You mean this guy?
Board membership is largely ceremonial.
Yet the number who point to their claimed right to “get the bad guys”, just like cops, and to actually tell themselves they constitute a “militia”, is pretty damn big, isn’t it? There are several right in this thread. And that, I remind you, is the basis they, and you, claim for the Second Amendment’s very existence. So, make up your damn mind, willya?
From the number of incidents where gun-owners either escalate situations, or become “bad guys”.
You can keep pretending that question has either no answer or one that you’d like, but it’s simple denial to pretend it hasn’t been rubbed in your face repeatedly, psycho.
Once a law-breaker, always a breaker of all laws, is that how you pretend all these pretended “bad guys” think? Once laws are passed to restrict gun ownership, owners of guns will suddenly stop being “law-abiding”, is that your claim?
Just where the hell do you think the “bad guys” get their guns? :rolleyes:
Except for the innate “bad guys”, in your cartoon world.
Your victim is dead no matter how much you try to reassure yourself you’re really a “good guy”.
It looks like he’s up for re-election at the May annual meeting. If board membership is just an honor bestowed on people who embody the ideals of the NRA, this is the membership’s chance to prove that they do not condone racist and violent rhetoric.
How many lives were saved this week by you not owning a gun?
Still having trouble making a coherent point, are you? Try just a little harder, that’s a good lad.
And it isn’t telling at all as to whom they vote for? :rolleyes:
Still taking you at your word is what you mean. Could you be trusted to own a gun? Just answer yes or no, as difficult as that is for someone as fundamentally dishonest as you.
What ceremony is being performed? “This is The Asshat Court, and we are electing our Ambassadors of Asshat!”
More so than someone with untreated anger management issues, such as yourself.
Rare indeed are the questions with such simple answers. But it seems that’s the only kind you can understand, isn’t it?
And here’s your pat on the head for the day. Run along now, lad.
You never disappoint. While we’re on the topic of anger management, how are you doing? Had that “one bad day” yet that you’ve warned us is the reason that nobody can be trusted to own a gun? You know, I’d take your whole ridiculous position just a skitch more seriously if you had the naddage to include yourself. If you would admit that you come by your beliefs because you, personally, have experienced rage so intense that you would have murdered another person if you’d had a gun, I’d concede that your beliefs were honestly held. But, no.
Do us some legwork here. (I am not going address the issue of “… most gun murders are committed by people with a criminal history …”, because, no, I do not know about that one way or another). We have seen that accidental shootings crazyguy shooting sprees are actually quite rare, in a ppm kind of way. However, the individual successfully using their gun to save themself from a criminal is not really known to be a large fraction, in a ppm kind of way. How do they balance out? What is the comparative ratio of fuckedup incidents vs good incidents, and what is an ideal ratio?
Someone who commits a murder *becomes *a criminal at that moment, even if he had heretofore been someone who meets whatever definition of “law-abiding citizen” Damuri wants to cut to fit his preferred spin of the event.
IOW, Duh.
Really? It isn’t on any of the Boards of Directors of advocacy groups and charities I served (or currently serve) on. Board members not only vote on very critical issues on a regular basis, they legally control and guide the organization within its bylaws. They also serve as a PR force for the organization, as they are out there making their speeches and touting their membership in their publicity statements.
While it’s true that some board members treat it ceremoniously (I have witnessed absentee/publicity-seeking members on a regular basis), the NRA and pro-gun people in general should not hesitate to throw shitheels like Nugent under the bus as soon as possible. I doubt very highly he’s been a net positive for them.
In fact, it was the presence and continued election of some asshats who were powerfully anti-LGBT rights to the NRA Board which led me to drop membership. Blackwell, Nugent, Norquist, Keene, Ross…I could go through the current list of 70+ as well as innumerable past members to make my point. It’s an ultra right-wing organization which focuses on self-defense and second amendment rights, but is also run by the sort of people which scare me and make me glad, with towering irony and some hypocrisy, that they do fight for my rights as a gun owner.
So we had an armed stand-off in Texas:
Apparently the armed anti-muslim hate group didn’t like the armed black power hate group.
I can’t fault them for their actions or for their statements, to be honest. Gotta kinda admire them for finding a nice, peaceful, quiet way to say “fuck you (we’re armed too)”.
Where’s the “thumbs up” emoji on this message board? ;)
Criminalization and prosecution does make misbehavior more difficult and expensive. I don’t recall anyone saying gun control measures are panaceas—they’re just steps in a sane direction.
Since we’re in the Pit, let’s deprecate the silly insistence on the meme “Making XXX a crime has no effect: criminals are people that commit crimes. Duuuh.” There’s a smidgen of validity underlying the meme, but it springs from the same well of obstinence, ignorance and hypocrisy as other crazed gun-nut memes.
The next time one of you crazed gun-nuts needs to trot out one of your hypocrisies, please ask your doctor to adjust your meds.
Cool. Let’s also stop fucking around and plainly admit that the ultimate destination of “steps in a sane direction” is no arms in civilian hands. While we’re at it, let’s agree that the word " compromise" should no longer be used.
First, let’s drop the pretense that “no arms in civilian hands” is Constitutionally possible. Using that false argument against further gun control is a sure giveaway that pro-gunners will indeed not use the word “compromise”.
I take considerable pleasure in how Mr Nugent has adopted Detroit as his home town, as he actually grew up in my non-Detroit high school district and often played at The Cellar, two blocks from my home. Good riddance.
It’s beyond the tired old slippery slope fallacy and into the Leave No Middle Unexcluded program. Typical of binary-only thinkers, such as seem to predominate among the strokers.