The are multiple posts and multiple threads on this message board where pro gun folks, including myself suggest sincere and workable solutions to the gun violence that everyone agrees is a problem. When “your side” trots out the assault weapon ban as a solution for every problem, it minimizes whatever room for compromise there would otherwise be.
I have no desire to work out a solution to the problem when the other side can’t get past a ban on firearms that for the most part, have nothing to do with overall gun violence problem in the US. They had their chance with the 90% of people support background checks poll, but they pissed it down their leg by reaching too far and allowing the NRA to step in and say no.
The NRA supported the implementation of the current NICS background check system in 1998. Compromise is not unheard of.
I’ve been in a lot of gun threads, but I’ve yet to see any that don’t involve more guns, arming more people.
Speaking of blatant misrepresentations.
[QUOTE]
Manchin-Toomey was too far? Holy cow.
The current system is like the Maginot Line, all you have to do to get around it is go through Belgium/gun show/buy a gun from someone off Craigslist. Manchin-Toomey would have extended the line partway across Belgium. And this was too much for the NRA.
Well, here’s the deal: it sure looks to me like things were on track for the first 52 posts in this thread, that is, the portion of the thread prior to the “you’ve poisoned the well” nonsense that’s done more to sidetrack the discussion since that point than the ‘overzealous’ in the thread title had up to that point.
Feel free to Pit me over my thread title if it means that much to you. But could we, pretty please, stop talking about it here? Like I said, it sure seems to me like we WERE having a very unpoisoned, on the track discussion up until this ‘poisoning’ hijack.
How? Which ones? Some are benign and some are anti-Obama and a lot of them are about Fast and Furious and Eric Holder. Which ones should I be so shocked and offended by?
I’m honestly not seeing it.
Which ones do you need explained to you? Heller decided that gun ownership was an individual right. It was decided by one single vote. Obama gets to appoint SCOTUS judges, so I don’t think it’s hyperbolic at all to suggest that the re-election of Obama was very “dangerous” and that “all our [gun] rights” are on the line by re-electing him.
I cannot fully discern what this is supposed to mean, but if this is intended to suggest that they did not support universal background checks in Montana, then you are wrong on this point as well.
Even in Montana, 79% of the people supported a universal background check.
If it helps, by the standards of this board your well was only laced with a mild poison. I halfway expect an OP about gun rights these days to be more along the lines of: “Gun owners, worse than child rapists, or about the same? Debate!”
I guess it’s good that you at least recognize that you have a problem.
Of course gun owners see gun deaths as a problem. That’s why we want to enforce the existing laws on the books.
I just got the latest issue of American Hunter, the Hunting focused NRA magazine. In this month’s column by the president he listed a bunch of harsh existing laws against illegal guns that are currently not being enforced, or only rarely being enforced. The NRA wants to enforce those laws, because it would keep guns out of the hands of criminals.
Another thing that has been proven to save lives is concealed carry. If you want to reduce shootings this has been proven to work. So why don’t you support it?
I’ll try an analogy: Imagine if there were a powerful block of people who wanted to ban cars. If they had your mindset they would consider you a monster because you “don’t recognize the common problem” of car related deaths and accidents. It’s not enough that you agree with speed limits and seatbelts and want to enforce the existing laws. Only banning or severely limiting cars is good enough for them, so in their eyes your position is abhorrent.
Well I guess I see why you find gun owners so abhorrent then. If you can’t even put into words what it is that you disagree with then it must be so emotional and irrational for you that I’m not surprised you can’t understand where gun owners are coming from.
Why don’t you try. Tell me which one of those covers strikes you as the most “unbelievable bat shit foaming at the mouth propaganda”.
Then I’ll defend it.
But I’ll need to first to explain what you think is so crazy about it. Then, I’ll tell you why I think it’s actually not that crazy. You know, fighting ignorance and all that.
Start here.There are a lot of ideas here that don’t involve arming everyone.
Not even close… Feinstein had her face on camera almost before anyone else and three days after Sandy Hook, she brought out her legislation that she had been working on for a couple of years and announced she would be introducing it to the Senate. Her solution at that time? “Ban” all AW’s by reclassifying them as NFA weapons. That evolved of course over the next few months, but on cue, her hammer solution was brought out, looking for a nail. Everyone forgot that the AW ban had already been in effect in CT and had never expired like the Federal version.
It wasn’t too far, but it was not well thought out and without a registry, completely unenforceable so another waste of time. What went too far, again, was everything else. AW bans, mag restrictions, 23 executive orders, etc. Each of those had some merit that could have been deabted, but instead it was all heaped together and caused the panic button to pushed over and over again. Instead of working on small effort like expanded background checks, the Democrats in charge thought that Sandy Hook was enough to get what they have wanted for years. As we have seen recently, they were wrong.
[QUOTE=JXJohns]
It wasn’t too far, but it was not well thought out and without a registry, completely unenforceable so another waste of time. What went too far, again, was everything else. AW bans, mag restrictions, 23 executive orders, etc. Each of those had some merit that could have been deabted, but instead it was all heaped together and caused the panic button to pushed over and over again. Instead of working on small effort like expanded background checks, the Democrats in charge thought that Sandy Hook was enough to get what they have wanted for years. As we have seen recently, they were wrong.
[/QUOTE]
Exactly. It was so obvious that some of them had been waiting for years for the chance to trot out their new wave of gun restrictions and regulations that they just heaped everything they thought they could get through at once, to strike while emotions were still high and people upset. If they had focused on a few of the saner proposals they probably would have gotten them through, but they wanted to roll things back to the good old days when they could get even something as stupid as the AWB put in, and it was too much. Instead of getting a few rational things through, they pretty much got nothing accomplished except to show their hand and set off the more paranoid elements on the gun ownership side…and even worry or cause concern with the saner, more middle of the road gun owners that maybe there was something to the paranoia. It was stupid, but predictable.
:dubious: It’s entirely fair to say that NRA members are more overzealous (about the politics of it all) than the average gun owner. It was not always so, but has been so at all times since the “Cincinatti Revolution” of 1977.
So you’re saying I failed to poison the well, but it wasn’t for lack of trying.
GOOD. The well wasn’t poisoned. So there was no need for this barrage on the second page of this thread, was there? This is just a hijack and a distraction. Why don’t you just yell “Benghazi!!” or something?
That’s my last word on poisoning the well. I’m fed up with this hijack.
Start with the one that says “Welcome to the United States of South Africa?” A fairly transparent and cynical dog-whistle. See also “The Election Before the Knock on Your Door,” which is all that and even sillier. And the “King Pinnochio” thing would embarrass Glenn Beck.
The subcaption explains this for you. “Progressives endorse the South African Constitution as the most admirable in the world.”
It’s been widely reported that many progressives in the US admire the South African constitution, which has no protections of gun rights. I remember it being debated on the board at the time.
Hell, there’s a thread in GD now that discusses if a new US Constitution was being drafted today would it include the 2nd amendment. It’s certainly a reasonable thing to discuss that many in the US don’t look at our Constitution as well as the more modern ones that have been written more recently, which lack gun rights.
That progressives tend to disregard the constitution and the second amendment and look with envy at other countries who don’t have second amendment rights is of grave concern to gun owners. Why shouldn’t it be?
There’s no dog whistle, unless you think that anything regarding Africa can’t be brought up without it being code for racism.
Is the rhetoric “Welcome to the United States of South Africa” over the top? Sure. But it’s not out of line with any advocacy group that uses scare tactics and language such as this as I’ve said.
Wow. That’s chilling stuff. This is absolutely important enough to warrant a cover story. This should have been front page news in every magazine in the country.
The article goes on to explain how progressives admire the newer constitutions that don’t set out limitations of government but instead grant people rights to healthcare and other services. Of course, gun rights don’t make the list.
Further down the the article, it even states this:
That doesn’t sound to bat shit crazy to me. It’s right on the money. Read the article. It’s thoughtful and accurate. The cover story is alarmist, but it’s goal is to get people to open the magazine and read it and I think it does that well.
That’s the “Election 2012” issue and the NRA has certainly been proven right that Obama did make gun control a focus during his second term after lying low in his first. If the SCOTUS overturns Heller there will be a figurative “knock on your door” to get people’s guns, if not a literal one. That was decided by one vote and it’s likely Obama will appoint one or more judges to the SCOTUS this term.
That’s not silly at all. It’s quite reasonable to fear what Obama would do regarding gun rights during the 2012 election.
I wish the NRA wouldn’t use language to insult the president like this, but it is true that releasing a picture of him shooting a gun is disingenuous. He’s an anti-gun politician and taking a photo op of himself shooting is pandering that will result in him getting mocked.
But this pales in comparison to what lots of people and groups say and do to mock Obama. It doesn’t even come close to how badly “shrub” got mocked while he was in office.
For you to think that this consists of “unbelievable bat shit foaming at the mouth propaganda” is off the mark.
Obama is anti-gun. He is also dishonest about the fact that he is anti-gun. He claims to support the second amendment but his action make it clear that if he could restrict our rights he would and he appoints judges who want to overturn the right of individual gun ownership altogether with Heller.
For the NRA to point this out isn’t bat shit foaming at the mouth. Sure, the rhetoric they use is a bit over the top, but that’s par for the course. But the underlying sentiment behind all those examples is the truth.
Look, every time a GOP Senator says something, I don’t equate that with “the GOP says.” If you want to play that game, find someone else to play with.
Wow, it sounds like if people on the other side just talk about stuff you don’t like that never gets within a mile of legislation, it’s enough to get you guys ‘pushing the panic button over and over again.’
If we’d been like that as actual pro-gun legislation piled up over the past two decades, we libruls would be in such a continual tizzy that we wouldn’t stop spinning long enough to post to a message board.
The ATF is a compromised organization. It should be shut down. Fast and Furious proves that they are more interested in political maneuvering over actually enforcing laws.
In 1960-something, the Congress added the following language to 18 USC 925:
In 1992, Congress defunded the execution of this “relief” program. They did not repeal it, but in that year’s budget they prohibited the AG and his agencies from using any federal funds to execute such relief. They continued this funding prohibition in subsequent years.
The NRA opposes this “end run” defunding tactic.
RTFirefly believes this means the NRA wants all felons to get guns.
Of course, RTFirefly himself is eager to have each and every one of those felons vote.
Presumably, as long as they don’t vote for candidates that would resume funding of that relief program.