That NRA ad about Obama’s daughters, reconsidered
Perhaps the National Rifle Association has rethought it’s dumb ad? (Or maybe someone rethought it for the NRA).
NRA - Stand and Fight Parody - watch more funny videos
January 17, 2013 - 9:11 PM
I saw this ad……Just pathetically tragic and sad that the NRA could stoop this low, but then again, desperate people do desperate things when they can’t deal with the truth and reality.
The NRA’s ad was correct. What did they say thst was untrue?
John you do realize his daughters go to a private school right, I mean you do have some knowledge correct? So if you want armed guards in your child’s schools find a private school that offers that, use that thing in your head sometimes it would do wonders.
2.The NRA’s ad was correct. What did they say thst was untrue?
Comment by John Wilburn — January 18, 2013 @ 1:27 am
John,
Most liberals do not like the truth nor can deal with it. . .hence we have
revisionist history, zero tolerance policies and the tried and true fallacy of “blame Bush”. I concur the NRA ad is every bit as appropriate as this entire liberal push to further the gun control agenda which does nothing to protect the children.
A truth is a truth and remains a truth only after questioning, evidence and then seeing how it plays out the in the real world.. how it fits the reality of reality. The video in question may speak a truth but is incomplete when applied to current reality. If anyone believes that our president (no matter the party) and family are not a greater target than you or I is not being truthful….you know this…and JW, after reading a lot of your opionions (agreeing with some) I am surprised you are taking a stand that appears to support this move by the NRA.
At least they didn’t show Sasha and Malia with bulls eyes on their heads or anything tasteless. Give them some credit.
How is this worse than Obama using children to promote his agenda?
I did read a quote by George Orwell recently that stated `The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those that speak it.“ Now, I know that society doesn`t hinge on an authors one quote, but, the truth IS the truth…people have to accept it, at some point.
Chris Christie’s going after the NRA for this ad.
“Revisionist” history is not the gift of the liberal, that is the province of the right wing. The truth that no one wants to admit is the gift of the liberal. Just ask Texas.
“Revisionist” history is not the gift of the liberal, that is the province of the right wing. The truth that no one wants to admit is the gift of the liberal. Just ask Texas.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — January 18, 2013 @ 11:20 am
Sandi, Texas is conservative. It is also the home of George Bush. Try NY where they just made all law enforcement officers class E felons with their new gun control law.
I did read a quote by George Orwell recently that stated `The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those that speak it.“ Now, I know that society doesn`t hinge on an authors one quote, but, the truth IS the truth…people have to accept it, at some point.
Comment by Applewood — January 18, 2013 @ 10:25 am
Unless they are liberal.
“Give them some credit.
Comment by Kristen — January 18, 2013 @ 9:50 am”
sure, they’ve exhausted china already, and STILL spending like a drunkard on payday
the obama kids do not deserve any better protection than any other child. but why should liberals care…they don’t care how many children get murdered before birth, why does it matter after the birth…hypocritical minds
13.“Give them some credit.
Comment by Kristen — January 18, 2013 @ 9:50 am”
sure, they’ve exhausted china already, and STILL spending like a drunkard on payday
WTH are you babbling about, pammalala? The Obama girls have “exhausted china”?? I was talking the NRA. Don’t respond to me again until you learn to read. Thanks.
hokie hater:
“John you do realize his daughters go to a private school right, I mean you do have some knowledge correct? So if you want armed guards in your child’s schools find a private school that offers that, use that thing in your head sometimes it would do wonders.”
hokie hater, before insulting me and implying that I’m not thinking. Why don’t you learn something about gun law and realize that, by and large, guns are not allowed by law in PRIVATE SCHOOLS either! True in VA and DC. A resource officer and the occasional loafing cop is all you get in public middle and high schools.
We need HB1557 to make it to law, then we’ll have armed security in schools.
Mutt:
“If anyone believes that our president (no matter the party) and family are not a greater target than you or I is not being truthful”
They may be a bigger target, but their lives are not more valuable. That is the elitists’ creed. The ad was perfectly fair.
Kristen:
“Chris Christie’s going after the NRA for this ad.”
He’s hinging his carrer on the RINO card. Hope he loses office over it. Of course, the screwed up voters of New Jersey will allow practically anything, so who knows.
2.The NRA’s ad was correct. What did they say thst was untrue?
Comment by John Wilburn
The ad was patently misleading, and here’s how: what they did was ask if the Prez’s kids were “more important” than others, trying to stir resentment, when the security question that they implied they were addressing was are they more threatened than other kids. “More important” does not in ant way mean the same thing as more threatened, as they knew people could be led to think it meant. The NRA knew the dishonest misdirection in the mismatch between question and answer would not be noticed by the audience they intended the ad for, and now John Wilburn is on record proving he didn’t notice the trick. Nor did Dave Hicks weigh in on the difference, so it must have hit a bullseye on his guncentric blind spot too.
To recast the same semantic trick with a different cast: Is a heavily armed grown man like John Wilburn “more important” than a 91 year old widow living alone without guns, or a handicapped person for whom shooting other people isn’t within their capability? Or does he just go around feeling more threatened? (Since the NRA ad allowed no room for context, neither does this example).
Where’s the money coming from, John W?
Nothing wrong with the ad at all. It’s factual but since when has the left shown any appreciation for facts? And I think pammala does bring up an interesting point. What are the numbers on late term abortions these days and just regular old, “got carried away with that guy I met last night” type of abortions? Seems that those killings are OK with the left. It really seems odd. Killing is killing. ????
(The president’s family) may be a bigger target, but their lives are not more valuable. That is the elitists’ creed.
Comment from the mind of John Wilburn
Again with the “elitist” crap, from someone who presumably wouldn’t mind being a middleman in realty transactions involving the “elite”. Frank Hardy and Roy Wheeler never bellyached about “elites”, did they?
But JW’s class consciousness does hint at why some fear the President, and are such suckers for the “he’s gonna take your guns’ boogaboo. In the country that has offered more people a greater chance at upward mobility than any in history, and even given those with little distinction but the right demographic a chance at comfortable lives while denying it to others, some-especially the gun enamored and tea party types-who have not nearly achieved the climb to prominence of the president feel the mediocrity of their peer group magnified. It may overlap with political instincts, but at its’ core it’s an embarassed resentment at their loss of privilege whenever meritocracy works and firepower doesn’t.
Be clear: it’s not racism. It’s resentment at discovering that life isn’t what their gun totin’ daddy told his lil’ buckaroo it was, because he couldn’t explain flat mobility across generations when others came from less and went further. That the current messenger is black is just salt in the wound for such folks.
They can still freely pursue and get success, and devote themselves to American materialism. But even with success, they’ll indulge in imagining themselves sole defenders of liberty and perfect rationalists, no matter the accuracy of such self-images. They get enormous reinforcement from a “conservative” apparatus that exploits them, encouraging them to think that many others are freeloading off them or stealing their liberty, and that their guns are what have brought any prosperity they may enjoy. That hurts less than admitting that in America, daddy’s guns have been useless for social mobility for a long time.
Elites exist, but in today’s gun saturated America their alleged threat to others is an invented excuse.
There’s a lot more citizens getting killed by criminals than presidents…I’m just sayin.
So let’s talk about David Keene’s family…just seems fair.
“The NRA thinks President Obama’s daughters are appropriate fodder for the gun control debate. Well, turnabout being fair play and all, I wonder if NRA President David Keene’s (adult) son has anything instructive to add to the conversation? Oops — we can’t ask him because he’s in the slammer for shooting at another motorist in a road rage incident!
In 2003, David Keene’s son, David M. Keene, was sentenced to 10 years in prison for discharging a firearm in a crime of violence after he shot at the driver of another car from his BMW on the George Washington Memorial Parkway in northern Virginia. Police said the shot missed the other driver’s head by inches. At the time, the younger Keene, then 21, was serving as [American Conservative Union] ACU’s director of online communications.
In addition to Blam-Blam Junior’s legal travails, current NRA President Keene’s ex-wife pleaded guilty last year to embezzling $400K from the ACU. The Keenes sound like exactly the sort of people who need access to a vast arsenal.”
http://www.balloon-juice.com/2013/01/18/son-of-a-gun/
For those that WANT to blame the NRA or the Republicans for gun violence, here’s a little homework assignment for you.
Take a map of the US and plot the gun homicides on it.
Now take and overlay that map with another US map of Democraticly governed areas vs. Republican governed areas.
You will notice a VERY consistent trend. The vast majority of the murderous areas are indeed not areas with much concentration of either NRA members nor Republican leadership.
58% of the US murders are committed in 5 cities: NY, LA, Chicago, Detroit, and Philadelphia. The rest of the US has a murder RATE equal to the 4th lowest in the world.
It seems that the vast majority of the US gun violence and murder problem lies in areas that are Democratic. Coincidence???
“In 2003, David Keene’s son, David M. Keene, was sentenced to 10 years in prison for discharging a firearm in a crime of violence after he shot at the driver of another car from his BMW on the George Washington Memorial Parkway in northern Virginia. Police said the shot missed the other driver’s head by inches. At the time, the younger Keene, then 21, was serving as [American Conservative Union] ACU’s director of online communications.”
–Comment by Hillary
Personally, if I was on that jury I would have voted the guy not guilty — most likely because it doesn’t seem that surprising. Half of the purpose of the NRA seems like it’s to prop up the “Go ahead, make my day” mentality. The other half? To make sure as many guns get sold as possible.
In front of me, Keene could have pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity, claiming he he had been brainwashed by NRA propaganda and the incessant furious ramblings of Wayne LaPierre. I would have gone for that, especially with the ACU angle. They are mostly crazy over there anyway.
But that’s just me!
Yeah Hillary, but his ex-wife didn’t use a gun while embezzling $400K.
Hillary @ 8:28pm, I’d heard that about Keene’s son, but not the sentence and timeline. Ten years from 2003, I wonder if he’s still in prison and soon to be released, so he can stand his ground with a gun against another unwitting lane changer?
Hillary:
“So let’s talk about David Keene’s family…just seems fair.”
Let’s talk about the the delegate who was pushing the “assault firearm” and standard capacity magazine ban inn the Virginia General Assembly, Joe Morrisey, that just seems fair:
http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/20/politician-responsible-for-brutal-assault-may-run-for-va-aty-general/
All the talking about us, but this guy gets a free pass from you guys. He was disbarred in 2001 for assaulting someone. Yesterday, he brandished an AK-47 on the floor of the General Assembly. Like David Gregory, he gets a free pass from you guys. Good thing his bill got shot down! People like him sure don’t speak for me.
See if this link works any better:
http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/20/politician-responsible-for-brutal-assault-may-run-for-va-attorney-general/
It seems that the vast majority of the US gun violence and murder problem lies in areas that are Democratic. Coincidence?
Comment by (o\ ! /o)
Coincidence that they’re not redneck areas, yes, but not random either. The explanation is not the simplistic one that some might want it to be, but one of the most important factors is demographics; of income, wealth, social mobility, population density and age, although not so much of race. Demographic factors are important to rates of violence most other times and places too.
Re: Warren @ 5:24 pm
Anyone seen where Warren has attacked the pro-prohibition and/or pro-more-restriction blogger’s logic, arguments, data and the like?
What are the numbers on late term abortions these days and just regular old, “got carried away with that guy I met last night” type of abortions? Seems that those killings are OK with the left. It really seems odd. Killing is killing. ????
Comment by Bubba Greene — January 18, 2013 @ 5:55 pm
I don’t know Einstein but it’s somewhere below the 0.010 percentage level, hovering really close to your around your I.Q. level.
If I was you I’d endeavor to stay away from the really philosophical questions so you don’t blow a gasket wondering about the same thing undoubtedly every woman who ever had the misfortune of waking up beside you has asked.
So Dave Hicks agrees that “more important” and “more threatened” are in no way synonymous? And therefore the demogogic implication in the NRA ad is misleading? Or does Dave Hicks ignore it?
And three more questions:
1) Anyone seen where Dave Hicks has attacked the pro-massacre weapon and/or pro-mass murder blogger’s logic, arguments, data and the like?
2) Anyone seen where Warren has habitually used acres of blog space to pretentiously lecture others on formal logic?
3) Anyone seen where Dave Hicks has implied his own superior fealty to logic by habitually using acres of blog space to pretentiously lecture others on formal logic?
I suppose Warren considers you have that covered Dave Hicks, he is just filling in your blind spots IMO.
(o\ ! /o), we have no idea why those big cities do not seem to like Republicans or the NRA. If indeed you all had a clue, they would seem to be a natural constituency and yet they are not. Of course all those violent folks are voters who make those decisions.
Re: Sandi Saunders @ 9:43 pm
So, if I’m just filling in filling in Warren’s blind, does that make his boring mantra of “Nor did Dave Hicks weigh….” (and the like) a “mote that is in his brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in his own eye [w/ apologizes to Matthew 7:1-5]” moment? Or otherwise a pot v. kettle personal obsession of on Warren’s point?
Some time ago you and I worked out debating each other w/o repetitive personal attacks. Don’t let him suck you in on this point.
More good news from the General Assembly!
From VCDL’s VA-ALERT:
“The Senate Courts of Justice committee this morning killed or neutralized all but one anti-gun bill….
SB 785, Marsden, as originally introduce, would make someone civilly liable if a gun is token and not “adequately secured.”
SB 1281, Deeds, universal background checks
SB 1136/SB 1232, McEachin/Ebbin, universal background check
SB 1012, Ebbin, prohibits guns in the General Assembly except for legislators and police
SB 1148, McEachin, bans magazines that hold more than 10 rounds
SB 1228, Saslaw, repeals firearms preemption…”
Virginia will not have foolish knee-jerk reaction to Sandy Hook that New York had.
Sandi, if you had a clue you would understand that the CRIMINALS, gangbangers, innercity thugs SUPPORT gun control. They LOVE it. They’re laughing at it and loving every bit of it. You know why? Because they’ll never be bound by laws they don’t follow and it simply gives them an advantage over the law-abiding citizenry (i.e. their victim pool).
The gangbanger selling a stolen gun out of the trunk of his stolen car to another criminal is not going to check the guys background on his nifty little backgroundcheck app on his stolen iPhone before he grabs the stolen cash from the guys hand. Pass all the background check laws, mag capacity laws, etc. and it will not impede this particular type of transaction in the least. You are simply giving them the advantage.
You should also know this from the same VA-ALERT:
“PASSED BILLS THAT EITHER WERE ACCEPTABLE, OR WERE MADE ACCEPTABLE, TO VCDL
SB 786, Marsden, makes someone criminally liable if they don’t report a stolen gun in 72 hours – changed to just saying that stolen guns are to be entered into the National Criminal Information Network (NCIC).
SB 864, Favola, forbids physics possession of a gun in the house of the person granted an emergency protective order. It also prohibits transporting any firearms. Bill was modified to 1) prohibit *physical* possession and 2) the individual must be served with the emergency protective order (and thus knows it exists).
SB 1109, Ebbin, makes knowingly selling to someone who is disqualified from owning a gun because of mental illness a crime (like selling knowingly to a felon).”
It appears that VCDL is more reasonable than some here give us credit.
Coincidence??? Let’s get a little more specific about the demographics (or Democratics) of gun crime:
———————-
The five worst mass killings, where a firearm was used, have a common thread. Hint #1: They didn’t belong to the NRA. They don’t fit the stereotype of the “red-neck” gun owner.
Check it out …
Ft Hood: Registered Democrat/Muslim.
Columbine: Too young to vote; both families were registered Democrats and progressive liberals.
Virginia Tech: Wrote hate mail to President Bush and to his staff; Registered Democrat.
Colorado Theater: Registered Democrat; staff worker on the Obama campaign; Occupy Wall Street participant; progressive liberal.
Connecticut School Shooter: Registered Democrat; hated Christians.
Common thread is that all of these shooters were progressive liberal Democrats.
Also, of the worst killings in the last several decades, only one was a female, all the rest were boys, barely men, and none of them had a strong male father or role model in the household. Their role models were rappers, action movies, comics and violent video games.
Our problem isn’t weapons, it’s boys without boundaries. Who live in ‘progressive’ households.
The source of information for this news post came from Roger Hedgecock’s 1/17/13 radio show. Fast forward to 21:13 for Roger’s comments.
Read more: http://clashdaily.com/2013/01/the-5-worst-mass-murders-in-the-usa-with-a-firearm-came-from-democrats/#ixzz2IO4Zqf00
Get more Clash on ClashDaily.com, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube.
No need to get all Biblical Dave Hicks, I think the beam of hypocrisy is the one Warren is picking and it seems to have validity as far as I can tell. (for us all) You are among those who want “us” to rein in our own but never can manage to do the same.
Warren has not touched the surface of insult and biting response that some of those on “your side” of the gun issue have and we all know that. Do you think their comments are not “personal attacks”?
You can point the finger all you want, but when you look at the cold hard facts, it’s not “My People” doing a vast majority of the killing.
I’m vulnerable to the full range of shortcomings, which is why I don’t waste great space with ostentatious logic tutorials to others.
If explaining reason and logic was all it took to inhibit the worst in human nature, the ancient Greeks would have never warred. Alas, even they realized that regulation was necessary to put the worst in human nature at a disdavantage, knowing it can’t be eliminated.
Like I said, killing is killing.
“In the document, “Abortion Statistics: United States Data and Trends,” NRLC education director Dr. Randall K. O’Bannon estimates that there have been 54,559,615 abortions since 1973 based on data from both the Centers for Disease Control and the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute, a former Planned Parenthood research arm. Guttmacher receives numbers directly from abortion centers themselves and is the prime source for more current figures because the Centers for Disease Control has never tabulated accurate numbers of abortions. The CDC relies on figures from state health departments, some of which rely on voluntary reporting — and it hasn’t had data from some states such as California and New Hampshire for more than a decade.”
Just to be clear, Dave Hicks, in my view your active support for giving violence a literally easier path, and your opposition to anything that would prevent gun murderers from being so well equipped, is an extremely personal insult to thousands of victims of gun violence and their survivors.
It’s your ongoing insults to those victims, who certainly do outnumber those overtly “saved” by guns, that I believe prevents your having any high ground in claiming you don’t make personal insults. Your insults of them are no less real for being diffuse, because you refuse to acknowledge the many victims who’re not in your own backyard, using abstraction to transpose the blood on the NRA logo to red white and blue.
Re: Sandi Saunders @ 10:12 pm
Hum?
So is Warren being hypocritical when he doesn’t attack his fellow prohibitionist and/or the like blogger’s logic, arguments, data and the like? Is that not a ” beam of hypocrisy”?
Anyone seen where Warren has habitually used acres of blog space to pretentiously repeat his mantra of personal attack rather than actually address Logical Fallacies, miss-information, etc?
FWIIW, I have no use for comments that are “personal attacks.” To be sure there are insult and personal attacks on both sides.
Why does Warren not call out those on “his side”, if he is not being hypocritical, himself — as he repeatedly attacks the other side alleging being hypocrisy for not attacking their own side?
BTW, if you have a non-biblical, well known allusion for the “Mote and Beam” (also called discourse on judgmentalism) imagery, please share. “Pot v. Kettle” is fairly close, IMHO. But it’s not quite the same. I’ll be sure to try to remember to use your preferred allusion in the future, if you’d share.
Dave Hicks:
“Anyone seen where Warren has habitually used acres of blog space to pretentiously repeat his mantra of personal attack rather than actually address Logical Fallacies, miss-information, etc?”
I know that’s rhetorical, but I still have to laugh!
Re: Warren @ 10:45 pm
In my view I’m giving active support to self-defense.
I see your active support for giving violence criminals an easier path; and I see your opposition to anything that would prevent law-abiding folk from being as well equipped as the violence criminals to be an extremely personal insult to thousands of victims of gun violence and their survivors.
So, it is sort of a WYSDWYS trade-off.
Dave Hicks:
“In my view I’m giving active support to self-defense.
I see your active support for giving violence criminals an easier path; and I see your opposition to anything that would prevent law-abiding folk from being as well equipped as the violence criminals to be an extremely personal insult to thousands of victims of gun violence and their survivors.”
+1
Look Dave, you set yourself up as the authority on the various kinds of logic, fallacies and the people you considered to always be making them. Maybe in hindsight that was not a tool to play so selectively?
Symbols, if you had a clue you would understand that the if the “CRIMINALS, gangbangers, innercity thugs” and whomever else is a bad guy were the people voting in those cities you might have a point.
They do not “LOVE” gun control when it involves more prison time than crime without a gun involved. And by and large, they are not voters. You want to blame the voters in those cities for not embracing the cure you believe the GOTP and NRA offers, that is your choice, but stop pretending it is the criminals making the decisions, or that anyone is stopping the voters from doing so.
Criminals laugh at ALL laws, does that mean we drop them? They may not be “bound by laws they don’t follow” but they can damn sure be prosecuted with them and imprisoned with them.
You need to stop pretending that semi-automatic military style assault guns with 30 round magazines are necessary for defense from criminals and that gun control is turning the asylum over to the inmates. That is simply not the truth.
Their “victim pool” is not rich in folks toting those guns either.
The fewer guns available for “The gangbanger” to sell is a good thing. The stronger penalties for straw buyers is a good thing. The universal background checks are a good thing.
You may claim that nothing will “impede this particular type of transaction in the least” but I believe you are wrong. Do the ATF and police all plan to retire? Are there no other guns on the market? You are just not being honest.
Re: Sandi Saunders @ 11:29 pm
It is a standard tool of debate. As is appeal to emotion.
I suspect it is also the way different folk make judgements. “What’s right for one person may not be right for another. There are things that are important to me, that you don’t care about at all!” http://tinyurl.com/6q8p58
Two of the major in M-B are an individual being either primarily Thinking or Feeling and an individual being either primarily Judging or Perceiving. See: http://www.personalitypage.com/html/four-prefs.html
I make no bones about being an INTJ.
And here is the dichotomy Dave Hicks and John Wilburn and others cannot grasp. We see your fight against gun control as active support for giving violent criminals an easier path. Over and over, you are against universal background checks, for easier CCP regs, accepting more and more AR-15′s style weapons in circulation, and your constant ignoring of the lawful gun owners who aren’t, we see YOU enabling the bad guys to continue their reign unchecked. We see YOU trying to confuse people as if ALL guns are being restricted. We see YOU trying to make us the bad guys for wanting to secure the truly mass killing machine weapons that have no place in civilized society.
The problem is that there is no way to “impede” the bad guy without impeding the good guys and you refuse to accept the one to get the other, regardless of the carnage. YOU try to couch this in terms of us trying to “prevent law-abiding folk” from defending themselves rather than trying to stop the carnage. And we take that as an extremely personal insult.
Say, you ‘make no bones about being a selective INTJ’ and I will agree.
Any insults perceived from me are retail; Dave Hicks’, as I explained, are wholesale, like the violence of a massacre shooter.
How numerous are the examples of wholesale saving of people by gun, outside of the police and military whose charge that is? That’s right, they don’t come close to the number of everyday gun violence victims. Virtually every adult can name more incidents of gun violence-murders, woundings, suicides, accidents-than the number of those in episodes of guns “saving” anyone. The difficulty is getting those with a guncentric blind spot to suspend their gun fascination long enough to admit that.
So it’s FAR from the equivalent tradeoff Dave Hicks tries to claim. The occasional episode of a gun’s use overtly saving someone in America is the splatter from a a single .22 shot compared to the .50 caliber blood and tissue orgy of ongoing gun violence that threatens to drown even those like Dave Hicks who pretend it doesn’t exist.
Anyone truly interested in intellectual honesty on this point will support giving the professionals of the CDC a free hand and full funding to research the epidemiology of guns, and will have been criticizing the NRA’s suppression efforts for years already. Only one who fears that WYSDWYS isn’t true would argue that suppression is justified, and in doing so they’d indict their commitment to intellectual honesty.
No gets a blithe YMMV dodge on this one. It’s as true for Dave Hicks and me as for every massacre victim that mileage to anywhere else always varies more than mileage to the grave, because the latter is a fixed,
one way distance that the NRA works to make as short as any person with a gun can try to make it.
Should read “No one gets a blithe YMMV on this one”
I know that’s rhetorical, but I still have to laugh!
Comment by John Wilburn
So says the gun user whose sense of humor encompasses posting apparent jokes involving mass murder, so who could care?
Sandi Saunders:
“We see your fight against gun control as active support for giving violent criminals an easier path.”
I see it as preservation of a Constitutional right for defense of one’s self from others and a tyrannical government.
“Over and over, you are against universal background checks”
That is registration and a way for the elite in government to be the ones who keep moving the line that says who is fit to own a gun and who is not.
“for easier CCP regs”
One shouldn’t need a permit for an inalienable right in the first place.
“accepting more and more AR-15′s style weapons in circulation”
There’s sure never been enough circulating to get the price where I can afford one.
“and your constant ignoring of the lawful gun owners who aren’t”
You mean like the victims of laws who were simply made criminals as New York has just doen?
“we see YOU enabling the bad guys to continue their reign unchecked”
Sorry you see it that way. I would say VT, Aurora, and Sandy Hook are all good examples of an unchecked reign allowed by political disarmamnet.
“We see YOU trying to confuse people as if ALL guns are being restricted”
I see you as naively believing there is ever any meaningful compromise with gun grabbers. It’s not which guns the gun grabbers want. It’s which one do they want next.
“We see YOU trying to make us the bad guys for wanting to secure the truly mass killing machine weapons that have no place in civilized society.”
You are enabling a tyrannical government and cannot see it.
One thing is for sure, you spoke for everyone on your side. I speak only for myself. That, in itself, is pretty telling.
And the fact that it got under 56′s lying skin makes it even funnier!
I make no bones about being an INTJ.
Comment by Dave Hicks
But you do seem to take great pains to avoid admitting that (for all anyone here knows) the type you claim to be is determined by a self-credentialed observer lacking objectivity.
for easier CCP regs”…”One shouldn’t need a permit for an inalienable right in the first place”
Bearing arms is a right, concealing them is not.
Re: Warren @ 12:21 am
That’s an interesting choice of words.
Got an authoritative site to quote?
Read my post again, Dave Hicks; maybe you were too busy yawning to comprehend who lacks objectivity in a description of one’s self.
Ha. Just noticed 17 and 20. That cat really gets off on personally attacking me. What an a$$hole! People used to comment on the blog about how intelligent he sounds, but lately I have recieved a surprising number of comments from other bloggers expressing what a jerk he is and what a troll he has turned into. His compliments from other bloggers have dried up. And while there are a few who have cast their dislike of me in stone, I’ve gotten many a kind word from most of the fellow bloggers and those have come over time. Some people do grow to like the real me. When the true colors of an anonymous blog entity focused on personal attacks came around, a lot of bloggers got sick of him.
A sad waste of talent… and of the otherwise good conversations on this blog. Dan, you can do better; consider taking a page from one of your regulars here and regulate this blog to put the worst in that blogger’s nature at a disadvantage as not to give unbecoming behavior an easier path. Snicker.
I laugh every time I read the phrase “tyrannical government”. We have a government that can barely do anything at all, far less act in a ” tyrannical ” fashion.
I find the NRA far more “tyrannical”. I’m glad Obama moved to allow the CDC to resume research into the roots of gun violence. That the NRA stands so hard against that illustrates their commitment to ignorant dogma and their recognition that a more informed population can only hurt them.
To Kristen from #63…You stated that `we have a government that can barely do anything at all“ ????? Do you reside on Earth ? If I`m not mistaken, the Government just passed the most massive, sweeping legislation in the history of the Nation…Obamacare…2700 pages of new regulation…Please, Kristen…step back and think before you type.
Kristen, after a few seconds of thought, I think you have a future in politics.
Ah the tyranny of health care, Applewood. I tremble in my boots at the might of a government that thinks people should get to go to the doctor.
ACA was passed almost 3 years ago, and since then the House has wasted untold hours In their blithering failed attempts to overturn it. And doing little else. I guess I should be impressed that anything ever happened, at all.
Sandi, I don’t claim to know who is or isn’t voting in those areas. The bottom line is regardless of who is pulling the lever they have elected leadership who is giving the distinct advantage to the criminals. They are reaping what they sow in that regard, and now they want to push it on the rest of the country. In inner-city urban environments where a vast majority of the homicide is gang on gang, I don’t believe making it harder for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves is the answer to reducing overall homicides. That just makes no sense at all. In a radio interview with a former gang member, he himself indicated the criminals laugh at gun control, because it gives them the advantage. He said “We didn’t buy our guns in gun stores. We got them on the black market. Gun laws just put that many more weapons on the black market which drives the prices down.”
Prison terms are of no consequence to the hardened criminals. The thought of Life in prison or the Death penalty for murder doesn’t seem to make them hesitate to take a life. What is a few more years for using a gun with a 15 round magazine rather than a 7??? As for prison time, with cost and overcrowding, we as a society are just turning them back out on the streets. In my opinion, we have more of a repeat criminal problem than a law-abiding gun owner problem.
As for military-styled semi-automatic 30 round magazine rifles, ALL rifles account for less than 1% of ALL gun related crime. That being the case, I am suspect as to why there is such a feverish assault on those weapons when that clearly will not solve the problem you are after. Street thug gangbangers are not using these weapons because they cost about $2,000. The problem I have is the magazine capacity limits are not limited to rifles. They are also going after pistols. None of my pistols have “extended” magazines. They have standard capacity magazines they were designed to utilize. NY just imposed yet another arbitrary limit of 7 rounds. Less than 1% of subcompact semi-autos can meet this, effectively banning them. But after realizing they did not exempt LEOs, they will push an amendment to exempt them. What’s good for the police on the streets facing criminals should be good for the citizens facing the same criminals on the same streets. Do you think the gangbangers are going to give up their 15 round glocks? Nope. You just gave the criminals a distinct advantage over the law-abiding citizen. This is a legislative measure than can ONLY give the criminal an advantage. Then next they will incrementally go to 5 rounds. Then 2. Then 1. That’s my problem with arbitrary limits…they never stop.
I actually have NO problem with stronger penalties for straw purchasers. Let’s start with those in our Federal Government that intentionally let thousands of semi-auto rifles walk into Mexico.
I have NO problem with strengthening the existing background checks. Of course, this won’t impact the black market sales, but it may impact people on the fringe.
Universal background checks sound good, but again the gangbangers aren’t going through them anyway so I fail to see how that will impact the real problem. Obama quoted some 40% number, which is bogus. That was based on a “study” the Brady campaign conducted over 20 years ago (BEFORE the Brady act of 1994 requirement) in which they surveyed 251 people. And the result was 36%, Obama just rounded it up to 40. Now THAT is not being honest.
As for the study of gun violence, ask Jimmy Carter what he found out after he commissioned millions of dollars for a similar study over a period of years. The results were not what he wanted to find out, which were gun control doesn’t work. And the study was conducted by people who were in favor of gun control. Perhaps you should check that particular study out.
I’m an advocate for responsible law-abiding gun owners, I detest violence of any kind, and I support measures that will reduce criminal violence or at least give citizens a level playing field for fighting it. I have yet to see any proposals that accomplish those goals.
Ah! The irony
LOL
This is a video the Commonwealth of Virginia is using to train state employees to handle “active shooter” situations.
Please note that at 0:56 when the shooter enters the building, he walks through a door clearly marked with a gun-buster notice / graphic. Right past the “no-no” sign.
So is the State conceding that “Un-armed Victims Rich Zones”, ” Safety Zones for Criminals”, “Free-fire Zones for Deranged Killers” a.k.a “Gun Free Zone” aren’t — because criminals, by definition, don’t obey the law much less signs?
Or could it be that maybe, just maybe, instead of gun control, the State should encourage literacy — surely, if criminals knew they weren’t allowed to bring guns in, that it is a no-no; I’m sure they’d stop at the sign.
http://tinyurl.com/aoxwf6s
Also see http://tinyurl.com/yt2lj5 for your perfect solution.
Dave Hicks, you are exactly right! Their focused screenshot of the posted ban directly suggests that they want to convey the messgage that gun free zones are not going to protect people and they must have a better plan.
Also, I show that second video you linked to in class. It’s always good for a laugh to break up all of the technical stuff.
Also see http://tinyurl.com/yt2lj5 for your perfect solution.
Comment by Dave Hicks
Citation for ONE person who’s said that’s a “perfect solution” please. Or lacking one to give, admit to dishonestly mischaracterizing the position of others. Your choice. Thank you.
“Warren”:
“Bearing arms is a right, concealing them is not.”
I don’t believe there is any justification for that, but then again, I’d like to see open carry continue to increase in popularity.
“I’d like to see open carry continue to increase in popularity.”
That would be one sick society.
Here’s a link regardint the Jimmy Carter gun control research study:
http://educationviews.org/jimmy-carter-tried-gun-control-and-lost/
Happy reading.
Re: Warren @ 2:03 pm
.
.
.
Oh! Gasp I am devastated.
.
.
Re: my question at @ 9:12 pm
Crickets, so far.
gdad:
“That would be one sick society [that open carries].”
Why? It would be a society less stigmatized by lawful carry.
Dave Hicks at 5:48 pm, lacking an answer, runs away from the direct question posed of him at 2:08.
Warren, I may have to have a beer summit with Dave H, John W and you; In spite of their gun issues they are both wonderful people and I think if you got to know them on another level you would enjoy their company. If you can make it to the next gonzo get together I promise I will talk them into not shooting you.
I won’t shoot you, either. Promise.
Thanks, Steve C, I tried until the last minute to get to the previous two get togethers, but couldn’t arrange help for the responsibilities that keep me tied down.
The “gun issues” evident in John and Dave’s posts seem to me entertwined with other issues, such as one’s paranoid silliness about our “tyrannical” government and the other’s evident need to think himself an immaculate logician. How these couldn’t manifest in person when they’re so obvious here escapes me. But I post to or about them in the context of things they themselves address, and I also post about many other things.
That I sometimes use vivid writing is just a function of the power of the 1A being so vastly much greater than that of the 2A. I do enjoy skewering culturally toxic people like tea partiers and NRA massacre enablers, too. But you’re exceptionally good at vivid writing, as more than one troll has learned.
BTW, Steve C, when a friend saw your picture from the last get together, even though it was in profile she recognized you as someone she knows. She also said she thought we were a little bit alike, because she herself, while well educated, doesn’t pay much attention to political matters. (I’m not sure where y’all met; Kirk Ave. perhaps).
Steve C:
“If you can make it to the next gonzo get together I promise I will talk them into not shooting you.”
I enjoyed Sandi’s company just fine. She and I are both opinionated, but mannerly in person. Then again, for the most part, Sandi is 80% about attacking the issue and 20% attacking the person at WORST. Warren is the opposite. I have no desire to shoot him Steve C, but worder how his blog persona would translate into real life. If like Sandi, we’re fine, but if not, I wouldn’t want to meet him. Based on his hatred of me and desire to bring me down any way he can, it would be hard to imagine him not just looking for things to use against me the whole time.
I appreciate your offer to broker some peace though.
“Warren”:
“That I sometimes use vivid writing is just a function of the power of the 1A being so vastly much greater than that of the 2A.”
http://tinyurl.com/ahc7fh5
Jack:
“I won’t shoot you [Warren], either. Promise.”
Don’t forget, he is a bona fide stalker.
“Warren is the opposite. I have no desire to shoot him Steve C, but worder how his blog persona would translate into real life.”
John W, everybody who’s met him says Steve C is great guy, but there are times when Steve’s posts are pretty much nothing but strongly barbed personal attack. Cleverly worded, well written, and funny as hell, but sometimes quite vicious.
gdad:
“John W, everybody who’s met him says Steve C is great guy, but there are times when Steve’s posts are pretty much nothing but strongly barbed personal attack. Cleverly worded, well written, and funny as hell, but sometimes quite vicious.”
One, I’ve met Steve C and think he’s a great guy, too. I wasn’t talking about Steve C. I was talking to Steve C.
Two, Steve C isn’t really that personal because his entertaining rants are directed to the anonymous trolls here. That is a big difference Warren likes to hurt people who post under their real name and is quite malicious. Surprisingly, he didn’t name any names when labeling the “culturally toxic”. Perhaps he has some boudaries?
I believe that gdad has seen me in person before, though probably doesn’t know it.
John W, I knew you weren’t talking about Steve C. and I was aware from other posts that you had met him. I was merely pointing out that somebody who writes some pretty vicious posts — and in fact posts more attacks than anything else — can in fact be a decent person in the flesh.
And where would that be, Jack?
I believe you mentioned once, John Wilburn reminded me last night, that you saw someone carrying openly at Kroger in Hollins. No guarantee it was me, but it probably was.
If someone’s passion is going to be used to determine what kind of person they are, I do not think any of us would escape horrifying others. That I can behave in public does not diminish the level of my disagreement with anyone. John Wilburn, having chosen to compare me to Suzie, has sealed his fate in person and on this blog.
If you want to judge Warren for his passion and ability (let’s face it, you are mad you can’t shut him down), do not be surprised if that is returned to you.
Given the level of insult, demeaning and pointed barbs slung here, I well understand anyone wanting to be anonymous. While it is fair game to mention that anyone is attacking you from the safety of anonymity you chose not to have, it does not, in and of itself make them wrong. That is up to you to prove.
I support Warren and the point he is making in this ongoing “feud” and mayhap if you quit whining about it and substantiating his points it might end.
I also would love to meet Warren! I still maintain my respect for his intellect and passion.
Jack, I think I’ve been to the Hollins Kroger once in my life and I don’t remember seeing somebody carrying openly. In fact, I can count on one hand the number of times I can remember seeing someone carrying openly. It’s really just a tiny percentage of Americans who seem to feel the need.
Sandi Saunders:
“John Wilburn, having chosen to compare me to Suzie, has sealed his fate in person and on this blog.”
You and Suzie are both very much authoritarians. One leans left and the other leans right. In that regard, you have common ground.
“If you want to judge Warren for his passion and ability (let’s face it, you are mad you can’t shut him down),”
No. I’m disappointed in Dan for allowing the trolls to demean his blog and know a lot of good bloggers who have let because of it. It’s sad, cause I really like this place. The civility summit was a joke.
Maybe it wasn’t you.