Happiness is a warm gun

[dreamon]

Assuming the “gun show loophole” is what allowed the Brady Bill to pass, you should know the Brady Bill didn’t “get rid of every gun in America.” There were no dominoes, no sliding, no slippery slope.

Literally 10 months later they passed an "assault weapons" ban.

And yes, there was a "slippery slope". A compromise that anti-gun legislators believed in when they passed the Brady Bill is now considered a "loophole". Every time Second Amendment defenders give an inch, the anti-Second Amendment lobby takes a mile.

[smalltownguy]

Well she's fucking stupid. If she's actually a national socialist, perhaps she should study up on the NSDAP's gun control policies.

i think same ...she is fucking stupid

[broncofan]

Well she's fucking stupid.

This is the only thing we agree on. I find your need to dislike every post that upsets you a bit weird. In the Las Vegas Lounge thread everything I said about the O'Connor case was absolutely true and non-partisan, yet your lizard brain lit up and your hasty little trigger finger couldn't avoid not liking it for that reason. I hope you have more self-control with your firearms.

I noticed you're talking about the Nazis gun control policies as though this would have made a difference to the fate of Jews in Germany. Besides this being untrue, my concern with this argument is that I don't really believe the NRA does much to stand up for the right of minorities in general or as gun-owners in particular. Their response to the Philando Castile shooting was pathetic in my view and insensitive to the point where I have major doubts about their commitment to African-American gun owners. Castile told the police officer in that case he had a weapon, then told the officer he was not reaching for the weapon. The officer who never saw a weapon shot him seven times and claimed he was partly justified because he smelled marijuana in the car.

Dana Loesch's response was to claim that the smell of marijuana meant that Mr. Castile was not carrying legally. On the other hand, I find the prosecution's argument much more convincing:
"Philando Castile was not resisting or fleeing.""There was absolutely no criminal intent exhibited by him throughout this encounter."
"He was respectful and compliant based upon the instructions and orders he was given."
"He volunteered in good faith that he had a firearm -- beyond what the law requires."
"He emphatically stated that he wasn't pulling it out."
"His movement was restricted by his own seat belt."
"He was accompanied, in his vehicle, by a woman and a young child."
"Philando Castile did not exhibit any intent, nor did he have any reason, to shoot Officer Yanez."
"In fact, his dying words were in protest that he wasn't reaching for his gun"

The reason this should not be a really protracted conversation is that I've often found the NRA's rhetoric about opposing tyranny to be motivated by white self-pity as well as paranoid and delusional beliefs by its members that they are being persecuted when they're not. The NRA are not big supporters of minority rights, nor have they been at the vanguard of these civil rights battles when minorities (particularly African-Americans) have had their rights curtailed severely by the government. Instead, they support people like Cliven Bundy who believes the government should not be able to enforce the law equitably. So I call bullshit on this claim that the NRA or the 2nd amendment has ever been used as a tool to fight oppression. In fact, they've been interested in creating feelings of empowerment to offset the progressive loss of control that members of the majority culture feel as this country becomes more diverse and inclusive.

[Stavros]

Two excellent arguments from Trish and Broncofan that expose fundamental weaknesses with the '2nd Amendment' claims. In the end, it strikes me that too many people want to replace statutory law with gun law, and shoot dead anyone they want to, claiming of course that they are doing so in self-defence, even when the victims is unarmed. Unless, and until the debate is focused on the structural issues, the day to day headlines will divert attention away from what in practical terms can be done to reduce gun crime. But it is up to you Americans to do something about it, and not being terrified of the NRA might be a start, not least as companies across the country are withdrawing their support from it. Now may the best time to act.

[filghy2]

That is fantastic. I can't imagine living in a country where the government has that much power over your daily life. Our government isn't perfect, but at least we believe in civil rights.

Do you ever ask yourself why it is that no other developed, democratic country allows its citizens to freely acquire guns like the US? And why it is that people in these countries remain free and, in fact, much safer despite this? The US has by far the highest rate of gun ownership and also by far the highest murder rate - if having guns makes people safe, why is it so dangerous? You have very strange concept of freedom if you don't understand that peoples' right not to be shot as they go about their lives matters far more than your right to acquire whatever man-toy takes your fancy.

[broncofan]

https://twitter.com/NRATV/status/970402289742618624

Love some of the responses to this garbage.

[filghy2]

Literally 10 months later they passed an "assault weapons" ban.

And yes, there was a "slippery slope". A compromise that anti-gun legislators believed in when they passed the Brady Bill is now considered a "loophole". Every time Second Amendment defenders give an inch, the anti-Second Amendment lobby takes a mile.

The problem with your slippery slope argument is that any further tightening of gun controls would have to go through the same legislative process (and survive legal challenges). The fact that some people might argue for further measures is irrelevant: there can only a slippery slope if it somehow becomes easier to pass further measures after the first one.

The logical implication of your position is that nobody should ever compromise on anything, which means there can only be 'all or nothing' solutions and government could not function at all.

I suspect you are just resorting to one of the standard debating techniques used by people who know they have a weak argument, which is to try to make it an argument about something else. You know you can't mount an argument against reasonable controls (eg on automatic weapons or people with problematic histories) on their own merits, so you use the slippery slope argument to muddy the waters.

[broncofan]

The fact that some people might argue for further measures is irrelevant: there can only a slippery slope if it somehow becomes easier to pass further measures after the first one.

This is true. His argument, strictly speaking doesn't make sense. But what he's really worried about in my view is shifting norms. If you ban assault weapons for a while or bump stocks and impose other restrictions then gun culture is weakened. There will also be more data on the effectiveness of these measures which further weakens that culture because people will know at what cost they play with their toys.

Ultimately it would mean people can't own military style weapons because the public will know they have no utility and wreak havoc, wife beaters won't be able to buy guns, and the dream of holing up in some government building and playing victim evaporates into thin air. Like Dana Loesch's stupid little video shows, it's already clear to professional athletes, artists, and celebrities that there's something very wrong with this culture. Eventually scientists get in on the act and we allow the cdc to study guns as a public health hazard. You begin regulating guns and there's a creeping of norms....you end up with something like a civilized country.

[Stavros]

The latest from Dana Loesch and the NRA:

The National Rifle Association has released a video containing a threatening message to journalists, warning them "your time is running out".
In a video posted on Twitter by NRATV, conservative political activist and TV host Dana Loesch tells “every lying member of the media” that they have “had enough”.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a8240341.html

[Erika1487]

Chuck Heston said best!!!!