Popeman38 Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 Yay semantics used to explain away the NRA's influence, control and corruption of our legal system.You raised the specter of the NRA creating law. I dismissed that. You and Larry continue to snag single words and twist. I could really care less about your exasperated sarcasm. You have been posting in every gun thread about the evil that is the NRA. The NRA can only do what the NRA is permitted to do by it's members. The government passes legislation. Unless I missed a new cabinet position for the director of the NRA, the NRA is not a part of our govenment anymore than any other lobby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 It's just a way to avoid having a meaningful discussion though. Both sides know exactly what the other saying, but would rather play ping pong.The NRA has certainly suggested bills, blocked bills, and wrote legislation which they hope a Congressman will sponsor and push. In reality, it can't pass the law itself, but it can heavily influence the shape and wording of laws or whether those laws have a shot at getting passed. They can and do manipulate legislators to do their will through direct funding and or campaigns against them which I might add are successful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 They can and do manipulate legislators to do their will through direct funding and or campaigns against them which I might add are successful. No one should argue they don't. That's their job as is the job of every advocacy or lobbying group. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 You raised the specter of the NRA creating law. I dismissed that. In your mind you dismissed it....to bad reality exists outside of what you say is real. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 And the NRA puts out to pasture those who defy them.What is that saying repeated after the 2008, 2010 and 2012 elections? Elections have consequences? We the people retire politicians. If the population votes in support of the NRA, so be it.---------- Post added January-18th-2013 at 05:47 PM ---------- No one should argue they don't. That's their job as is the job of every advocacy or lobbying group.And this has been stated by me at least 5 times in this thread.---------- Post added January-18th-2013 at 05:48 PM ---------- In your mind you dismissed it....to bad reality exists outside of what you say is real.I am pretty sure I just sourced the White House and how the government works. Nowhere did I see the NRA in there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 No one should argue they don't. That's their job as is the job of every advocacy or lobbying group. Which brings us back to the point, the NRA works to weaken government enforcement agencies and then they scream that we don't need new gun laws but instead we just need to enforce the one's we have....knowing all the while that they've already succeeded in weakening the laws that they are now insisting should be enforced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 Which brings us back to the point, the NRA works to weaken government enforcement agencies and then they scream that we don't need new gun laws but instead we just need to enforce the one's we have....knowing all the while that they've already succeeded in weakening the laws that they are now insisting should be enforced. This I agree with. The enforcement problem is partially caused by the neutering of agencies. In this case, it's the NRA pushing for it. When we complain that the laws on the books aren't being enforced there are reasons behind it. Sometimes, they are worthy, sometimes stupid, sometimes a matter of reality, and sometimes good/evil, but one of the way government attacks laws it doesn't like is by defunding agencies or underfunding agencies designed to enforce said laws. That happens a lot in banking, guns, drugs, and other issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 This I agree with. The enforcement problem is partially caused by the neutering of agencies. In this case, it's the NRA pushing for it. When we complain that the laws on the books aren't being enforced there are reasons behind it. Sometimes, they are worthy, sometimes stupid, sometimes a matter of reality, and sometimes good/evil, but one of the way government attacks laws it doesn't like is by defunding agencies or underfunding agencies designed to enforce said laws.That happens a lot in banking, guns, drugs, and other issues. And that is the exact reason why I say screw the NRA.....and to reiterate, I say that as a gun owner, they do not speak for me, they do not work on my behalf, in fact I argue that they work against the best interests of the people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 18, 2013 Author Share Posted January 18, 2013 Which, however, brings us back to ASF's point. The hypocrisy of announcing that the problem is that existing laws aren't being enforced, by the same people who are actively working to prevent their enforcement. ---------- Post added January-18th-2013 at 06:08 PM ---------- And that is the exact reason why I say screw the NRA.....and to reiterate, I say hat as a gun owner, they do not speak for me, hey do not work on my behalf, in fact I argue that they work against the best interests of the people. Didn't Jon Stewart make the argument that, at times, the NRA resembles a false-flag entity, created by Michael Moore, to make gun owners look like nuts? Edit: That said, though. I have to say, in the NRA's defense. (And speaking as someone who has frequently leaned towards becoming a member, but who never quite has.) That yeah, the NRA, like the ACLU (an organization which I have joined, for a while), is vulnerable to the image of an advocate who occasionally advocates too much. Just like, to the ACLU, every government power is a possible threat to our liberties, the NRA has to fight against every single gun restriction. Because, if they don;t, if they, say, decide that they'll stop fighting against restrictions on full-auto weapons, then all that happens is that the argument moves on to the next level, the debate about semi-auto weapons. Me, I'm willing to tolerate some over-zealousness in the NRA's defense of the Second Amendment, for the same reason I forgive the ACLU's occasional over-zealousness in defense of the First. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted January 19, 2013 Share Posted January 19, 2013 Me, I'm willing to tolerate some over-zealousness in the NRA's defense of the Second Amendment, for the same reason I forgive the ACLU's occasional over-zealousness in defense of the First. Not when their work has helped cripple law enforcement, and has subsequently cost lives, those blood stains are their's to keep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 19, 2013 Author Share Posted January 19, 2013 Not when their work has helped cripple law enforcement, and has subsequently cost lives, those blood stains are their's to keep. And critics of the ACLU say exactly the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted January 19, 2013 Share Posted January 19, 2013 And critics of the ACLU say exactly the same thing. That's fine, I'm not a member of the ACLU either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 20, 2013 Author Share Posted January 20, 2013 From a Facebook friend: Think Progress: UPDATED: 5 People Shot At 3 Different Gun Shows On Gun Appreciation Day No, I'm absolutely certain that they aren't an unbiased source. But I assume that the basic facts are true. And it's funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 From a Facebook friend: Think Progress: UPDATED: 5 People Shot At 3 Different Gun Shows On Gun Appreciation Day No, I'm absolutely certain that they aren't an unbiased source. But I assume that the basic facts are true. And it's funny. Always hilarious when law enforcement officers are shot. Ha ha ha ha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbi3stix Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 Always hilarious when law enforcement officers are shot. Ha ha ha ha huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 huh? Larry finds his thinkprogress article "funny" . According to cnn.com one of the people shot was a deputy sheriff. One of the others a 54 year old woman. That isn't funny? Can't wait to see the jon stewart clip! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 The pro-gun folks will just excuse it as irresponsible gun owners....but we're expected to believe that more people with guns will magically produce better gun responsibility and fewer incidents like these. Sadly, more people are going to get hurt and killed before we learn how to correct this mess. Even more unfortunately, we're going to focus on Larry's comments rather than on the real issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbi3stix Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 Larry finds his thinkprogress article "funny" . According to cnn.com one of the people shot was a deputy sheriff. One of the others a 54 year old woman. That isn't funny? Can't wait to see the jon stewart clip! My mistaake, was hoping you were being sarcastic... ---------- Post added January-19th-2013 at 07:44 PM ---------- The pro-gun folks will just excuse it as irresponsible gun owners....but we're expected to believe that more people with guns will agically produce better gun responsibility and fewer incidents like these.Sadly, more people are going to get hurt and killed before we learn how to correct this mess. Entertaining how one side has to make ridiculous comments about the other, finding the balance between the 2 is what would actually make a difference instead of the tired arguments. Because making drastic examples isn't doing anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 Entertaining how one side has to make ridiculous comments about the other, finding the balance between the 2 is what would actually make a difference instead of the tired arguments. Because making drastic examples isn't doing anything. Are you suggesting that I made a ridiculous comment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbi3stix Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 Are you suggesting that I made a ridiculous comment? Your comment and agenda, the intent behind it is ridiculous. NRA is all crooked and makes politicians their puppets, right? Let's just mock "pro-gun" people every chance in a shooting. Banning guns your answer? Or do you have one? Other than mock "pro-gun" people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 <oops, had two windows open> btw, lots of guns in The new Ah-nold movie, and that's about the only good thing to be said on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 20, 2013 Author Share Posted January 20, 2013 Always hilarious when law enforcement officers are shot. Ha ha ha ha Funny, you didn't mention the word "retired". But, let's look at the assertion that you didn't make, in your rush to accuse me of knowing something that wasn't in the article I posted. Am I correct in assuming that you are asserting that when the pro-gun "gun appreciation day" results in three different accidental shootings, injuring five people (one of them self inflicted), that this cannot be funny? (Would it be correct to conclude that your position, more broadly, is that it is never funny when anybody is shot? Regardless of whether it's accidental or deliberate, and regardless of the amount of injury?) (That, for example, you are asserting that no one is permitted to think that it's funny when Dick Cheney shoots a lawyer in the face, and said lawyer apologizes to Dick Cheney?) Or is it your position that the fact that one of the accidental shooting victims was a retired police officer somehow places this incident in the "no one is allowed to observe the irony" category? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duckus Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 I was recently discussing potential assault rifle bans with a friend. One common response by him and others against an AR ban is that civilian ARs are semi-automatic rifles and are fundamentally the same gun as most rifles, they simply "look scary." My response, why doesn't the look and feel of a gun matter? If ARs are the same as most riles, why are they produced and why do people buy them? The reason - because they look and feel like powerful military weapons. The military weapons they are designed to resemble are created for one purpose - to kill enemy soldiers. They function differently, but that is the inspiration of the design. Why doesn't that have a physiological effect? I have shot a lot of guns in my life including various ARs. When holding an AR you feel powerful. You feel bad ass. You feel like a navy seal. That is the feeling the gun is supposed to give you. It is the entire reason it is designed that way and the marketing behind it. I think a young person with mental problems holding an AR feels unstoppable. There is a reason mass killers have recently used them and I think it is physiological. So, if exposure to violence through video games, TV, and movies is having a disturbing physiological effect on people - doesn't giving people a gun that looks and feels just like a powerful military weapon with the sole purpose of killing of humans also have an effect? Note: While I support an AR ban, I think there are many more important gun control measures. I could live without an AR ban if other areas are addressed (clip size, background checks, liability insurance, registration, etc.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 Funny, you didn't mention the word "retired". But, let's look at the assertion that you didn't make, in your rush to accuse me of knowing something that wasn't in the article I posted. Am I correct in assuming that you are asserting that when the pro-gun "gun appreciation day" results in three different accidental shootings, injuring five people (one of them self inflicted), that this cannot be funny? (Would it be correct to conclude that your position, more broadly, is that it is never funny when anybody is shot? Regardless of whether it's accidental or deliberate, and regardless of the amount of injury?) (That, for example, you are asserting that no one is permitted to think that it's funny when Dick Cheney shoots a lawyer in the face, and said lawyer apologizes to Dick Cheney?) Or is it your position that the fact that one of the accidental shooting victims was a retired police officer somehow places this incident in the "no one is allowed to observe the irony" category? Irony is the guy that posted an article without digging all the way to cnn.com remarking about a rush to do anything. I would have mentioned retired police officer if it was in the article then. Or now for that matter. It stills says deputy sheriff with no mention of status. But no, still wouldnt find it funny. Its not funny when someone is shot by someone else. The DEA agent that shoots himself while lecturing students about how professional he is? Maybe that is funny. But when there is a negligent discharge of a shotgun...when nobody has any muzzle control at all...no, I dont find that funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 Your not imagining things, Duckus, but you're tugging at one thread in a whole moth-eaten tapestry. There are all kinds of <specific> psychology tied up in the topic (much at "lower" levels of consciousness for many) and I don't mean that of the criminal shooters. People who know what to look for, and no small number of sharply discerning lay folk, see it in abundance in various arguments, both in the actual point-making content and "tone" at times. ---------- Post added January-19th-2013 at 05:33 PM ---------- Irony is the guy that posted an article without digging all the way to cnn.com remarking about a rush to do anything. I would have mentioned retired police officer if it was in the article then. Or now for that matter. It stills says deputy sheriff with no mention of status. But no, still wouldnt find it funny. Its not funny when someone is shot by someone else. The DEA agent that shoots himself while lecturing students about how professional he is? Maybe that is funny. But when there is a negligent discharge of a shotgun...when nobody has any muzzle control at all...no, I dont find that funny. Amigo, aren't you sort of "reaching" here to make it seem like a comment of ill grace and of a devaluing nature to the poster, when everyone here knows Larry wouldn't find the shooting of a person "funny" under any normal circumstance and was obviously implying "irony" (which you could honestly debate). ( I wrote that before I see Larry mentioning irony in a reply, but will let it stand) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.