“I’ve come to believe he needs a certain level of violence in this country. He’s willing to accept a certain level of killing to further his political agenda. And the vice president too.”
-Wayne LaPierre of the NRA, talking about President Clinton, quoted here.
RTFirefly…
You have no idea how many of us feel exactly that way.
Members of the NRA are overjoyed that Clinton is finally being called on his violence.
If you want to be accurate, go find the next 4 sentences after that one. They frame the remark and put it in context.
I look at that quote as a truthful statement, not something to be ashamed of. Many of us on this side of the debate feel that Clinton, Feinstein and HCI just sit back and wait for a tragedy to happen so that they can push their agenda.
BTW…
The NRA added one third to their mebership in the last year, from around 2 million to close to 3.5 million.
New memberships and renewals have been soaring since LaPierre made this remark.
No comment on the merits of the OP - I believe that has been covered quite well.
But I think kudos are in order for *SingleDad, who has shown himself to truly stand for rationality and critical thinking. I salute you, sir!
This forum isn’t about feelings. MPSIMS is through this door, for warm fuzzy feelings; the Pit is thataway, for potentially hostile ones.
Clinton’s violence? Pardon?
Is this where we get the Falwell tape about how dozens of people are dead because they crossed Clinton?
They seem to speak for themselves; I’m not sure how you put a better spin on them. But if you know their context and care to provide it, go ahead.
Yeah, and the NRA plays on people’s fears in order to advance theirs. I bet Sarah Brady just waited for her husband to be turned into a cripple so she could push her agenda.
People are joining the NRA in droves, therefore it must be right.
What fallacy is that an example of?
I know that might does not make right. (neither do sheer numbers) My point was that his view is shared by many people.
Many people = voting citizens
I’m going to be lame and cop an excuse on this one. My girlfriend came home and I didn’t have the balls to tell her to wait while I checked my post. In a fit of laziness I just punched submit.
That should have read something like this:
“Members of the NRA are overjoyed that Clinton is finally being called on his use and acceptance of gun violence.”
I can’t blame you for zinging me on that one. As amusing as those theories are, they are out there with the Kennedy theories. I do not claim that Clinton was involved in any murders.
(except maybe the Foster murder 
)
I am still looking. I can’t seem to find the whole quote anywhere. The point he made after that sentence was that Clinton had/has the power to signifigantly lower gun deaths in this country. However, Clinton is happy to veto measures he claims to support just becasue he doesn’t get every gun control item he demanded.
Here are a couple of quotes from Moses:
Or, you can go [url=http://www.msnbc.com/news/381219.asp#survey]HERE[/url and here Lapierre explain what he said in his own words.
Scroll down a little bit and there is a link to a 2 minute clip with Lapierre engaged in a debate. He is debating a supposedly “objective” member of the press who obviously has a bias on this issue.
I don’t remember her being so active before he was shot and she was about to lose her place in the Washington social circle. She pushes her hubby around to a tune of $250,000 a year. If she feels so strongly about the issue, why doesn’t she make sure another $150,000 goes to the good fight by taking a pay cut.
Do you know she CHARGES extra to bring Jim around during a speaking engagement?
Well, in a land where our elected officials are supposed to carry out the will of the people, numbers do matter.
But you are right. If the numbers went the other way, I would not change my point of view. The fact is that people are catching on to Clinton’s game of playing whatever press is available. He is a man who cares little of anything for how he achieves his goals. People are tired of him.
Wait until November when we see a landslide victory for the Republicans.
(not that I’m a die-hard Republican fan, I’m just anti-Clinto/Gore)
I will keep looking for the rest of the exact quote.
Freedom:
Haven’t heard much from you on this issue. Where do you stand with regard to gun control and the HCI?
waterj2
Well, I love the HCI and think that only responsible people who have been approved by Sarah Brady should be allowed to own guns.
Everyone else should just be quiet, listen to what they tell us, do what they say, and everything will be alright in the end.
RTFirefly wrote:
I thought I’d just remind y’all:
The legislation Sarah Brady pushed the hardest for, a waiting period for handgun punchases, would not have prevented John Hinckley from shooting at Reagan (and hitting Jim Brady by mistake).
While it is true that Hinckley used a handgun he had purchased that very day in his assassination attempt, he had another handgun at home that he had purchased several months earlier. He could just as easily have used the handgun he already had.
The truth, as always, is more complicated than that.
Freedom:
My stance on gun control is probably not that different than your own, but you do me no favors by the tone of your arguments.
Do you truly believe that Clinton has a clear and obvious means to reduce gun deaths in this country but refuses to do so for political reasons? If so, then why were those clear and obvious policies not already implemented by Reagan/Bush. Or do you believe that every President of this country has posessed the power to reduce gun deaths but cynically allowed teh carnage to continue and used it for their own ends.
You make light of the Justice Departments position that enforcing policies such as Project Exile is not the responsibility of the federal government, but the very success story you admire is an example of local enforcement. Perhaps you are arguing that the federal government should drastically increase the size of the FBI and place federal police officers on the streets of our cities to apprehend these gun-carrying felons?
Finally, you all but label Sarah Brady a hypocrite and a parasite because she became more fervent in her support after her husband was shot in the head! Please, I disagree with the woman, but are you really unable to understand how having one’s spouse shot might cause a change in the intensity of person’s support for handgun control?
You also make mention of her salary and speaker’s fees. You make no mention, I note, of the salary and speaker’s fees of NRA officials. Does your keen nose for hypocrisy apply only to the HCI?
The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*
Charlton Heston…
Zero annual salary form the NRA.
Sorry for the post and run,
I will be back later.
Does Mr Heston charge speaker’s fees or performer’s fees for his commercial endorsements? He is, of course, already wealthy which makes ir much more feasible for him to donate large amounts of time to a cause in which he believes, but it would nontheless be an impressive indication of teh depth of his commitment.
The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*
I may be too sick to post for a couple of days.
I just read the sad news that S&W has surrendered to HCI’s demands.
HCI VICTORY
With all the compromises, this is how the press release ends:
This is what us gun owners fear, any compromise is only TODAY’S compromise. Tomorrow they will come back for more, and then the next day…
and on…and on…until there are no more firearms manufacturers around that sell to the American Public.
I predict two things right now.
**Gun purchases are going to jump. **
The irony of this whole issue is that the harder gun control gets pushed, the more people decide they had better buy a gun while they still can.
I will be making sure to get anything I particularly want by the end of this year.
S&W is going to see it’s sales drop through the floor.
I predict that unless a government contract comes their way soon (which wouldn’t surprise me), we are seeing the end of S&W. With any purchases I will make in the future, I will never purchase another S&W.
EVER.
Not even one of their products.
This sentiment is not confined to me alone, nor to just a few gun owners out there. Watch for a big backlash from the gun community towards S&W.
Ok, I’m going to go mourn now. Hopefully the backlash is strong and quick enough to make other manufacturers think twice before following in S&W’s footsteps.
This is a pathetic cave-in on the part of S&W. I agree with you Freedom; S&W is on my shit list now, too. What the hell am I going to do with those shirts I bought from them recently? I refuse to advertise for these guys now. S&W has one of the longest and best safety records in the industry. I wonder how many other manufacturers are going to follow in their footsteps.
This agreement is in no way a compromise. It doesn’t look like this will exempt S&W from any future attacks; it only drops them from the current lawsuits.
On a side note, do you know of any recent developments concerning the sale of Sturm, Ruger’s pending sale of their civilian arms division?
The anti-gun Whitehouse administration has certainly wasted no time counting coup on this one. I have already received 3 e-mails from them claiming victory. Two statements by the prez and one by Al Bore. It’s just sad. I’m gonna go cry in my beer now.
GAO’s Report on NICS
This requires Adobe Acrobat, which is a free download. If you do not have Adobe Acrobat, click on the above link and an introductory screen will offer it to you. You will then be able to read the GAO’s full report on the NICS.
The tip of the iceberg only.
The Second Amendment
Prof. Sanford Levinson, University of Texas Law School
Prof. Randy Barnett, Boston University Law School
Prof. Robert Cottrol, George Washington University Law School
Prof. Brannon Denning, Southern Illinois University Law School
Dr. Stephen Hallbrook, Independent Institute
Prof. Nicholas Johnson, Fordham University Law School
Don Kates, Pacific reasearch Institute
Prof. David Kopel, New York University School of Law, adjunct
Prof. Nelson Lund, George Mason University Law School
Prof. Joyce Malcolm, Bentley College Dept. of History
Prof. Joseph Olson, Hamline University Law School
Prof. Scot Powe, University of Texas Law School
Prof. Glenn Harland Reynolds, University of Tennessee Law School
Prof. Lance Stell, Davidson College
Prof. William Van Alstyne, Duke University Law School
Prof. Eugene Volokh, UCLA Law School
The Politics of Gun Control
A Right To Keep And Bear Arms?
Gun Control (In Their Own Words)
Just some ffod for thought. More will follow as I have time.
ExTank
Tank – when you find the time to post more you might also try making an argument in your own words. Links without preamble, summary, critique or exposition can be found from any internet search engine.
The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*
In reading the HCI article on the Smith & Wesson settlement (the one Freedom provided a link to above), it seems that a lot of the manufacturing-related terms of the agreement won’t affect S&W that much. For example, S&W agreed that:
“All guns, including long guns, will be shipped with external child safety locks immediately” **** The S&W model 686 revolver I bought a year ago came with a trigger lock, so S&W were already doing this before they made the agreement.
“Within two years, all pistols will be manufactured with internal locks” **** S&W mostly manufactures revolvers, and revolvers are not “pistols.”
“Within one year, every firearm will be designed so that it cannot be readily operated by a child under the age of 6, including making the trigger pull more resistant” **** The trigger pull on a double-action revolver is already pretty darn resistant, and probably won’t need to be increased at all to be too hard to pull for a 5-year-old.
“Handguns must pass a stringent performance test that equals the standard in Massachusetts, the manufacturer’s home state” **** Revolvers are simple beasts, and given S&W’s reputation for quality, most of its guns (particularly its higher-priced models) will probably already pass.
“Smith & Wesson guns designed after 2000 will no longer accept pre-assault-weapon-ban magazines” **** Revolvers don’t use magazines.
The one term of the agreement that got my attention, though, was this one:
“Smith & Wesson dealers will not sell any high capacity magazines or assault weapons”
Does this mean that S&W will not allow a store to sell its products if the store also sells pre-ban “assault weapons” or pre-ban magazines with a capacity of over 10 rounds – even if those guns or magazines weren’t made by Smith & Wesson? Excuse me, but aren’t there anti-monopoly laws in this country forbidding a vendor from saying “We won’t allow you to sell our products if you also sell thus-and-such merchandise”?!
Oh yeah?
Did you get the one with a 6 inch barrel and rubber grips?
(are all 686s 6 inch barrels?)
I have yet to find any defects in my 686. It has so far failed to go off when I didn’t want it to.
This part really got under my skin:
S&W has always been a “Law & Order” company in my opinion. Is there even ONE instance where S&W marketed a gun to criminals? Including this in the agreement throws a whole bad light on S&W that almost implicity concedes they were previously involved in this type of behavior.
With the exception of the infamous tech-9 and it’s “fingerprint resistant” body, I can’t even think of any accusations of ANY company marketing to criminals.
This part is damning in the eyes of the American public.
This logic is the same thing as your state sueing Ford for every death of a pedestrian killed by the cars they made.
And this:
And this also:
Are blatant admissions that they are attempting to legislate through litigation.
ummm…
Go check out page 4 on the Americans love gun thread. He did a pretty nice job there. I think there are two posts in particular that spell out his position VERY clearly.
Keep in mind that this debate is actually running over 3 different active threads, with over 300 posts. This thread has not been so much of a debate as it is a bunch of us just bitching about HCI. I think ExTank was just posting those links to share a resource with people who were already on the thread.
Freedom (that’s me) Said:
And wouldn’t you know it…
I feel like I am reading 1984 and Atlas Shrugged at the same time. This is blackmail and a payoff all wrapped up together.
First, they can not acheive it’s means through legislation, so they file frivilous lawsuits in an effort to intimidate the gun makers.
Then, the offer fat government contracts for submitting to their un-governmental demands.
S&W better hope those contracts pay the bills, because they just nailed their coffin shut. No gun owner worth anything will EVER forgive them.
Look for pre-ban handgun prices to jump YET AGAIN. Sorry if you are poor, but you don’t have the right to self-defense. The anti crowd will keeping adding unwanted features that lower the quality and increase the price until they will create a blackmarket that once law abiding gun owners will flock to.