Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: Our SOP says... [View all]rrneck
(17,671 posts)you might enjoy this subthread presented all in one spot. They make fascinating little narratives, don't you think?
Star Member rrneck (14,186 posts)
69. I have yet to see a list of "NRA Talking Points". nt
--------------------
Star Member BainsBane (12,331 posts)
86. Here you are
http://www.nraila.org/news-issues.aspx
They'll sound familiar
-----------------------
Star Member rrneck (14,186 posts)
91. Oh, that's nice.
Since you are obviously such a whiz at research, now debunk them. And show your work.
--------------------------
Star Member BainsBane (12,331 posts)
93. In other words
You asked for something you didn't want to see at all.
--------------------------
Star Member rrneck (14,186 posts)
95. Well, I sure didn't ask you.
Now we are having two conversations in the same thread. Wow, now you've got double my undivided attention. But since we are so aware of each other and all, and since you are such a whiz at research, why don't you go and find a post by me that employs one of those talking points and we'll discuss it.
---------------------------
Star Member BainsBane (12,331 posts)
98. Pardon me
Last edited Thu Jul 4, 2013, 12:59 AM USA/ET - Edit history (2)
I thought you were interested in the information. When two posters asked for something, I thought it was my opportunity to contribute "substantively." But now I find out you don't want to see that substance at all. Knock me over with a feather.
-------------------------
Star Member rrneck (14,186 posts)
100. You are pardoned.
A link to the NRA website certainly isn't a substantive contribution. I am interested in discussion. Produce something to discuss other than your feelings and maybe we'll all learn something.
---------------------------
103. The question was NRA talking points
Where else would one find those but from the NRA?
I find it fascinating that in one post you criticize me for "heading for the hills" and in another in responding to you when you pretended to ask another poster for information.
I did produce something. I produced precisely what you asked for, and you are angry about it. I also produced data on gun deaths in another thread, which another poster summarily dismissed and claimed it came from a source it did not. There is an ongoing tendency here to dismiss anything people find inconvenient.
I also systematically went through homicide figures for Mexico and the GAO gun trafficking report, and another member continued to insist it didn't say what it clearly said in black and white. You all create your own version of reality and become angry when it's shown to be false.
The tired emotions/feelings trope is a tried and true gendered insult. It also shows a profound lack of understanding of human cognition.
---------------------------------------
Star Member rrneck (14,186 posts)
109. I said it was nice.
What more do you want? Having produced them are you unprepared to discuss them?
------------------------------------
Star Member BainsBane (12,331 posts)
116. What did you want to discuss?
You seemed quite put out that I produced them.
------------------------------------
Star Member rrneck (14,186 posts)
118. If I were "put out" I wouldn't offer to discuss them.
Anything you like. Your choice.
----------------------------------
------------------------------------
Star Member BainsBane (12,331 posts)
130. You ask for proof
Last edited Fri Jul 5, 2013, 01:35 AM USA/ET - Edit history (2)
knowing full well the NRA has prohibited federal funding for research on guns, which means an effective ban on all research. There is no proof because the gun lobby wants it that way. Clearly they do so because they want to suppress knowing about guns. They enforce silence and ignorance because they want to justify positions that increase their profits. I submit the burden of proof is on you to show that the President's proposals would limit your 2A rights in any way.
Isn't it convenient that the gun industry suppresses research, information, and free speech, while you sit back and demand proof? You depend on the authoritarian control of the gun lobby, its suppression of research and free speech, and then cynically demand proof. Do you ever think about the complete contradiction in that?
There is overwhelming evidence that guns kill and are in fact the most common method of both homicide and suicide. The greater he percentage of gun ownership in a population, the higher the gun death rate. (See Mother Jones, 10 Myths about Gun Control). So tell me, why do gun rights supersede all others? How can you justify opposing modest, common sense reforms that could save lives because you find them a minor inconvenience (like having to reload or go through a background check). Is there no point at which you consider the rights of others? If there is even a possibility that expanded background checks and limits on magazine sizes can save lives, how can you justify opposing those measures because it might take you a few seconds to reload a gun or go through a background check? Is someone else's life really worth less than 15 seconds of your time?
-----------------------------------------
Star Member rrneck (14,186 posts)
135. So
the NRA has suppressed the research that will debunk all of their talking points.
You found the site. You could pick any NRA talking point you wanted and tear it to pieces. And you won't even try. You just churn out more boilerplate. Do you realize you're speaking in slogans? For all your posturing you haven't given the issue any thought. I gave you the opportunity, right here, twice, and you blame the NRA for your inability to debunk their positions. There are plenty of resources out there if you want to actually think about the issue. The FBI has tons of information. The CDC WISKARS site has tons as well. But you don't really need statistics to prove how wrong the NRA is. All you have to do is think for yourself.
C'mon, give it a go. Pick out an NRA talking point and give it a go. Let's figure it out.
-------------------------------
Star Member BainsBane (12,331 posts)
138. You have evaded the issue
You may find authoritarian corporate control over research and speech funny. Those of us who care about liberty do not. Once again we have confirmation that the constitution and rights that don't relate to guns are meaningless to you people. Hardly a surprise.
------------------------------
Star Member rrneck (14,186 posts)
147. LOL!
Last edited Fri Jul 5, 2013, 06:21 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)
Do you mean to tell me that there is not a single talking point at the NRA website that you can discuss? And the reason you can't discuss it is that the NRA has squelched all research regarding gun violence? And you're telling me that after I told you about the FBI and WISKARS?
Yep, you've really got those gunnuts upset and on the run now.
------------------------------
156. Yes, I've been discussing the ban on research
and the idea of constitutional rights and liberties. It is you who seems determined to avoid discussing anything of substance. On the off chance you are interested, you can read the discussion between gejohnston and me in this same subthread.
-----------------------------
Star Member BainsBane (12,331 posts)
139. So shall I take your answer to be yes
Last edited Fri Jul 5, 2013, 03:38 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)
than the few seconds it takes you to reload a gun are more important than the lives that might be saved by limits on magazines sizes. Keep laughing. You show exactly what you are.
--------------------------------
Star Member rrneck (14,186 posts)
150. I don't recognize any NRA talking points there.
But then again I didn't expect you to show any intellectual integrity.
Feel free to head for the hills when you run out on non sequiturs and insults.
------------------------------
Star Member BainsBane (12,331 posts)
157. You continue to evade discussing anything of substance
That is your choice entirely. Some of your compatriots here take these issues more seriously.
------------------------------