Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
  On 12/6/2018 at 12:01 PM, slorch said:

The problem is that for some folks, responsible gun ownership means the firearms don't exist.

Expand  

Why is it a problem that people believe that? I can see the need to protect the right, but it's not actually a problem that others disagree. They are related, but separate issues.

It is an inability to see the difference between those issues (defending the right vs. fighting to make everyone believe in it) that has led the NRA down this path.

Posted
  On 12/6/2018 at 6:11 PM, bad_teammate said:

Why is it a problem that people believe that? I can see the need to protect the right, but it's not actually a problem that others disagree. They are related, but separate issues.

It is an inability to see the difference between those issues (defending the right vs. fighting to make everyone believe in it) that has led the NRA down this path.

Expand  

Some people see my possession of a weapon as a threat to their liberty.  I disagree. 

Posted
  On 12/6/2018 at 9:27 PM, slorch said:

Some people see my possession of a weapon as a threat to their liberty.  I disagree. 

Expand  

And some pro-gun ownership believe that they should be able to shoot anyone they deem a threat, at any time, whether or not the other person is armed.

You don't refuse to have a conversation because you can identify folks on the polar ends who take positions of zero compromise.  I've talked to PLENTY of "restrict gun ownership" folks - including some pretty far towards the extreme of opposing gun ownership altogether - and usually, after a rational conversation, they back off of a "no guns at all" position.  Because I can take them downstairs, and show them my gunsafe. And show them the pictures of me with a gun  at age 5, hunting with my dad.  And can show them all the ways that gun ownership can be good and responsible, and we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater.  There's a HUGE swath of Americans that fall in the middle band that don't oppose folks owning guns, but rather just favor imposing a layer of responsibility on both owners and the mechanisms of sale and transfer of firearms.

There's a big band of "reasonable" to discuss.  Not having the discussion because there's an idiot in one corner masturbating to his AR, and there's an idiot in another corner wearing a Che shirt saying all guns are bad, is fucking stupid.

  • Like 3
Posted

If they are uninvited on my property, you’re absolutely right that the weapon wnables me to protect my person abd property. 

What you ignore is the fact that it is a last resort. I havebowned guns or been in the homes of people who do so, without ever having to so much as brandish for protection.

why do you think that is?

why is my defense of my own liberty a threat to you?

Posted
  On 12/6/2018 at 10:05 PM, slorch said:
If they are uninvited on my property, you’re absolutely right that the weapon wnables me to protect my person abd property. 
What you ignore is the fact that it is a last resort. I havebowned guns or been in the homes of people who do so, without ever having to so much as brandish for protection.
why do you think that is?
why is my defense of my own liberty a threat to you?


I actually took the exact opposite away from his post. He even stated his experiences showing people his own gun safe.

Step away from the manufactured cliff of gun right removal.
Posted
  On 12/6/2018 at 10:05 PM, slorch said:

If they are uninvited on my property, you’re absolutely right that the weapon wnables me to protect my person abd property. 

What you ignore is the fact that it is a last resort. I havebowned guns or been in the homes of people who do so, without ever having to so much as brandish for protection.

why do you think that is?

why is my defense of my own liberty a threat to you?

Expand  

Dude.  Relax.  I never once said that your defense of your own liberty is a threat to me (at least, not in the general sense).  My point is simply that there are folks at all kinds of extremes.  There are literally people who believe that  they should be able -- in public, on the street -- to extend the right of armed self defense to anyone who even appears to be a threat, and our self-defense laws should be so modified.  Or hell, let's go with an easy extreme position: there are people who believe that they need to own an arsenal in order to protect against the coming race war of blacks against whites.  These people are nuts, and dangerous.

I'm just pointing out that the mere existence of extremists shouldn't be an impediment to having a reasoned conversation.  In my experience, those conversations are usually fruitful.  I'm  not going to convince the racial holy war people  to be reasonable.  I'm not going to convince Che shirt no guns at all guy to be reasonable.  But 98% of people are in between those extremes.  I'm gonna talk with them.

 

Posted
  On 12/6/2018 at 5:52 PM, WhatTheBuck said:

The GOP is now practically a wholly owned subsidiary of the NRA

Expand  

I’d say they have a symbiotic relationship.  The NRA provides money and low hanging fruit voter influence (muh 2nd amendment) to politicians.  

In return, the politicians provides absolutely no legislative support for solutions to reduce gun violence. 

The real tragedy is the NRA should be the ones leading the charge to reduce gun violence. 

Just another example of our broken political society where we can’t even agree on a problem that is very real and specific to the United States. 

Posted
  On 12/6/2018 at 10:15 PM, Brisketexan said:

Dude.  Relax.  I never once said that your defense of your own liberty is a threat to me (at least, not in the general sense).  My point is simply that there are folks at all kinds of extremes.  There are literally people who believe that  they should be able -- in public, on the street -- to extend the right of armed self defense to anyone who even appears to be a threat, and our self-defense laws should be so modified.  Or hell, let's go with an easy extreme position: there are people who believe that they need to own an arsenal in order to protect against the coming race war of blacks against whites.  These people are nuts, and dangerous.

I'm just pointing out that the mere existence of extremists shouldn't be an impediment to having a reasoned conversation.  In my experience, those conversations are usually fruitful.  I'm  not going to convince the racial holy war people  to be reasonable.  I'm not going to convince Che shirt no guns at all guy to be reasonable.  But 98% of people are in between those extremes.  I'm gonna talk with them.

 

Expand  

Slorch mad. Slorch no good at reading or talking. Slorch go get gun to defend liberty.

  • Like 3
Posted (edited)
  On 12/6/2018 at 10:15 PM, Brisketexan said:

Dude.  Relax.  I never once said that your defense of your own liberty is a threat to me (at least, not in the general sense).  My point is simply that there are folks at all kinds of extremes.  There are literally people who believe that  they should be able -- in public, on the street -- to extend the right of armed self defense to anyone who even appears to be a threat, and our self-defense laws should be so modified.  Or hell, let's go with an easy extreme position: there are people who believe that they need to own an arsenal in order to protect against the coming race war of blacks against whites.  These people are nuts, and dangerous.

I'm just pointing out that the mere existence of extremists shouldn't be an impediment to having a reasoned conversation.  In my experience, those conversations are usually fruitful.  I'm  not going to convince the racial holy war people  to be reasonable.  I'm not going to convince Che shirt no guns at all guy to be reasonable.  But 98% of people are in between those extremes.  I'm gonna talk with them.

 

Expand  

I agree with not legislating to the 2% of the population you mention, as well.

I support strong sanctions/ judicial punishments against those who commit crimes against others with guns.   Much stronger than what is on the books tofay, however i disagree with that extending to possession, unless that individual has a felony/ priors/ whatever.

A reasonable conversation, I thought, would begin with someone telling me why my possession of certain firearm is a threat, if there is no evidence of inclination or behavior to suggest I'd use it in a crime or threatening manner.

Many, many anti-gun folks just want to go all Minority Report and assume gun owners are criminals, regardless of behavior.  Guns cause individuals to commit crimes, right?  I don't see that as a reasonable starting point either.

When I use a gun to violate someone else's liberty, that's the starting point, IMHO.

Edited by slorch
Posted
  On 12/6/2018 at 10:59 PM, slorch said:

Many, many anti-gun folks just want to go all Minority Report and assume gun owners are criminals, regardless of behavior.  Guns cause individuals to commit crimes, right?  I don't see that as a reasonable starting point either.

Expand  

Dude.  This is not real life.

  • Like 1
Posted
  On 12/7/2018 at 12:19 AM, Biff Tannen said:

Dude.  This is not real life.

Expand  

"what other use could you have for a 30 round magazine, than for killing people?"

It's absolutely fucking real.

Posted (edited)
  On 12/7/2018 at 1:10 AM, Skinny Tie said:

You really really want someone to trespass on your property don't you?psycho.

Expand  

Especially if they're spreadin that religion stuff...

  "Threatening my property," or maybe being in the house when I get home?  yeah, I can't wait to kill someone.   Lifetime dream of someone who has basically been surrounded with firearms but has never pointed a gun at anyone else.

Edited by slorch
Posted
  On 12/7/2018 at 12:24 AM, slorch said:

"what other use could you have for a 30 round magazine, than for killing people?"

It's absolutely fucking real.

Expand  

I'll bite.  I've shot a 30 round magazine before, a long time ago.  It was fun.  If they were banned tomorrow, I'd have zero problem with it.  What problem would you have?

Posted (edited)
  On 12/7/2018 at 1:27 AM, Biff Tannen said:

I'll bite.  I've shot a 30 round magazine before, a long time ago.  It was fun.  If they were banned tomorrow, I'd have zero problem with it.  What problem would you have?

Expand  

The magazine isn't a threat.

They are fun to shoot.

The restriction on the liberty to own them is my problem.  It solves NOTHING.

our liberty isn't defined by what some people find acceptable or for what use i have intentions( with the exception of violating someone else's liberty, of course.)

 

Who the heck is anyone else to tell me what i can own in that regard?  The magazines aren't going to magically disappear either-  see also:  marijuana.

Edited by slorch
Posted
  On 12/7/2018 at 1:29 AM, slorch said:

The magazine isn't a threat.

They are fun to shoot.

The restriction on the liberty to own them is my problem.  It solves NOTHING.

Expand  

Do you think fully automatic weapons should be street legal? 

What about fully functional Abrams tanks for civilian ownership?  

Seems like you're getting along fine with these restrictions on your liberty. 

Posted (edited)
  On 12/7/2018 at 1:31 AM, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Do you think fully automatic weapons should be street legal? 

What about fully functional Abrams tanks for civilian ownership?  

Seems like you're getting along fine with these restrictions on your liberty. 

Expand  

No problem with fully auto.

I couldn't afford the fuel to run a fucking M1-Abrams.

Free speech  is fine as long as I don't feel threatened by it.  Sounds good, right?  These limited rights are making me feel so safer.

Edited by slorch
Posted (edited)
  On 12/6/2018 at 10:24 PM, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I’d say they have a symbiotic relationship.  The NRA provides money and low hanging fruit voter influence (muh 2nd amendment) to politicians.  

In return, the politicians provides absolutely no legislative support for solutions to reduce gun violence. 

 The real tragedy is the NRA should be the ones leading the charge to reduce gun violence. 

Expand  

So far, the NRA, manufacturers, and politicians have been “lucky”.   

We are fast approaching a day where a school shooting will be live-streamed, and Americans will watch in real-time as little kids are slaughtered.   Sutherland Springs, Vegas, Florida, these have all been generating more and more pressure to do something, but I think we are within 5 years of something that will truly turn things up to 11, where it can no longer be ignored.  

And then the NRA and the gun manufacturers are going to find their friends in Congress are not returning their phone calls or trying to protect them. 

Edited by atomheartbevo
Posted
  On 12/7/2018 at 2:23 AM, atomheartbevo said:

And then the NRA and the gun manufacturers are going to find their friends in Congress are not returning their phone calls or trying to protect them. 

Expand  

And then those congressmen will get primaried by farther right candidates who do return their calls. And accept their campaign contributions. 

Posted
  On 12/7/2018 at 2:59 AM, WhatTheBuck said:

And then those congressmen will get primaried by farther right candidates who do return their calls. And accept their campaign contributions. 

Expand  

And if any of those farther right candidates pull it off, they could easily go down in the general election.  ANd they will be heavily outnumbered in Congress   

When nothing happened after Sandy Hook, I thought the NRA and their friends were untouchable.  But Parkland, Sutherland Springs, And Vegas generated a lot more buzz than I expected.  Particularly Parkland. 

The NRA and GOP could support some common-sense things that might head off some shootings.  Maybe Bubba doesn’t get his bump-stocks anymore or his 30-round magazines.   Maybe Cletus loses his guns a lot easier because he came into contact with law enforcement/mental health professionals.   Nope, the NRA gonna NRA.

One livestreamed mass shooting where kids are begging for their lives or crying for mommy as they are murdered, and the house of cards comes tumbling down.  

 

Posted
  On 12/7/2018 at 3:13 AM, atomheartbevo said:

And if any of those farther right candidates pull it off, they could easily go down in the general election.  ANd they will be heavily outnumbered in Congress   

When nothing happened after Sandy Hook, I thought the NRA and their friends were untouchable.  But Parkland, Sutherland Springs, And Vegas generated a lot more buzz than I expected.  Particularly Parkland. 

The NRA and GOP could support some common-sense things that might head off some shootings.  Maybe Bubba doesn’t get his bump-stocks anymore or his 30-round magazines.   Maybe Cletus loses his guns a lot easier because he came into contact with law enforcement/mental health professionals.   Nope, the NRA gonna NRA.

One livestreamed mass shooting where kids are begging for their lives or crying for mommy as they are murdered, and the house of cards comes tumbling down.  

Expand  

I wish I could share your rosy outlook. I'm more pessimistic. If Alex Jones didn't get immediately banished from public attention after he declared Newtown a hoax, I have a hard time being anything but cynical on the subject. We all watched the survivors of the Parkland shooting get labeled as "crisis actors" and then the status quo get maintained in the last election.  

I don't know if a school shooting will ever get live streamed or, if it does, how many people could see it live whether it's because they don't hear about it in time or lack the wherewithal to view it. I'm not sure if there's a point in discussing the technical aspects behind something like that happening but it would probably have to be the shooter(s) broadcasting from body cams. If you didn't happen to catch it live, I'm not sure any more reputable media outlet would replay the video let alone Fox News, the favored network news outlet of right wing gun nuts. 

If Newtown didn't shock you, I'm not convinced that video of all those little children getting gunned down would make the difference, especially when there's going to be someone there to tell you it's fake news. And I don't think, if it did happen, that Wayne LaPierre and Dana Loesch would respond in any way other than to say the solution is more guns, and how it wouldn't have happened if there was "a good guy with a gun" there to stop it. You know damn well where slorch and his ilk would stand on that divide. 

Posted (edited)

Keep hating liberty and focusing on the wrong things to feel safer, bro...

While embracing ideas that do NOTHING to make you safer.

Edited by slorch
Posted
  On 12/7/2018 at 3:56 AM, WhatTheBuck said:

I wish I could share your rosy outlook. I'm more pessimistic. If Alex Jones didn't get immediately banished from public attention after he declared Newtown a hoax, I have a hard time being anything but cynical on the subject. We all watched the survivors of the Parkland shooting get labeled as "crisis actors" and then the status quo get maintained in the last election.  

I don't know if a school shooting will ever get live streamed or, if it does, how many people could see it live whether it's because they don't hear about it in time or lack the wherewithal to view it. I'm not sure if there's a point in discussing the technical aspects behind something like that happening but it would probably have to be the shooter(s) broadcasting from body cams. If you didn't happen to catch it live, I'm not sure any more reputable media outlet would replay the video let alone Fox News, the favored network news outlet of right wing gun nuts. 

 If Newtown didn't shock you, I'm not convinced that video of all those little children getting gunned down would make the difference, especially when there's going to be someone there to tell you it's fake news. And I don't think, if it did happen, that Wayne LaPierre and Dana Loesch would respond in any way other than to say the solution is more guns, and how it wouldn't have happened if there was "a good guy with a gun" there to stop it. You know damn well where slorch and his ilk would stand on that divide. 

Expand  

I think a bunch on the right attacking the Parkland survivors shocked a lot of people.  That’s part of what made it feel different. 

There’s numerous ways it could be streamed - twitter Periscope, Facebook Live, YouTube Live, and that’s not getting into the dozens of smaller social networking apps that pop up and disappear. The guy who shot the reporter was live-streaming at several points and the footage of him shooting her is out there. Vegas was live-streamed by many (Although no gruesome footage was streamed).  Parkland may have had some streaming with shots in the background (can’t remember  if it was that one another one).   It’s just a matter of time. 

Even up until Alex Jones interviewed Trump, he still wasn’t quite mainstream or given any kind of serious discussion.

Then Jones hits the mainstream along with the alt-right and what happens?  People discover he and others attacked Sandy Hook parents, Parkland survivors etc.  Twitter, YouTube, etc. could no longer ignore their attacks and beliefs, etc. and they all began losing their platforms.  

The loss of platforms to those pushing the “fake news” angle on those shootings is a major change in and of itself.  

I grant you this: it’s slow-moving, but cracks have appeared in the dam.  

  • Like 1
Posted
  On 12/7/2018 at 12:33 PM, SubliminalHorn said:

It’s like slorchy just keeps repeating the same drivel over and over. 

Expand  

sounds like the words of a LIBERTY HATING PINKO COMMIE. Slorch will defend his LIBERTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! with a 30 round magazine of fucking lead shot through a fully automatic assault rifle directly into your ass you fucking libtard.

  • Like 1
  • 4 months later...
Posted

Bump.

Pretty scathing article from The New Yorker about how greed and self-dealing has just consumed NRA leadership.  Long read, but worth it.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/secrecy-self-dealing-and-greed-at-the-nra

 

  Quote

This winter, members of the National Rifle Association—elk hunters in Montana, skeet shooters in upstate New York, concealed-carry enthusiasts in Jacksonville—might have noticed a desperate tone in the organization’s fund-raising efforts. In a letter from early March, Wayne LaPierre, the N.R.A.’s top executive, warned that liberal regulators were threatening to destroy the organization. “We’re facing an attack that’s unprecedented not just in the history of the N.R.A. but in the entire history of our country,” he wrote. “The Second Amendment cannot survive without the N.R.A., and the N.R.A. cannot survive without your help right now.”

Expand  

 

  Quote

LaPierre is right that the N.R.A. is troubled; in recent years, it has run annual deficits of as much as forty million dollars. It is not unusual for nonprofits to ask prospective donors to help forestall disaster. What is unusual is the extent to which such warnings have become the central activity of the N.R.A. Even as the association has reduced spending on its avowed core mission—gun education, safety, and training—to less than ten per cent of its total budget, it has substantially increased its spending on messaging. The N.R.A. is now mainly a media company, promoting a life style built around loving guns and hating anyone who might take them away.

 

Expand  

 

  Quote

On NRATV, the organization’s programming network, the popular host Grant Stinchfield might appear in a “Socialist Tears” T-shirt, taking a sledgehammer to a television set cycling through liberal news shows. The platform’s Twitter account circulates videos of the spokesperson Dana Loesch, a former Breitbart News editor who has said that mainstream journalists are “the rat bastards of the earth” and deserve to be “curb-stomped.” Over menacing images of masked rioters, she asserts that the only way to stop the left is to “fight its violence of lies with the clenched fist of truth.” A lawyer and activist called Colion Noir, whose real name is Collins Idehen, Jr., also has a large following. After the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, in Parkland, Florida, Noir appeared in a video chiding “all the kids from Parkland getting ready to use your First Amendment to attack everyone else’s Second Amendment.”

Expand  

 

  Quote

Loesch and Noir have become the primary public faces of the N.R.A.; at events, enormous banners feature their images alongside those of LaPierre and Chris Cox, the organization’s top lobbyist. But Loesch and Noir are not technically employed by the N.R.A. Instead, they are paid by Ackerman McQueen, a public-relations firm based in Oklahoma. In at least one year, Loesch earned close to a million dollars, according to a source who has seen her contract.

 

Expand  

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

  • Like 2
Posted (edited)

The NRA is such a joke and only a fucking idiot would still support them.

GHWB letter of resignation from said joke of an org:

https://www.nytimes.com/1995/05/11/us/letter-of-resignation-sent-by-bush-to-rifle-association.html

 

I say it's high time that actual responsible gun owners start something new and ditch the NRA-- something that isn't a cancerous, treasonous, far-right, dangerous organization. You do not want these people to be the ambassadors of all things related to guns in this country.

 

Start fresh and ditch the crazies. Your message will come across a lot better.

Edited by Pam Cummings
  • Like 1
Posted
  On 4/21/2019 at 1:05 PM, Pam Cummings said:

I say it's high time that actual responsible gun owners start something new and ditch the NRA-- something that isn't a cancerous, treasonous, far-right, dangerous organization.

Expand  

Unfortunately, I believe, we cannot count on that. Just like we can't count on responsible Republicans to change the GOP.

Sad times. 

Posted

What a time to be alive.  I never thought the NRA would seriously be held accountable for the damage it has done politically, and now, we might be seeing the organization implode before our very eyes for something else.

Society needs a responsible safety minded gun education & ownership organization, not a PAC and lobbying outfit posing as one.

 

 

  • Like 1
Posted

Why is it that no one mentions that gun ownership keeps tyrannical government in check?  That’s the primary purpose of the right to bear arms.  Madison was quite clear about this in Federalist #46.

Posted
  On 4/27/2019 at 1:34 PM, A Cellar Honker said:

Why is it that no one mentions that gun ownership keeps tyrannical government in check?  That’s the primary purpose of the right to bear arms.  Madison was quite clear about this in Federalist #46.

Expand  

It hasn't kept Trump in check.

Posted
  On 4/27/2019 at 1:34 PM, A Cellar Honker said:
Why is it that no one mentions that gun ownership keeps tyrannical government in check?  That’s the primary purpose of the right to bear arms.  Madison was quite clear about this in Federalist #46.
I think cause the government has F16s, tanks and actual assault rifles. Good luck keeping them in check.
  • Like 3
Posted
  On 4/27/2019 at 1:34 PM, A Cellar Honker said:

Why is it that no one mentions that gun ownership keeps tyrannical government in check?  That’s the primary purpose of the right to bear arms.  Madison was quite clear about this in Federalist #46.

Expand  

A well informed electorate keeps a tyrannical government in check.  How are we doing on that?

  • Like 8
Posted
  On 4/27/2019 at 1:50 PM, horncyclist said:
I think cause the government has F16s, tanks and actual assault rifles. Good luck keeping them in check.

And training and experience in using those weapons. I mean I know I have John Wick skills, because I can shoot a dime a 100 yards from a stable platform, and no wind....


×
×
  • Create New...