Discussion: Guns, The Second Amendment, NRA - Part II

[Mike5575]

Yes, because lets defend Dana Loesch. Who called out these students that they wouldn't be famous if their classmates were still alive.

Look, this is essentially what the NRA has created. Pushing the narrative "there is nothing we can do" "that this is the price of freedom". The generation that has grown up with active shooter drills is coming of age. And has found their voice.

And amazingly, there is more than one issue at stake. As has been pointed out, they broadened the protest beyond just school shootings. This was a protest over gun violence in general.

Replying from previous thread...

I'm aware that the NRA has their issues, but given the extreme reaction from gun control advocates and the fact that the NRA is or is at least the closest thing to a gun rights organization, I'm willing to stick by the NRA.

This assault weapons ban is not just about so called assault weapons, but banning "high capacity mags" as well. In case your not aware, "High capacity is defined in this bill as 10 or more rounds. 10 is not high capacity. It's standard. The very basic 9mm Beretta has 15 rounds. Besides, in just about every mass shooting, the shooters had multiple magazines. There's little to no evidence that these measures would have any recognizable impact at reducing gun violence and simply put law abiding citizens at a disadvantage against criminals.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Replying from previous thread...

I'm aware that the NRA has their issues, but given the extreme reaction from gun control advocates and the fact that the NRA is or is at least the closest thing to a gun rights organization, I'm willing to stick by the NRA.

This assault weapons ban is not just about so called assault weapons, but banning "high capacity mags" as well. In case your not aware, "High capacity is defined in this bill as 10 or more rounds. 10 is not high capacity. It's standard. The very basic 9mm Beretta has 15 rounds. Besides, in just about every mass shooting, the shooters had multiple magazines. There's little to no evidence that these measures would have any recognizable impact at reducing gun violence and simply put law abiding citizens at a disadvantage against criminals.

You sight no evidence the other way around. What is your evidence here?

The NRA sells a lifestyle built around guns. To sell the most guns possible. That is there job.

 

[Mike5575]

There is nothing crazy about recognizing the obvious truth that our gun laws and regulations are fundamentally broken and need reform.

There is also nothing crazy about the fact that the 2nd amendment actually allows for this reform. The founding fathers did not say we could have guns without restrictions. The line that says "a well regulated militia is important to the security of a free state" indicates they thought restrictions were important and necessary.

The NRA doesn't even represent a majority of its own members. They are extremist and corrupt. They need to be treated the way the tobacco companies are now treated. They stand in the way of common sense.

No, it's not a problem with gun control laws, but rather the enforcement of such laws.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/12/opinion/politics/background-checks-gun-violence.html

Lawmakers from both parties acknowledge that errors in the background check system let felons obtain guns, as we saw when a deranged man, Devin Kelley, killed 26 people at a church in Sutherland Springs, Tex., in November. The killer, while in the Air Force, had been convicted of domestic violence in 2012, involuntarily committed to a mental health care center and given a bad conduct discharge. Yet the Air Force failed to follow policies to ensure that his conviction was reported to federal law enforcement, which allowed the killer to pass the check. The military has failed to report other such cases.

FBI admits it failed to act on Nikolaus Cruz tipoff:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/feb/16/florida-shooting-fbi-nikolas-cruz

Also, I'm not against restrictions to the 2nd amendment. I never said that. But, I don't believe that the AR-15 should be banned. There are 8 million AR-15s in the U.S. I believe that rifle fits under the criteria of "in common use", so it's a bit late to ban the AR-15.

 

[Mike5575]

God, that's some next level crazy talk you've got going. Folks were protesting because they believe that common sense gun regulation can exist along with the 2nd amendment, and can help the obvious gun violence epidemic that is happening in the United States. That is their right to do. Protesters are under no obligation to talk about all the wrongs in the universe... including the local law enforcement's reaction to school shootings.
...We're not out to blame anyone. We're out to fix the problem. What is wrong with you?

I have no problem with kids protesting. God bless them. I was never interested in politics when I was that young. The only thing I'm saying is that I disagree a lot with what is being said. Also, some of the rhetoric is over the top. Protesters don't have to talk about all the wrongs in the world, but my concern is if pressure isn't being put on the FBI or the Broward County Sheriffs Office, then our schools won't be safe. Because of the Youth Promise Act and gun free zones, schools have been made ripe targets for dangerous individuals. This is kind of why we're apparently resorting to arming teachers and teaching kids to throw freaking rocks and potential shooters.

 

[parkerpete]

Replying from previous thread...

I'm aware that the NRA has their issues, but given the extreme reaction from gun control advocates and the fact that the NRA is or is at least the closest thing to a gun rights organization, I'm willing to stick by the NRA.

This assault weapons ban is not just about so called assault weapons, but banning "high capacity mags" as well. In case your not aware, "High capacity is defined in this bill as 10 or more rounds. 10 is not high capacity. It's standard. The very basic 9mm Beretta has 15 rounds. Besides, in just about every mass shooting, the shooters had multiple magazines. There's little to no evidence that these measures would have any recognizable impact at reducing gun violence and simply put law abiding citizens at a disadvantage against criminals.

When we say 'we want tighter gun regulations' NRA people say, 'THEY WANT TO TAKE OUR GUNS!!'

Then when we say, hey we don't want to prevent you from owning a pistol to protect yourself in the confines of your own property, you'll say 'Well now all these regulations are so petty and full of loopholes and bad guys will still get guns so we shouldn't do anything'

To which I say: Well, if you want things simple and effective, we should maybe just TAKE ALL THE GUNS. BECAUSE THAT IS SIMPLE. AND EFFECTIVE. And it's not fantasy. It's the living truth in every comparable democratic government. The UK and Australia didn't seem to turn into anti-democratic tyrannies after giving up their firearms. But you know what they DO seem to have? Virtually negligible gun death rates. It ain't rocket science to see why.

But people still stick to the NRA narrative that we'll all be eating Soylent Green the minute we allow 'The Government'-- which, by the way, traditionally represents 'The People'--to take away all your toys.

And that's what they are. Toys. You don't need them to eat, they're useless for fighting the government, and they're statistically way more likely to kill your kid than a burglar. They're TOYS.

And for those of you who believe in the true meaning of the 2nd amendment, which was solely a provision to allow state militias the capacity to keep arms in case the federal government tried to impose unconstitutional rule on them, well...

A) You have a National Guard, which is an armed state militia.
B) If you think you're going to outfight a 21st-century US despot with AR-15s, you're a moron. They have satellites, The FBI, the CIA, the NSA, the US Army, the US Air Force, the US Navy, a militarized police force (that YOU most likely approved of, not I) and drones, drones, drones. You'd be much better off arming yourself with a very good lawyer.

And I get it. We're Americans. We like our myths of self-reliance and frontier toughness. But it's all a joke now. The same people who lament the decline of 'toughness' and 'gun culture' are the same yahoos who voted for Donald 'Bone Spur' Trump. A man who was born on third base and thinks everyone owes him a Home Run. Who would be THE FIRST to die in any semi-realistic apocalypse movie.

Your myths are killing our kids and they suck.

 

[Hotwire]

Can we just accept that most gun owners want guns like the AR-15 because it's a fun toy with no real practicality in the civilian world?

I know I have at least one friend who's admitted that.



While we're at it, I think we can all agree that if this boogeyman of a "tyrannical government" ever decided to take all the guns and enslave the near 326 million Americans... Wait... Hold 326 million people under tyrannical rule? That more than double the population of Russia. I wonder just how people think the government would be able to control that many people, armed or unarmed. I mean, that's a LOT of people to control! I mean there are only 1.4 million soldiers and 1.2 million cops. Even if they all went along with the tyrannical leader, that's only 2.6 million to control 326 million. For reference, a prison has a 9:1 prisoner to guard ratio. This would be 125:1! The government would be seriously outnumbered. I don't think they'd stand much of a chance, even with an unarmed populace. Not to mention all the other countries that would step in to prevent it. So, I think we can safely assume, the government isn't going to go tyrannical and the toys, I mean guns, are safe.

 

[Aximili86]

They couldn't control that many people, yes.

Because, you know, guns.

 

[Donner]

No, not guns. The government is made up of people. Yes. People. The same people who live in society, send their kids to school, eat the same foods and so on. They're not some "other" here. Everyone has this weird definition of government that includes being removed from society. They're not. They're part of it.

The idea that the US government wouldn't be able to "control" the population because the citizens have guns is hilarious. The government has drones, tanks, missiles and so on. But, it doesn't matter because it's not a tyrannical government and it's unlikely to ever be one. The citizens are just afraid and that's the problem. Fear. Paranoia.

 

[Thundercrack85]

As Bush and Trump's presidencies have shown us, the people most likely to support an authoritarian regime are the people with the AR-15s.

 

[Aximili86]

Yeah, that Bush was such an authoritarian, going to congress for permission for his wars and getting it, and winning more of the vote his second time campaigning than his first.

What a Nazi, maaaaan.

 

[Donner]

Well, it's important to note that his campaign to win a second term was based on fear. He scared the public so much and then offered solutions to protect them, they were eating out of his hand. It was deplorable.

 

[Donner]

And Thunder has a point. Gun nuts aren't afraid of tyrannical governments. That would suggest being smart enough to recognize one. Look at how many gun nuts worship Trump and he would throw them under the bus the first chance that he got.

 

[Kelly]

As Bush and Trump's presidencies have shown us, the people most likely to support an authoritarian regime are the people with the AR-15s.

Hmmmmm..... I know many who voted for Bush, but absolutely despise Trump in every way. Some of those are actually pretty damn Liberal, not so much fiscally, but definitely socially. I'm not sure they would utter Bush's name and Trump's name in the same sentence. My problem with Bush was his tendency to move to war far too quickly, that wasn't necessarily him, but those that he listened to. So, I'm not sure that I would be as quick to say that those that voted for Bush are also those that support Trump.

 

[Aximili86]

Well, it's important to note that his campaign to win a second term was based on fear. He scared the public so much and then offered solutions to protect them, they were eating out of his hand. It was deplorable.

All pretty damn subjective, no? All presidential candidates use fear to a certain extent - fear of the other side, fear of what might transpire should their party not be there to quash the fear.

And hell, ****, 2001-2004 was a pretty genuinely fear-worthy period.

Disagree with the guy all you want, absolutely. "Authoritarian" is way out of line though. Dubya got permission from a bipartisan congress for his military stuff, which is more than what Obama did in Libya.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Hmmmmm..... I know many who voted for Bush, but absolutely despise Trump in every way. Some of those are actually pretty damn Liberal, not so much fiscally, but definitely socially. I'm not sure they would utter Bush's name and Trump's name in the same sentence. My problem with Bush was his tendency to move to war far too quickly, that wasn't necessarily him, but those that he listened to. So, I'm not sure that I would be as quick to say that those that voted for Bush are also those that support Trump.

Bush and his administration lied to get into an all time stupid war that resulted in a somehow worse Middle East situation.

 

[Donner]

All pretty damn subjective, no? All presidential candidates use fear to a certain extent - fear of the other side, fear of what might transpire should their party not be there to quash the fear.

And hell, ****, 2001-2004 was a pretty genuinely fear-worthy period.

Disagree with the guy all you want, absolutely. "Authoritarian" is way out of line though. Dubya got permission from a bipartisan congress for his military stuff, which is more than what Obama did in Libya.

No. Not all presidential candidates run on campaigns of fear. Some, like Obama, run on change. Bush and his administration exaggerated and lied about the safety of Americans, going as far to say that the American way of life was under threat (please) and then used the panic and fear they created to win another election and send troops to the Middle East. His administration caused hundreds of thousands of deaths based on lies and skewed statistics.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Yeah, that Bush was such an authoritarian, going to congress for permission for his wars and getting it, and winning more of the vote his second time campaigning than his first.

What a Nazi, maaaaan.

I know you're trying to be cute here, but let me refresh your memory.

It was Bush who championed the Patriot Act. It was his administration who built secret oversea prisons, tortured prisoners, allowed for indefinite detention, etc. Not to mention the warrantless wiretapping.

It's typically the AR-15 enthusiasts who support all these policies or turn a blind eye to it because they have a false sense of security due to their gratuitous gun collection.

 

[Hotwire]

 

[Aximili86]

I know you're trying to be cute here, but let me refresh your memory.

It was Bush who championed the Patriot Act. It was his administration who built secret oversea prisons, tortured prisoners, allowed for indefinite detention, etc. Not to mention the warrantless wiretapping.

The wiretapping was expanded on by Obama, but yeah, you have no issue with that. And yeah, we "tortured" three people. Yep, three. Now we just kill 'em from on high without having to deal with all that messy interrogation stuff - screw taking the heat on that, just firebomb 'em to death, eh Barack?

That's better.

As for the Patriot Act, hell, that was more than understandable given the time. Agree it should have been scaled back over time, but given the circumstances of when it came in, totally reasonable. People seem to forget just what an unsure, new-frontier panic 2001/2002 was, it's not so much a Bush thing as a "whoever was President at the time would have done it" thing.

 

[Donner]

Er, you know about Abu Ghraib right?

Your defense of the Patriot Act is disturbing and to say that any president would have passed it is speculative at best.

 

[Aximili86]

Okay. "Any responsible President would have done it." Yeah, Obama included. That guy obviously has no problems with mass data analysis or privacy invasions.

Which, yeah, isn't a bad thing.

 

[Donner]

Okay. "Any responsible President would have done it." Yeah, Obama included. That guy obviously has no problems with mass data analysis or privacy invasions.

Which, yeah, isn't a bad thing.

Because it helped to stop what exactly? Or did it just put innocent people in prison and on watchlists?

And you have heard of Abu Ghraib right? A lot more than three people were tortured.

 

[Thundercrack85]

The Patriot Act was an Orwellian abomination that was opportunistically passed by right-wingers in the wake of 9/11. They had been wanting to pass it for quite a while.

I will concede that Obama continued some of Bush' troubling authoritarian policies. But as anyone who pays attention will note, I never cared for Obama.

If you're worried about losing rights, the ones most likely to take them away are the people with the AR-15s.

 

[Aximili86]

Abu Ghraib was over the line and illegal, and yes, shut down.

Waterboarding, at the time, wasn't. Happened to three people, all total despicable mother****ers. In context of the time, I can see how that happened, and don't really have a problem with it.

We don't do it anymore, it's illegal now, it wasn't then. Fine. We move on.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Abu Ghraib was over the line and illegal, and yes, shut down.

Waterboarding, at the time, wasn't. Happened to three people, all total despicable mother****ers. In context of the time, I can see how that happened, and don't really have a problem with it.

We don't do it anymore, it's illegal now, it wasn't then. Fine. We move on.

You do know what a black site is, right? We have little idea of how many people were tortured in those secret prisons, or how many were killed.

I like how blasé you are about it all. Torture, secret prisons, extrajudicial killings, roving wiretappings, whatever. Just further proves my point.