Right, they were founded in 2005 to endorse Obama for president. Too bad they didn’t have as much foresight as the Hawaii birth certificate people.
“Having a gun in the home makes it three times more likely that you or someone you care about will be murdered by a family member or intimate partner.”
Excellent idea! That will cut the murder rate down!
Should each spouse carry the loaded handgun in the dresser drawer, or should they carry at all times, just so the other one doesn’t get the draw on them?
eta: “That’s a lovely negligee with attached holster dear”
:rolleyes:
I was speaking generally. They were created to be a straw organization to endorse democrats to make them seem less unfriendly to gun owners. I thought it would be clear to the reader since the other ways of interpreting it are unnecesary and absurd. I thought the thrust of my statement was clearly “they didn’t incidentally endorse [democrats], they were created for that purpose” to counter the idea that it somehow gave them bipartisan cred.
Too bad you wrote specifically then.
Oh my god, you disingenuous dickholes.
I was playing on the wording of the person I was responding to. He said “they even endorsed Obama” and I said essentially “they didn’t just “even” endorse him, as if they somehow were created as an independent group but decided on merits to endorse him anyway, they were designed and created to endorse him”
It’s pretty clear that I meant that they were a straw organization that was trying to give credibility to democrats. I only used Obama specifically because I was mirroring the language of the person I was responding to to show why his statement was faulty. They would’ve endorsed whatever democratic president was nominated in 2008.
And you’re really gonna pull the “oh haha you knew that Obama would be the nominee in 2005 and so they created an organization to endorse him???” … no, you fucking windbags, I was obviously trying to say that they didn’t “even” endorse democrats, they were created to endorse democrats. There’s no special need to endorse Obama that isn’t true of other democrats. Possibly even less so because he hadn’t made gun control into much of an issue in his campaign.
What’s the more likely meaning of my words? A) They were created to falsely give credibility to democrats on the issue of gun rights, or B) They accurately predicted the future, knew that Obama was going to be the candidate, and even though they knew that he was not special in regards to gun control and didn’t need special endorsement, still decided to create the organization anyway - and that if their future prediction machine had told them someone else would be the nominee, then they wouldn’t have created the organization.
Now you yammering fucktards are saying “I INTERPRETED B FROM YOUR WORDS! HAHA YOU ARE A TRUTHER!!!”
I was trying to stay nice in this thread, but this “haha! gotcha!” obvious misinterpretation of my words is too dumb to deal with politely.
Next time choose your words more carefully. You should know by now that this place is full of pedantic dickheads.
<points at self>
I did. There is no reasonable way that my words can be interpreted in the way that you did. My meaning was clear. The fact that even after I explained my meaning, and you said NO BUT TECHNICALLY YOU SAID THIS! just makes you a disingenuous asshole, and you don’t even have the cover of faux misinterpretation.
So there is no reasonable way that the words
Can be interpreted to mean “They were created to endorse Obama for President”.
Rather, you posit that anybody who is not a disingenuous asshole should have interpreted your words to mean “they were a straw organization that was trying to give credibility to democrats”
OK Then. Have a nice day.
If the statement is taken in context:
Statement:
“It even endorsed Obama for president, which may or may not be good to you, but definitely shows they are of a different mind than the NRA.”
Response:
“They didn’t “even” endorse Obama for president. They were created to endorse Obama for president. It’s a shill organization that lives up to the standard democrat divide and conquer bullshit “don’t worry, these gun bans aren’t after your duck guns!”. It was created so that democrats could say “the hunters and shooters association supports me!” It has no legitimate standing among anyone I know.”
Yes, the interpretation of “haha you are saying they knew ahead of time that in 2005 that Obama would be the nominee and created an organization to endorse him 3 years ahead of time!!!11111” is retarded.
It was clear that I was responding to the phrasing of the quote I was responding to. He wanted to make it sound like “This is a legitimate gun rights organization that’s different from the NRA. So different, in fact, that they came to their own conclusions and decided to support Obama!” … but that’s not how it really went down. The organization was specifically created in order to have democrats be able to say “I’m supported by the hunters and shooters association!”
I was responding to the phrasing of the quote I was replying to. To make it generic:
“They even [did something that sounds counterintuitive!]”
“No, they didn’t “even” do that, they were created for the purpose of [doing that thing]”
My emphasis was on the fact that again, they were not some independent, genuine organization that reached different conclusions for the NRA. They are a straw and shill organization designed to give credibility to the democrats simply because they have a name that sort of sounds gun friendly. There is no specific reason why they’d need to endorse Obama specifically, as compared to the majority of democrats, so there’s no reason that I would make that case.
My meaning is plainly clear. If you want to push the “haha if I take this one statement of context, and then hold it to the most unreasonable interpretation, then it makes you look silly!” thing then that’s not being pedantic, that’s being disingenuous.
The meaning of the words you used was plainly clear. Whether the intended meaning of your words is clear is an entirely different kettle of fish.
Because there’s a huge gulf between piddly regulations like background checks and actuals laws making it illegal to own a gun! Earth to gun nuts: “gun control” is a broad category encompassing a wide variety of potential regulatory measures that seek to address certain issues associated with their misuse.
If any one measure doesn’t ban guns, then it doesn’t ban guns. They don’t somehow “add up” to a ban on guns or indicate a gradual trend that will confiscate your gun slowly.
One thing it might be helpful to realise: To most US gun enthusiasts/2nd Amendment fans, any situation in which a person cannot buy a gun over the counter as easily as they might purchase a can of soft drink or a CD means that guns are “banned”.
There’s a thread I’ve started here about how many countries (not being banana republics or third world dictatorships) have actually have completely banned guns from civilian ownership, and so far the answer appears to be “three”: China, Taiwan, and South Korea.
One day every living human will have his own personal nuclear detonator—for home protection and self-defense only—and we’'ll all breathe a sigh of relief.
That is a very disingenuous statement you’ve just made. I don’t know why you would say something like this after all the threads we’ve had about this, but as usual it’s left to me to dispel this.
Gun owners are not against control. We are generally accepting of the controls on machine guns, although we find the closing of the registry silly as those weapons are (and were) heavily controlled and not notable instruments of crime. We accept that there are regional limitations on possession. We accept that certain weapons are not legal in the United States because they cannot pass the arbitrary “import points” standard. There are laws and laws and laws that we must abide by, and we almost universally do.
What we do not accept is that guns can be banned on the basis of cosmetics and/or appearance. We do not accept that a weapon is assumed to be an instrument of crime when no crime has ever been committed with one. It’s the arbitrary nature of the laws that are currently being passed that we resist.
Why you feel the need to insult us with lies is beyond me. It’s par for the course in these threads, but I never thought that you would be one of those that would do it.
Seriously, RNATB, I have a lot of respect for you, but you are being an utter moron here. Read the entire statement. It’s clear that I am saying that the organization is set up to shill for democratic candidates, not Obama specifically.
Why woud I even lie about this? How does that help me in any way? Nothing about what you’re saying makes the slighest amount of sense.
Obama has not made an anti-gun stance a big part of his campaign, so he’s not a democratic that has any particular need for this shilling any more than the majority of democrats do. So why would I even specifically say the organization was designed to shill for Obama instead of democrats generally?
So I either mean plainly what I said I meant, what I explained it to be, what in the next two lines after the one you wish to quote out of context clearly explains I refer to as general shills for anti-gun democrats… or what?
What’s your theory on what I really meant? That I knew the democrats secretly planned to run Obama 3 years ahead of time, and created this organization specifically for him - and not just whatever anti-gun democrat they chose to run in 2008, only Obama specifically, and that because I knew this, you’re charactericizing me as a conspiracy theorist? Or what? What is the crazy secret meaning I’m supposed to have here that makes the slightest amount of sense?
What do you think you gain here by continuing this line of insinuation? You look like hysterical retarded pedants - and that’s if I’m being favorable and assuming no malice.
It doesn’t matter what you really meant. I responded to what you said.
I’ll take your word for it if you say you meant something different, but you can’t whine when other people parse your words in the most obvious way and it turns out that isn’t what you were going for.
The only way my wording is not clear is if you isolate one line in my reply and show it without the phrase I was responding to, and also showing it without the lines that followed it, both of which make the meaning entirely clear. You idiots were just in a rush to give me a “GOTCHA HAHA” moment when IT DID NOT EVEN MAKE SENSE. How did you “get” me? How does your interpretation of my words even make sense? Why would I say them? What do I have to gain by lying about it?
Absolutely none of what any of you have said in reply to my original post makes the slightest bit of sense.
I don’t think you’re lying, you’re just experiencing the typical author’s inability to understand how anybody could have interpreted your words differently from the way you meant them to be interpreted.
Honey, I understand that you may not have meant to say it that way, but the fact is that you did say it that way. You said “They were created to endorse Obama for president”, not “They were created to endorse Democratic politicians, so naturally they automatically endorsed Obama when he became a presidential candidate”.
An appropriate response on your part to the birther quip would have an eyeroll and a statement along the lines of “Oh ha ha, very funny: to spell it out for you, what I meant is that the organization was created to shill for Democratic politicians, so the fact that it endorsed Obama means absolutely zilch.”
Instead of just accepting that you didn’t originally state your meaning entirely clearly and going back to clarify it, you’re twisting yourself into foaming knots to try to argue that anyone who says your meaning was unclear must be a disingenuous dickhole. Let it go.
All this bickering, good thing you can’t pack heat in the SDMB.