We are persons of the highest caliber.
I’m having trouble figuring out why anyone could be bothered to Pit the National Recovery Administration. Heck, the Supreme Court put the kibosh on it almost 75 years ago.
No, I think I know how they were misinterpreted - there was a greater rush to get me in what seemed to be a “HAHA GOTCHA!” that doing that became more important than trying to actually understand what I said. After that, after I clearly explained myself, there could be no doubt, and yet people are saying NO BUT YOU SAID THIS HAHA GOTCHA ANYWAY. It is disingenuous.
I did say that, but just in reverse order. The next line is: “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.”
But wait! If I only meant Obama, then when I said that they said “supports me” then I must be talking about Obama. But I also said “democrats”, which means I think Obama is multiple people. I MUST THINK HE’S SOME SORT OF DEMON OR ALIEN!!!
The reason I said it in reverse order like that I already explained - it was to answer the phrase with similar phrasing. In retrospect, I could’ve chosen better phrasing - but I would’ve had to have thought ahead of time that you guys would disingenuously interpret me and then hold me to a specific out of context literal interpretation of my words. I didn’t do that because quite frankly I usually think better of you all, and it doesn’t occur to me to check my phrasing for what can end up being used out of context.
Which is exactly what I said with the rest of the paragraph of the statement in question. That was the entire point of what I had to say.
But it was such an obvious attempt to read a statement for “let’s see where I can find a gotcha! in here instead of reading for comprehension” that it actually pissed me off. It lowers the level of discourse on the board. We’re supposed to be thinking, rational people - not sleazy news organziations that take things out of context deliberately.
I’ve noticed a trend that the people who are against gun rights and specifically carrying tend to be far more violent in their desires and inclinations than the people I know who actually carry guns. When they say “they’ll be shootouts in the streets!” or in this case “good thing we can’t have guns on this message board!” it says a lot about them. And I realize it’s sort of a joke, but I think the sentiment is fundamentally true - it’s often the case that the people who fear stuff like concealed carry are worried that they would not have the self control to keep themselves from shooting others over minor quibbles, and they assume other people are like them. The people who I know who actually are licensed and do carry tend to be the most level headed people I know, and the ones who are screaming that concealed carry would result in shootouts over parking lots tend to be ill-tempered.
Don’t sweat it SenorBeef, I understood your point. Remember these are the same people that are unable to parse the Second Amendment.
No, that part is pretty clear - you’re placing the responsibility for the creation of the organization at the feet of the democratic party, and not just one person in the party. The problem is, by opening with, “They were created to endorse Obama for president,” you’ve established a specific time line for the creation of the creation of this organization tied to the decision of Barrack Obama to run for president. There’s really nothing in your post to contradict that interpretation.
And although I suspect saying it won’t make an impression on you, I’m not a big gun control guy. I don’t really care about guns one way or the other: ban 'em all, or give 'em out free in boxes of Cheerios, it doesn’t make a difference to me. I am, honest to God, only posting this because literary interpretation is more interesting to me than gun control, and on that subject, you’re taking an untenable position: the plain text meaning of your post indicates that you believe that organization was specifically created to help Barrack Obama get elected president.
Well, now, the most level-headed people I know agree with me on these issues, and not with you, so you are demonstrably wrong on that point. But I’m not much concerned with the level-headed mature guy utterly in command of his temper and worst instncts. I’m more concerned about the guy who thinks he is.
Yeah, it’s always the people without guns that end up shooting people.
From here.
I’m more of the opinion of “that asshole has beat me for the last time, I’m getting his gun and meeting him with a .45 at the door when he gets home from work before he finally snaps and shoots me.” I’d acquit on that jury–but then again, I’m all in favor of putting down rabid subhumans, which category felony abuse puts you in automatically for me.
In all seriousness, I look at it this way–with a gun, the battered wife has a shot against a husband who’s statistically bigger, stronger, and more apt to use physical violence. “No guns” is NOT going to stop her getting stabbed, beaten, choked, strangled, or hammered.
Entered and accepted that a woman prone to be a victim of abuse is not likely to have the self-preservation instinct necessary (for a number of valid psychological reasons if it’s ongoing) to pull the trigger.
My mother in law and my wife were victims of domestic abuse by mom’s successful vice police officer ex-husband (so the local idiot judiciary wouldn’t touch him since no cop that brought in that many heroin/meth busts at great personal risk could be an abuser). He brandished an unloaded gun at both of them multiple times, most notably when he was stripped of custody and parental rights immediately when my wife hit her teens and got a change of venue and told the judge she’d kill herself if she had to spend ANY time with him. Hell yes I think that asshole deserved to be shot. My wife is adamantly pro-gun and wishes she would have had the knowledge to pop him herself as a kid. (my mother in law, by contrast, doesn’t even think cops should have guns) Instead, I get to go around the block with the local PD in his city where they ignore utterly the reports from the telephone company about the steady stream of harassment calls from his current wife and him. Working with the State Police takes time. Hopefully this little story puts into perspective–and I have nothing but the utmost respect for good cops, I have a lot of cop buddies–why I get really pissed off at the idea that I should abdicate my personal safety to the guardians of society.
I was going to formulate an actual response…
…but damn it, you’re just not worth it. Thanks for implying, over and over, that I’m a barely-controlled murder-suicide waiting to happen. I’m sure it’ll help a lot with your quest to do whatever the fuck it is you think you’re accomplishing.
Oh noes, I’d better not let my blood pressure up, I might open two separate keyed locks, get my ammo from the other storage closet, load my shotgun, and shoot my monitor! I’m a gun owner, I’m equally dangerous regardless of circumstances!
I’m not going to bother to search it, but the last time this came up I researched the data on states that correlate crimes with concealed-carry permits and found that the gun felony rate among concealed-carry permit holders was equal or lower to the overall gun felony rate in the general population. That is, concealed-carry permits are more likely a predictor of LESS gun violence, based on the raw statistics from Florida and one other state I can’t remember. There aren’t any comprehensive surveys of state data, probably because VPC are a bunch of ignorant fucks who prefer riding the sensationalism wagon and because the NRA thinks it’s so self-evident combined with the fact it’s against their little wussy sensibilities to even pay the slightest amount of lip service to anything involving government records of firearm owners.
I’m not sure I get your point. It seems like you are saying that gun control works. I agree.
Totally! And we should use this as evidence, of course, that concealed carry permits should be banned!
Just like with the machine gun ban of '86 - sure, legally registered machine guns were never used in a crime for 50 years, you could argue that gun control worked there - and that resulted in a ban anyway too!
Actually you’ll have to explain that one too me too. Gun control advocates fought against the adoption of CHL permits every single time they came up for debate in a state. States passing these laws is clearly a victory for the gun rights lobby. Yet, having them pass and then having them largely be successful (does anyone have any data besides the VPC? “There were too many incidents that we stopped counting!” my ass - they jerked themself off into a frenzy anytime there was one). Anyway, you’re claiming this as a success for gun control, and probably at the same time advocating that concealed carry licenses be banned, right?
I said “It was created so that democrats could say “the hunters and shooters association supports me!””
In this case, “democrats” clearly refers to multiple candidates using the organization to give lend credibility to itself. Multiple people are claiming that the organization supports them. It’s not saying that multiple democrats created the organization to support Obama, since “democrats … supports me” cannot refer to Obama alone.
But… ths whole thing is silly and I’m done with it unless someone has a specific point to refute about it.
Actually we should use it as proof that licensing guns, requiring training, and screening for criminal history and/or mental illness works and that we should expand that approach.
I really have no issue with hunters and target shooters. My issue is with those who think that having a gun readily accessible for self defense makes them and their family more safe rather than less safe, or that society would be better off if more people carried guns. Statistics show otherwise.
I face restrictions all the time on what kind of food I can buy, what equipment is required on my car, what sort of ID I need to board a plane, or what kind of glaze is on my ceramics. I don’t see a rabid car lobby that is trying to make sure that anyone can drive any kind of vehicle at any time without training, insurance, or license.
I’d be happy if we treated guns like cars. License them, track their sales, require training and a license, make sure they meet certain safety requirements, and make sure they are locked when not in use. Maybe that makes me a gun-grabber in your eyes, but since you aren’t out advocating for automobile anarchy that would make you a car-grabber.
Fair enough. To expand upon this view - and you could go either way here - how do you feel about the machine gun registry being closed to new weapons as part of the 1986 FOPA, resulting in a practical ban? The possession by civilians of machine guns became heavily regulated in 1934, requiring background checks, local law enforcement signoff, taxes, etc. Between 1934 and 1986, despite tens of thousands of registered weapons and hundreds of thousands of owners, none was ever used to commit a crime. (People will point to 2 incidents in which police using their department issue weapons commited a crime - it’s irrelevant, that wasn’t regulated under the 1934 NFA nor the 1986 ban).
And by your logic, that’s a perfect example of gun control in action, right? We regulated them and put tight requierments on their ownership, and the people who went through the hoops to do it have a perfect safety record for 50+ years behind them.
And yet they were banned anyway. Do you support that?
The gun control lobby as a whole (and I’m not painting every single indvidual with that) is not interested in results. Even a “perfect record” and in their eyes, evidence that the gun control worked perfectly, still ended up resulting in a ban.
I don’t care. The “I have no problem with sportsmen!” bullshit line actually makes me think less of anyone who uses it. Gun rights advocates don’t advocate a specific limited set of sporting rights, and those that do are assholes.
I’m loathe to ask “what statistics” knowing that we’re just turning this thread into generic gun debate #81582185, which I don’t even want to be a part of since I’ve done it a hundred times before. Suffice to say that I don’t think that the statistics are as clear cut as you think.
Because there isn’t a politically powerful, well funded lobby that’s dedicated to the banning of all cars (or maybe just restricting them to a few race car drivers for sporting purposes!), whose methodology has admittedly been death by a thousand cuts - infringe in any way possible in the hopes that it will build a stepping stone to further infringement. You don’t need a lobby to defend something that isn’t under attack, whose existance is not threatened.
No, you wouldn’t be happy with that. There very little legal regulation of who can own cars or even drive them on their own property. It’s the act of driving on public roads that’s licensed. If we treated guns like cars, ownership and use on private property would be pretty much unrestricted with concealed carry in public places being licensed.
Simply not true. All sales of vehicles need to have the title transferred. That means the DMV has the VIN and a description of the vehicle. There is a federal database of all VINs and the police can use it to recover stolen vehicles and track vehicles used in a crime.
As for machine guns? I could not care less. A fully operational machine gun sounds like a public nuisance. I don’t see why the fun of a few jackasses who want to put lots of holes in things really quickly out weighs the safety of the general public. On the other hand if licensed, and registered, and sales are tracked, and criminal records and mental health screens are done then I don’t see any great harm. Again, it looked like the existing gun control regulations did their job.
I grew up with people who had guns for hunting and I shot rifles in Boy Scouts. None of those people saw the need to carry a hand gun to keep them safe, nor did they stockpile guns to fight the black helicopters.
Dangit, Dan.
Perhaps not, but there have been many elections where the major party candidates had virtually identical stances on gun rights, and gun rights weren’t a major consideration for either party.
Then again, honestly, I don’t know how “pro-gun” George W. Bush was, for instance. He’s never been a congressman, so it’s not like he had a voting record on the subject.
And you know, if they’d stopped at a slippery slope, and explained in factual terms what was going on, then pointed down that slope and said ‘this is where we think this will head’, I might’ve been less incensed. But that would’ve drawn a clear distinction between fact and opinion.
Saying “Do you want third-world dictators and Hillary Clinton to take away your right to own a gun?” is horribly loaded and conflates fact and opinion and even fiction. Even if all the things you outlined happen - the treaty is passed in the UN, the US ratifies it, and it starts influencing American law - no treaty or law can change the US Constitution. It couldn’t take away our right to bear arms. Ignoring that gaping plothole, it wouldn’t have anything to do with Hillary Clinton or ‘third world dictators’. Congress passes laws and ratifies treaties.
But the actually defensible question “Do you want the United Nations to influence Congress to pass stricter anti-gun legislation?” isn’t nearly as inflammatory.
Maybe I didn’t convey the meaning in the last point. Once the gun is registered (background checks etc…) there shouldn’t be any restrictions placed upon those that fall into the “safe” category as far as gun ownership.
You have culpability and that is all that should be required. My last point had to do with legislation targeted at ‘bans’ for specific types of guns (handguns being primary)