NRA Vows To Stop Tucson From Desecrating its Gods

[Katzndogz]

It's from NPR, therefore it HAS to be true.

Gun buy backs serve an important purpose, they get old malfunctioning weapons off the streets and weapons that have been used in crimes and are too hot to use again off the streets.

 

[Pogo]

so Npr has become a National enquire..

how lovely

we need to cut off all funding for that station..They turn around and use it AGAINST US PEOPLE

What the hell does that mean? You want state control over news so it can be suppressed?

Did the event happen, or did it not? Fox News says it did. We need to cut off all funding for them too. Which we do every time we buy a product advertised there. But suppression of the news to fit your agenda, well you might want to get help from Pyonyang on that. Rotsa ruck.

That same article mentions Gabby Giffords' announcement of her initiative "to join a national conversation about gun violence prevention" made concurrently with the gun buyback/fetish event:

Special interests purporting to represent gun owners but really advancing the interests of an ideological fringe have used big money and influence to cow Congress into submission. Rather than working to find the balance between our rights and the regulation of a dangerous product, these groups have cast simple protections for our communities as existential threats to individual liberties. Rather than conducting a dialogue, they threaten those who divert from their orthodoxy with political extinction.

As a result, we are more vulnerable to gun violence. Weapons designed for the battlefield have a home in our streets. Criminals and the mentally ill can easily purchase guns by avoiding background checks. Firearm accessories designed for killing at a high rate are legal and widely available. And gun owners are less responsible for the misuse of their weapons than they are for their automobiles.

Forget the boogeyman of big, bad government coming to dispossess you of your firearms. As a Western woman and a Persian Gulf War combat veteran who have exercised our Second Amendment rights, we don't want to take away your guns any more than we want to give up the two guns we have locked in a safe at home. What we do want is what the majority of NRA members and other Americans want: responsible changes in our laws to require responsible gun ownership and reduce gun violence.

--USA Today Jan. 8

Anyway the point of all this isn't how the law reads; it's how the NRA collectively thinks about firearms: as some sort of deity to be worshiped, and those infidels who dare to desecrate their Holy of (bullet) Holies will be met with jihad through the courts, the legislatures, the media, their own fearmonger ayatollahs, the gun manufacturers' lobby that props them up, and any other means necessary. Desecration of the Holy Object. Beyond belief.

These people are off the fucking rails. So far out of touch, they're beyond the Rupert Murdoch media.

,
,
,
Hey, maybe you can get your pals in Pyonyang to shut Murdoch up too. Again, rotsa ruck.

 

[Ringel05]

Haven't seen this posted yet but I find this psychologically revealing:
This happened at a gun buy-back organized in Tucson last week on the second anniversary of the shooting that wounded Gabrielle Giffords and seventeen other people...

NRA Vows To Stop Tucson From Destroying Guns

Anna Jolivet had four old rifles she didn't want: "They belonged to my husband, and he passed away four years ago, and I haven't had any success in having someone take them off of me since then. So I thought this is a good time to turn them in." That's exactly what Republican Tucson City Councilman Steve Kozachik expected when he asked the police to do the buyback. What he didn't expect was the response after he announced the event.

"I've been getting threats," Kozachik says. "I've been getting emails. I've been getting phone calls in the office trying to shut this thing down or 'We're going to sue you' or 'Who do you think you are?' " Todd Rathner, an Arizona lobbyist and a national board member of the NRA, may sue. He has no problem with the gun buyback, but he does have a problem with the fate of the guns once police take possession of them.

"We do believe that it is illegal for them to destroy those guns," he says.

"Illegal to destroy guns".... your own guns that you just bought... just letting that sink in...

I've been noting for months that what we have is a national gun fetish and that what got Bob Costas so much blowback was that he committed the sin of blasphemy; that he dared to question the divinity of Almighty Gun. Well, here it is, writ large. If threatening to sue the city for the blasphemy of desecrating Almighty Gun doesn't amount to a fetish, then I just don't know enough about sexual perversion.

What say ye?

Here I agree with you about the NRAs position in this instance. The police now legally own those firearms and have the legal right to do what they want with them within the confines of the law.
However your disingenuous characterization of the NRA in general says more about you then it does about them. Too bad, I thought you were more rational than that, apparently I was mistaken.

 

[Pogo]

Haven't seen this posted yet but I find this psychologically revealing:
This happened at a gun buy-back organized in Tucson last week on the second anniversary of the shooting that wounded Gabrielle Giffords and seventeen other people...

NRA Vows To Stop Tucson From Destroying Guns

Anna Jolivet had four old rifles she didn't want: "They belonged to my husband, and he passed away four years ago, and I haven't had any success in having someone take them off of me since then. So I thought this is a good time to turn them in." That's exactly what Republican Tucson City Councilman Steve Kozachik expected when he asked the police to do the buyback. What he didn't expect was the response after he announced the event.

"I've been getting threats," Kozachik says. "I've been getting emails. I've been getting phone calls in the office trying to shut this thing down or 'We're going to sue you' or 'Who do you think you are?' " Todd Rathner, an Arizona lobbyist and a national board member of the NRA, may sue. He has no problem with the gun buyback, but he does have a problem with the fate of the guns once police take possession of them.

"We do believe that it is illegal for them to destroy those guns," he says.

"Illegal to destroy guns".... your own guns that you just bought... just letting that sink in...

I've been noting for months that what we have is a national gun fetish and that what got Bob Costas so much blowback was that he committed the sin of blasphemy; that he dared to question the divinity of Almighty Gun. Well, here it is, writ large. If threatening to sue the city for the blasphemy of desecrating Almighty Gun doesn't amount to a fetish, then I just don't know enough about sexual perversion.

What say ye?

Here I agree with you about the NRAs position in this instance. The police now legally own those firearms and have the legal right to do what they want with them within the confines of the law.
However your disingenuous characterization of the NRA in general says more about you then it does about them. Too bad, I thought you were more rational than that, apparently I was mistaken.

Disingenuous? I don't see that. Irrational? Ditto. Opinionated? You bet. See the difference?
Do I have an opinion about the NRA's attitude? Damn right I do. Is it inaccurate? Well, that's going to be subjective, so feel free to counterpoint. That's what debate is for.

My position the entire time I've been here, and before I arrived, was that we have not a gun control problem but a gun culture problem. And the NRA is the lifeblood of that fetish.
That's what this thread's about; the psychology. That's going to be hard to quantify but my position is noted, and I wrote the OP to open it up to others. Instead of flinging floating adjectives, back them up.

I draw what I hope are picturesque analogies of the motivations behind what's going on. If the action here is not desecration of the holy relic, then what's their basis?

 

[Ringel05]

Haven't seen this posted yet but I find this psychologically revealing:
This happened at a gun buy-back organized in Tucson last week on the second anniversary of the shooting that wounded Gabrielle Giffords and seventeen other people...

NRA Vows To Stop Tucson From Destroying Guns

Anna Jolivet had four old rifles she didn't want: "They belonged to my husband, and he passed away four years ago, and I haven't had any success in having someone take them off of me since then. So I thought this is a good time to turn them in." That's exactly what Republican Tucson City Councilman Steve Kozachik expected when he asked the police to do the buyback. What he didn't expect was the response after he announced the event.

"I've been getting threats," Kozachik says. "I've been getting emails. I've been getting phone calls in the office trying to shut this thing down or 'We're going to sue you' or 'Who do you think you are?' " Todd Rathner, an Arizona lobbyist and a national board member of the NRA, may sue. He has no problem with the gun buyback, but he does have a problem with the fate of the guns once police take possession of them.

"We do believe that it is illegal for them to destroy those guns," he says.

"Illegal to destroy guns".... your own guns that you just bought... just letting that sink in...

I've been noting for months that what we have is a national gun fetish and that what got Bob Costas so much blowback was that he committed the sin of blasphemy; that he dared to question the divinity of Almighty Gun. Well, here it is, writ large. If threatening to sue the city for the blasphemy of desecrating Almighty Gun doesn't amount to a fetish, then I just don't know enough about sexual perversion.

What say ye?

Here I agree with you about the NRAs position in this instance. The police now legally own those firearms and have the legal right to do what they want with them within the confines of the law.
However your disingenuous characterization of the NRA in general says more about you then it does about them. Too bad, I thought you were more rational than that, apparently I was mistaken.

Disingenuous? I don't see that. Irrational? Ditto. Opinionated? You bet. See the difference?
Do I have an opinion about the NRA's attitude? Damn right I do. Is it inaccurate? Well, that's going to be subjective, so feel free to counterpoint. That's what debate is for.

My position the entire time I've been here, and before I arrived, was that we have not a gun control problem but a gun culture problem. And the NRA is the lifeblood of that fetish.
That's what this thread's about; the psychology. That's going to be hard to quantify but my position is noted, and I wrote the OP to open it up to others. Instead of flinging floating adjectives, back them up.

Okay, I misread your intent and stand corrected, mea culpa. Since the NRA, like Unions, AARP, etc are comprised of millions of individual members who, to some degree or another, represent those members, how do you justify your view of the NRA. Other than a few actions/positions they take/have what makes them, for lack of a better word, "evil" in your mind? How do you define "gun culture" and what are your objections to it?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

so Npr has become a National enquire..

how lovely

we need to cut off all funding for that station..They turn around and use it AGAINST US PEOPLE

What the hell does that mean? You want state control over news so it can be suppressed?

Did the event happen, or did it not? Fox News says it did. We need to cut off all funding for them too. Which we do every time we buy a product advertised there. But suppression of the news to fit your agenda, well you might want to get help from Pyonyang on that. Rotsa ruck.

That same article mentions Gabby Giffords' announcement of her initiative "to join a national conversation about gun violence prevention" made concurrently with the gun buyback/fetish event:

Special interests purporting to represent gun owners but really advancing the interests of an ideological fringe have used big money and influence to cow Congress into submission. Rather than working to find the balance between our rights and the regulation of a dangerous product, these groups have cast simple protections for our communities as existential threats to individual liberties. Rather than conducting a dialogue, they threaten those who divert from their orthodoxy with political extinction.

As a result, we are more vulnerable to gun violence. Weapons designed for the battlefield have a home in our streets. Criminals and the mentally ill can easily purchase guns by avoiding background checks. Firearm accessories designed for killing at a high rate are legal and widely available. And gun owners are less responsible for the misuse of their weapons than they are for their automobiles.

Forget the boogeyman of big, bad government coming to dispossess you of your firearms. As a Western woman and a Persian Gulf War combat veteran who have exercised our Second Amendment rights, we don't want to take away your guns any more than we want to give up the two guns we have locked in a safe at home. What we do want is what the majority of NRA members and other Americans want: responsible changes in our laws to require responsible gun ownership and reduce gun violence.

--USA Today Jan. 8

Anyway the point of all this isn't how the law reads; it's how the NRA collectively thinks about firearms: as some sort of deity to be worshiped, and those infidels who dare to desecrate their Holy of (bullet) Holies will be met with jihad through the courts, the legislatures, the media, their own fearmonger ayatollahs, the gun manufacturers' lobby that props them up, and any other means necessary. Desecration of the Holy Object. Beyond belief.

These people are off the fucking rails. So far out of touch, they're beyond the Rupert Murdoch media.

,
,
,
Hey, maybe you can get your pals in Pyonyang to shut Murdoch up too. Again, rotsa ruck.

Clinton Pledges Funds to Add Police to Schools - Los Angeles Times

 

[Pogo]

Here I agree with you about the NRAs position in this instance. The police now legally own those firearms and have the legal right to do what they want with them within the confines of the law.
However your disingenuous characterization of the NRA in general says more about you then it does about them. Too bad, I thought you were more rational than that, apparently I was mistaken.

Disingenuous? I don't see that. Irrational? Ditto. Opinionated? You bet. See the difference?
Do I have an opinion about the NRA's attitude? Damn right I do. Is it inaccurate? Well, that's going to be subjective, so feel free to counterpoint. That's what debate is for.

My position the entire time I've been here, and before I arrived, was that we have not a gun control problem but a gun culture problem. And the NRA is the lifeblood of that fetish.
That's what this thread's about; the psychology. That's going to be hard to quantify but my position is noted, and I wrote the OP to open it up to others. Instead of flinging floating adjectives, back them up.

Okay, I misread your intent and stand corrected, mea culpa. Since the NRA, like Unions, AARP, etc are comprised of millions of individual members who, to some degree or another, represent those members, how do you justify your view of the NRA. Other than a few actions/positions they take/have what makes them, for lack of a better word, "evil" in your mind? How do you define "gun culture" and what are your objections to it?

That's a long answer but I'll refer you back to here, here and more recently, here.

IMO the NRA is doing everything in its power to shut down and turn off that conversation by pretending the issue is the Constitution, and that's abjectly disingenuous.

And danke sehr for invitation to genuine debate. It's all too rare and it beats the pants off all these volleys of "gun nuts" and "libtards" that accomplish nothing.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Less guns equal less violence.

False

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Haven't seen this posted yet but I find this psychologically revealing:
This happened at a gun buy-back organized in Tucson last week on the second anniversary of the shooting that wounded Gabrielle Giffords and seventeen other people...

NRA Vows To Stop Tucson From Destroying Guns

Anna Jolivet had four old rifles she didn't want: "They belonged to my husband, and he passed away four years ago, and I haven't had any success in having someone take them off of me since then. So I thought this is a good time to turn them in." That's exactly what Republican Tucson City Councilman Steve Kozachik expected when he asked the police to do the buyback. What he didn't expect was the response after he announced the event.

"I've been getting threats," Kozachik says. "I've been getting emails. I've been getting phone calls in the office trying to shut this thing down or 'We're going to sue you' or 'Who do you think you are?' " Todd Rathner, an Arizona lobbyist and a national board member of the NRA, may sue. He has no problem with the gun buyback, but he does have a problem with the fate of the guns once police take possession of them.

"We do believe that it is illegal for them to destroy those guns," he says.

"Illegal to destroy guns".... your own guns that you just bought... just letting that sink in...

I've been noting for months that what we have is a national gun fetish and that what got Bob Costas so much blowback was that he committed the sin of blasphemy; that he dared to question the divinity of Almighty Gun. Well, here it is, writ large. If threatening to sue the city for the blasphemy of desecrating Almighty Gun doesn't amount to a fetish, then I just don't know enough about sexual perversion.

What say ye?

The NRA is wrong. The law states they only have to be put back in circulation or retained if they are seized or abandoned. These guns are being turned in voluntarily.

 

[Pogo]

Other than a few actions/positions they take/have what makes them, for lack of a better word, "evil" in your mind? How do you define "gun culture" and what are your objections to it?

That's a long answer but I'll refer you back to here, here and more recently, here.

IMO the NRA is doing everything in its power to shut down and turn off that conversation by pretending the issue is the Constitution, and that's abjectly disingenuous.

And danke sehr for invitation to genuine debate. It's all too rare and it beats the pants off all these volleys of "gun nuts" and "libtards" that accomplish nothing.

Addendum: there's a very good topic over here that is much more the direction I'd like to see this dialogue evolve. Unlike most of these threads it's a lot deeper and doesn't fall on prefab sound bites to dumb down a topic that should not be oversimplified. An excerpt from early reading:

Hamamoto (1992) argues that the United States produces most of the world's mass murderers because of a "blow back" by civilians scripting violence in a hyper-militarised America which started with the increasing military adventures after World War II.

There's at least a poke at the heart of the matter, rather than the knee jerking of hiding behind the Constitution or throwing legislation at it. All they do is address the symptoms, if that. This all has deep deep roots which deserve more than a snarky one-liner. It deserves time for examination. That, I believe, is what the NRA and its minions stand against.

Back to the original part of your question, I believe the actions/positions they take are very much the basis for judging them, like any other organisation. That's the point. It's what a lobby group does.

 

[OKTexas]

As far as the NRA is concerned, gun rights trump property rights.

The N.R.A. Protection Racket
By RICHARD W. PAINTER


The most blatant protection racket is orchestrated by the National Rifle Association, which is ruthless against candidates who are tempted to stray from its view that all gun regulations are pure evil. Debra Maggart, a Republican leader in the Tennessee House of Representatives, was one of its most recent victims. The N.R.A. spent around $100,000 to defeat her in the primary, because she would not support a bill that would have allowed people to keep guns locked in their cars on private property without the property owner’s consent.

The message to Republicans is clear: “We will help you get elected and protect your seat from Democrats. We will spend millions on ads that make your opponent look worse than the average holdup man robbing a liquor store. In return, we expect you to oppose any laws that regulate guns. These include laws requiring handgun registration, meaningful background checks on purchasers, limiting the right to carry concealed weapons, limiting access to semiautomatic weapons or anything else that would diminish the firepower available to anybody who wants it. And if you don’t comply, we will load our weapons and direct everything in our arsenal at you in the next Republican primary.”

NYTimes

Richard W. Painter, a professor of law at the University of Minnesota, was the chief White House ethics lawyer for President George W. Bush from 2005 to 2007.

An opinion piece written by a dude that can't even get his facts right. Notice he puts in a quote without attributing it to anyone, not what you call credible. A lawyer should know better.

Yea, let's focus on punctuation and ignore what this former chief ethics lawyer for President George W. Bush is saying.

Quotation marks can be used to set apart statements or words, adding a loud emphasis to whatever they surround.

I only pointed out one thing wrong with the article, there are more, if you had read it you would know that.

 

[Pogo]

An opinion piece written by a dude that can't even get his facts right. Notice he puts in a quote without attributing it to anyone, not what you call credible. A lawyer should know better.

Yea, let's focus on punctuation and ignore what this former chief ethics lawyer for President George W. Bush is saying.

Quotation marks can be used to set apart statements or words, adding a loud emphasis to whatever they surround.

I only pointed out one thing wrong with the article, there are more, if you had read it you would know that.

Actually all you did was pick on punctuation, and you were wrong about that anyway. It's not "attributed" because it's not a direct quote from anybody; it's just placing an idea into the first person. I don't even have to click the link to see that.

 

[OKTexas]

Yea, let's focus on punctuation and ignore what this former chief ethics lawyer for President George W. Bush is saying.

Quotation marks can be used to set apart statements or words, adding a loud emphasis to whatever they surround.

I only pointed out one thing wrong with the article, there are more, if you had read it you would know that.

Actually all you did was pick on punctuation, and you were wrong about that anyway. It's not "attributed" because it's not a direct quote from anybody; it's just placing an idea into the first person. I don't even have to click the link to see that.

Read it or not, the guy is a hack that can't bother to fact check his own opinion piece of crap.

 

[Pogo]

I only pointed out one thing wrong with the article, there are more, if you had read it you would know that.

Actually all you did was pick on punctuation, and you were wrong about that anyway. It's not "attributed" because it's not a direct quote from anybody; it's just placing an idea into the first person. I don't even have to click the link to see that.

Read it or not, the guy is a hack that can't bother to fact check his own opinion piece of crap.

Facts are not opinions, and vice versa.

Is that it? No meat?