How The NRA Enables Massacres

[hunarcy]

Maybe the reason why there is support for infringement is because your side shows no responsibility.

You don't seem to want to police your own. If some crazy person shoots up a school or a theatre, that's the cost of doing business.

How about liberals police their own, since its' liberals going on the shooting rampages, not conservatives. Maybe we shouldn't let libs own guns.

Which liberals would those be?

This kid was part of the seriously misogynistic "men's rights" movement.

Rodger was a devoted liberal. He followed the Young Turks on YouTube, a far-left group led by a guy named Cenk Uygur who once was an MSNBC host.

 

[Spoonman]

But here, in the good ole US of A, we’ve allowed a group of rich, entitled thugs who run an operation fronting for arms dealers—guys who represent a minority position on pretty much every issue having to do with reasonable regulation of firearms*even among gun owners—to dictate our policies to cowardly, careerist politicians.

I already hear the outrage from the right: how can you blame the NRA? We need good guys to have guns, we have to stop the “haters” and “knockout gamers” and … I can't even bear to repeat the infantile and inane talking points coming from cynical and callous people like the NRA's Executive Vice President and foaming mouthpiece Wayne LaPierre.

.

actually it was a democratic congressman who was running the guns

 

[Spoonman]

LOL, and milk causes drug addiction.

Then obviously you agree "that the NRA enables massacres" falls into the same moronic category......... Good to know.

Not really, it's not moronic to believe the NRA which supports the proliferation of guns throughout society is easily characterized as an organization which enables mass murder. No matter how reasonable an effort might be, the NRA will be opposed any idea which infringes on the right of gun ownership.

Of course the NRA and most of its members do not defend mass murderers, but their actions when one of these events occurs is to defend gun ownership from any effort to lessen gun violence in America - it is never focused on the innocent victims, and thus is morally reprehensible.

wordsmith it any way you want. The NRA supports the 2nd amendment and the rights it afords american citizens. Ameircans have the right to vote. more people voting is not a bad thing. proliferation of votes is good. more people excercising their right to free speech is a good thing too. and it is their right to do so. more americans owning a gun is a good thing too. it too is their right.

 

[Ringel05]

LOL, and milk causes drug addiction.

Then obviously you agree "that the NRA enables massacres" falls into the same moronic category......... Good to know.

Not really, it's not moronic to believe the NRA which supports the proliferation of guns throughout society is easily characterized as an organization which enables mass murder. No matter how reasonable an effort might be, the NRA will be opposed any idea which infringes on the right of gun ownership.

Of course the NRA and most of its members do not defend mass murderers, but their actions when one of these events occurs is to defend gun ownership from any effort to lessen gun violence in America - it is never focused on the innocent victims, and thus is morally reprehensible.

Gotta love your rationalizations....
Have a pretzel. Want mustard with that?

 

[Spoonman]

And that would be bad, why?

Frankly, there's no popular support for gun confiscation. There is a lot of support for making sure that crazy people can't get guns.

No, there is support for incremental infringements which ultimately lead to confiscation. No other result is reasonable for the left.

-Geaux

Maybe the reason why there is support for infringement is because your side shows no responsibility.

You don't seem to want to police your own. If some crazy person shoots up a school or a theatre, that's the cost of doing business.

actually the reason you couldn't pass a law you claimed 85% of the people supported is because all your justification is lies, spin and total bullshit.

 

[S.J.]

Maybe the reason why there is support for infringement is because your side shows no responsibility.

You don't seem to want to police your own. If some crazy person shoots up a school or a theatre, that's the cost of doing business.

No, its the risk to be American.

-Geaux

It's a risk most Americans don't want to take.

Most of us don't want to share our streets with gun-weilding crazy people.

Most Americans support the Constitution. The second amendment gives us the right to keep and bear arms. What you and your liberal friends WANT or don't want is irrelevant. If you don't like the Constitution you can always find another country to live in. I hear N. Korea doesn't allow it's citizens to own guns.

 

[dannyboys]

The first thing every LIB *****-boy does when he's in trouble is to go screaming for some one with a gun to help him.

 

[Skull Pilot]

LOL, and milk causes drug addiction.

Then obviously you agree "that the NRA enables massacres" falls into the same moronic category......... Good to know.

Not really, it's not moronic to believe the NRA which supports the proliferation of guns throughout society is easily characterized as an organization which enables mass murder. No matter how reasonable an effort might be, the NRA will be opposed any idea which infringes on the right of gun ownership.

Shouldn't everyone who obeys the law be opposed to the infringement on any rights guaranteed in the Constitution?

Of course the NRA and most of its members do not defend mass murderers, but their actions when one of these events occurs is to defend gun ownership from any effort to lessen gun violence in America - it is never focused on the innocent victims, and thus is morally reprehensible.

Mass shootings account for less than 1% of all gun murders or in other words if you could end mass shootings tomorrow the murder rate wouldn't even budge.

 

[TrainTime]

During the Bush43 years, the ATF actually did background checks....like everything else in this moron's Regime, the incompetence and sloppy record keeping is putting firearms in the hands of cretins like Rodgers.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Um, guy, if I have to worry every day that I or my kids or people I care about can be shot in the street because the NRA was HAPPY to sell guns to crazy people...

Good news -- you don't.
So, I ask again: Why do you have no interest in living in a free society?

Guy, somebody randomly shot a bullet out into the parking lot of my condo complex from not 50 feet where I am sitting

Two weeks later he shot himself.

Yes, I really do have to worry that we have too many guns in the hands of people who shouldn't have them, and they DO present a threat to my life and limb.

That's not freedom, you dipshit.

That's "A big unethical company is selling you a product they know is bad for you, with no concern for ethics."

I see... So, you DO understand you were caught in a lie - "because the NRA was HAPPY to sell guns to crazy people" - and have now moved the goalposts.


Thank you for helping to prove the premise that anit-gun loons can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

 

[M14 Shooter]

There are a lot of nice people in this country. A whole helluva lot of them, like it or not, own AR-15s. If we can’t have at least, a conversation with them, sit down, break bread— about where we are going and how we are going to get there, there is no hope at all."
Anthony Bourdain

Ok, so...
I have an AR-15 - three, in fact.
I'm also sitting.
What exacly would you like to talk about?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Then obviously you agree "that the NRA enables massacres" falls into the same moronic category......... Good to know.

Not really, it's not moronic to believe the NRA which supports the proliferation of guns throughout society is easily characterized as an organization which enables mass murder. No matter how reasonable an effort might be, the NRA will be opposed any idea which infringes on the right of gun ownership.

Of course the NRA and most of its members do not defend mass murderers, but their actions when one of these events occurs is to defend gun ownership from any effort to lessen gun violence in America - it is never focused on the innocent victims, and thus is morally reprehensible.

Gotta love your rationalizations....
Have a pretzel. Want mustard with that?

You ought not use words you don't understand, especially when framed within an idiotgram. I guess when the truth of my comment overwhelms the lies or spins you can formulate such a foolish response is all you've got.

 

[M14 Shooter]

LOL, and milk causes drug addiction.

Then obviously you agree "that the NRA enables massacres" falls into the same moronic category......... Good to know.

Not really, it's not moronic to believe the NRA which supports the proliferation of guns throughout society is easily characterized as an organization which enables mass murder.

Thank you for helping to prove the premise that anti0gun loons can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

No matter how reasonable an effort might be, the NRA will be opposed any idea which infringes on the right of gun ownership.

Rightly so.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Then obviously you agree "that the NRA enables massacres" falls into the same moronic category......... Good to know.

Not really, it's not moronic to believe the NRA which supports the proliferation of guns throughout society is easily characterized as an organization which enables mass murder. No matter how reasonable an effort might be, the NRA will be opposed any idea which infringes on the right of gun ownership.

Shouldn't everyone who obeys the law be opposed to the infringement on any rights guaranteed in the Constitution?

Of course the NRA and most of its members do not defend mass murderers, but their actions when one of these events occurs is to defend gun ownership from any effort to lessen gun violence in America - it is never focused on the innocent victims, and thus is morally reprehensible.

Mass shootings account for less than 1% of all gun murders or in other words if you could end mass shootings tomorrow the murder rate wouldn't even budge.

The COTUS speaks to "arms" within the meaning of what that meant in the 18th Century, guns available today are much different.

I'll take your word for the 1% figure, but to those parents who lost their child to mass murder - and Americans who have empathy - by the gun it matters not; only callous conservatives believe as do you.

 

[Ringel05]

Not really, it's not moronic to believe the NRA which supports the proliferation of guns throughout society is easily characterized as an organization which enables mass murder. No matter how reasonable an effort might be, the NRA will be opposed any idea which infringes on the right of gun ownership.

Of course the NRA and most of its members do not defend mass murderers, but their actions when one of these events occurs is to defend gun ownership from any effort to lessen gun violence in America - it is never focused on the innocent victims, and thus is morally reprehensible.

Gotta love your rationalizations....
Have a pretzel. Want mustard with that?

You ought not use words you don't understand, especially when framed within an idiotgram. I guess when the truth of my comment overwhelms the lies or spins you can formulate such a foolish response is all you've got.

Actually it's your ludicrous, anfractuous, solecistic logic indicative of fallacious cognition that is at issue here.
The only truth anent your asseveration abides solely within some apocryphal psychosis.

Hence my appropriate and authoritative response, regardless of the bucolic delivery.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The COTUS speaks to "arms" within the meaning of what that meant in the 18th Century, guns available today are much different.

I see you aren't up on current law:

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

And so, your statement is meaningless.

 

[SillyWabbit]

"Guns and cars have long been among the leading causes of non-medical deaths in the U.S. By 2015, firearm fatalities will probably exceed traffic fatalities for the first time, based on data compiled by Bloomberg.

While motor-vehicle deaths dropped 22 percent from 2005 to 2010, gun fatalities are rising again after a low point in 2000, according to the Atlanta-based Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Shooting deaths in 2015 will probably rise to almost 33,000, and those related to autos will decline to about 32,000, based on the 10-year average trend.

As the nation reels from the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School, the shift shows the effects of public policy, said Garen Wintemute, director of the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California, Davis."

The above is quoted from an article whose URL I was not able to copy and paste.

My point is that as of now, deaths by vehicles out number deaths by guns.

So, to claim that the NRA enables massacres is like saying that the Department of Motor Vehicles enables massacres.

well, no, because the DMV is not out there fighting against reasonable vehicle legislation.

They don't have some maniac screaming, "They only way you are getting my car is if you pry it from my cold dead fingers."

IN fact, quite the contrary, the DMV records who the bad actors are, who is driving under the influence, who is driving recklessly, who is driving without insurance, and lo and behold, they yank those people's licences.

If you really want to regulate guns the way we regulate cars, I'm totally down for that.

In my state--and I'm guessing in most states--one has to pass a written and physical driving test to get a license. This license must be maintained every so often by at least showing up in person to renew it (and make adjustments to physical appearance for the ID). Why not license firearms in a similar fashion? What the hell, it's deadly weapon, why not show basic proficiency in its use and be identified as a gun owner. When you go to buy your weapon, you show your ID, verification is done in minutes and you can shop to your gun-loving heart drops.

 

[M14 Shooter]

In my state--and I'm guessing in most states--one has to pass a written and physical driving test to get a license. This license must be maintained every so often by at least showing up in person to renew it (and make adjustments to physical appearance for the ID). Why not license firearms in a similar fashion?

Well, lesse...
I don't need a license to buy, own or possess a car.
I don't need a license to keep a car on my porperty.
I don't need a license to operate a car on private property.
I don.t need a license to transport a car on pubclic property.
OK.... I give up. Why not?

 

[Ringel05]

"Guns and cars have long been among the leading causes of non-medical deaths in the U.S. By 2015, firearm fatalities will probably exceed traffic fatalities for the first time, based on data compiled by Bloomberg.

While motor-vehicle deaths dropped 22 percent from 2005 to 2010, gun fatalities are rising again after a low point in 2000, according to the Atlanta-based Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Shooting deaths in 2015 will probably rise to almost 33,000, and those related to autos will decline to about 32,000, based on the 10-year average trend.

As the nation reels from the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School, the shift shows the effects of public policy, said Garen Wintemute, director of the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California, Davis."

The above is quoted from an article whose URL I was not able to copy and paste.

My point is that as of now, deaths by vehicles out number deaths by guns.

So, to claim that the NRA enables massacres is like saying that the Department of Motor Vehicles enables massacres.

well, no, because the DMV is not out there fighting against reasonable vehicle legislation.

They don't have some maniac screaming, "They only way you are getting my car is if you pry it from my cold dead fingers."

IN fact, quite the contrary, the DMV records who the bad actors are, who is driving under the influence, who is driving recklessly, who is driving without insurance, and lo and behold, they yank those people's licences.

If you really want to regulate guns the way we regulate cars, I'm totally down for that.

In my state--and I'm guessing in most states--one has to pass a written and physical driving test to get a license. This license must be maintained every so often by at least showing up in person to renew it (and make adjustments to physical appearance for the ID). Why not license firearms in a similar fashion? What the hell, it's deadly weapon, why not show basic proficiency in its use and be identified as a gun owner. When you go to buy your weapon, you show your ID, verification is done in minutes and you can shop to your gun-loving heart drops.

Driving a car - a privilege not guaranteed by the Constitution. Gun ownership - guaranteed by the Constitution within the 2nd Amendment........ applicable to "reasonable" restrictions proportionate of the restrictions applied to all other Amendments.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Gotta love your rationalizations....
Have a pretzel. Want mustard with that?

You ought not use words you don't understand, especially when framed within an idiotgram. I guess when the truth of my comment overwhelms the lies or spins you can formulate such a foolish response is all you've got.

Actually it's your ludicrous, anfractuous, solecistic logic indicative of fallacious cognition that is at issue here.
The only truth anent your asseveration abides solely within some apocryphal psychosis.

Hence my appropriate and authoritative response, regardless of the bucolic delivery.

Nice try, clever or creative you're not, nor are you able to comport Original Intent with 30-round magazines, quick releases and the rapid rate of fire in modern semi automatics firearms.