On the Quality of Discourse (Firearms Edition)

[tucsonlib]

Gun-Rights advocates have legitimate, powerful arguments they can use to defend their views. However, just like the anti-gun folks, they too often blow it by behaving like paranoid, ignorant rubes.

So, may I respectfully make a few suggestions?

1. Ease up on over-the-top name calling (e.g. "gun-grabbers"). Bill Clinton was in office for 8 years. Tell me, how many of your guns were "grabbed" during that time? Sure, the anti-gun folks passed a couple of stupid, meaningless restrictions - like banning hi-cap mags and "assault" rifles based on cosmetics. But it only made them look ridiculous and out of touch. No one is gonna be "grabbing" any of our guns. Not the Dems, and (probably) not the Republicans, either. Ain't gonna happen. Trust me. So stop demonizing BO and others based solely on their 2nd Amendment views. There are more pressing issues these days.

2. Get over your irrational, inexplicable obsession with Mrs. Brady. She's just a lady whose husband was gravely wounded by an idiot with a handgun. She's not evil. She's not the enemy. Constantly invoking her name as if she were the devil incarnate makes you appear irrational and paranoid.

3. Break off your love affair with the NRA. They're a lobbying group for Gun Manufacturers, fer Christ's sake! Any respect they have for you, or for the Bill of Rights, extends only as far as their bottom line. They are using you.

I hope you take these suggestions in the spirit in which they are being given. Like any complex, controversial issue, there are legitimate arguments on both sides. Zealots of all stripes should be denounced.

[chknltl]

1. GOA on mCcain re: guns

http://www.gunowners.org/mccaintb.htm

[virginia mountainman]

2. A couple of comments..

Hmm..

One your First bullet point..

Yes, it made them look out of touch, but did it stop them from passing bad laws?? And yes, it did effect me, the prices I paid during the ban for the SAME GUNS, and normal capacity magazines was higher.

Secondly, Sara Brady, IS, a Republican, why should we Democrats keep dancing to her extremely unpopular tune?? After all, Why would a Repuke, want a Democrat to take a Politically Damaging position?? Nuff said...

Third, it is not the corporations that give the NRA its power, it is its almost 10 Million members that vote in every election that does...How many members does the "Million mom march" and the "Brady campaign" have?? How many reliable voters do THEY bring to the table on election day??

Until that simple fact is understood, arguing about the NRA being "corporate shills" is pointless, and IMHO, COUNTERPRODUCTIVE.

BTW, The NRA does support many Democrats, and those Democrats that are NRA supported tend to easily win re-election

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

3. That's bold stuff after 160 posts.

Stay here for a while let's see how civil you remain all the time.

David

[tucsonlib]

4. Re: That's bold stuff

"A man is not measured by his posts alone".

Rufus T. Firefly

[facepalm]

5. What you say?

1. Ease up on over-the-top name calling (e.g. "gun-grabbers").

Calling them jackboots and fascists is over the top. Calling the anti gun crowd "gun grabbers" is accurate and reasonable because that is their goal. They admit that if they had the votes, they would have said "mr and mrs america, turn them in." Note that in CA, many guns were grabbed after Bill Lockyer declared an amnesty and then sued to overturn his own amnesty as illegal. Many guns were also grabbed in NYC. Guns were grabbed in New Orleans. You get the idea- examples of gun grabbing abound. And that isn't even considering the many examples of gun grabbing that took place on a national scale in other Anglophile nations like the UK and Australia in recent memory.

Note that most gun banning in this country doesn't take the form of confiscation- it takes the form of banning future manufacture and sale. We will fight it all the same.

There are more pressing issues these days.

To you maybe. I intend to continue voting on the gun issue. Before iverglas says something, I'd like to remind my fellow posters that Florida is a battleground state in the US presidential election, Manitoba, Canada is not.

2. Get over your irrational, inexplicable obsession with Mrs. Brady.

The second she gets over her irrational, inexplicable obsession with us we will be glad to forget her like last week's bowel movement.

Break off your love affair with the NRA. They're a lobbying group for Gun Manufacturers, fer Christ's sake!

Thanks for exposing your true identity. This is the favorite lie of the anti-gun crowd.

The manufacturers have their own lobby called the National Shooting Sports Foundation. The NRA serves the political interests of gun owners and has since the early 70s.

I'd like to remind you that the gun manufacturers and the owners often have different goals. For example, consider the problem of cheap imports- if I can buy a milled receiver AK from china for 300 bucks, why would I pay 600 for an american one? A lot of the 1968 Gun Control Act (the part that wasn't aimed at black people) was directed at protecting domestic manufacturers from foreign competition. This screwed gun owners over in a big way. The 89 Ban enacted by Bush I was similarly aimed at screwing gun owners to help manufacturers.

Support for the 2nd amendment is one of the few places gun owners and manufacturers completely agree.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pipoman]

7. And what "cause" is that?

The cause of alienating millions of traditional Democratic voters?

[iverglas]

10. I love it

when they fight among themselves.

Hard to believe, sometimes, hard to believe ...

[pipoman]

21. What are you yammering about here?

It seems fingrpik falls on your side of the issue as in the OP he/she admonishes those who use the term 'gun grabbers' with no mention of those who repeatedly use the term 'gun nuts'.

[Longtooth]

30. Point

[tucsonlib]

13. Just Sayin'......

If, after all that's befallen us in the past 8 years, facepalm continues to believe that gun rights is the #1 issue facing America today, well.....let's just say his credibility suffers.

I can't help wondering how many other "facepalms" voted twice for W based solely on this one issue. And while they slapped themselves on the back for having prevented Kerry and his "gun-grabbers" from comin' knockin' at their door, Bush (predictably leaving the 2nd Amendment alone) proceeded to spit on and dismantle the rest of our Bill of Rights.
Just sayin'.....

[pipoman]

17. Most voters are motivated

to vote or not to vote by very few issues with one or two being a deal maker or deal breaker whether it be abortion, economics, environment, or firearms. This issue is one which has cost us electoral wins since 1994, the issue isn't going away, it will continue to cost us elections as long as the party leaders insist on taking positions counter to millions of traditional Democratic voters.

Just for the sake of argument lets imagine that BO and HRC made a statement such as, 'I believe that all law abiding Americans have a right to keep and bear arms for sport shooting, hunting or personal defense. I will not support any gun control legislation during my Presidency.' How many votes would such a statement cost either candidate? How many votes would it win the candidate? I believe it would win the candidate far more votes than it would cost them.

[tucsonlib]

18. Re: "Most voters are motivated..

..to vote or not to vote by very few issues with one or two being a deal maker or deal breaker whether it be abortion, economics, environment, or firearms."

Do you know "most" voters? God, I sure hope you're wrong in your assessment of the American electorate. Anyone who would vote for someone based solely on what they say or don't say about firearms is an idiot. Screw 'em. Why pander to the lowest common denominator? And has it occurred to you that taking a stance against any form of reasonable gun control just might alienate an equal or larger number of Democrats?

[pipoman]

19. So do you disagree that one or two issues are deal makers/breakers

for most people? The only time I hear people bitching about "one issue voters" is when the bitcher disagrees with the other persons issue. I am not claiming that more than one or two issues aren't of interest to most people, only that one or two are far more important to most people than the rest. This is why right here at DU we have all of the categories we have and when you go to those areas of interest you find the same people day after day.

And has it occurred to you that taking a stance against any form of reasonable gun control just might alienate an equal or larger number of Democrats?

I believe damned few urban and self proclaimed intellectual Dems would cross over based on this issue, besides "Anyone who would vote for someone based solely on what they say or don't say about firearms is an idiot. Screw 'em.". There are literally millions of blue collar and rural Dems who feel sold out by the party's support of NAFTA and GATT combined with the party's stance on gun control. Have you noticed that since 1994 rural and blue collar states which have traditionally been blue states have been red in every election cycle? The party better be waking up and realizing that it can't win national elections depending on only urban and "intellectual" Dems. Again these are only my beliefs but I have been cruising here for quite a while and my assessment is based on what I have seen.

[pipoman]

20. oh, and please describe "reasonable gun control". N/T

[Longtooth]

32. Reasonable to me would be the repeal of the ban on concealed carry in

National Forrest. And states honoring other states concealed carry licenses.

[Longtooth]

31. Let me remind you that it was that ONE issue that launched Ws political career

If Ann Richards had obeyed the will of the voters in Texas W would never been elected Governor.

[tucsonlib]

39. Which Speaks Volumes....

..about the intelligence of Texas voters.
I'll say it again: Anyone who votes for or against a candidate based solely on that candidate's views on gun control is an idiot. And a dangerous idiot. No reasonable person can believe that gun control is the most pressing issue facing our nation today. Doesn't even make the top 10. And to those who might disagree, I would ask: Where were you when W shat on and revoked the rest of our Bill of Rights? Where was your outrage? Where is your outrage? Fat lot of good you and your precious arsenal did to defend our nation.

[Longtooth]

42. It speaks more to the intelligence, or lack there of

of Ann Richards. Imagine, had she been smart enough to adhere to the will of the people. . . .

[Longtooth]

43. For a person that wanted to keep things "civil" you're sliding fast.

[jmg257]

44. You may be able to tell alot about a candidate from their stance on guns....

Why are they anti-gun?
Do they trust the people they want to represent?
Do they equate the people with criminals?
DO they support the constitution they are sworn to uphold?
Why do they want the govt to have guns but not the people?
Are they ignorant about things they SHOULD know?
Are they elitist?
Are they irresponsible?


Of course gun control is not the only issue, but to many it is a real important one, whether you agree or not.


BTW, my precious arsenal is not here to "defend our nation". It is OK, but not quite up to that task, shoot - it wouldn't even meet the "militia" intent of the 2nd, due in large part to anti-gun gun-grabbing bans and restrictions.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tucsonlib]

53. Nice Try, Davy

You haven't the first clue who I "really am". (Same goes for you, Fang.) The only guns I grab are the ones in my safe. I've never been banned, and I don't change names. I'm just a gun enthusiast who happens not to be myopic, paranoid or fanatical on the subject of gun ownership. And I'm someone who's able to see both sides of an issue.
Oh, and jmg257 - Let's ask George W. Bush those questions of yours and see how he fares:

Why are they anti-gun? He's not
Do they trust the people they want to represent? Nope
Do they equate the people with criminals? Yep
DO they support the constitution they are sworn to uphold? Obviously not
Why do they want the govt to have guns but not the people? Don't care
Are they ignorant about things they SHOULD know? Duh!
Are they elitist? One of the Bushes? Naww!
Are they irresponsible? Bwahahahaha!

[Longtooth]

60. The original point on this sub-thread was that

G.W. beet Ann Richards on the gun issue and that launched his political career. Had Ann Richards been able to pass the above questions and obeyed the will of the Texas voters we probably would not have W as president today, much less yesterday.

[jmg257]

79. Understood, and no problem...I won't vote for him this year either!

[iverglas]

66. just idle curiosity here

Obviously a gun grabber who recently got banned and decided to come back under a different name.

Have you considered reading the rules that govern conduct at this place?

If you have read them, have you considered following them?


Oh, I have to add, because it's really just necessary here:

Have you considered not saying things that make you look like a total dumkopf?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

82. That's funny coming from the person with the most removed posts that I have seen.

I've had 3 removed, I've seen you have 3 removed in one thread. Thanks for the advice though.

David

[iverglas]

83. oh look

That wasn't mine.

Did you post it with the intention of having it removed?

Think on that.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

85. You are still way ahead.

So again thanks for the advice. I listen to people who conduct themselves a little more professionally.


David

[facepalm]

11. what what what

How do you figure? A lot of people that otherwise would have voted for Kerry or Gore stayed home because those candidates dropped the ball on the gun issue. Especially in the South. Maybe you're not familiar with Southern culture, but we like guns a lot here. When you scare gun owners, gun owners vote for the other guy or stay home. Beating Bush should have been a walk in the park but we had to go and handicap ourselves.

Bush's betrayal of gun owners cost the republicans big in 1992. Republicans learned from this. Clinton's betrayal of gun owners cost us big in 1994. And again in 1996. And again in 2000. And 20002. And 2004. And finally, local Democrats learned from this and ran pro gun candidates. And it worked! Just when it appeared we had finally learned the lesson and moved on, we end up with a choice between two leaders of the anti-gun movement and a moderate republican.

Sigh. But don't worry guys. There's only a few million NRA members and they all vote republican anyway, amirite?

[iverglas]

9. false shit is what you say

That much we know.

They admit that if they had the votes, they would have said "mr and mrs america, turn them in."

Really? Who's this "they" whom you quote?


I intend to continue voting on the gun issue. Before iverglas says something, I'd like to remind my fellow posters that Florida is a battleground state in the US presidential election, Manitoba, Canada is not.

Manitoba? I guess that must be à propos of something ... job descriptions for park officers, perhaps ...

So, Florida is a battleground state, and you intend to continue voting on the gun issue.

And that means that you intend to vote ...?

Should be easy to answer, I'd think.


The NRA serves the political interests of gun owners and has since the early 70s.

You gonna be the one to tell us where the NRA-ILA gets its funding?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=168524&mesg_id=168659

The NRA itself, of course, is just a club.

http://www.nrapvf.org/News/Article.aspx?ID=282

“The NRA-ILA shall have sole responsibility to administer the legislative, legal, informational and fundraising activities of the Association relating to the defense or furtherance of the right to keep and bear arms…”

– NRA Bylaws, Article X, Section One.

... Even less well known is the fact that NRA-ILA operates almost exclusively on donated funds, above and beyond the regular membership dues paid by NRA members. Without the contributions made by hundreds of thousands of donors, ILA simply wouldn’t have the resources to undertake the critical efforts in which we engage every day.

We mustn't miss a chance to enjoy the NRA-ILA enemies list ...

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=15

AARP
AFL-CIO
Ambulatory Pediatric Association
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Civil Liberties Union
American Academy of Ambulatory Care Nursing
American Medical Women`s Association
American Medical Student Association
American Medical Association
American Association for the Surgery of Trauma
American Trauma Society
American Federation of Teachers
American Association of School Administrators
American Alliance for Rights and Responsibilities
American Medical Association
American Bar Association
American Counseling Association
American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Association for World Health
American Ethical Union
American Nurses Association
American Association of Neurological Surgeons
American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences
American Firearms Association
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
American Jewish Committee
American Trauma Society
American Psychological Association
American Jewish Congress
American Public Health Association
Americans for Democratic Action
Anti-Defamation League
Association of American Medical Colleges

... and that's just the "A"s ...

[facepalm]

12. lol wut?

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in, I would have done it."

-Senator Dianne Feinstein, D-CA

As for organizations.... if your organization has nothing to do with gun issues, why are you taking an anti-gun policy stance, or any gun policy stance? If you take a stand that is hostile to the NRA, expect the NRA to put you on a list of organizations hostile to the NRA. I don't see anything sinister about this. It is like the ACLU listing groups that oppose free speech or bnai brith listing anti-semitic groups. How terrible.

[iverglas]

15. now are you seriously going to sit there with your bare facepalm hanging out

and pretend that when you wrote

Calling them jackboots and fascists is over the top. Calling the anti gun crowd "gun grabbers" is accurate and reasonable because that is their goal. They admit that if they had the votes, they would have said "mr and mrs america, turn them in."

you weren't trying to persuade someone that Feinstein said that she would have voted for an outright ban on FIREARMS?

Surely you're not trying to do that now.


As for organizations.... if your organization has nothing to do with gun issues, why are you taking an anti-gun policy stance, or any gun policy stance?

I dunno. Why are you parroting NRA-ILA talking points? What do you actually know about the policy stances taken by any of those organizations?

If you take a stand that is hostile to the NRA, expect the NRA to put you on a list of organizations hostile to the NRA.

Again: eh? Do you seriously think that those organizations have all adopted policies on the NRA??

It is like the ACLU listing groups that oppose free speech or bnai brith listing anti-semitic groups.

Uh huh. Actually, I'd say it's like the ACLU listing groups that oppose child pornography, or B'nai Brith listing groups working to prohibit using a get as a bargaining chip in a civil divorce. Well, I might be wrong on the ACLU ... I'm not a huge fan of that outfit, and I find its position on that issue not much different from the NRA's positions on firearms ... but B'nai Brith Canada certainly didn't think that prohibiting the use of the get in divorce proceedings was problematic:

http://www.bnaibrith.ca/article.php?id=353

Not every single-interest organization thinks that its interests outweigh the public interest and everybody else's interests too, y'know?

What it actually is like, is like trying to chill democratic discourse by calling people who disagree with one nasty names, that's what it is.

[Longtooth]

33. That sounds like a "gun - banner" to me.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Longtooth]

41. Doesn't take a clue. It's in her own words. Read them IF you dare.

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in, I would have done it."

-Senator Dianne Feinstein, D-CA

[iverglas]

45. I've read them 60 brazillion times

And I know what they mean.

I have no idea whether you know what they mean and are pretending not to, or just haven't bothered to find out what they mean.

I care rather less.

[Longtooth]

46. Then why the smartass comment? If you really do "care rather less"

[iverglas]

51. I don't care what you know or don't know

I care about atttempts to mislead people who read this site.

A claim that Diane Feinstein expressed a desire to round up all firearms would be an attempt to very seriously mislead people who read this site.

IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE CLAIMING?

[Longtooth]

57. This is what she said

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in, I would have done it."

-Senator Dianne Feinstein, D-CA

And that equates to a "gun-banner".

Do you deny that she wants to ban guns after saying that?

[iverglas]

61. why don't you answer the question?

[Longtooth]

62. Cause I asked you first and you didn't answer mine. One turn deserves another.

Actually I've got two unanswered questions.

[Longtooth]

63. And honestly, I must have missed your question. Um what was it?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

86. How is that not an answer to your question?

I realize it's not the answer you want but it's an answer.

David

[iverglas]

65. This here is the question ^^^

and it originally appeared here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=168639&mesg_id=168675

And I want to know what both of you are claiming Diane Feinstein wanted to round up.

[Longtooth]

47. Is "brazillion" really a number?

[iverglas]

52. Does Dubya poop in the woods?

Donald Rumsfeld is giving the president his daily briefing. He concludes by saying: "Yesterday, 3 Brazilian soldiers were killed."

"OH NO!" the President exclaims. "That's terrible!"

His staff sits stunned at this display of emotion, nervously watching as the President sits, head in hands.

Finally, the President looks up and asks, "How many is a brazillion?"

[tucsonlib]

54. Don't Bother, iverglas....

they don't get it.......

[Longtooth]

59. She's no bother, Funny maybe, but no bother.

[Longtooth]

58. Making up stories to hide something there? Ha Ha Ha Ha LOL "brazillion" Ha Ha Ha

[iverglas]

64. can anyone be this ignorant?

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=brazillian+soldiers+bush&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

Results 1 - 30 of about 243,000 for brazillian soldiers bush.


I only wish I'd made it up.

I made up "brother, can you paradigm?" once, quite a few years ago. A bunch of other people have made it up since then too, google has told me.

And then there was that economist/lightbulb joke I made up back in ... lemme see, I made it up for the ecologist I was sleeping with to use on the economists he worked with who were always mocking ecologists ... when my office was on ... so that would be about 1985.

How many economists does it take to change a lightbulb?
-- None -- they all went for a beer and let the invisible hand of the marketplace take care of it!

A bunch of people have made that one up (and put better twists on it) since then, too.

Oh, and then there were the hockey jokes. Remember:

What's long and yellow and plays hockey?
-- Stan Chiquita.
What's round and purple and plays hockey?
-- Andy Bathgrape.

Well, mine was:

What's brown and lumpy and plays hockey?
-- (no, not Bobby Turd) Phil Espotato!

The one the classical guitarist I was sleeping with came back wtih:

What slapshots Bick pens and slapshots Bick pens and slapshots Bick pens ...?
-- Bobby Bore.

Ah, we were a witty lot.

That was obviously a long time before 1985. There are probably people here who have never even seen Bobby Orr slapshot a Bick pen.

(Hockey, in one's life whether one wanted it or not. When I had to watch it every Saturday night, I finally demanded to know why Eric Nester Enko had three names. Fifteen years later, my little sister made the same enquiry re Warren Crow Marty.)



But "how many in a brazillion?"? Nope. Can't claim that one.

[tucsonlib]

67. All Right. That's It. Just One Last Question For You, iverglas -

will you marry me?

[iverglas]

68. now

did I sound like the marrying kind?!?

[tucsonlib]

69. Not Really...

but you sound exactly like the kind I would marry......

[iverglas]

71. I told that economist joke one weekend ...

A murder mystery weekend for two at a country inn that one of my clients had given me instead of paying me. Hm. I was kinda bored, and I took a shine to The Inspector. My client, who co-produced the mystery weekends, was an economics professor (and English, but engaged, sigh). So I told The Inspector the one about the engineer, the physicist and the economist on a desert island with a case of canned beans. He stared blankly. And me, with my undergrad economics courses, started trying to explain assumptions. I gave up and told him the invisible hand. He laughed out loud. I thought it rather odd he'd got that one ... Well, it turned out HE was an economics professor, and he'd heard the beans tale so many times ...


Okay, well, the entrance exam used to be: explain game theory to me.

I gotta warn you, though, there's an ex rock musician currently occupying the other end of the chesterfield, who won the day by replying to my brush-off email demanding his thoughts on Kosovo with 8 emails of thoughts on Kosovo ...

But g'head, let the game theory begin. ;)

[tucsonlib]

74. Out of My Depth

I once applied mathematics to the flywheel of my Nash equilibrium, but it failed to quell the rattle. I do, however, subscribe to Prof. Carlin's theorem that "Life is a zero sum game." Does that count?
Leave the ex rocker on the chesterfield and come sit next to a non-ex blues guitarist on his marlboro....

[iverglas]

75. eeewwww!

You blue it. I HATE blues. Any week now, the local blues festival will be starting up within earshot of my office/chesterfield, and I will become a cranky miserable person.

Er, what's a marlboro?



oh god, I was in the middle of typing it into google ...

[tucsonlib]

76. Ahhh, but....

I only play acoustic blues (Not that Chicago-style stuff that rattles your windows.) A guaranteed antidote to crankiness and misery.....

:smoke:

[tucsonlib]

78. Holy Shit! v v v

Fang has lost it!

BTW, How're things in the Great White North?

[Longtooth]

77. Hey YOU started this crap using "brazillion" as a number. And here is your quote:

I've read them 60 brazillion times



And I know what they mean.

I have no idea whether you know what they mean and are pretending not to, or just haven't bothered to find out what they mean.

I care rather less.


Now I may not be as sophisticated in the political "gotcha game" and I sure as HELL do not want to be. You started this shit and now want to try and call me ignorant?! Your stooping pretty low.

[jmg257]

80. Ahh hockey and Bobby Orr...good stuff! I actually read a book of his to improve my defense (didn't

help), my slapshot stunk too. I'm pretty sure it was him...he used to have his dad hollow out pucks and fill them with lead to make them heavier for practising his shot; also said to soak new skates in boiling water then put them on so they would mold around ones feet.

[facepalm]

14. and since you mentioned the ACLU

I've been a contributor and supporter to the ACLU for many years. Despite the hostility of the national level ACLU to the NRA, the local ACLU chapters are often quite different and much better on the gun issue. Come to think of it, the local chapters of nearly everything are more responsive than the national organizations....

[Longtooth]

29. Well said.

[pipoman]

8. ...

Gun-Rights advocates have legitimate, powerful arguments they can use to defend their views. However, just like the anti-gun folks, they too often blow it by behaving like paranoid, ignorant rubes.

Read this thread and then tell me who sounds like "paranoid, ignorant rubes".

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x163876

[iverglas]

16. interesting

There are two firearms control advocates in that thread.

fightthegoodfightnow and moi.

Sum total.

In response to:

Gun-Rights advocates have legitimate, powerful arguments they can use to defend their views.
However, just like the anti-gun folks, they too often blow it by behaving like paranoid, ignorant rubes.

You say:

Read this thread and then tell me who sounds like "paranoid, ignorant rubes".

Paranoid, ignorant rubes: plural.

Assuming that you are not referring to "Gun-Rights advocates" in that thread -- surely the only possibly assumption -- we are left with only one possible set of members of the class of paranoid, ignorant rubes to whom you are referring: fightthegoodfightnow and moi.

Now, would you like to tell me that you were not characterizing fightthegoodfightnow and myself as paranoid, ignorant rubes when you wrote that line?

I await the dance. If you set your cap on the pavement, I shall toss coins.

[pipoman]

22. Yea, 'rubes' may not apply...'self proclaimed intellectuals' may be more accurate

[iverglas]

40. uh huh; and

"paranoid, ignorant"?

I'm a certified intellectual, sweetie.

[Hoosier lawyer]

70. WTF does that mean?

I mean really, in practical terms, what does that tell one about you?

[iverglas]

72. I know! I know!

That I can get a rise out of you! :rofl:

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

50. If the shoe fits.......

[iverglas]

55. is that so

I spy with my little eye ... someone so thick it beggars belief ... no names named by me ... but if anybody finds that the shoe fits ...

[Indy Lurker]

23. some thoughts

1. Ease up on over-the-top name calling (e.g. "gun-grabbers"). Bill Clinton was in office for 8 years. Tell me, how many of your guns were "grabbed" during that time? Sure, the anti-gun folks passed a couple of stupid, meaningless restrictions - like banning hi-cap mags and "assault" rifles based on cosmetics. But it only made them look ridiculous and out of touch. No one is gonna be "grabbing" any of our guns. Not the Dems, and (probably) not the Republicans, either. Ain't gonna happen. Trust me. So stop demonizing BO and others based solely on their 2nd Amendment views. There are more pressing issues these days.

I agree on the name calling, it doesn't help. But there are people who have banned guns, and would like to ban more. Chicago mayor Richard Daily comes to mind. Chicago (under a previous mayor)has banned all handguns that were not registered in 1982. The current mayor sends out the CAGE unit to collect firearms if someone's firearms owner ID card lapses. This wouldn't be so bad, but it can take up to 6 months to get a re-newed ID.

2. Get over your irrational, inexplicable obsession with Mrs. Brady. She's just a lady whose husband was gravely wounded by an idiot with a handgun. She's not evil. She's not the enemy. Constantly invoking her name as if she were the devil incarnate makes you appear irrational and paranoid.

I can't speak for others, but Mrs. Brady and the VPC are irritating due to their regular use of falsified data. They routinely stretch data and statistics beyond any bounds of reason. A couple quick examples: When counting children killed by firearms, they include individuals up to the age of 24. When stating that you are more likely to be killed with a gun by someone you know, they include drug buyers and drug dealers since they know each other.

3. Break off your love affair with the NRA. They're a lobbying group for Gun Manufacturers, fer Christ's sake! Any respect they have for you, or for the Bill of Rights, extends only as far as their bottom line. They are using you.

As others have stated, the NRA is more than lobby for gun manufacturers. For example, It was the NRA that initiated the law suit to have firearms returned to citizens of New Orleans who were wrongfully disarmed after Katrina.

[jmg257]

24. Yep - I don't understand gun owners, nothing to fear here at all.

Several anti-gun measures passed the New York State Assembly and are now heading to the State Senate, where they will most likely be referred to the State Senate Codes Committee.

Assembly Bill 9819A, would ban the sale of semi-automatic handguns not equipped with so-called "microstamping" technology.

Assembly Bill 7331, would expand the ban on semi-automatic “assault weapons”, as well as require the ballistic “fingerprinting”(registration) of all semi-automatic “assault weapons” owned prior to a specified date.

Assembly Bill 2772, would ban the sale, use or possession of any firearm with a bore diameter .50 caliber or larger. This bill would require gun owners in possession of these firearms to surrender them to law enforcement.

Assembly Bill 829, would prohibit the sale of any handgun that doesn’t contain a childproofing device or mechanism incorporated into the design of the handgun. AB829 passed by a vote of 86 to 46.

Assembly Bill 3447, would ban the sale or possession of frangible ammunition.



Federal Bill 1022:
SEC. 2. REINSTATEMENT FOR 10 YEARS OF REPEALED CRIMINAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO ASSAULT WEAPONS AND LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICES.
The term `semiautomatic assault weapon' means any of the following:

`(A) The following rifles, pistols, shotguns or copies or duplicates thereof:
...
`(D) A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine, and that has--
...
`(E)(i) Except as provided in clause (ii), a semiautomatic rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
...
`(F) A semiautomatic pistol that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine, and has--
...
`(G) A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

`(H) A semiautomatic shotgun that has--
...
`(I) A shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

`(J) A frame or receiver that is identical to, or based substantially on the frame or receiver of, a firearm described in any of subparagraphs (A) through (I) or (L).
..
`(L) A semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General. In making the determination, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.'.
...
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1022


"Polls over the past 20 years have consistently shown that one out of three Americans support a ban on handgun possession (except by law enforcement officers).27
Several polls taken in 1999 show this level of support reaching as high as 44 percent to 50 percent.28"
http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/hgbanfs.htm


Nothing to fear??? There is ignorance, there is willful ignorance, there is wishful thinking, and then there is very justified fear that many anti-gun nuts REALLY ARE gun grabbers too. I.E. They do indeed want to ban guns, as many as they can get whenever they can get them.


Despite being a "gun-rights advocate", I have no obsession with Mrs Brady, nor Mrs McCarthy for that matter (sponsor of HR1022, and a similiar anti-gun whose husband was a victim). If they & similar-minded people and organizations leave our rights alone, i.e. stop trying to limit them unreasonably, and stop trying to grab my guns, then I won't give them much thought at all.

The NRA has over 4 million members that are NOT gun manufacturers. They represent those members on the issues of guns. Love affair? Not really. Am I glad they are supposedly part of such a powerful "lobby" that helps represent gun owners? Yes - NO problem with that.

[Firethorn]

25. Just want to state why these are bad ideas...

Assembly Bill 9819A, would ban the sale of semi-automatic handguns not equipped with so-called "microstamping" technology.

Only takes a bit of time with a file to destroy, or a $50 barrel/firing pin replacement, etc... Revolvers don't spew brass, most crime guns are stolen, so ID'ing a random piece of brass to a firearm that was stolen 18 months ago isn't very useful.

Assembly Bill 7331, would expand the ban on semi-automatic “assault weapons”, as well as require the ballistic “fingerprinting”(registration) of all semi-automatic “assault weapons” owned prior to a specified date.

'Assault Weapons' are so rarely used in crime as to be a non-factor, and in incidents like spree killings, the recovery rate of the weapon is near 100%. Expense will far exceed any assistance it provides law enforcement.

Besides, the weapons they keep trying to ban, if you look at the 2nd as being for the milita, are precisely the weapons that you're forbidden to ban.

Assembly Bill 2772, would ban the sale, use or possession of any firearm with a bore diameter .50 caliber or larger. This bill would require gun owners in possession of these firearms to surrender them to law enforcement.

12 Gauge shotgun: Bore diameter .729. 14 Gauge: .693, 20 Gauge: .615 Standard Black Powder rifle used for deer hunting: .50 or .54.

This is definitely creep. The old NFA is the reason you hear so much about '50s'. Why? Because anything larger that's not a 'sporting piece'(IE Shotguns and some big bore game rifles like the Action Express calibers), is counted as a destructive device and therefore comes under additional regulations and taxes.

Assembly Bill 829, would prohibit the sale of any handgun that doesn’t contain a childproofing device or mechanism incorporated into the design of the handgun. AB829 passed by a vote of 86 to 46.

My gun's not around children. Why should I have something I'm not going to use, that makes the gun more complicated(and therefore more likely to fail). Heck, are the POLICE required to have these guns? Or are they going to continue running around with their manual safetyless Glocks?

Assembly Bill 3447, would ban the sale or possession of frangible ammunition.

IE indoor range safe ammunition. Many ranges require frangible because it lowers the strain on their backstop and helps ensure that a badly aimed round* doesn't exit the range. Frangible ammunition generally fragments enough that it lacks penetration, making it less deadly than hollowpoints or FMJ, and really cop safe for any officer wearing a vest.

*We try our best, but I've personally seen two rounds put into the ceiling of an indoor range. Once was during a competition, by an experienced competitor. He was immediately DQ'd of course, but it's good to know that only the light was damaged, the round didn't exit the ceiling.

[gorfle]

26. Comments...

1. Ease up on over-the-top name calling (e.g. "gun-grabbers"). Bill Clinton was in office for 8 years. Tell me, how many of your guns were "grabbed" during that time? Sure, the anti-gun folks passed a couple of stupid, meaningless restrictions - like banning hi-cap mags and "assault" rifles based on cosmetics. But it only made them look ridiculous and out of touch. No one is gonna be "grabbing" any of our guns. Not the Dems, and (probably) not the Republicans, either. Ain't gonna happen. Trust me. So stop demonizing BO and others based solely on their 2nd Amendment views. There are more pressing issues these days.

You are absolutely right there are more pressing issues these days, which is what drove me out of the Republican Party and why I will vote Democratic regardless of their stance on the 2nd Amendment this time around. There have been too many other infringements on our liberties to stand only on firearm liberties.

That said, while there have been no gun confiscations yet (although I think there have been some in California), it is still very true that legislation has had a direct impact on me personally, by driving the price of all affected firearms through the roof.

2. Get over your irrational, inexplicable obsession with Mrs. Brady. She's just a lady whose husband was gravely wounded by an idiot with a handgun. She's not evil. She's not the enemy. Constantly invoking her name as if she were the devil incarnate makes you appear irrational and paranoid.

The Brady's are responsible for an organization that basically amounts to the "anti-NRA". She may or may not be evil. Her organization fights to counter one of our fundamental rights and consequently they are the enemy.

3. Break off your love affair with the NRA. They're a lobbying group for Gun Manufacturers, fer Christ's sake! Any respect they have for you, or for the Bill of Rights, extends only as far as their bottom line. They are using you.

There are far far far more gun owners than manufacturers. I'd be willing to bet anything that the money brought in by individuals far outweighs contributions by firearm manufacturers. In any case, who funds them is irrelevant! So long as they are seen to represent the interests of their members, their members will continue to voluntarily stay members. Right now, more than four million of us believe in the organization. They are the 800-pound-gorilla that consistently wields legislative clout in my favor. If that's being used, well, use me, baby!!

[jmg257]

27. Ya know - I don't care if the NRA is funded by "the gun manufacturers". I like guns, so I am glad

someone is actually manufacturing them - the more the merrier (keeps costs down - creates jobs); And I am glad that they are also involved in making sure they can continue to make them, and that I can continue to buy them. Remington? Bushmaster? Colt? Ruger? S&W? FN/Winchester? Benelli? Etc. Etc. I hope they ALL donate to the NRA.

[bossy22]

34. they have a common interest

people want guns, people want to sell guns

[SteveM]

28. "Legitimate, powerful arguments" is what I like to hear. Thanks...

1. Name-calling. "Gun-grabbers" is not too far off the mark for some gun-control advocates, and is definitely mild stuff when compared with what's dished out by the "gun-controllers" in this forum. Perhaps you should check the archives to see it, or better yet, just wait.

2. Irrational, inexplicable obsession with Mrs. Brady. She can handle herself, and she is the leader of an organization which has had almost unchallenged entree in MSM up to this time. I don't consider her an enemy, I consider her an opponent who needs to be defeated, and in that regard I will continue to cite her organization as necessary.

3. Who's in love with the NRA? As far as "being used," most of us are grown-ups around here.

I notice your last statement "Zealots of all stripes should be denounced." Care to point out some? On the "other side?"
Your sense of proportion is very much out of whack and undercuts the legitimacy of your arguments so much that I don't know what "spirit" they are given in. This is especially the case when you use such expressions as "love affair with the NRA," "irrational and paranoid," and "irrational and inexplicable obsession."

[Boomer 50]

35. In response

Item 1. I have been spit on, physically assaulted, and called a plethora of names like "gun toting baby killer" and worse. California has confiscated firearms based on their AW ban and registration program. BATFE has confiscated firearms based on the very inaccurate NFRTR database (NFA 1934).

Item 2. Sarah Brady is using her husband in a very unethical way. She should be ashamed of herself for what she has done. She put herself in a position of Constitutional infringement, she can deal with her choices. Sadly, I've heard rumors that her health is failing. Though I view her as an enemy, I don't wish cancer on anyone and I do hope she wins her fight.

Item 3. I can't stand the NRA. As a manufacturer, they don't lobby for me, they lobby for themselves. And yes, they are using gun owners. Which is why I am not and never will be associated with them.

This isn't a complex issue. The 2nd Amendment means exactly what it says. ANY and ALL gun bans are unConstitutional. Anyone who sees bans as "reasonable" or wants restrictions that don't effect the criminals but legal owners, then we have a problem. All of the "reasonable restrictions" that have been put forth over the past few years are infringements and do nothing to stop crime. They only impact law abiding citizens and frankly, most gun owners are done with dealing with it. Jab a tiger with a stick enough times and that tiger will at some point spin around and rip you to shreds. Gun control is the stick. Gun owners have some very sharp claws. By pushing gun control, we are risking all progressive efforts. Gun owners are a very large and powerful voting block. Why the Democrats in power have alienated them is something I can't comprehend. By doing this, we've basically given power and control to the right wing religious wacko's among others.

Mark my words. Gun control will destroy our party and will turn our nation into something that will come back to haunt us all.

[iverglas]

37. oy, details, please

Item 1. I have been spit on, physically assaulted, and called a plethora of names like "gun toting baby killer" and worse.

I am just dying to know what that's all about.

Returning Vietnam veteran meme, mebbe?

[ogsbee]

38. You mean we shouldn't call Bloomberg a camera happy, gun & camera grabbing momma's boy?

He actually suggested forbidding picture taking in NYC, one of the tourist destination cities of the world. What does he want to hide? Maybe his own cameras (he's praised the UK's camera happy police state to the hilt). Check out those two camera dome white jobbies on many light poles (Times Square, CPW, many other places). Or how about those hydraulic guard towers he can drag around from place to place?

This is all of one piece, a jigsaw that fits tightly. Why is he afraid of his citizens? I don't doubt that he would take away all civilian arms, he's a frightened little man. (Incidentally, I understand he spends most weekends at his mother's, not at his private Bahamas island. I think that makes him a skirt clinging, camera happy, camera grabbing, gun grabber.)

Did you pay attention to what happened in N.O. after Katrina. They (Republican scum) confiscated law abiding citizen's guns. Hello? The NRA is far from perfect (practically a wing of the Repuke party) but at least they brought lawsuits after Katrina. They should wake up, it's the Republicans who will confiscate guns, the Democratic anti-gunners are simply useful regulating fools. It's the Republicans who are dangerous.

I couldn't disagree with you more. Now is the time to ratchet up the rhetoric, draw the line in the sand, inflame the emotions, get down to the fight. The other side only plays civilized to hide their fascist nature. Bloomberg is the civilized voice of fascism, the velvet glove to Kelly's fascist fist. Later will be too late.

[Longtooth]

48. Good post but I have to correct you on one point.

It was the mayor of NO that ordered the gun confiscations. Unfortunately he is a Dem.

[ogsbee]

88. Oops . . .

Note to self: don't rely on decrepit memory. Now, if I could only find where I put that Gingko Biloba.

Thank you. I should look into that N.O. situation in detail. It never made any sense to me. Of the many lessons from Katrina, one is that for those that stayed you either had a gun or depended on the good wishes of someone who did.

[facepalm]

90. sorry to burst your bubble

Most of LA is republican, but NOLA has long been run by a strong Democratic machine.
Mayor Nagin was a former republican who switched parties to win the election.
Chief Compass is a long time Democrat though.

But the real overriding character of NOLA is neither liberal nor conservative nor republican nor democrat- the overriding theme of NOLA is a lack of decency or respect for the law.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

56. Just a few questions then.

I'll take you at your word that you are who you say you are. What legislation would you propose to appease those who would ban handguns? How many and what kind of guns do you own and what do you use them for? What if any restrictions should law abiding citizens be required to conform to for the sake of public safety? I look forward to your answers and apologize for any incorrect assumptions I made about you.

David

[tucsonlib]

73. Fair Enough, David

I have some sympathy for those who would like to ban handguns, and I wouldn't mind living in a gun-free society. But it won't (and shouldn't) happen here. I doubt that there is any legislation that would appease the most rabid of the anti-gunners. That being said, I think keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, the mentally unstable, etc. is doable, using laws already on the books, and some sort of licensing requirements. If you need a license to drive a car, surely one should be required for gun ownership. (Yes, I know the argument: Gun ownership is a right, dammit!) I also don't see licensing or registration as a slippery slope leading inexorably toward confiscation. I realize and appreciate that these opinions are not shared by most of you. So please, contain your outrage.
My gun "collection" is, I'm certain, pretty laughable to most posters here. (Ah, but you should see my guitar collection!) For long guns I own a Winchester 12-gauge, a Rossi .357 lever action and a Ruger 10/22. Handguns - a S&W .357, a Kahr .40 and a Taurus .22. My guns are for home protection, target practice and plinking. I don't hunt, but respect those who do so for food.
Hope this clarifies things.....

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

81. Fair enough!

I'm not a huge fan of the registration idea. Less worried about licensing. I have similar firearms and use them for similar things. Mostly shooting golf balls with a Browning Buckmark. I quit hunting years ago. Nothing against it, just see a lot of death on the job and don't find it healthy to expose myself to more death of any kind. My problem with most of the anti gun stuff is that it's ineffective in reducing firearm violence. Registration and licensing might save a couple of hundred lives a year, maybe. The people who would be prevented from obtaining firearms by these measures are largely already caught by the current system. I would like for the average citizen to have access to the background check database. That would reduce the number of firearms obtained illegally through private purchases. It would probably also increase violent attacks on individuals attempting to sell firearms. Clearly you would have to put extremely strong penalties for misuse in place if you gave the public access. I generally disapprove of rules and laws that are ineffective or without purpose, that's pretty much universal for me whether it's guns, tax law, marriage statutes, traffic laws (no right turn on red at all intersections, what is that about), etc. I appreciate the response and apologize again for my misconceptions.

David

[tucsonlib]

84. More in Common Than You Know

For 15 years I worked as a fire and medical dispatcher for my city's 911 system. Yes, I was that disembodied voice that sent you on your calls. On other days I might be giving CPR instructions to the caller while you were en route. Several times I was the last person someone spoke to before they died. Delivered a couple of babies over the phone - You know what I'm talking about. Finally suffered a H/A and took early retirement. I don't have to tell you that jobs such as ours tend to give one a skewed opinion of the human race. Not as bad, perhaps, as what cops experience, but bad enough.
Keep up the good fight, Bro....

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

87. Sorry about the retirement

Never easy when it's not an option. Hope all is well now. I do appreciate you trying to bring a civil tone here. I have really tried but the internet doesn't seem to be conducive to manners.

David

[tucsonlib]

89. Meant to Ask

What happens to a golf ball when struck by a .22? I've never used them as targets, but they are the perfect size. I'll have to give it a try.