An NRA board member "goes there" re: SC massacre

[beevul]

59. No. Just no.

If your opinion is that there should not be, in general terms, tighter gun control regulations in this country, then your post, which dealt only with my inclusion of 'certain high powered rifles' in the category of weapons that should be more tightly regulated, was irrelevant and and attempt to distract.

No. Just no. Refuting falsehoods in the gun debate or any other, is NEVER irrelevant, no matter what opinion one holds. Truth and objective fact are REQUIRED to form an opinion on anything and everything under the sun IF one wants to hold an opinion of even minimal value to any given discussion.

Theres just no way around that. It is what it is, and it is how it is.

The other possibility is that you meant something like 'well, I do see the problem of handgun violence as something that should be addressed, potentially through greater regulation, but I don't agree that any high-powered rifles are really important in the discussion, as very few injuries and deaths, proportionately, are caused by fire from such weapons.' If that approximates your perspective, then I expect that you would not have singled out the 'high powered rifles' component of my statement to comment on, without saying anything else.

See, since I haven't given you anything to chew on, You're attempting to attribute to me, a stance for which I've given you no evidence of holding. Did you really think that would go unnoticed? Really?

That which can be asserted without evidence, can likewise be dismissed, without evidence, and thusly is.

(A word to the wise, whoever you are, that's one of the oldest tricks in the book, and you aren't going to fool anyone here with it.)

I do believe that some high-powered semi- and full-automatic rifles, with high-capacity magazines and available armor piercing ammo, have no place in general legal circulation of firearms. That's my belief, and there are reasons for it. However, it is true that the most destructive firearms in our country, in terms of injuries and deaths, are handguns.

That's fine and good, and irrelevant. Because we aren't talking about your 'beliefs'. We are talking about you deliberately making claims which are false. That has nothing to do with your beliefs.

I wasn't misled, neither was I seeking to mislead.

How did you come to the conclusion that any rifles at all "really, really increases the level of serious violence in a society"? Did you come to that conclusion completely on your own? Certainly you didn't trip and fall and hit the 'post bullshit anti-gun stat' key, right?

So where did it come from?

And the fact is, what you said DOES MISLEAD. Its still sitting up there UNEDITED, misleading people who read it and might not know better. That doesn't exactly speak well about your intent does it? So why is it still sitting there unedited?

Show me how you aren't "seeking to mislead", by removing 'rifles' from that misleading statement.

So I will, this time, ask a simple question: do you believe that handgun violence is a serious enough problem in the United States that smarter and broader regulation of either handgun manufacturing or distribution, or both, should be pursued?

And of course, now you're asking the wrong question.

Why don't you ask me first, If I think that whatever degree of gun control the American people will tolerate, will be enough to make any significant impact on gun violence.

I know the answer to that question, and its not just no, its hell no. And that makes your 'gotcha' question, utterly pointless.