as he didn't promote gun control during his time in the Oval Office.

http://hnn.us/articles/what-nra-didnt-always-oppose-gun-control

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rfranklin (Reply #15)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 04:03 PM

16. So true. They are basically the GOP at this point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rfranklin (Reply #15)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 04:03 PM

17. "suitable" people (read: Whites) n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glaug-Eldare (Reply #17)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 06:30 PM

20. Are you sugesting

That early gun control, laws were racialy motivated?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oneka (Reply #20)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 06:54 PM

23. Well, er, you see,

Absolutely, without a doubt. From the beginning of English settlement to the 70s and beyond, gun control was almost entirely a means of preventing despised minorities from exercising the right of self-defense against the majority. It's been used against quite a few minorities, but it is historically a solution to the fear whites had of free blacks. Even after the 14th was ratified, a lot of clever schemes were thought up to restrict gun rights for blacks without actually saying so in the law.

http://marylandshallissue.org/get-informed/historical-information/racism-maryland-gun-laws/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shadowrider (Original post)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 06:31 PM

21. The NRA is clearly for more guns, and the defeat of Obama.

Anyone looked at photos at convention. Looks like same folks behind Gingrich and Ricky.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #21)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 06:42 PM

22. Noted, but not germaine to the conversation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shadowrider (Reply #22)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 10:04 PM

28. Hoyt is not germaine to the conversation?

 

Is that what you are saying?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rl6214 (Reply #28)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 11:05 PM

32. Is he ever? n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shadowrider (Original post)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 10:08 PM

29. I've read it here many times...it's gotta be true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ileus (Reply #29)

Sun Apr 15, 2012, 06:12 AM

34. Oh, it has to be true, you see it so often here

but the problem is, no one can seem to prove it. I wonder how long I'll have to wait.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread