Having laid low, the N.R.A. is fully prepped and rehearsed to control legislation. As usual.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Bricker

Yes.

I’d be at least a bit surprised if someone asserted that either side – except perhaps the “side” of status quo had won the abortion debate, just as I was with the claim that the NRA had won the gun control debate.

Do you believe the NRA won the gun control debate?

The abortion debate hasn’t been “won” by any side but the pro-life side had been winning and probably hit their high water mark with the ban on partial birth abortions. They probably jumped the shark with their whole “life begins at conception” kick.

By all reasonable measures, the gun rights activists had won the gun control debate.

What is it that the NRA was advocating for that they had not gotten? I can buy any number of semi-atuomatic handguns and rifles over the counter with proof of residence and a quick electronic background check. I can get magazines that hold hundreds of rounds. Noone other than the gun store knows I have the gun. I can buy at gun shows with even fewer restrictions.

I can buy a gun that fires bullets the size of steak knife blades that can stop a car or crack a cinderblock.

That doesn’t mean the debate can’t be reopened by events like Sandy Hook. but before Sandy Hook the chances of even symbolic gun regulation was practically nil. The gun rights lobby had won and had started becoming a partisan organization supporting other issues.

[Absolute]

@elucidator

Nah, they just come out of the woodwork every once in a while. Kinda cute, with their childlike faith that as soon as they apprise us of their clear common sense, we will fall all over ourselves to express our total agreement with their awesomeness. They lie dormant for months, sometimes, then suddenly there’s an outbreak, like cicada or head lice.

I know it seems like something directed, someone assigned to get on our case. But we are the SDMB, we aren’t important enough to infiltrate or subvert.

Without context, it’s impossible to tell whether you are talking about gun rights advocates or gun control advocates, since your statement is equally correct in either case.

[Cartooniverse]

@Clothahump

Conspiracy theory much?
:rolleyes:

As things have evolved, not in the least. First of all, the materials cited in my O.P. are real and have not been denied by the N.R.A.

Second of all, the past few weeks have proven my thesis quite sadly.

So, one must then ask:

Irrationally Defensive much ?

[Cartooniverse]

@Clothahump

Conspiracy theory much?
:rolleyes:

Endless cites proving my O.P. much??

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

And, more cite

[Cartooniverse]

Here’s one for the pro-N.R.A. gun-loving readers of this thread to really feel proud about.

Because, if you feel that you have a right to carry around automatic assault rifles capable of spewing forth many bullets per minute, then the linked article above should make your bosoms just swell with pride.

:mad:

[Bricker]

@Cartooniverse

Here’s one for the pro-N.R.A. gun-loving readers of this thread to really feel proud about.

Because, if you feel that you have a right to carry around automatic assault rifles capable of spewing forth many bullets per minute, then the linked article above should make your bosoms just swell with pride.

:mad:

Yes, Cartooniverse, bullets that hit bodies destroy the parts of the body that they hit.

This destruction happens with one bullet per minute. Or thirty.

And Jeffrey Dahmer’s victims were not killed by a gun, but their bodies were in worse shape than the one described in your link, especially after he drilled holes into their skulls and injected hydrochloric acid or boiling water into the frontal lobe area of their brains.

So we can all agree that death is bad and death that causes te mutilation of the body is especially bad.

But this is not a factor unique to guns.

[Stealth_Potato]

@Cartooniverse

Here’s one for the pro-N.R.A. gun-loving readers of this thread to really feel proud about.

Because, if you feel that you have a right to carry around automatic assault rifles capable of spewing forth many bullets per minute, then the linked article above should make your bosoms just swell with pride.

:mad:

Excuse me? Do you even have any idea what you’re trying to say?

[Bricker]

Cross-posted from another thread:

@Bricker

http://townhall.com/political-cartoons/stevekelley/2013/01/09/106290

For those uninterested in clicking through: it’s a cartoon with four frames. In the first, a man holding a bat stands over a corpse, an observer says, outraged, “You beat him? What’s the matter with you?”

In the second, nearly identical image, the man is holding a garrotte; the outraged observer says, “You strangled him? What’s the matter with you?”

The third nearly identical image has the murderer holding a knife. “You stabbed him? What’s the matter with you?”

And the fourth, a gun: “You shot him? We have to do something about guns!”

[Cartooniverse]

@Stealth_Potato

Excuse me? Do you even have any idea what you’re trying to say?

Excuse me yes I do. So do you.

People who feel the need to carry automatic weapons deserve to have their gun license revoked. And sometimes they are.

Could not be happier with this.

Bricker, please feel free to open a thread discussing Dahmer. I heartily encourage it. But stop shitting on this thread. Read the O.P. It’s about Newtown and the N.R.A. Not about serial killers who are also cannibals.

[Kable]

@Cartooniverse

People who feel the need to carry automatic weapons deserve to have their gun license revoked. And sometimes they are.

What crimes were committed with automatic weapons?

[Stealth_Potato]

@Cartooniverse

Excuse me yes I do. So do you.

'Pon my honor, I haven’t. It would be disgusting and bizarre to the point of apparent insanity to think that anyone who advocates gun rights would feel pride at any instance of someone using a gun against a child. And whereas that seemed to be the substantive literal content of your post, but I do not think that you are actually mentally unstable, I am forced to conclude that you were trying (but failed) to make some subtler point.

@Cartooniverse

People who feel the need to carry automatic weapons deserve to have their gun license revoked. And sometimes they are.

Could not be happier with this.

Well, mentally unstable people who make clear threats of violence deserve to have their carry licenses revoked. Different things, and that’s got nothing to do with the article you just posted.

[Cartooniverse]

@Stealth_Potato

'Pon my honor, I haven’t. It would be disgusting and bizarre to the point of apparent insanity to think that anyone who advocates gun rights would feel pride at any instance of someone using a gun against a child. And whereas that seemed to be the substantive literal content of your post, but I do not think that you are actually mentally unstable, I am forced to conclude that you were trying (but failed) to make some subtler point.

No. Just very sad that you and others are so busy trying to discredit the messenger that you’re incapable of taking any moral responsibility for the message.

Well, mentally unstable people who make clear threats of violence deserve to have their carry licenses revoked. Different things, and that’s got nothing to do with the article you just posted.

Not hardly. The issues surrounding semi-automatic and automatic weapons and large magazines are central to the issue. This fine upstanding N.R.A. member put out a video proudly proclaiming what he wanted to do and in no uncertain language ( in the original unedited video ) what he encouraged all viewers of his video to do.

I sure wish I knew an attorney who know a lot about Federal law. A careful review of the transcript of that fellow’s original video - posted and viral on the Internet - may well lay the groundwork for a case against him for treason. Since there are quite recent laws on the books regarding promoting acts of mass destruction, mass violence and terrorism, I think that this proud N.R.A. member may have bitten off more than he can shoot. Er…chew.

[Kable]

@Cartooniverse

The issues surrounding semi-automatic and automatic weapons and large magazines are central to the issue.

Again, what crimes have been committed with automatic weapons?

[Absolute]

Oh good, this is in the pit, so I can freely say that I think you may actually be going crazy. Your posts are barely coherent, hard-to-follow, stream-of-consciousness nonsense. They remind me of 9/11 “truthers” and other conspiracy theory crackpots.

No gun owner is “proud” of what happened at Newtown. To suggest otherwise is literally insane. Seriously. Take a step back and listen to yourself!

I have always liked you as a poster. For whatever reason, this thread is not doing you any good. Take a break.

[Stealth_Potato]

@Cartooniverse

No. Just very sad that you and others are so busy trying to discredit the messenger that you’re incapable of taking any moral responsibility for the message.

Pardon? What message? You said (it seems) that I and other gun rights advocates do (or should?) feel proud about the horrible death of a child. There was no way for me to respond to this except confusion and disgust. If that’s really your message, then it discredits you more than I ever could.

If that’s not your message, then please explain yourself, because I’ve misunderstood it.

[Bricker]

@Cartooniverse

Bricker, please feel free to open a thread discussing Dahmer. I heartily encourage it. But stop shitting on this thread. Read the O.P. It’s about Newtown and the N.R.A. Not about serial killers who are also cannibals.

I disagree. The blog post you linked to was about the horrific destruction of body parts by the impact of bullets…it claims, in effect, that people should consider the banning of “automatic assault rifles capable of spewing forth many bullets per minute” because of te body damage such weapons cause.

That claim makes relevant the point that many methods of death also cause such body damage – that seldom do victims of violent homicide meet their ends by being licked to death by gentle kittens. The damage to the body is not a unique facet of “automatic assault rifles capable of spewing forth many bullets per minute;” in other words – it’s a common feature of violent death, period.

[elucidator]

Takes quite a while to actually strangle somebody. Not nearly so quick as the fortunate demise of Luca Brasi implies. Much the same with a baseball bat, it requires some dedication and commitment. Knives are a step up, I suppose, but still likely to take a bit of doing. And, of course, there is the complicating factor of the victim’s clear motivation to resist. And/or flee.

A 9mm pistol? Nothing to it, really. Point and click, except for the spattering. Repeat, as often as desired. And when it comes to racking up points, why, bless my soul, there is simply no comparison! If you see a madman with a baseball bat intent on multiple mayhem, you can simply run away (my personal favorite when it comes to self-defense measures). Same with a strangling cord, or a knife: feets, don’t fail me now. I can cover quite a bit of ground, even while screaming like a little girl.

But I can’t outrun a bullet. Haven’t tried, mind you, so I cannot actually prove that, but I am willing to advance that notion with some confidence. So, someone who wants to commit multiple mayhem will require a considerable investment in time if armed with garotte, baseball bat, even knife. To kill even three would take the time to kill one, overtake the second, repeat, overtake the third…

Do the same with a pistol in less time than it takes me to type this sentence.

Still, I must take a moment to note that Town Hall is on the, ah, cutting edge of conservative humor. They are clearly on a par with Mad magazine already and may overtake Dennis Miller in the foreseeable future. Quite droll, actually. Comparatively speaking, of course. And we thank the Counselor for bringing this to our attention and wonder if he has anything new and interesting in Japanese tentacle porn?

[Bricker]

@elucidator

Takes quite a while to actually strangle somebody. Not nearly so quick as the fortunate demise of Luca Brasi implies. Much the same with a baseball bat, it requires some dedication and commitment. Knives are a step up, I suppose, but still likely to take a bit of doing. And, of course, there is the complicating factor of the victim’s clear motivation to resist. And/or flee.

With all due deference to your expertise in forensic medicine, I am given to understand that one blow of a baseball bat is potentially fatal, depending on where it hits, and one stab of a knife is potentially fatal… and one shot with a 9mm bullet is not a guarantee of death. I’ll grant you that the garrotte takes a few moments to perform its task, but I don’t agree that the others are more long and drawn out.

And I don’t understand why that makes such a huge difference. In the other cases, we clearly understand the flaw to be remedied lies entirely within the person wielding the weapon; it’s only the gun that makes some of you think that the flaw to be remedied is the weapon itself.

[elucidator]

By God, sir,when it comes to torturing an analogy to extract a confession, you have no peer! I offer no rebuttal, it is too beautiful a thing to be sullied by reason.

[Cartooniverse]

< SNIP >

@elucidator

A 9mm pistol? Nothing to it, really. Point and click, except for the spattering. Repeat, as often as desired. And when it comes to racking up points, why, bless my soul, there is simply no comparison! If you see a madman with a baseball bat intent on multiple mayhem, you can simply run away (my personal favorite when it comes to self-defense measures). Same with a strangling cord, or a knife: feets, don’t fail me now. I can cover quite a bit of ground, even while screaming like a little girl.

</ SNIP >

My point exactly.

ETA: And, while it won’t make a difference one whit to our esteemed Council up there, the differences between weapons are immense. There exists no other weapon that can kill with the same speed without the killer having to touch the victim. (Let’s put poison aside, ok? We all know we’re talking about assaults here. )