Happiness is a warm gun

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dreamon

Except it wasn't.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.05c7334af0ce...

---

In regard to the assault weapons ban, the 2013 Washington Post article you linked does say,

“A University of Pennsylvania study concluded that these loopholes undermined the 1994 law's effectiveness. (That study also found that the law appeared to have little effect on gun violence, not least because assault weapons were used in just a small portion of gun crimes.)”

So true, the ban was not very effective in stopping gun crimes in general. However, the chart I posted above from the 2018 Washington Post article you also linked DOES show that the ban was effective in decreasing the number of mass shootings and ‘gun massacres’. So yes, the ban was effective. The 2013 article indicates that it could have been more effective. We know from the Australian model (and a multitude of others) just how effective gun regulation can be.

Another good article by the way. Thanks.

I have just seen a clip from a speech the President gave to the Conservative Political Action Conference in which he says the murder of an American citizen by another American citizen is an acceptable action. No mention of the rule of law, no mention of context, the potential for mistakes, panic attacks, just a fantasy drawn from a Hollywood movie in which the good guy shoots the bad guy. The rule of law no longer matters, the rule of the gun is all. If I were an American, I would suggest this statement alone robs the man of any respect, and would expect him to resign in disgrace or be impeached. At what point does the law matter more than the hysterical, ill-considered rant of a political amateur? But there you have it, more guns, more confrontations, more deaths, more injuries, more misery. He sat there in the White House with his arms folded as the students and relatives of victims from Parkland tried to explain reality to him, but that position said it all: I don't care.

Oh, and don't forget the Russians, who may have been filtering money through the NRA to help elect their chosen one...are the ones who bray the loudest about being true patriots the ones who took foreign money in their campaign against the American Hillary Clinton?

Activists are demanding the National Rifle Association (NRA) reveal if it received donations from Russia, after it was reported the FBI is investigating whether a Kremlin-linked Moscow businessman channelled money to the group’s campaign to help Donald Trump win the election.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a8225581.html

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/15/nra-...ommentary.html

A few days after the Russian-backed President said it would be a good thing if 'gun adept teachers' murdered Americans, a former infantry officer with service in Iraq and Afghanistan has offered a set of practical reasons why this is a bad idea, not a good one-
Anyone who tells you that arming teachers is a solution is clueless. It’ll cost kids’ lives. Teachers need to be teaching, not training to fight. But they’re up against weapons of war. And that’s on us.
http://www.nydailynews.com/amp/opini...icle-1.3835411

Meanwhile there has been strong reaction to the speech made by Wayne LaPierre of the Russian-backed NRA as the organization loses special deals for its members with car hire firms, hotels and such like. LaPierre has responded by describing the boycott movement as 'cowards', but just as he claimed in his speech to the CPAC that the opponent of gun ownership are not just opposed to the 2nd Amendment and 'freedom' they want to introduce 'European socialism' into the US.

But here is a curious thing: two incidents in the UK -Hungerford in 1987, Dunblane in 1996- led to major changes in the law:

In the wake of the 1987 Hungerford massacre, in which one lone gunman killed 16 people, Britain introduced new legislation -- the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 -- making registration mandatory for owning shotguns and banning semi-automatic and pump-action weapons.
Within a year and a half of the Dunblane massacre, UK lawmakers had passed a ban on the private ownership of all handguns in mainland Britain, giving the country some of the toughest anti-gun legislation in the world. After both shootings there were firearm amnesties across the UK, resulting in the surrender of thousands of firearms and rounds of ammunition
https://edition.cnn.com/2012/12/17/w...ons/index.html

But was this European Socialism in action? No, as the Prime Minister in 1987 was Margaret Thatcher, and in 1996 it was John Major, though for all I know LaPierre reckons Maggie was a socialist. Consider the odder fact that the Republican Party, which used to be one of the most vocal and severe critics of the USSR, has apparently become obsessed with the strength and purpose of a man who joined the Communist Party of the USSR in his youth, spent most of his career as a young man in its dreaded KGB, and even, when posted to Dresden (based at -believe it- No 4. Angelikastrasse) was involved in an early version of cybercrime at its most basic level -stealing the western technology the USSR did not have-

There is little information about Putin's specific tasks in Dresden, but specialists and documents point to several assignments, including recruiting and preparing agents. The work likely involved Robotron, a Dresden-based electronics conglomerate, which was the Eastern Bloc's largest mainframe computer maker and a microchip research center.
At the time, a major KGB effort was underway to steal Western technology. The Soviet Bloc was so far behind, according to a German specialist, that agents at Stasi headquarters often preferred to work on a Western-made Commodore personal computer rather than on their office mainframe.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...agov/putin.htm

It is a moot point- is Putin a Communist? He has made all the right noises on markets, but has strengthened the State at the expense of many of the Oligarchs he witnessed looting the country in the 1990s. He has remained loyal to the KGB, admitting it made mistakes in the past but not denouncing its record overall. His buddy in Kiev, Viktor Yanukovich was also a Communist, after a youth of petty crime (the two may go together), which does make one wonder what it is that suddenly turned these Cold War Warriors into puppies of the other President.

The answer is money, and lots of it. And there you have the true test of loyalty. A Russian-backed President who re-tweets claims the Parkland students articulating an alternative vision for the USA are 'actors'; the head of the Russian-backed NRA railing against those who would take away his 'freedom' as 'European Socialists' while pocketing the dollars sent to his organization by a old-style Russian socialist. When people in power will do anything for money, politics has been replaced by commercial transactions; when barter becomes the means of exchange in international relations, something fundamental has been challenged: for those Americans, it is nothing less than the Constitution to which they claim loyalty, when that loyalty can in fact be exchanged for money. If this is corruption at the highest level, is it not also a betrayal of what it means to be an American?

I ask because I am not an American. I live in a country which, even though it has too many guns, has a more sane approach to firearms, and where the claim the Leader of the Opposition was a Soviet Spy who told the Soviets what Margaret Thatcher had for breakfast (not muesli, allegedly), has been exposed as fiction. Some things you can make up, others cannot. So why are people so terrified of telling the truth about money, especially when it is 'their own'?

Follow the money, and you will get to the truth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrnIVVWtAag

This is an old advertisement of the NRA, released I believe about a year ago when there were a lot of Trump protests. I was wondering if someone could put into words for me what is so objectively creepy about what is said and depicted. If not, just view it as a good example of why companies do not want to be associated with the NRA and why they should be shunned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

I was wondering if someone could put into words for me what is so objectively creepy about what is said and depicted.

---

Here's my feeble attempt to explain what is disturbing about it:

Beyond of course promoting paranoia, anarchy, civil unrest, and exploiting deep divisions in society doesn't this sound like fascist propaganda being used to vilify a common enemy? Anyone defending the NRA should have to explain why this isn't just an affront to human decency and cross a red line for what is acceptable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

Here's my feeble attempt to explain what is disturbing about it:

Beyond of course promoting paranoia, anarchy, civil unrest, and exploiting deep divisions in society doesn't this sound like fascist propaganda being used to vilify a common enemy? Anyone defending the NRA should have to explain why this isn't just an affront to human decency and cross a red line for what is acceptable.

---

It is not so hard to understand: you need to be armed if you are to fight a tyrannical government that is opposed to your freedom, that wants to take that freedom away. The NRA protects your right to be armed. How a tyrannical government is defined, how freedom is defined is of course the key, but you need only watch that video to get a sense of who is most likely to be the target. And now you know why 'they' need guns, and why the NRA can be considered a 'terrorist' organization that, when the time comes, will justify an armed insurrection against a democratically elected President and Congress if the people have names like Jefferson (no, not him), Castro, al-Aziz, Chung and Bernstein. It may be hysterical now, and they have their Russian-backed con-man in the White House, but even he may be about to flip on the age limit for purchasing weapons. The difference now compared to the 19th century is that the demographics over the next 25 years suggest 'white America' is going to be eclipsed, numerically by Americas of different origin, though there is no evidence to suggest they are any less America than Bud or Chuck from Alabama.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

It is not so hard to understand: you need to be armed if you are to fight a tyrannical government that is opposed to your freedom, that wants to take that freedom away. The NRA protects your right to be armed. How a tyrannical government is defined, how freedom is defined is of course the key, but you need only watch that video to get a sense of who is most likely to be the target.

---

This is definitely true but I think what makes it worse for me is that NRA backers and Republicans currently hold all of the cards in government. So while they claim to be arming the public against a "tyrannical government" and are promoting insurrection, they control the levers of power and are pretending to be powerless against all these forces.

It's in part an exercise in feigned victimhood, where they're only pretending to be a grassroots movement (they only have 5 million members out of 300 million people so they are a concentrated minority interest) but in reality could not be more entrenched and well-financed. And yes, there is a very strong message of "we're white and Christian, watch out for all these scary people with darker skin who are violent and/or dishonest."

Don't make the mistake of not giving the Devil his due, the Devil isn't protected by the Constitution, the Devil IS the Constitution, and the Devil is in the details.
Put the first and second amendment in a box and voila, out pops Pierre LaPierre.
While trained Police Officers cower behind their cars in Florida, Montana Schoolchildren are safe and sane because they grew up on Fox TV and religiously fire and clean their guns.
All the NRA does is Lobby for guns, their only natural competitors are sissies and Elites, and if their message sometimes sounds like a blunt force instrument, that's no mistake, that's music to the people who belong.
If the Democrats use their future Political Capital on gun control, the Republicans would use it just like Obamacare, and rally their troops in the midterms.
It's crazy.

https://preview.ibb.co/kWFL2c/22.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

It's in part an exercise in feigned victimhood, where they're only pretending to be a grassroots movement (they only have 5 million members out of 300 million people so they are a concentrated minority interest) but in reality could not be more entrenched and well-financed.

---

I suppose it is an odd situation where a small lobby appears to have such extensive support in Congress, more so than many worthy causes. I looked up referendum US to see if it can be done, and although there is no provision for a nationwide referendum on a single issue, the 21st Amendment that repealed the 18th (Prohibition) in 1933 was the outcome of what I think is called a 'state ratifying convention'. It raises the question, if the repeal of the 2nd Amendment was put to 50 states in a special convention, would the overall vote be for repeal or retain? I don't expect it to happen, but it seems to me that as the 2nd Amendment is at the core of the argument on gun ownership there can not be a proper national debate if the arguments are only presented by the NRA and some Democrat politicians. The argument needs to be addressed more broadly across American society, for otherwise how can anyone know what the average American thinks about the issue?

I believe I told the story here before about a guy I worked with a couple of years who one day casually remarked that he had earned three silver stars in three different wars. To get a silver star you basically have to storm a machine gun nest. But his remark about THE ARMY is probably right about everything else: The are rules and regulations for every thing, and exceptions for every rule and regulation.
Even Bernie Sanders argues with the NRA sometimes because Vermont has so many hunters. And I would say, at it's essence, the Constitution is all about Individual Rights. Everybody knows (70%) that any gun that shoots more than 6 shells is not needed for hunting or home defense. Congress could enact a law right now that would make AR-15s regulated into non-existence. But as I have said a hundred times before on several topics, IT"S THE REPUBLICAN'S FAULT!!! They will never give up an issue that would cost them heavily at the voting booth.
If Congress and the Political shows ever focus on the National Debt, and admit what we need to do to fix it, the whole country will put a gun to it's head. Who cares about moral decay when you're dying of cancer?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

I suppose it is an odd situation where a small lobby appears to have such extensive support in Congress, more so than many worthy causes. I looked up referendum US to see if it can be done, and although there is no provision for a nationwide referendum on a single issue, the 21st Amendment that repealed the 18th (Prohibition) in 1933 was the outcome of what I think is called a 'state ratifying convention'. It raises the question, if the repeal of the 2nd Amendment was put to 50 states in a special convention, would the overall vote be for repeal or retain? I don't expect it to happen, but it seems to me that as the 2nd Amendment is at the core of the argument on gun ownership there can not be a proper national debate if the arguments are only presented by the NRA and some Democrat politicians. The argument needs to be addressed more broadly across American society, for otherwise how can anyone know what the average American thinks about the issue?

---

In order to propose an amendment 2/3 of both houses of congress or 2/3 of the state legislatures have to support it. That's is unlikely but at least within the realm of possibility. But in order to ratify an amendment that has been proposed, 3/4 of the state legislatures need to support it. That's just never going to happen given that there are more red states than blue and the second amendment as a general matter has more support than the NRA. I would analogize second amendment proponents to the NRA as follows: like comparing those who are pro-life to those who think that women who seek an abortion should be locked up. The latter is a more extreme and probably far less numerous group than the former.

The NRA as you have said elsewhere is an extremist organization that supports the sale of silencing devices for guns and the continued use of assault weapons and many other things we can legally ban without doing away with the second amendment. Someone correct me but I think they even fought against making bump stocks illegal which is an absolute disgrace.

I myself am not convinced that the second amendment belongs with the other rights it is classed with but procedurally it is too difficult to get rid of and culturally we have an attachment to anything numbered among the first ten amendments. I do think the second amendment is a legitimate obstacle to gun control but the primary obstacle now is put up by those who interpret it as being broader than even the Supreme Court's broad construction. There are some who think it means no limits whatsoever can be placed on gun ownership, which it has never meant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

The argument needs to be addressed more broadly across American society, for otherwise how can anyone know what the average American thinks about the issue?

---

This is really important to find out because it's easy for positions here to be polarized. I'm sure there are a lot of gun enthusiasts who, if the issue were framed in an honest way, would consider gun control measures. I believe it is a testament to the effectiveness of the NRA that the issue is always framed in the most hysterical terms and never sensitive to what they are actually doing. One would not know from the broader rhetoric of the NRA that they are fighting against the effectiveness of mental health regulations and the prohibition of devices to convert weapons into de-facto machine guns or to silence a gun which really only has use as a tool of assassination. It would be nice to get some sense of where people stand without the distorting effect of the NRA.

Further to the above is this perceptive comment in the NYT about the positive and negative aspects of the issue in elections:

In recent years, both major parties have honored something of a nonaggression pact. As the Republican Party’s moderates thinned out, few Republicans strayed from the gun-rights line, and Democrats in competitive regions deliberately avoided making guns central, fearing that it was far more of a voting issue for gun advocates than gun control supporters. In Congress and in most states, gun policy was largely kept off the legislative agenda.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/27/u...T.nav=top-news

The dilemma now appears to be affecting both parties as they woo the voters -but is it a 'tipping point' and a 'game changer'? Should candidates be fearless or pragmatic? This may be the only way to get a better sense of what Americans want with regard to gun law. But there does seem to be a turn against the NRA.

A week used to be a long time in politics, now two days makes it. Thus, on Wednesday the world was in shock as the President appeared to endorse tougher measures on gun ownership, by Thursday the NRA appeared to have changed his mind-

The top lobbyist for the National Rifle Association claimed late Thursday that President Trump had retreated from his surprising support a day earlier for gun control measures after a meeting with N.R.A. officials and Vice President Mike Pence in the Oval Office.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/01/u...T.nav=top-news

One suspects that the President has never really had much grasp of policy, and can be persuaded to change his mind depending on who is in the room at the time. But does it look good on TV? Maybe that it is the key to what he says and does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

One suspects that the President has never really had much grasp of policy, and can be persuaded to change his mind depending on who is in the room at the time. But does it look good on TV? Maybe that it is the key to what he says and does.

---

I don’t think he ever changed his mind. One on one he is aways affable and nods in agreement at what you say. We saw this when he met with Pelosi and Schumer on DACA. We just witnessed this behavior again with the Parkland survivors on the issue of gun regulation.

Here’s what I think the base sees: The President was emotionally overwhelmed by the first person testimony of the children he met with. He took Congress to task for being afraid to take on the NRA and tells them that the NRA isn’t difficult to deal with. Donald strong. Congress weak. NRA good. A brief time later he gets past the tragedy, sees through the tears and stands by the Second Amendment.

Listen, I wouldn't put it past this prick to casually mention a steel tariff on-mike so his insider golf buddies can make a ton of cash on the stock market. Trump's insane tweets can make the markets go crazy with a guessing game on AR-15s. Scare everyone into selling, then BUY right before he signs a Govt Contract to arm teachers.
Conservative Media lately is headed for the psychiatrist's couch. Messing with the NRA is something they draw the line on, Trump or no Trump.
Stay tuned til the next episode..............Are we fools to stay on the edge of our seats for this Reality Show President? Why can't we fast forward to the part where he goes to Leavenworth? I love a Happy Ending, a feel good story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buttslinger

Listen, I wouldn't put it past this prick to casually mention a steel tariff on-mike so his insider golf buddies can make a ton of cash on the stock market.

---

I assume you are not referring to his buddy Carl Icahn-

A week before President Trump announced his intention to impose a 25 percent tariff on steel imports, his longtime confidant and one-time adviser Carl Icahn had already cut almost 1 million shares of Wisconsin-based crane manufacturer Manitowoc Company Inc., ThinkProgress reports. The timing of Icahn's $31.3 million dump is suspect, because Manitowoc is a heavily steel-dependent company.
http://theweek.com/speedreads/758686...iff-talk-began

Anyone for tennis? Bring your own racquets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

This is really important to find out because it's easy for positions here to be polarized. I'm sure there are a lot of gun enthusiasts who, if the issue were framed in an honest way, would consider gun control measures. I believe it is a testament to the effectiveness of the NRA that the issue is always framed in the most hysterical terms and never sensitive to what they are actually doing. One would not know from the broader rhetoric of the NRA that they are fighting against the effectiveness of mental health regulations and the prohibition of devices to convert weapons into de-facto machine guns or to silence a gun which really only has use as a tool of assassination. It would be nice to get some sense of where people stand without the distorting effect of the NRA.

---

The reason the NRA has to take such a hard stance is that every time gun control is passed, it is never enough for those that oppose Second Amendment Rights. Every time pro gun rights legislators compromise, that compromise becomes tomorrow's "loopholes".

They actually came out with a fantastic video earlier this week that covers this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyI3uSk1xLw

In all honesty, I don't support the NRA as a whole and am no longer a member. But that has to do with their foray into lobbying for topics other than the Second Amendment, which I find to be unacceptable. But when it comes to protecting our Second Amendment rights, they are still fighting hard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

...there are now stores that will not sell kitchen knives to under-18 year olds and the law may get tougher...

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dreamon

The reason the NRA has to take such a hard stance is that every time gun control is passed, it is never enough for those that oppose Second Amendment Rights. Every time pro gun rights legislators compromise, that compromise becomes tomorrow's "loopholes".

They actually came out with a fantastic video earlier this week that covers this.
In all honesty, I don't support the NRA as a whole and am no longer a member. But that has to do with their foray into lobbying for topics other than the Second Amendment, which I find to be unacceptable. But when it comes to protecting our Second Amendment rights, they are still fighting hard.

---

The video justifies gun ownership for protection, but Dom Raso doesn't explain why, just assumes that Americas under threat from whatever that is need a gun -in his view, the right gun for the right purpose- and presumably so they can then use it. In a modern democracy like the USA, a citizen feeling threatened can call 911, which is what the police are there for. The idea that 'gun law' is acceptable thus undermines the purpose of law enforcement, and more often than not 'protection' or even 'self-defence' turns out to be murder with the murderer set free by a lenient court. When George Zimmerman was 'threatened' by Trayvon Martin, assuming he was, he shot Martin dead, even though his victim was unarmed.

Dom Raso has concocted a bogus argument, but is right about one thing: all guns should be banned, and the 2nd Amendment repealed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dreamon

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.

---

In fact the US, at the Federal and State level, as with the UK and many other countries has numerous categories of knives and blades that are banned. You probably need to explain how been prevented from purchasing a lethal weapon violates your civil rights -?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knife_legislation

I call bullshit on Dom Raso. I don’t know anyone who wants to “get rid of every gun in America.” The real myth is that people buy AR-15s and like weapons to protect themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dreamon

The reason the NRA has to take such a hard stance is that every time gun control is passed, it is never enough for those that oppose Second Amendment Rights. Every time pro gun rights legislators compromise, that compromise becomes tomorrow's "loopholes"...

---

You aren’t really falling for the slippery slope fallacy, are you? As if gun enthusiasts and the NRA can hold the line with AR-15s, thirty round magazines, concealed and open carry, but one compromise and it’s all over - no guns for anyone. Give me a break.

The reason the NRA takes a hard stance on firearm regulation is that it’s the lobbying arm of the arms industry and the reason people buy AR-15s isn’t for protection, it’s because they like them. Except for killing other human beings, there’s no practical function for such a weapon. There is no sport in hunting with them, unless you’re hunting humans. There is, I will grant, the pleasure of shooting targets, the pleasure feeling the rapid fire discharges vibrating through your arm and shoulder. There is the pleasure of owning one and let’s not forget the daydream of being a hero in a fantasy rebellion against a federal government turned socialist. These are the real reasons people buy and own civilian weapons that simulate militaristic assault weapons. And it is in the service of these trivial pleasures that children are dying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

In a modern democracy like the USA, a citizen feeling threatened can call 911, which is what the police are there for.

---

If you have seven minutes, sure.

https://www.asecurelife.com/average-...response-time/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

I call bullshit on Dom Raso. I don’t know anyone who wants to “get rid of every gun in America.”

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCRKv-szJlo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

You aren’t really falling for the slippery slope fallacy, are you? As if gun enthusiasts and the NRA can hold the line with AR-15s, thirty round magazines, concealed and open carry, but one compromise and it’s all over - no guns for anyone. Give me a break.

---

The "gun show loophole" was one of the compromises that allowed the Brady Bill to pass. If that "loophole" is closed, which compromise do you target next?

The gun banners are pussies plain and simple

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Erika1487

The gun banners are pussies plain and simple

---

Hey Dreamon, Erika, a self-proclaimed national socialist thinks you're on the right side of history. This doesn't always mean you're wrong but it can sometimes make one re-think their position.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dreamon

The "gun show loophole" was one of the compromises that allowed the Brady Bill to pass. If that "loophole" is closed, which compromise do you target next?

---

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.

But to answer your question: 1) close the loophole, 2) have a registry for all guns and 3) require liability insurance for every gun just like for cars. 4) No “assault” weapons (we can figure out what that means when - if ever - the bill banning them is written).

Currently there are very very few people who oppose the 2nd Amendment. The argument is over interpretation, implementation and regulation. But as more schools, theaters, concerts and more CHILDREN get shot up by sick fucks competing for the highest body count using “rifles” intended to simulate military assault weapons, you may find the 2nd Amendment falling more and more into disfavor. I would contend the AR-15 and like weapons are the 2nd Amendment’s worst enemy.

If you look at the statistics, you'd find out that Wayne LaPierre would charge you more for Home Insurance if you had a gun in the house, if Wayne LaPierre sold Home Insurance instead of selling Guns. But I'm an Optimist, I think all the people who have been talked into the NRA can be talked out of the NRA. You may have to dumb down your message to get through, though.
By the VietNam War, they had to shoot 200,000 rounds for every one fatality. It seems like the Kill Rate is a lot better in School, maybe we should eliminate School. So it would never happen again. Why should our tax dollars go to babysitting brats all day? I don't have any kids, why should I pay for some Dreamer?
There are about 250 justified Homicides per year in the US. Check the stat, if you're ambitious, I wonder how many of those justified shootings were with an Assault Rifle? Or how many were against an armed felon?
For me, Sandy Hook confirmed our Nation has lost it's Heart, Jesus.
Erika, the first Assault Weapons were used by the Nazis in '44. At first Hitler hated the idea, but after rave reviews on the Eastern Front, he came to love them.
He used a Walther PPK on himself.
Probably a good career move at the time.....
https://preview.ibb.co/e1w8f7/Sturmg...44_762x350.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

Hey Dreamon, Erika, a self-proclaimed national socialist thinks you're on the right side of history. This doesn't always mean you're wrong but it can sometimes make one re-think their position.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dreamon

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dreamon

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dreamon

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.

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

Love some of the responses to this garbage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dreamon

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

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.

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

Chuck Heston said best!!!!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ju4Gla2odw