Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3031
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 15 Feb 2018, 2:36 pm

Things you didn't know you could find on the NRA website...

1. Mass shootings awards 2017-2018

a. Best overall mass shooter--Wayne Lapierre: "In a crowded field...Stephen Paddock stands out from the rest!"
b. Sub-category school shootings--Wayne Lapierre: "Nikolas Cruz has made a name for himself!"

2. T-shirts

a. "I want to be a professional school shooter when I grow up!"
b. "You can take the money we get from gun manufacturers from our cold dead hands!"--Wayne LaPierre

3. Lady Macbeth Lava Soap

"Comes in handy if you're a politician and sold out to the NRA. Helps to wash off the gallons of blood on your hands. Or maybe it doesn't wash off..."

4. Top Republican politicians on NRA's payroll

a. Trump
b. Burr
c. Rubio
d. Blunt
e. Young
f. Heck
g. Portman

5. Mass Shooting Accessories

a. Bump stock
b. Trigger crank

6. Favorite US Supreme Court Justices

a. Scalia--Heller decision. Who knew a strict constructionist would find a right to bear arms based on self-defense when that's not said in the Constitution? "Do I contradict myself? Very well, I contradict myself. I am large, I contain multitudes."
b. Alioto--McDonald decision. Incorporation. Yeah...since the 2nd Amendment was designed to protect states against the federal government...it makes perfect sense to reformulate it as an individual right against his/her state government. Huh?
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 1512
Joined: 15 Oct 2002, 9:34 pm

Post 21 Feb 2018, 7:33 pm

Freeman! I just spent a fair bit of time on their site and didn't find either #1 or #2. Are you joking around? If so, it's not funny at all.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3031
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 21 Feb 2018, 11:13 pm

Yeah...it's not funny at all what the NRA does.

Anyway, just a little satire, Dags. Sorry if that wasn't clear.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 22 Feb 2018, 8:04 am

freeman3 wrote:Yeah...it's not funny at all what the NRA does.


Protecting enumerated rights? You're right. It's not funny. It's vital.

Or, do you oppose the ACLU?

For the record, neither group has ever killed anyone.

Anyway, just a little satire, Dags. Sorry if that wasn't clear.


It wasn't--clear or satire.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3031
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 23 Feb 2018, 12:30 am

I think this time is different; those high school kids who went through that terrifying ordeal are getting through to people with their articulate heart-felt opposition to the NRA and its culpability in the mass shootings that now regularly occur in this country. I saw that several rent-a-car companies have canceled discounts for NRA members. Great!

I make no apologies for my criticism of the NRA. What rights are you referring to?The right for a 19 year old to go into a gun shop and immediately get a gun whose only purpose is to kill a lot of people in a short amount of time? Not only does this gun fire a lot of bullets but each bullet goes almost 4 times as fast as a 9mm handgun and basically just obliterates vital organs when it hits one, which is why it is so lethal. Here is a primer on it:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnew ... ncna848346

Now...I suppose an AR-15 would be nice to have if you were starting a revolution, though I suspect it would do not much against tanks. Is our country...such a fragile democracy that it needs to have its people buy AR-15s to defend against the US army? Otherwise, what is the necessity for an AR-15? Certainly not home defense. Shooting targets? What?

The NRA is a blight, the sight of Wayne LaPierre makes my skin crawl. We should agree on allowing people to have certain guns but not guns as lethal and powerful as the AR-15. Wayne LaPierre said "Evil walks among us". A confession?

It's absurd that the president has proposed arming teachers in schools. That's the ridiculous argument of arming the country even more to deal with the issue. What kind of civilized country does that? There are many other problems with that...but with the NRA their solution to violence is always...more guns.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 23 Feb 2018, 8:06 am

freeman3 wrote:I think this time is different; those high school kids who went through that terrifying ordeal are getting through to people with their articulate heart-felt opposition to the NRA and its culpability in the mass shootings that now regularly occur in this country.


Those high school kids? Please. While you are praising them, NY State is considering legislation to ban . . . Tide Pods to stop teens from eating them.

Scientific studies show young people don't make rational decisions until well beyond the age of these teens, but we're supposed to take their advice? By the way, do all teens from Parkland agree?

No. But, the media wants to hype those who cling bitterly to the anti-gun agenda they too embrace.

I saw that several rent-a-car companies have canceled discounts for NRA members. Great!


Indeed. Great for their competitors! In fact, I'll find that list and make sure I don't rent from those companies that are anti-NRA. Oh, here you go: Enterprise, Alamo, National. Goodbye.

I make no apologies for my criticism of the NRA. What rights are you referring to?The right for a 19 year old to go into a gun shop and immediately get a gun whose only purpose is to kill a lot of people in a short amount of time?


Is any of that, other than your last point, true?

And, even that, is that the "only purpose" to have an AR-15? Are you sure? Do you know? Or, is that just anti-gun propaganda?

Not only does this gun fire a lot of bullets but each bullet goes almost 4 times as fast as a 9mm handgun and basically just obliterates vital organs when it hits one, which is why it is so lethal. Here is a primer on it:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnew ... ncna848346


Did the assault gun ban work?

Now...I suppose an AR-15 would be nice to have if you were starting a revolution, though I suspect it would do not much against tanks. Is our country...such a fragile democracy that it needs to have its people buy AR-15s to defend against the US army? Otherwise, what is the necessity for an AR-15? Certainly not home defense. Shooting targets? What?


What should Americans be permitted to own? BB guns? Wrist-rockets? Paint ball guns?

The NRA is a blight, the sight of Wayne LaPierre makes my skin crawl. We should agree on allowing people to have certain guns but not guns as lethal and powerful as the AR-15. Wayne LaPierre said "Evil walks among us". A confession?


Do criminals respect gun laws? When you say "yes," you're lying. When you say, "no," you underscore the emptiness of your efforts. We have fewer guns per capita than we used to. The problem isn't weapons. It's parenting. It's the fecklessness of our law enforcement (by political mandate, apparently, in Broward County). It's the lack of structure in our schools. It's social media. It's the acceptance of horrific violence as entertainment.

It's all of that and more. Restricting gun ownership from sane and law-abiding citizens will make no difference because they're not doing this.

It's absurd that the president has proposed arming teachers in schools. That's the ridiculous argument of arming the country even more to deal with the issue. What kind of civilized country does that? There are many other problems with that...but with the NRA their solution to violence is always...more guns.


Oh brother.

Yes, let's take away guns from innocent people and hope bad people will cease to exist.

Maybe if we all hold hands and sing "Imagine."
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10952
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 23 Feb 2018, 11:42 am

Fate
Scientific studies show young people don't make rational decisions until well beyond the age of these teens, but we're supposed to take their advice?


So you're using science ?
Here's some science....
The University of Sydney, in a 2016 study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, found Australia hadn't experienced a fatal mass shooting — one in which five or more people are killed — since the 1996 shooting. In the 18 years prior, 1979-1996, there were 13 fatal mass shootings in Australia.

Australia's experience shows that banning rapid-fire firearms was associated with reductions in mass shootings and total firearm deaths," said University of Sydney professor Simon Chapman at the time the study published.
"These findings offer an example which, with public support and political courage, might reduce gun deaths in other countries."
Australia now touts its gun-control measures and has offered to lend the U.S. some wisdom. After the October shooting in Las Vegas, the deadliest in U.S. history, Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop suggested the country had something to offer the U.S.


https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nat ... 340345002/

Americans may do something the day the vast majority of people realize that the deaths of all the people dying from guns... is more important that the right of 30 to 40% to own guns...
If you change that phrase to assault weapons the number who own goes down to 5 million.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/15/politics ... index.html
https://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/13/owned-b ... sacre.html
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 23 Feb 2018, 2:43 pm

rickyp wrote:Fate
Scientific studies show young people don't make rational decisions until well beyond the age of these teens, but we're supposed to take their advice?


So you're using science ?
Here's some science....


Nothing to do with teens, thanks for making an argument about something other than what I posted.

How unusual for you!

Americans may do something the day the vast majority of people realize that the deaths of all the people dying from guns... is more important that the right of 30 to 40% to own guns...
If you change that phrase to assault weapons the number who own goes down to 5 million.


You wouldn't know an assault rifle if the butt of one struck you repeatedly in the head.

Hmm, couldn't hurt.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15952
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 01 Mar 2018, 11:05 am

Doctor Fate wrote:
freeman3 wrote:I think this time is different; those high school kids who went through that terrifying ordeal are getting through to people with their articulate heart-felt opposition to the NRA and its culpability in the mass shootings that now regularly occur in this country.


Those high school kids? Please. While you are praising them, NY State is considering legislation to ban . . . Tide Pods to stop teens from eating them.
Please cite any evidence you have that the kids from MSD have tried to eat a tide pod.

Scientific studies show young people don't make rational decisions until well beyond the age of these teens, but we're supposed to take their advice? By the way, do all teens from Parkland agree?
I dunno, aren't we supposed to listen to victims and survivors?

No. But, the media wants to hype those who cling bitterly to the anti-gun agenda they too embrace.
I suppose you might 'cling bitterly' to the idea that lax gun control (both in law and in practice) contributed to the shooting dead of your friends and classmates.

How dare these kids have opinions. How dare the media report them.

Oh, what's that about supporting "enumerated rights"?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 01 Mar 2018, 11:19 am

danivon wrote:
Doctor Fate wrote:
freeman3 wrote:I think this time is different; those high school kids who went through that terrifying ordeal are getting through to people with their articulate heart-felt opposition to the NRA and its culpability in the mass shootings that now regularly occur in this country.


Those high school kids? Please. While you are praising them, NY State is considering legislation to ban . . . Tide Pods to stop teens from eating them.
Please cite any evidence you have that the kids from MSD have tried to eat a tide pod.


No, frankly, that is a dumb request from a smart guy.

When a State legislature introduces legislation to ban/regulate something sold in grocery stores, it's not because it's an isolated incident. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ti ... 7f171c2926

Scientific studies show young people don't make rational decisions until well beyond the age of these teens, but we're supposed to take their advice? By the way, do all teens from Parkland agree?
I dunno, aren't we supposed to listen to victims and survivors?


Sure. However, passing laws based on emotion, that will do nothing to address the problem, does seem a waste of time.

No. But, the media wants to hype those who cling bitterly to the anti-gun agenda they too embrace.
I suppose you might 'cling bitterly' to the idea that lax gun control (both in law and in practice) contributed to the shooting dead of your friends and classmates.


Nope. Tell you what: you explain what a bang-up job the government did in this case, then I'll defend the gun control laws, or lack thereof.

How dare these kids have opinions. How dare the media report them.

Oh, what's that about supporting "enumerated rights"?


Americans are free to express their opinions. Brits? Less so.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15952
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 01 Mar 2018, 11:51 am

Doctor Fate wrote:
danivon wrote:
Doctor Fate wrote:
freeman3 wrote:I think this time is different; those high school kids who went through that terrifying ordeal are getting through to people with their articulate heart-felt opposition to the NRA and its culpability in the mass shootings that now regularly occur in this country.


Those high school kids? Please. While you are praising them, NY State is considering legislation to ban . . . Tide Pods to stop teens from eating them.
Please cite any evidence you have that the kids from MSD have tried to eat a tide pod.


No, frankly, that is a dumb request from a smart guy.
What it is, in fact, is an attempt to get you to show any relevance. Some kids do some dumb things (the Tide Pod challenge). Sure. How does that affect what the MSD kids are saying?

Scientific studies show young people don't make rational decisions until well beyond the age of these teens, but we're supposed to take their advice? By the way, do all teens from Parkland agree?
I dunno, aren't we supposed to listen to victims and survivors?


Sure. However, passing laws based on emotion, that will do nothing to address the problem, does seem a waste of time. [/quote]Well, your country has had over a decade of deciding firmly to do just that, how's it working out on the prevention of school massacres front?

And it is simply your assertion that no gun laws would address the problem. However, since the expiry of the Clinton ban on certain types of weapon, rates of mass killing have increased greatly. Other countries that had gun massacres did soon after change the laws, and restrict (not "ban all guns") firearms, and have seen an effect in fewer mass killings.

No. But, the media wants to hype those who cling bitterly to the anti-gun agenda they too embrace.
I suppose you might 'cling bitterly' to the idea that lax gun control (both in law and in practice) contributed to the shooting dead of your friends and classmates.


Nope. Tell you what: you explain what a bang-up job the government did in this case, then I'll defend the gun control laws, or lack thereof. [/quote]So there can't be an issue with both? Clearly in hindsight, Cruz could have been intercepted more effectively by law enforcement. And one power that I would hope we could agree that would be worth something would be to revoke the rights of someone who has been as problematic as he was to own a semiautomatic weapon such as he was legally able to.

Yes, it would be great if the police and FBI always upheld the laws using the powers they do have. I don't know if they are fully resourced to do so, what actual evidence they had to go on, etc etc. But Cruz is not typical. Paddock in Vegas gave no real reason for law enforcement to be concerned. Several other mass shooters have not really displayed much of a pattern - although domestic violence, particularly against women, is often a factor.

How dare these kids have opinions. How dare the media report them.

Oh, what's that about supporting "enumerated rights"?


Americans are free to express their opinions. Brits? Less so.
Marginally. It will surprise you to know that we have the right to free speech enshrined in law too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rig ... expression

The main exceptions to free speech in the UK are not that different to yours. Our libel laws are stronger, but I would argue that does not infringe free speech, so much as provide redress when that right is abused to tell defamatory lies about someone.

I should point out, you have a habit of censoring facebook comments you don't like. I have not done that ever as far as I recall.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 01 Mar 2018, 12:09 pm

danivon wrote:Some kids do some dumb things (the Tide Pod challenge). Sure. How does that affect what the MSD kids are saying?


Simply put, I'm not taking life advice or Constitutional advice from a teen. Sorry.

Their stories are sad and frightening. However, the NRA did not cause the shooting. If any acronyms were responsible, they would be the FBI, BCSO, and whatever the school district is. Government failed.

So, to liberals, the answer is "more government!"

Well, your country has had over a decade of deciding firmly to do just that, how's it working out on the prevention of school massacres front?


Every system failed.

So, let's disarm the innocent!

And it is simply your assertion that no gun laws would address the problem. However, since the expiry of the Clinton ban on certain types of weapon, rates of mass killing have increased greatly. Other countries that had gun massacres did soon after change the laws, and restrict (not "ban all guns") firearms, and have seen an effect in fewer mass killings.


There is no demonstrable link. And, did the Clinton law actually lower violence? No.

So there can't be an issue with both? Clearly in hindsight, Cruz could have been intercepted more effectively by law enforcement. And one power that I would hope we could agree that would be worth something would be to revoke the rights of someone who has been as problematic as he was to own a semiautomatic weapon such as he was legally able to.


Cruz should have been stopped before the shooting. He wasn't tossing red flags, he was using a rapid-fire red flag launcher.

Yes, one of the things being promoted is the taking of weapons from those who are a threat to themselves or others. Great.

Yes, it would be great if the police and FBI always upheld the laws using the powers they do have. I don't know if they are fully resourced to do so, what actual evidence they had to go on, etc etc. But Cruz is not typical. Paddock in Vegas gave no real reason for law enforcement to be concerned. Several other mass shooters have not really displayed much of a pattern - although domestic violence, particularly against women, is often a factor.


Paddock is still a mystery.

And, I still favor banning bumpstocks.

Marginally. It will surprise you to know that we have the right to free speech enshrined in law too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rig ... expression

The main exceptions to free speech in the UK are not that different to yours. Our libel laws are stronger, but I would argue that does not infringe free speech, so much as provide redress when that right is abused to tell defamatory lies about someone.

I should point out, you have a habit of censoring facebook comments you don't like. I have not done that ever as far as I recall.


I know people who have been arrested for saying things in the UK that would not be illegal in the US.

I "censor" arguments I've specifically not wanted to have. It's Facebook. It's my wall. I'm free to do as I please, and free to remove things I find offensive, like the idiot Dip player who posted obscene pictures on my wall. I sent him a PM asking him not to do that. Minutes later, he did so again. Delete. Block.

Easy.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15952
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 04 Mar 2018, 6:35 am

Doctor Fate wrote:There is no demonstrable link. And, did the Clinton law actually lower violence? No.
Well, let's see.

1995 vs 2005

Violent Crime Rate (per 100,000 residents) : fell from 684.5 to 439.0
Murder and non-negligent manslaughter rate: fell from 8.2 to 5.6
Source

Casualties from massacres with guns

In the ten years before the law changed (Sept 1984- Sept 1994): 106 dead, 158 injured
In the ten years of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: 92 dead, 78 injured
In the ten years after the AWB expired: 266 dead, 232 injured

The data suggests that the period of the ban coincided with a reduction in casualties, and the expiry of it coincided with a sharp increase.

The data also suggests that crime fell, rather than rose (ie: people had less to fear from violent crime)

I submit that it did have an effect, and a positive one.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 04 Mar 2018, 11:51 am

danivon wrote:
Doctor Fate wrote:There is no demonstrable link. And, did the Clinton law actually lower violence? No.
Well, let's see.

1995 vs 2005

Violent Crime Rate (per 100,000 residents) : fell from 684.5 to 439.0
Murder and non-negligent manslaughter rate: fell from 8.2 to 5.6
Source

Casualties from massacres with guns

In the ten years before the law changed (Sept 1984- Sept 1994): 106 dead, 158 injured
In the ten years of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: 92 dead, 78 injured
In the ten years after the AWB expired: 266 dead, 232 injured

The data suggests that the period of the ban coincided with a reduction in casualties, and the expiry of it coincided with a sharp increase.

The data also suggests that crime fell, rather than rose (ie: people had less to fear from violent crime)

I submit that it did have an effect, and a positive one.


Apparently, not enough Americans agree with you, or it wouldn't have expired.

"Assault weapons" is an ill-defined, well-abused term. What many Democrats want is to do away with semi-autos. Good luck with that. We will have a police state before that happens.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10952
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 04 Mar 2018, 2:46 pm

fate
Apparently, not enough Americans agree with you, or it wouldn't have expired.


You actually believe that US politicians make laws that most of Americans want?

A new poll shows that 70% of Americans — and more than half of Republicans — support stricter laws on assault weapons in the wake of a deadly shooting in Florida.
According to the poll from Business Insider's partner MSN, 87% of Democrats and 52% of Republicans support stricter laws on assault weapons.


If your government was responsive to the wishes of their voters they would have a ban on "assault weapons".
Trump isn't right about much, but he's right when he says republicans are afraid of the NRA.