NRA is really a bunch of f*ing idiots

Weaver · **#1501** by **Weaver** » Jan 28, 2013 12:17 pm

The incidence of Concealed Carry Weapon (CCW) permits across the States shows that only a small percentage of shops have armed clerks or staff. I'm sure that in businesses like jewelry stores it approaches 100%, but only a small fraction of convenience stores have armed staff.

Weaver · **#1502** by **Weaver** » Jan 28, 2013 12:19 pm

The_Metatron wrote:Actually, it is exactly that. Working to arm robbers and murderers. Demonstrated robbers and murderers.

No, they were not. They were working to restore rights to the unjustly convicted, and to those whose convictions should not result in forfeiture of rights.

By the way, citing the "Violence Policy Center" to support any position on gun control is like going to the Discovery Institute to seek answers about evolution.

http://www.gunweek.com/2003/hs012003.html

Caplan phoned recently to discuss a couple of key cases that have been before the Supremes in recent years, and focused on the fact the court had made the right decision with regard to the ultimate authority for restoration of rights. He indicated that while the lower courts which had ruled to restore Bean’s rights might have been trying to correct a bad situation, they had been twisting the function of law by accepting for the courts an investigative duty which they were not staffed, funded or authorized to fulfill.

He pointed out that in granting the grace to restore the firearms rights of a prohibited person, Congress had clearly intended that the process would involve a thorough investigation of the applicant in question. He claimed that the courts, whether federal or state, are not equipped to conduct such investigations and would be overtaxed if they attempted to take on those duties.

Not being a lawyer, I would defer to Caplan on this point. However, we both agreed that the original intent of Congress to create a path where the evidence would justify a merciful restoration of rights after investigation of each applicant’s history by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) was just. It was the later 1992 Congressional decision, at the instigation of the Violence Policy Center (VPC) and other mean-spirited gun haters, to deny funds for such investigations that was unjust. And the continuation of that prohibition on funding has compounded the injustice.

Bean is not the only one who deserves access to the process for restoration of rights. In his case, the Mexican crime of which he was convicted is not a felony in the US, and because of his case, it no longer is considered so in Mexico. His circumstance, and that of thousands of other Americans—guilty or innocent of the crimes that cost them their rights—suggest that the unforgiving, hard-hearted approach of the VPC and other anti-gunners runs contrary to the quality of mercy and justice.

By denying any possibility of rights restoration by a sneaky budgetary stratagem is characteristic of the nature of anti-gunners who, unable to deny everyone the right to guns and self-defense, are willing to apply an iron-fisted, one-size-fits-all prohibition on an increasing number of slices of the general public. Felons first, followed by various misdemeanants, then youthful offenders, domestic abusers, and people under restraining orders.

Dumping thousands of individual cases into one rigid, unforgiving mold is very much like the ancient times when debtors were forced to languish pointlessly in prison until they could pay their debts. Such inhumanity was legal, of course, which is why it is such a model for the anti-gunners. They deny the fact that the doctor, lawyer, nurse, teacher, even legislator that they trust today could have led an exemplary life after a youthful offense, or domestic flare-up, or even a felony.

Any attempt to restore funding to ATF for reinstate the restoration of rights process becomes in their spin “a guns-for-felons program.”

Read the whole article.

The_Metatron · **#1503** by **The_Metatron** » Jan 28, 2013 12:23 pm

Tell us how this meshes with a background check. "Unjustly convicted", eh? Appeals court is where unjust convictions are reviewed.

Unjust, my ass.

mcgruff · **#1504** by **mcgruff** » Jan 28, 2013 1:22 pm

Minimolas wrote:Step outside of your fantasy world for a second and tell me just what in the fuck an unarmed populace should do if their government begins to kill its people?

WHAT would an unarmed populace do if GIANT ZOMBIE CHICKENS with MAD eyes and RAZOR SHARP BEAKS began to KILL the PEOPLE?

OMG! OMFG!

Nostalgia · **#1505** by **Nostalgia** » Jan 28, 2013 2:06 pm

Minimolas wrote:Step outside of your fantasy world for a second and tell me just what in the fuck an unarmed populace should do if their government begins to kill its people?

This reasoning behind the 2nd Ad may of made sense in the 1700s but it doesn't hold any water in the modern world. No amount of semi-automatics are going to stop a totalitarian government armed with rocket launchers, tanks, jets and nukes. :what:

The_Piper · **#1506** by **The_Piper** » Jan 28, 2013 2:13 pm

mcgruff wrote:
Minimolas wrote:Step outside of your fantasy world for a second and tell me just what in the fuck an unarmed populace should do if their government begins to kill its people?

WHAT would an unarmed populace do if GIANT ZOMBIE CHICKENS with MAD eyes and RAZOR SHARP BEAKS began to KILL the PEOPLE?

OMG! OMFG!

I was standing on the fence, but this remark has convinced me that your position is the correct one.

mcgruff · **#1507** by **mcgruff** » Jan 28, 2013 2:18 pm

There is a long version but that's the essence of it.

trubble76 · **#1508** by **trubble76** » Jan 28, 2013 2:19 pm

Weaver wrote: Felons first, followed by various misdemeanants, then youthful offenders, domestic abusers, and people under restraining orders.

I don't really see a problem with this. Let's try and compare it to driving, (in the UK) if someone loses their right to operate a vehicle due to some illegal act and they wish to regain that right after their punishment term has passed, it is they who must fund their reapplication, which often (perhaps always) includes paying for retesting. It is not up to the traffic police or any other government body to fund any part of the regaining of rights. If the (rehabilitated) criminal cannot afford the process, then they don't get to drive anymore. Or am I missing something?

jaroge · **#1509** by **jaroge** » Jan 28, 2013 3:50 pm

FACT-MAN-2 wrote:Did you trouble yourself to read the whole thread before posting in it? Because, if you had, you'd know that just about every statistic on guns that's known to Man has been posted in it at one point or another, often many times over; just about every assertion or claim that mght be made on this subject pro or con has been posted innumerable times.

Sure did, and that is exactly why I posted my questions. There hasn't been a case made other than Guns kill people, the U.S. has a higher murder rate than X country, therefore guns are the problem.
But no serious evidence has been posted that access to guns are the CAUSE of the murders. Several counter points have been presented and completely ignored. Particularely the ratio of Gun owner ship to violent crime in other countries, as well as withint various districts in the United States as well. All of which runs counter to the idea that guns CAUSE murder/violent crime. Did you read it? it sure doesn't appear to be so, no case has been made, no counters have been presented to evidence that goes against the claims.

FACT-MAN-2 wrote:
jaroge wrote:
Also, where in any of my posts have I mentioned or alluded to 'assault weapons'? and what relevence are they to anything? If saving lives is your concern it doesn't appear that 'assault weapons' are the weapon of choice for the vast majority of homocides.

Ask those twenty families in Newtown Conn. who lost their kids. Ask the families of those who died in Aurora, Colorado.

The ONLY firearm that's under consideration for banning is the AR-15 type assault rifle, in case you hadn't noticed. Hence, it has bee the focus of much of the discourse in this thread. Had you read the thread, you'd know this.

Right, and as has been pointed out by several other posters in this thread, which you have supposedly read, Assault weapons are used in such a tiny fraction of homocides as to render a ban on them useless, not to mention the fact that the previous ban had absolutely no effect on violent crime/murder rates. So, naturally I figured you would have been able to comprehend the implications of those facts, my mistake, sorry. However, nowhere did I mention assault weapons in any of my previous posts, had you actually read them, you'd know that.

FACT-MAN-2 wrote:
jaroge wrote:
Sadly this is the level of debate put forth by gun-control advocates and it is why they are not taken seriously. I am trying to have a reasoned discussion and am being laughed at, ridiculed and spoken to as if I should just magically 'know' this truth you all speak of, which is apparently so obvious that none of you can support it with evidence. Not to mention allusions to being some sort of NRA shill, or some student trying to stir up trouble. And yet it is me who is being 'evasive'.

Quite.

FACT-MAN-2 wrote:Quote me making an assertion or claim that needs backing up with evidence, especially evidence that's not already been posted in the thread a dozen times.

I can quote you doing so with this oxymoron, "Guns save lives."

Back it up or STFU.

jaroge wrote:
Anyways, i will accept what has become obvious, you have no evidence to support your claims.

Good, then maybe you'll go away and we'll not have to deal with your unsupported claims and mendacious remarks.

But NO evidence has been presented to support even an assault weapons ban? none... in fact all the evidence posted points out how pointless such a ban would be. If you think the ban would be useful, tell us how? provide some evidence or STFU.... lol (no need to get all pissy, thats childish)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_gun_use

I am sure you are well aware of the fact that people have successfully defended themselves with firearms. I am also sure you are just pretending that you can't look things up for yourself. But perhaps you have never researched the other side of the argument? Perhaps that is why you are so reluctant to present your facts?
The low end estimates appear to be in the range of 55-80,000 defensive gun uses per year. That is several times the murder rate, so I think its safe to conclude that guns save lives.

Anyways, its obvious you have no desire to make your case, and thats ok. We can end our disagreement here, cheers!

babel · **#1510** by **babel** » Jan 28, 2013 3:58 pm

Guns cannot be the cause to any conflict as they have no personality, no thought process, nothing that can make them choose to participate in a conflict. It's the people using them that make that choice.

However, that red herring should be rotten by now. What guns inadvertedly do is facilitate and aggravate. Pretending they do not enable people to act more violently/deadly would defeat the claim that these items serve the purpose of self defence and none other can replace them in that role.

mcgruff · **#1511** by **mcgruff** » Jan 28, 2013 4:02 pm

Just the usual sophistry and lies...

jaroge · **#1512** by **jaroge** » Jan 28, 2013 4:05 pm

aban57 wrote:
jaroge wrote:
This seems to me to be an unsupportable position. The idea that if murderers didnt have access to guns then they would cease to kill seems silly at best. Are you being serious here?

So to you, all murders committed with a gun are made by criminals ?

Nope, there are many cases of justifiable homocide. What I am disputing is the causation/correlation between guns and crime, which has yet to be demonstrated.

aban57 wrote:So what about all these guys getting mad at something, pulling their gun because it's close and using it on the heat of the moment ?
Most of gun killings are made by people who never shot someone before. Can't find a source for that unfortunately.

You may not find a source for that cause it likely doesn't exist, but even if I grant you that, what about all the guys who are afraid to start shit for fear that they may either be shot, or even that they may have to shoot someone? what about the criminals who fear armed civillians? there are other sides to the coin.

aban57 wrote:[
jaroge wrote: I am in favour of the gun-control laws in place, they seem to work just fine.

Just. LOL.

once again, laughter.... the level of debate deepens!

aban57 wrote:[
jaroge wrote:
Murder and violent crime rate have fallen over 50% in the past 20 years while the rate of gun ownership has increased, including passage of conceal and carry laws.It seems to me that the problem of the United States high murder rate has to do with things other than firearms, just like Mexico's. If there is evidence that certain gun-control laws would save a lot of lives, than I would likely support them as well, but here we are again, back to that evidence thing everyone seems to abhor....

According to this,
LaFree said a combination of factors – from a weak economy and an aging population to increased immigration and a more robust police presence across the country – have contributed to the drop.

Absolutely no mention of guns here.
Care to provide a better argument ?

Exactly, no mention of guns, despite the fact that gun ownership has increased dramatically, conceal carry laws spreading throughout the U.S. All you are doing here is conceding that guns arent a big factor in crime rates, thanks for doing that. By the way, the Onus is still on you to 'provide a better argument'.
If Guns were the 'cause' of murder and violent crime, then more guns would equal more murder and violent crime. and yet thats not even close to what we see, anywhere. The fact that we see the opposite kinda puts that theory on shakey ground, don't you think? of course you don't.....

Blood · **#1513** by **Blood** » Jan 28, 2013 4:06 pm

MacIver wrote:
Minimolas wrote:Step outside of your fantasy world for a second and tell me just what in the fuck an unarmed populace should do if their government begins to kill its people?

This reasoning behind the 2nd Ad may of made sense in the 1700s but it doesn't hold any water in the modern world. No amount of semi-automatics are going to stop a totalitarian government armed with rocket launchers, tanks, jets and nukes.

Exactly, which is why the NRA will soon be lobbying hard to get larger "arms" legalized for private use, with the predictable retarded propaganda about how this is what "patriots" should do and what "the founding fathers" intended. Because, you know, the government is a tyranny when there's a democrat in the White House, and you have the "right" to destroy it.

jaroge · **#1514** by **jaroge** » Jan 28, 2013 4:10 pm

Weaver wrote:
proudfootz wrote:
The_Metatron wrote:How do we know they didn't spend their money on security? The evidence we have points to entry being gained by shooting a window out. With a BB gun.

Ooh! Ooh! Maybe it's not their house, and tenants can't modify it to make it secure. Good point.

Then what in the blue fuck are they doing storing assault rifles in bags in it, then?

Well, we can always be assured that the NRA will fight for the right of the intruders to come back with AR-15s of their own.

What the fuck ever. Where has the NRA ever supported arming robbers?

This is why I keep leaving these discussions - people simply cannot accept that there is evidence which shows them to be fucking wrong, even when it's rubbed in their faces. Instead, they haul out inflammatory bullshit like the above, or try to damn the acts of the innocent victims in their response to people who are breaking the fucking law and giving every indication that they mean harm - because they are just poor "punk ass kids with BB guns" out on a lark looking to steal stuff, they'd never hurt a fly, why they go to church every Sunday with their infirm grandmother, they're just misunderstood, etc,etc,etc.

Bah.

Enjoy the moral high molehill.

It easy for them to never be wrong, just avoind counterfactual evidence and smear those who disagree with you. It is really bizarre behaviour how unwilling certain people seem to be to engage in a civil discussion about this matter.

Blood · **#1515** by **Blood** » Jan 28, 2013 4:17 pm

MacIver wrote:
Minimolas wrote:Step outside of your fantasy world for a second and tell me just what in the fuck an unarmed populace should do if their government begins to kill its people?

This reasoning behind the 2nd Ad may of made sense in the 1700s but it doesn't hold any water in the modern world.

Except that wasn't "the reasoning behind the Second Amendment." It never occurred to Madison that the state militias would turn against the Federal government he had just helped create. Had the proponents of the amendments made that stupid argument, Madison would've deleted it entirely.

mcgruff · **#1516** by **mcgruff** » Jan 28, 2013 4:19 pm

Blood wrote:you know, the government is a tyranny when there's a democrat in the White House, and you have the "right" to destroy it.

Yes. A lot of the support for the 2nd amendment is simple insurrectionism. Remember Ruby Ridge? Randy Weaver had a head full of libertarian, government-hating, insurrectionist nonsense and ended up getting his wife and son killed (and a marshal) in an attempt to avoid an indictment which he eventually won when it was finally resolved, peacefully in court.

jaroge · **#1517** by **jaroge** » Jan 28, 2013 4:20 pm

babel wrote:Guns cannot be the cause to any conflict as they have no personality, no thought process, nothing that can make them choose to participate in a conflict. It's the people using them that make that choice.

However, that red herring should be rotten by now. What guns inadvertedly do is facilitate and aggravate. Pretending they do not enable people to act more violently/deadly would defeat the claim that these items serve the purpose of self defence and none other can replace them in that role.

Even if you can demonstrate that guns 'facilitate and aggravate'( which I am not so sure you can) that still doesn't settle anything. For every guy who is emboldened by the gun in his pocket, there is likely another guy who is afraid to pull out the gun in his pocket for fear of actually having to use it, or of someone else having a gun in their pocket. just having a gun doesn't automatically make you want to run around shooting people. That hasn't been demonstrated anywhere.

To make your case you would have to show the net balance of the former to be significantly higher than the latter.

Steve · **#1518** by **Steve** » Jan 28, 2013 4:26 pm

Weaver wrote:
proudfootz wrote:
The_Metatron wrote:How do we know they didn't spend their money on security? The evidence we have points to entry being gained by shooting a window out. With a BB gun.

Ooh! Ooh! Maybe it's not their house, and tenants can't modify it to make it secure. Good point.

Then what in the blue fuck are they doing storing assault rifles in bags in it, then?

Well, we can always be assured that the NRA will fight for the right of the intruders to come back with AR-15s of their own.

What the fuck ever. Where has the NRA ever supported arming robbers?

When they successfully lobbied to ban the CDC from accessing the ATF files on gun related incidents to examine the actual evidence to see what it might show. The NRA did that. That supported the arming of robbers by forcing us all to close our eyes and ears and going "la la la la la I can't hear you." It allows you and me and anyone else to say "Evidence? What evidence? I can't see any evidence!"

Yes, enabling IS supporting.

jaroge · **#1519** by **jaroge** » Jan 28, 2013 4:31 pm

While I do find this talk of 'tryannical governments' a little unreal, it is important to note that throughout history, particularely the last hundred or so years, Democide appears to be one of the greatest causes of murder, eclipsing all others. To dismiss this as a possibility is to completely ignore the historical record.

Salinger · **#1520** by **Salinger** » Jan 28, 2013 4:42 pm

jaroge wrote:For every guy who is emboldened by the gun in his pocket, there is likely another guy who is afraid to pull out the gun in his pocket for fear of actually having to use it

If you're afraid to use a gun, why would you own one? If anything, having a person in that scenario would be just as dangerous because they may not know how to operate it and could fire it accidentally.

Like Babel said, claiming that guns don't empower their owners weakens the argument that they're necessary for self-defense.

NRA is really a bunch of f*ing idiots

Re: NRA is really a bunch of f*ing idiots

Re: NRA is really a bunch of f*ing idiots

Re: NRA is really a bunch of f*ing idiots

Re: NRA is really a bunch of f*ing idiots

Re: NRA is really a bunch of f*ing idiots

Re: NRA is really a bunch of f*ing idiots

Re: NRA is really a bunch of f*ing idiots

Re: NRA is really a bunch of f*ing idiots

Re: NRA is really a bunch of f*ing idiots

Re: NRA is really a bunch of f*ing idiots

Re: NRA is really a bunch of f*ing idiots

Re: NRA is really a bunch of f*ing idiots

Re: NRA is really a bunch of f*ing idiots

Re: NRA is really a bunch of f*ing idiots

Re: NRA is really a bunch of f*ing idiots

Re: NRA is really a bunch of f*ing idiots

Re: NRA is really a bunch of f*ing idiots

Re: NRA is really a bunch of f*ing idiots

Re: NRA is really a bunch of f*ing idiots

Re: NRA is really a bunch of f*ing idiots

Who is online