FTR, the guy I mentioned in my previous post who got 19 years in prison for shooting a passerby in the head did not receive any sort of legal fund from the NRA.
The issue of bills being passed has absolutely nothing to do with an individual person going nuts and shooting a kid with a shotgun. Absolutely nothing.
Trolls die without proper feeding.
That said, there can be a fine line between facetious statements and trolling. In this instance, I believe A Clockwork Melon crossed it, but as a frequent user of sarcasm and facetiousness, I have often seen the humor-impaired mistake it for trolling. (It should go without saying that whenever I use it, it is sarcasm, not trolling) 
Well, I’m not suggesting that they aren’t. They are obviously pushing the viewpoint that guns are useful tools for self defense. But that is not the same thing as pushing the idea that “the world is a dangerous place where…ordinary people are constantly under attack from criminals who are laying in wait to do harm in every semi-shady place.”
Of course they don’t, the same way the folks pushing for Abstinence-Only sex ed don’t support teen pregnancy. They both ignore the fact that human nature, such as it is, means that significant numbers of teens WILL have sex, and significant numbers of gun owners WILL be irresponsible/insane/dangerous, regardless of your abstinence/safety programs. The trouble isn’t that their programs aren’t 100% effective, it’s that they demand their program be the only safeguard, and any problems that arise are just “people being stupid”.
In the UK we dont have this problem but still we do have the problems that lead to it - the kids think they can get away with terrorizing people (its fun to them) - with the cops or their parents not being able to wanting to stop them it leads to some people going to the extream. this is just 1 example of it - and i’m sure its not the last.
In the same vein, Glenn Beck is “just asking questions.” His goal is not at all to make people scared so they vote based on their fears of boogeymen.
And news media suddenly myopically covering shark attacks one summer, when shark attacks were not on the rise at all, didn’t make the public irrationally fearful of sharks.
All these people are just providing unbiased facts.
As I said, the Armed Citizen is one page of the NRA’s magazine. The rest is dedicated to hunting, shooting sports, history and engineering. As I already said. But nobody listened.
This anti-NRA hysteria is starting to reach the level of the conspiracy theories about the Freemasons.
Hey now, let’s all stay calm, OK? There’s no need to get bent out of shape… we can work this thing out, I promise. Now please, just put the gun down first, so we can talk…
“Boy Scouts Who Turned Away from the Gay” is only one page of each issue of Boy’s Life.
It’s threads like this that slowly push me from “It’s part of the responsibility of gun owners to help police their own ranks, and enforce social norms and occasional regulation that promotes the safe and legal usage of firearms while curtailing dangerous behaviors that serve no purpose” to “Y’know what, fuck all y’all. Give me a damn machine gun and keep your fucking nose out of my gun cabinet.”
I recommend taking a more empirical approach to important life decisions. That’s what I do. It helps to prevent you from deciding what is right or wrong based on your feelings about what strangers on an anonymous internet board have to say about things.
Liberating, isn’t it? No longer having to pretend?
Yes, it’s unfortunate that it ends up being the extremists who lead the debate.
I think the majority of gun rights people know that there are some people who are essentially “gun nuts”. And I think the majority of gun control people just want some regulation over guns. You could put these people in the same room and they could work things out.
But you also have gun control zealots who want to confiscate and melt down every firearm in the country and you have gun rights zealots who think anybody should be able to carry any weapon anytime and anyplace. And these people start screaming at each other. The gun control zealots end up driving the moderate gun rights people away and the gun rights zealots end up driving the moderate gun control people away.
I absolutely agree there are lots of “gun nuts” out there (they tend to be people who are just nuts in general, actually) and I don’t like them any more than you do. But what we have here in this thread is wholesale uninformed and baseless bashing of the NRA, which I must object to.
No kidding.
And thats never quite made sense to me. And it seems to not just be limited to the gun debate either. Lets just take some random thing that “the left” feels one way about and “the right” leans the other way.
Okay, but then each side seems scared shitless to offend the extremists in their group and perhaps loose their vote. But if “the left” or “the right” takes a more moderate position, who the fuck are the extremists going to vote for? The other side? For example, if I was a “gun nut” I know I’d still vote for the “you can’t take a gun EVERYWHERE you want” candidate over the “you can’t take a gun outside your house period” candidate any day.
Seems to me either group would gain more moderates towards the middle that could go either way but are just turned off by the extremists than extremists they would loose who don’t have anywhere else to go anyway.
Oh well, who said the world made sense or I know what the hells going on…
As vague premises go this one sounds fine. On the other hand, I don’t believe I have ever seen a gun rights supporter concede that there is any such thing as a “moderate gun control person”, outside of someone who already believes that we already have all the gun control we need. All new proposals are assigned the “slippery slope” label, it seems.
Because they don’t believe that objects need to be “controlled.” What needs to be controlled is crime. That’s a topic for another debate, but if you want to know why most gun people don’t believe there’s such a thing as a “moderate gun control person,” there’s your answer. Gun supporters generally don’t believe that the problem of violence lies with the guns. We believe that human beings are responsible for their actions.
So you agree with me that Little Nemo’s premise is wrong?
But consider someone like Michael Bishop. Let’s assume he doesn’t end up in prison. Do you feel he should have his gun ownership rights restricted?
My opinion is yes. I see it the same way I see somebody who drives drunk should have their driving rights restricted. If you demonstrate you can’t be responsible about something and are a public danger, then you lost the right.
Don’t jump on the slippery slope. I’m not saying that nobody should be allowed to won a gun. I’m not saying that the vast majority of people shouldn’t be allowed to own a gun. But I feel there are some individuals - like people who have shot a kid for ringing their doorbell - who shouldn’t own guns.