Fearmongering, NRA style UPDATED
Joshuashearn/Wikicommons
A few minutes ago, I received a telephone call from the National Rifle Association.
The female caller asked me to hang on for a special message from NRA Executive Director Wayne LaPierre, followed by a 1-question poll.
That got me to a taped message, in which a voice that purports to be LaPierre’s darkly warned of “behind closed doors” conversations at the United Nations, the object of which is an “international gun ban,” he said, “at a time when our Congress is full of anti-gun zealots.”
Such a U.N. treaty would be permanent, the voice warned.
“No third-world dictatorship is going to take away our gun rights,” it concluded.
Then a man came on the phone who identified himself as “with the NAR.”
“With the N-A-R?” I asked.
“That’s right,” he replied.
“What does that stand for?” I asked.
“The National Rifle Association,” he said.
“The N-A-R stands for National Rifle Association?” I asked.
“I mean the N-R-A,” he said.
“OK, glad we got that straight,” I responded.
Then he hit me with the question:
“Do you believe that third-world dictators, along with Hillary Clinton, should determine our gun rights?”
“Are you serious?” I asked. “Are you trying to get me to join? Is that the purpose of this call?”
He replied: “Thank you for your time, sir.” Click
UPDATE: I’m not the only one who got this. Some other gun owners are laughing their butts off about it. More here. And here. And here. And here.
October 6, 2009 - 10:00 AM
Glad they have their braintrust manning the phone lines.
“Do you believe that third-world dictators, along with Hillary Clinton, should determine our gun rights?”
Well why not, they cannot be any worse than the idiots and the NAR that are trying to do so now?
Just keep those membership dollars coming in to one of the largest PAC’s in the world. We have to continue paying Wayne over $600,000 a year for his guidance. And if you’re in the Northern Va. area, drive by our headquarters and feast your eyes on our beautiful building. BUT REMEMBER – If not for the NRA, those wimpy liberals will take your guns away!!
It was probobly George Bush..fresh off the internets..
The NRA is very active in all 57 States.
Everybody hates “lobbyists”, unless they are your own.
Rich,
Please email me, or give me a call. –Dan
@ #5: and I never misunderestimate the strategery of the NAR either!
Gun rights are (should be anyway) determined by the constitution and the “idiots” that wrote it, not anyone else including the wacked out “United Nations”. Sandi your comment is absurd as I am sure you meant it to be. The NRA is not trying to “determine” our gun rights. They are just trying to protect the right that is already ours. There is a procedure for changing the constitution should any one or any group (anti gun zealots in the congress for one) decide they want to pursue it. The day the UN or anyone else,including the supreme court, tries to take away our constitutional rights without due process is the day we will need our guns more than ever. Put it to the vote, ratify it in the states, change the constitution. I believe that is the proper procedure. Then you can make every law abiding citizen who feels they have a right to defend themselves, their families, and their property, criminals. The only reason it is not already done is because the majority of people in this country believe in the right to bear arms and the votes just are not there.
I am thankful for groups like the NRA who keep tabs on those who would take away our rights without due process.
And what in the world does George Bush have to do with it? You people never give up.
At Will #9:
The “idiots” (your word) who wrote our Constitution are dead. They have been that way for a long, long time. Back in their day, they used one-shot muskets, and occasionally a (also one-shot) cannon. There were no easily concealable firearms.
Questions for you:
1) If our forefathers intended the Constitution to protect the right to bear concealed handguns (which did not exist back then), did they also mean for the Constitution to protect the right to bear Bradley tanks and cruise missiles?
2) And if they meant to protect the former but not the latter, by what stretch of logic do you arrive at that conclusion?
Finally, the NRA may have led you to believe that it is protecting your (and our) rights, but their actions belie that. They are the lobbying arm of the gun manufacturing industry. Their goals are to promote laws that help that industry make money.
It is an extraordinary con they have pulled on hunters and other gun lovers in the American public. Because the NRA gets those people to underwrite the lobbying they do on behalf of those manufacturers.
No other industry has managed to pull this off. You wouldn’t send money to the American Petroleum Institute to “join” it, after all. Nor would you “join” the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association.
It’s one of the greatest cons in American politics!
Excuse me Will, but if you believe for one second that my comments were NEARLY as absurd as the NAR/NRA script of Dan’s phone call, you need to put down the Kool-aid.
I did not, never have and never would refer to the Founding Fathers as idiots and they, were IN NO WAY the idiots I was referring to in #2.
Calling the NRA (whom Dan correctly nails in #10) and anti gun control folks idiots is NO LESS absurd than pretending that “third-world dictators, along with Hillary Clinton” will be the ones determining ANY laws or rights in the United States of America for anyone.
1) If our forefathers intended the Constitution to protect the right to bear concealed handguns (which did not exist back then), did they also mean for the Constitution to protect the right to bear Bradley tanks and cruise missiles?
You could not conceal a gun prior to 1787 or there was no handguns before 1787? I would call you wrong on either answer though.
If freedom of speech was meant for quill and parchment then does it also mean freedom for internet, blogs, telephones, radio, t.v. and all other inventions made after 1787?
Ya know.I dont care for the NRA…but are we really dumb enough to disarm ourselves? Do you really trust your government that much? I tell ya one thing.I sure dont!
Hoo boy. Soooo much stupid in this one. This type of phone call and push poll is why I’m not a member of the NRA.
Will @ #9-
Your error and LaPierre’s is that the proposed UN treaty that he is using as a boogeyman to raise money would have to be approved by the Senate. It’s been tried before. It has about as much chance of passing as I do of getting a date with Scarlet Johannsen. It’s garbage, and worse yet, LaPierre *knows* it’s garbage.
Dan @ #10-
Come on, cut it out with the “they only had single shot muskets” crap. You even admitted elsewhere that they would have likely foreseen advances in firearms. It’s a fact that they *did* see advances in firearms. They had no reason to believe that the technology would simply stop. The natural progression would be smaller, more powerful, and faster.
“Finally, the NRA may have led you to believe that it is protecting your (and our) rights, but their actions belie that.”
As much distaste as I have for the NRA, and I agree with much of your characterization of them, they nonetheless have played a critical role in many important second amendment legal actions. I don’t like them, you don’t like them, but that doesn’t change the facts. They do put considerable money and effort into the the legal side of the issues. It’s often been said that if you are a member of both the ACLU and the NRA, you’ve got the entire Bill of Rights covered.
And Dan, I would like to hear your answer to TScottW’s query about the first amendment and telephones, television, the internet, etc. I would say with high confidence that those advances were far more difficult for the founders to foresee than concealable handguns. In fact, I would imagine if you showed Thomas Jefferson a modern handgun, he’d be able to figure out what it was just by looking at it. Show him a person using a PC and his brain would probably break.
Just as a note, when I said, “so much stupid”, I was referring to the NRA phonecall, not to the people posting here.
Jason, whew! I thought you were referring to me!
Dan,
“Back in their day, they used one-shot muskets, and occasionally a (also one-shot) cannon. There were no easily concealable firearms.”
I believe handguns were around long before then. Same as modern standards? No. Concealable? Probably.
I’m interested to hear where you draw your conclusions stated in post 10, about the NRA being the lobbying arm for the gun industry. Perhaps it is not technically incorrect. After all, what good would having a right to keep an bear arms be if the manufacturing could be arbitrarily legislated out of existence? What actions are you referring to, specifically? I know the Education and Training division is no small part, and I (and others) get a great benefit from it. There are other programs as well.
Yes, they probably wasted some money on whatever 3rd party telemarketer they hired. Am I upset that a portion of their operating budget may go to lobbying to keep gun manufacturers in business? Not at all.
Dan,
What if the telemarketer is calling because this is the only employment the individual can currently find during this tough economy (which has been greatly rejuvenated by all the well spent tax dollars)? Would this person be better living off of your tax dollars?
Of what if the individual has a learning disability or dyslexia and is unable or struggles to read the script placed before him or her? Is your humor in this individual not on the same level as the lady in the video making fun of Creigh Deeds for his speech problem?
And Rich,
You are very funny. Everyone knows, that only Obama knows where these other 7 states are located, and the reason he was the only candidate ever able to campaign in far more than 50 states in the Union. However I am sure that if the NRA were able to locate these other states then they would be present.
Bob,
The difference between me making fun of this guy’s garbling of the order of the letters in NRA and Sheila Johnson’s ill-fated lampooning of Creigh Deeds is that she is aware that stuttering is an issue with Deeds. I am unaware of any dyslexia (or any condition) that the telemarketer suffers from. In other words, her slight was intentional; mine (if there is one, and we cannot know) was not.
I’m happy for the guy to have a job. I have no objection to him working. It’s the implicit lie in the phony “push poll” that I object to.
“Do you believe that third-world dictators, along with Hillary Clinton, should determine our gun rights?”
Give me a break! Who would ever fall for such obvious garbage?
Dan,
@ #10 – I believe Sandi decided to use the term “idiots” in #2 before Will did so, so lets stick to facts (which I know is hard to do for you. I’m still awaiting the answers to multiple questions I’ve posed but I’ve given up hope that you can be anything more than a sensationalist shell in a suit.) I also read Will @#9 and I failed to see where he mentioned the Constitution covering either concealed firearms or tanks either one… (Further, neither Bradley Tanks nor Cruise missiles are firearms, so to answer your question, the 2nd Amendment would have nothing to do with either tanks or missiles. No stretch of logic, you just need to know what the heck you’re talking about before you go spouting off like you do.)
You also forget (or conveniently failed to mention) that the NRA has many instructors and classes to teach responsible firearms ownership and sportsmanship. Ed S. mentioned this, and he’s right, it’s no small part.
Oh, and wait – lets not forget that in District of Columbia vs. Heller, the NRA filed an Amicus Brief because they believed that the life of a citizen in DC was just as valuable as the life of every other citizen, and they deserved the same opportunity to protect themselves as the rest of the citizens in the US – lets hear how you feel that’s not true, if that’s such a bad thing?
CIFTA is being pushed as “International Gun Control” by a lot of folks, which would remove congressional oversight – and many have pushed for this treaty… Section 3(b) could possibly even label black cat firecrackers as a “firearm” (google the treaty and research yourself, don’t believe my words) – so if it’s that horribly written, what’s the real push for another horribly written treaty to be passed? With people pushing for laws like this and others blindly cheering for it – who are the real idiots?
JC, reread the Second Amendment — please. It very clearly refers to “arms,” not firearms, not sidearms. Cruise missiles and Bradley tanks (and nuclear weapons) clearly fall under the definition of “arms.”
Now, there are many Second Amendment supporters who hold that it doesn’t protect the right to own cruise missiles, etc. OK, fine — draw a line someplace and argue, “our forefathers DID NOT MEAN this, and that, but they darned tootin’ meant this other category of weapons that did not exist in their day, like revolvers, for instance, and .380s.”
The problem with this logic is that we both are treating the Second Amendment the same way — we’re merely drawing the line in a different place in terms of what rights it protects and what ones it doesn’t.
I don’t have a problem with Heller, by the way. And if you read it, you’ll find it explicitly supports reasonable gun regulation by government.
Tony writes: “Ya know.I dont care for the NRA…but are we really dumb enough to disarm ourselves? Do you really trust your government that much? I tell ya one thing.I sure dont!”
I would like to know why he feels there is a need to protect ourselves from the government? Or is he refrring to the fact that if guns are banned/regulated there will be so much rampant crime that we, as citizens, will be at the mercy of any knife weilding criminal that chases us down the street?
The NRA would certainly like for all of us to belive that we must own guns in order to protect ourselves. It’s all BS, in my opinion. I am more afraid now, knowing that my neighbor has a gun in his bedside table, that may one day be stolen in a robbery and used to kill some innocent kid on the street, than I am of living in a society without guns.
Homicides are most often committed with guns, especially handguns.
Homicides of teens and young adults are more likely to be committed with a gun than homicides of persons of other ages.
And when you fret and moan about how violent countries and factions (think Taliban) must be stopped… Don’t forget that most of the firearms they use came from right here in the good ole’ USA! In fact, The United States is the top global supplier of weapons. We are also the top supplier of weapons to the developing world.
Maybe our motto should be “In Guns We Trust”
I’d love to see the gun people take their wittle handguns out to protect themselves from the “government” – when said government rolls into town with tanks, Bradleys, air power, etc. Just precisely what do you think you and your Glock or whatever are going to do about that?
There might be reasons to advocate private gun ownership. “Protecting” yourself from your government isn’t one of them. They’ve got us all way outgunned.
Good point Lynda K, they sure fight harder for guns than they do for God. In fact, most only fight for God when it suits their other purposes. Abortion – the fight is on and the government NEEDS to be IN the middle of it. Feeding, clothing, housing & medical care for the poor – the fight is on and the government NEEDS to stay OUT of it. Gay Rights – the fight is on and the government NEEDS to be IN the middle of it. Gun control, raising taxes to help people and build infrastructure, investing in our military and veteran personnel, the fight is on the and the government NEEDS to stay OUT of it. The Ten Commandments in the school house, the fight is on and the government NEEDS to allow it. Books supporting gay: marriage, adoption, rights, the fight is on and the government NEEDS to ban it. Who’s side is God on?
Dan,
You are exactly right. Who would fall for this garbage? I will not say anyone but anyone with common sense will not.
I still have a problem understanding why you have such as problem with the NRA as they are a lobbying group. They are no better than any of the other countless groups driving the opionions and votes of those in Washington. Yet you focus on the NRA again and again. How about you pick perhaps a liberal lobbyist group and detail them soon.
I also do not understand your obsession with the concealed carry permits. I understand that handguns are the weapon of choice in many violent crimes. I also believe that those with legal permits are not the ones commiting these crimes. If you can find a statistic of violent crimes involving firearms by licensed carriers as a percentage to the entire population of violent firearm crimes I would welcome that. Gun control to a certain extent is a good idea. Yet the law abiding citizens are the ones following these laws.
I will be waiting on the statistic and a wonderful piece on a liberal group.
Thank God the minute men and patriots who fought for our freedom in the revolution believed in the right to bear arms. Just because our society is becoming a dangerous cesspool of crime and immorality, (brought on in a large way by liberal relativism),does not mean modern government has a right to take away our right to bear arms,(whether concealed or not) as set forth in the constitution. Again Dan, if the constitution is so outdated because the founding fathers did not have the foresight to write a document that applies to modern times, then go through the proper procedures and get it changed. The problem with that logic is again,there are just not enough votes to do it.
And on another note, thank goodness for the tanks and missiles and other pieces of machinery that have helped defend our liberty. I do not want my daughters to have to wear a scarf over their face in public or be treated like the women in some of the nations who do not enjoy the freedom we do.
Sandi and LyndaK, If it were not for people willing to defend our freedoms with force when neccesary, you two as women may not even be allowed to discuss such matters in a public forum. And LyndaK, I bet you would be glad to have you neighbor take his gun off of his nightstand and come to your rescue when the hoodlums break down your door and are holding your family hostage. It’s happening more every day.
And finally Kristen, I bet King George said the same thing about the colonies in the early 1770′s. Boy was he fooled.
Lynda K @23-
“It’s all BS, in my opinion. I am more afraid now, knowing that my neighbor has a gun in his bedside table, that may one day be stolen in a robbery and used to kill some innocent kid on the street”
You can be afraid of that but it’s not rational. According to ATF agent Jay Wachtel, most criminals obtain their guns via straw purchases, not from theft. “Stolen guns account for only about 10% to 15% of guns used in crimes.”
“And when you fret and moan about how violent countries and factions (think Taliban) must be stopped… Don’t forget that most of the firearms they use came from right here in the good ole’ USA!”
Where in the world did you get this? Go ahead and cite your source, because I’m dying to know where in the U.S. the Taliban got all of their full auto AK-47s in the U.S. Yes, the U.S. exports lots of arms, but we’re not talking about fighter jets or M4s to other governments.
“In fact, The United States is the top global supplier of weapons. We are also the top supplier of weapons to the developing world.”
True, has nothing to do with gun control in the U.S. though.
Kristen @24-
“I’d love to see the gun people take their wittle handguns out to protect themselves from the “government” – when said government rolls into town with tanks, Bradleys, air power, etc. Just precisely what do you think you and your Glock or whatever are going to do about that?”
Kristen, the idea behind an armed populace resisting their government is not to engage in head to head, set piece battles. As you point out, that would be suicide. The point would be an insurgent war. Also, the idea of a violent overthrow of an American government carries with it the notion that a huge percentage of the military would be unwilling to fire on its own citizens; obviously we are talking about an insanely extreme and unlikely set of circumstances.
“There might be reasons to advocate private gun ownership.”
Well thanks. It’s big of you to acknowledge that.
“Protecting” yourself from your government isn’t one of them. They’ve got us all way outgunned.”
Our government isn’t just the military, it’s also overzealous law enforcement doing no-knock raids on the wrong house or corrupt cops and such. And they don’t necessarily have us outgunned.
Jason writes: “Where in the world did you get this? Go ahead and cite your source, because I’m dying to know where in the U.S. the Taliban got all of their full auto AK-47s in the U.S.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“In the mid-1980s, bin Laden was one of Ronald Reagan’s “freedom fighters” battling Soviet forces in Afghanistan. Various rebel factions received billions of dollars worth of arms, training, and logistical support from the Central Intelligence Agency and the Saudi monarchy.
Throughout the 1980s, the United States supplied the Afghan Mujahedeen with more than $2 billion in weaponry and equipment, including approximately 2,000 Stinger anti-aircraft missiles, manufactured by General Dynamics.[169] The U.S. also supplied AK-47s, small and light weapons, intelligence on Soviet targets and intercepts of Soviet communications, delayed timing devices for tons of C-4 explosives, a targeting device for mortars, communications equipment, anti-tank missiles and access to data from U.S. Navy satellites.[170]
In addition to weapons clearly transferred as part of the proxy war with the Soviet Union, more recently bin Laden’s al-Qaeda network was able to purchase U.S. weapons on the open market.”
Source:
U.S. WEAPONS AT WAR 2005:
PROMOTING FREEDOM OR FUELING CONFLICT?
U.S. Military Aid and Arms Transfers Since September 11
A World Policy Institute Special Report
by Frida Berrigan and William D. Hartung, with Leslie Heffel
June 2005
Will #27: Conflate much? Has ANYONE in this thread stated that they did not support “the right to bear arms”?
Out society is indeed somewhat dangerous and immorality is certainly in the open now, but that is NOT the fault of “liberal relativism” whatever that is, but rather by the ever increasing display of arrogance, avarice and indifference while promoting “individual freedoms” and “self-determination” and the capitalism mantra of “greed is good” NONE of those are Liberal.
No one here is advocating that the “modern government has a right to take away our right to bear arms” from law abiding, qualified and competent citizens. Although we obviously all have a different idea of who meets those criteria and how.
Also, no one has said the Constitution is outdated, just not to be taken as literally by 300 million in 50 states in 2009 as it was by 13 States and less than 2 million people in 1790. The Founding Fathers KNEW this, too bad more people don’t.
Conflating the tanks, guns and patriots who have died defending the United States or our “interests” has no bearing on this thread or gun control.
And since we were founded to prevent any theocracy, the scarf and ladies not welcome argument is bogus as well.
As for the neighbor defending one of us with his gun, that is also highly doubtful and a dubious valor to give some gun owners IMO.
ANYONE who bears the thought of being armed PREVENTING the government from doing anything they can agree to do (through congressional methods by our REPRESENTATIVES duly elected to do so) is TOO DELUSIONAL to be allowed to have guns IMO. Whether it is the local (and they all have one now) SWAT team or just Bubba with a battering ram and mucho backup, YOU WILL GO DOWN and frankly, pretty quickly. Please stop using delusions as a reason to be armed at the Kroger! If you believe you are in danger, or simply want to be PREPARED like a good boy scout for whatever calamity is thrown at you, get competent, get permitted, follow the rules and abide by the laws AND DEMAND that your brethren do the same with REAL competency criteria that cannot be questioned and I will shut up and go away.
Will-
“Just because our society is becoming a dangerous cesspool of crime and immorality”
I’m not going to argue with you on immorality because we probably have very different views on what it is, but crime is actually low historically speaking. What is at an all time high is the public’s ability to instantly know about every gruesome crime, thus giving the impression that crime is ever present and everywhere.
Lynda-
Maybe I interpreted your phrasing differently. Anyone who follows world events knows that we funded the Taliban in the 80s in their war against the Soviets. But let’s look at your statement again: “And when you fret and moan about how violent countries and factions (think Taliban) must be stopped… Don’t forget that most of the firearms they use CAME FROM RIGHT HERE IN THE GOOD OLE USA!”
Emphasis mine obviously. The arms you refer to that “came from here” are pretty much used up. Note that I specifically said AK-47s. That’s because of the arms that we supplied the Taliban, they are just about the only things left. If you can find accounts of significant numbers of Stingers or anti-tank missiles being used against us in the current conflict, I’d love to see them. And obviously in the context of gun control, we aren’t talking about Stingers. The AKs were purchased by us, but most definitely did not come from the US. Now that I think about it more, and having reread your post, I realize that my biggest mistake was responding to that line at all since it had nothing to do with anything in this thread.
But yeah, we gave the Taliban Stingers and anti-tank missiles and somehow that has something to do with gun control or something. I guess.
Sandi-
“Out society is indeed somewhat dangerous and immorality is certainly in the open now, but that is NOT the fault of “liberal relativism” whatever that is, but rather by the ever increasing display of arrogance, avarice and indifference while promoting “individual freedoms” and “self-determination” and the capitalism mantra of “greed is good” NONE of those are Liberal.”
Speak for yourself. As stereotypical descriptions go, I’m more liberal than most people that call themselves liberal, and I certainly believe in the ideas of self determination and individual freedoms. The former does not exclude compassion for others, and the latter at least used to be a cornerstone of liberal thinking. One might be forgiven for thinking that’s no longer the case, at least in as much as the Democratic party is the flag carrier for liberalism.
“As for the neighbor defending one of us with his gun, that is also highly doubtful and a dubious valor to give some gun owners IMO.”
Would you like me to produce news stories of this happening? I can if you’d like.
“ANYONE who bears the thought of being armed PREVENTING the government from doing anything they can agree to do (through congressional methods by our REPRESENTATIVES duly elected to do so) is TOO DELUSIONAL to be allowed to have guns IMO. Whether it is the local (and they all have one now) SWAT team or just Bubba with a battering ram and mucho backup, YOU WILL GO DOWN and frankly, pretty quickly.”
Undoubtedly there are people who are a bit too happy to think about fighting it out with the government. The odds of such an event are of course vanishing small. But it is not impossible, and you are wrong about the ability of civilians to resist a better equipped military. It has happened over and over, and it’s happened in the recent past.
“Please stop using delusions as a reason to be armed at the Kroger!”
You just made my day Sandi. I got these two stories in my news feed today, and I thought to myself, “Darn, if only I had an excuse to post these over on Dan’s blog so Sandi could see them.” I present to you:
http://www.wvec.com/news/topstories/stories/wvec_local_100509_nn_store_attempt_rob_shooting.1e963ae73.html
http://www.ohio.com/news/63381637.html
What are they? Not one, but TWO, stories of someone using a gun in self defense at, drum roll please, a grocery store! In fact, the first one is near you and my former home of Williamsburg, Newport News! Apparently these stores’ anti-crime force fields were inoperable.
Dan,
@22 – I draw the line at “arms” that one can “bear” – when you can bear a Bradley, we’ll chat!
I didn’t say you did have anything against Heller, but you can’t call it the greatest con in history when multiple lawsuits rely on their help, regardless of whether you agree with the outcome or not. (And for the record, I’m not against rational rules and regulations, but when treaties can bypass our own government and potentially label anything “explosive” as a firearm, you have to start scratching your head.) It’s easy to state that it’s a con when you don’t hear about the plethora of lawsuits that occur every day that the NRA helps with – some valid, some downright laughable…but to those who hear about the numerous lawsuits, it’s not such a con after all.
Sandi, @#11 you said calling the NRA and anti-gun control people idiots was no less absurd than pretending “third-world dictators, along with Hillary Clinton” will be the ones determining ANY laws or rights in the United States of America for anyone – you really don’t get out much, do you? I already pointed to a treaty that multiple administrations have said that support that will bypass our own government in terms of enforcing gun laws that aren’t on any US books – just because YOU don’t know about it doesn’t mean everyone else are idiots. People who do know about it typically know because it directly affects them and they choose to be informed by reading the proposed treaty – something you obviously have yet to do. You project YOUR beliefs and decisions on everyone else (go talk to your local law enforcement officer, you’d be surprised at the reasons to be armed at Kroger) – don’t call someone else delusional because you don’t agree. I don’t ask that you shut up, I ask that you put up – put up statistics, backed up with facts and not your opinion. Everyone can throw in their two and a half cents, but you’ve yet to convince me of anything other than the fact that you enjoy giving your opinion whether you know what you’re talking about or not… You can start by researching CIFTA, if you would so like.
Also, if the Constitution is not supposed to be taken literally, I’ll remember that the next time I decide to break some gun laws and say “Well, everyone knows laws aren’t meant to be taken literally – Sandi said so…” If it’s not meant to be taken literally, lets all just start censoring those we don’t agree with, since the freedom of speech is figurative and not literal… right? I also didn’t see anyone state that everyone should go buy a gun and start carrying without being property trained – I believe the general consensus among the majority of people who have posted agree that everyone should be competent when carrying a firearms, so who’s conflating? And to be honest with you – your opinion of “dubious valor” given to some gun owners who have protected other innocent people really shows your distinct disdain for firearms owners. I really don’t find that hard to believe, seeing as how you’re one to interject your beliefs whenever you don’t have anything else constructive to add to the current conversation. (Gov needs to be in the fight for abortion, out of the fight for food, clothing, housing and medical for the poor, in the fight for gay rights, out of the fight of gun control, taxes, and investing in our military? You @ #25 – what exactly does all this have to do with the price of eggs in China? Talk about having “no bearing on this thread”, as you put it…)
Jason and jc: I may not be the brightest light in the firmament, but I am also not an idiot.
You BOTH use dubious and specious “facts” to support your premise and call out others for what you see as the same.
You BOTH put words in other’s mouth and then decry the words.
You BOTH seek to shut down honest debate with insult and mockery.
You BOTH feel that your opinion is superior and that your “evidence” is irrefutable even when anecdotes and possibilities are not truly evidence worthy of rebuttal.
I dislike brick walls and I especially dislike bullies who insult and demean people who disagree with them. My day does not include time to fight with both for so very little gain.
Your odds for changing my mind are nil. Your odds of insulting me from your favored place of anonymity are very courageous but also nil. I consider the source and I pray others here do as well.
jc, your “fear” of this treaty being signed and “third-world dictators, along with Hillary Clinton, should determine our gun rights” is as absurd and fear mongering as the caller was. How many treaties has the U.S. singed and ignored? How many treaty terms have EVER been applied to the U.S.? How many foreign or United Nations sponsored laws are on our books? How many countries lead us to a table?
Jason, what percentage of irresponsible or criminal acts perpetrated by gun owners is acceptable to you? Why should we ONLY want to look at the “heroes” and ignore the “zeroes”? If your neighbor is a grouchy, erratic, paranoid fool who is legally allowed to be armed, is there no cause for concern? If your neighbor is the self proclaimed sheriff of the neighborhood, is there no cause for concern? Are you that confident in an online course being acceptable for a CCP? Somehow I do not think that your opinions allow for all sides of the issue any more than you believe mine do.
Your views on Liberalism, leave me unconvinced that you are Liberal at all. I stand by my premise and your attempt to redirect the point are not acceptable to me.
I have the utmost respect for the many quiet, unassuming, competent, capable and responsible gun owners. I have zero respect for the loud, insulting, arrogant, self-righteous ones.
Sandi,
I think that if you go back and read many of his comments, you’ll find that Jason is one of the more level-headed and intelligent posters on this board. Rarely, if ever, are his posts insulting or mocking.
Mayhap I am remembering heated discussions that did not happen with Jason but for some reason I recall his level head is very passionate about CCP and guns in general. I certainly will not dispute his obvious and intimidating intelligence, that is awesome to behold.
Jason, if I have confused you with another sparring opponent, I sincerely apologize for the unearned response and ask your forgiveness. I will strive to be more careful in my analysis and a visit to the archives appears in order.
Sandi-
I honestly thought that post was lighthearted and fun.
“I dislike brick walls and I especially dislike bullies who insult and demean people who disagree with them. My day does not include time to fight with both for so very little gain.”
Didn’t do it. Show your work.
“Your odds for changing my mind are nil.”
Well established by now. This is not something to be proud of.
“Your odds of insulting me from your favored place of anonymity are very courageous but also nil.”
I’m not insulting you, the anonymity accusation is irrelevant, and I even gave up my identity way back when.
“Jason, what percentage of irresponsible or criminal acts perpetrated by gun owners is acceptable to you?”
Ok, at least we’re attempting discussion of the issue…. That’s an impossible question to answer. Just as it’s impossible to answer, “How many successful defensive uses of handguns is enough to justify their existence?”
“Why should we ONLY want to look at the “heroes” and ignore the “zeroes”?”
Good question. Now find someone who only wanted to look at the heroes and ask them.
“If your neighbor is a grouchy, erratic, paranoid fool who is legally allowed to be armed, is there no cause for concern?”
If his behavior is worthy of concern, then yes. Grouchiness and paranoia aren’t grounds for denying him his rights though.
“If your neighbor is the self proclaimed sheriff of the neighborhood, is there no cause for concern?”
How is it manifesting itself? Is he being a pain in the a** and telling you to rake your leaves? That’s not a concern. If he’s conducting his own no knock raids on your house, yeah, that’s a problem.
“Are you that confident in an online course being acceptable for a CCP?”
It’s not my preference, but I think it can be done adequately. The one Dan took appears to be a joke.
“Somehow I do not think that your opinions allow for all sides of the issue any more than you believe mine do.”
This is coming from the person who in the same post said, “Your odds for changing my mind are nil.” I’ve changed my mind Sandi, on many issues, including gun control. I used to be more radically pro gun control than you are.
“Your views on Liberalism, leave me unconvinced that you are Liberal at all.”
I actually typed up a monstrous paragraph listing my views on a dozen issues to “prove” that I was a liberal and then deleted it. It’s a waste of time and space and it would just start a bunch of off topic nonsense. Suffice to say, by most American’s standards, I’m so liberal I’m a communist. Doesn’t mean they are right, but what can you do.
“I stand by my premise and your attempt to redirect the point are not acceptable to me.”
What re-direct? A lighthearted jab at your obsession with the idea that supermarkets are crime-free Xanadus?
“I have the utmost respect for the many quiet, unassuming, competent, capable and responsible gun owners. I have zero respect for the loud, insulting, arrogant, self-righteous ones.”
I know. I’ve tried to get better, but I can’t help it. I just walk around in public yelling and stomping, “LOOK AT ME, I GOT A GUN, LOOK AT ME. YOU ARE WIMPY, I GOT A GUN, GET OUTTA MY WAY! I AM RIGHT AND YOU ARE WRONG! I AM SO TOUGH AND RIGHT ABOUT EVERYTHING!”
Dan,
Now that is something that you and I can both agree upon. Jason appears to be a well mannered and educated gentleman who has undoubtedly helped me take a look at all sides of firearm related stories that you post, without being offensive I might add.
Sandi-
I posted 36 before I saw your 35. No apology is necessary and to be honest, the idea that anything about me, particularly my intelligence (what of it I have) is intimidating, is funny.
Please understand that sometimes in text, passion for an issue can be mistaken for the wrong emotion. We are both passionate about these issues, no question. And I don’t deny that I can be a smart-a**. But I try very hard to answer points as specifically as possible and stay away from out and out insults. If you believe I’ve insulted you, don’t hesitate to call me out on it, I just humbly ask that you point it out specifically.
I guarantee you that if we discussed this issue in person, it’s unlikely either of us would raise our voices and you’d probably not believe I was the same obnoxious guy you’ve been wanting to smack on the internet.
Jason, again with the big brain? I appreciate your comments and the points you make and having been so misunderstood, maligned and called out for things I did not say may well have made me punch drunk and flailing at anything that moves, which I will grant you, is no excuse for doing the same.
My passion is not for or against guns. As I said, I have love, respect and confidence in many of the gun owners I know. I also have real fear because of total idiots looking for a disaster to start who own, use and carry guns. When I see people defending the online class that Dan took to get his permit and idiots publicly advocating violence and overthrow of laws, I admit my hackles go up and all bets on civility are off. We do not need more gun control laws, we need real gun control. I confess I do not know how to achieve that, but bogus online certifications and hiding behind a single line in the Constitution is not getting the job done.
I made myself avoid gun threads for a while just because of my visceral reactions to the arrogant, condescending, insulting and hateful responses from those same people I fear. Perhaps I should refrain more often. The Lord knows and the evidence shows, my skin is extremely thin on this subject.
Surely you know that my definition of Liberal leaves no room for “I’m so liberal I’m a communist”. Maybe my idea of Liberal needs another name if there is a case for it being nearly Communist. I consider Jesus Christ the ultimate Liberal and leader of my branch of it. Therefore personal freedoms and independence ALWAYS must take a back seat to “the greater good” and a constant effort to make things better even at your own sacrifice. So it is foreign to me for “Liberal Relativism” (Whatever that means) to be the fault of society’s ills. A Liberal is the most “responsible” person in the room because they feel the weight of doing right by ALL. Maybe I AM a complete outlier and just do not know it.
I do change my mind (although at 51 I do so less and less), but NEVER at the end of a browbeating, an insult or a condescending lesson. Who does?
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/10/08/us/AP-US-Soccer-Mom-Gun.html
This link basically highlights a point I’ve made many times about guns and the ostensible “safety” they lend their owners.
Every statistic shows that the only people with a chance of being shot and killed by a personally owned weapon are the owner or someone else in the household. Live by the sword, die by the sword. Since I don’t own a gun and never would have one in my house, this doesn’t affect me. What MIGHT have an impact on me and my family is the mindset of those who think that every vegetable bin has potential for a shootout and acts accordingly. I truly believe that violence follows people who look for and expect it.
I, for one, would like to know, from those of you who are owners of handguns, what purpose they serve you? I have listened and can understand the arguments of those owning rifles/shotguns for the sport of hunting. (another subject altogether) But I cannot understand the need for owning a handgun. Is it strictly for safety? Does it offer you a feeling of comfort or is there something inherently “manly in a wild west kind of way” about carrying a handgun? What is a handgun built to do? As far as I can see, their only purpose is as a means to injure or kill another human. Do you own your guns for reasons other than a potential future encounter where they would be pointed at and possibly fired in the direction of a living person? I’m obviously missing something. Please feel free to tell me what that is.
Lynda,
Not everyone that owns a handgun carries that weapon with them at all times. I enjoy target practice and having the peace of mind that the firearm is in my household shall I ever need its assistance.
Lynda,
May I present to you an honest answer in the form of a “challenge”? What reasons have you heard of or can you think of other than “manly in a wild west kind of way”?
Also, do you watch the Olympics?
Sandi-
“Surely you know that my definition of Liberal leaves no room for “I’m so liberal I’m a communist”.”
Just a poor attempt at humor on my part. In our country, when someone as decidedly moderate as President Obama is declared an extreme leftist, I jokingly declare that I must be a communist.
“I do change my mind (although at 51 I do so less and less), but NEVER at the end of a browbeating, an insult or a condescending lesson. Who does?”
I agree.
Kristen-
“Every statistic shows that the only people with a chance of being shot and killed by a personally owned weapon are the owner or someone else in the household.”
Translated for the real world: “Every statistic that hasn’t been completely discredited while ignoring the multiple studies that contradict them…”
Lynda K-
“I, for one, would like to know, from those of you who are owners of handguns, what purpose they serve you?”
Risk reduction. Self defense in the unlikely event of a violent crime.
“I have listened and can understand the arguments of those owning rifles/shotguns for the sport of hunting.”
I couldn’t be less interested in hunting.
“But I cannot understand the need for owning a handgun. Is it strictly for safety?”
It’s fun at the range as well.
“Does it offer you a feeling of comfort or is there something inherently “manly in a wild west kind of way” about carrying a handgun?”
*Please* stop this? There are weird people who do all sorts of activities because they have “issues” and gun hobbyists are no different. But the vast majority are normal people. I won’t speak for everyone, but I didn’t buy my first gun until late last year, and I’m 40. I’ve never been in a true fight in my life, not because of lack of opportunity, but because I’ve always walked and talked my way out of them. There’s nothing inherently manly or courageous about conflict and I don’t carry to impress anyone or compensate for anything. When you’ve carried for a while, it’s just another object on your body. My car keys are more annoying and uncomfortable.
“What is a handgun built to do?”
Launch a projectile at great speed.
“As far as I can see, their only purpose is as a means to injure or kill another human.”
Most successful defensive uses of firearms involve no shots fired; frequently, the sight of a gun ends the encounter. Of the ones where shots are fired, few involve fatalities.
“Do you own your guns for reasons other than a potential future encounter where they would be pointed at and possibly fired in the direction of a living person? I’m obviously missing something. Please feel free to tell me what that is.”
When carrying, the only time it would leave my holster is if I was in immediate fear for my life, or the life of someone else (or great bodily harm). That’s it. Ideally, bad guy sees the gun and stops. But if necessary, the idea is to fire until the threat is ended. If that means he runs, great. If it means that I hit him but he’s not seriously injured, fine. If it means he is seriously injured or dies, I’m sure it will be a life-altering event, and I will grieve for the innocent loved ones in his family. However, the alternative is leaving my wife and family grieving for me or I them.