NRA's top lawyer was convicted of murdering his girlfriend's mother in 1964

boing
21

[quote=“Boundegar, post:18, topic:38055”]
The problem is the leadership that will happily fight for your right to military weapons that have no legitimate use outside of a battlefield, but are ideal for murdering a lot of people in a hurry.[/quote]

Legitimate use? That is like saying there is no legitimate use for a high end sports car off of a race track - no legit use for weed - no legit use for crypto technology outside of the NSA - no legit use for ass-less leather chaps out side of gay bars - no legit use for rockets other than ICBMs - no legit use of public privacy if you aren’t doing something wrong.

While YOU may not find something useful or “legit”, millions of others do. And those millions of owners have managed to do so with out impeding anyone else’s rights.

[quote=“Boundegar, post:18, topic:38055”]
The problem is leaders who advocate armed violence against anybody who suggests even the most basic forms of regulation of the weapons industry. [/quote]

Ah, no, the NRA has never advocated armed violence against someone for more gun control. You could say the 2nd Amendment is in part to prevent a totalitarian government through an armed revolt. But if you want to allude to this including "anybody who suggests even the most basic forms of regulation of the weapons industry. " then you are connecting a whole mess of dots that aren’t there.

1 Like
22

Cue gun-nuts attacking Mother Jones for bias in 3… 2… 1…

23

Airing the dirty laundry of the NRA is all we’ve got left since the obvious reason to weaken correct a foolish constitutional amendment clearly isn’t enough for the deadshits who refuse to admit that more guns=more gun crime.

Oh, go on… tell me how a bunch of stupid old men knew better than hundreds of years of societal development.

1 Like
24

Pfft. Please explain the ‘legitimate use’ of a military weapon, outside of combat.

Protip: It’s not called a military weapon by accident. I can open a beer with a moving chainsaw: is that a legitimate use of a chainsaw? Sure, it works… but there are other, far less dangerous ways to open a beer.

And those millions of owners have managed to do so with out impeding anyone else’s rights.

Except all the ones that didn’t do that and are conveniently forgotten by this argument. Isn’t the right to not be shot a human right that’s being impeded?

Ah, no, the NRA has never advocated armed violence against someone for more gun control.

‘from my cold, dead hands’ -Some stupid asshole

O RLY?

Man. I like you, but you drop at least 50 IQ points when this discussion comes up.

1 Like
25

A sports car is a means of transportation. Even if it’s expensive and fast, it’s still a car.

An assault rifle is a weapon of war. It is designed to kill a lot of people very efficiently. That’s a legitimate thing for a soldier to be able to do. It is not something a civilian needs to do. Assault rifles are not used for hunting deer or for historical reenactment or for Olympic sports. No civilian should ever have one. Nor should we be able to buy bombs or instruments of torture or Cesium-137.

Some things simply have no legitimate civilian uses. All the straw men you listed don’t change that.

4 Likes
26

Calibration sources based on this isotope are pretty damn useful. How else do you want to calibrate a geiger counter or a scintillation sensor?

2 Likes
27

I calibrate mine watching Scarlett Johansson.

4 Likes
28

Well, first some sanity in this discussion – cold, hard numbers…

The USA has about 8,000 gun murders per year (give or take). There are an estimated 270,000,000 guns in the USA (this is the lower figure of the estimate). That means (assuming one gun per murder) that 0.003% of the guns in America are used in murders. Yes, 1/333 of one percent. Wow, sure sounds like a problem to me.

OK. Assuming that an assault rifle IS a weapon of war, guess what? Assault rifles (for example, M-16) are pretty much ILLEGAL for most people. You can get some old ones that are grandfathered in, but those cost at least $10,000, so they are pretty much unaffordable except to the rich. As far as REAL weapons of war, for example, the weapons that a typical ground soldier will carry, the only thing that the average person can get that is the same is the pistol and the knife. Next bogus argument, please.

Oh, and the 2nd Amendment was NOT included in the constitution to hunt deer.

Also civilians have a LOT of AR-15 rifles out there. Millions of them. Guess how many long guns were used in murders in 2012? 332. Yes, 332. That is from ALL rifles. Wow, we really need to restrict the rights of MILLIONS of honest citizens because of that number. The number of accidental drownings each year is TEN TIMES that amount. So, honestly, the average swimming pool kills TEN TIMES more people than the average AR-15.

When you say that “weapons of war” need to be banned, at least be honest and say that it is because of fear and they look scary. The numbers simply do NOT back you up.

2 Likes
29

Yeah - that’s not advocating violence or attacking someone with an opposing view. But let’s move on.

[quote=“teapot, post:24, topic:38055”]
Except all the ones that didn’t do that and are conveniently forgotten by this argument. Isn’t the right to not be shot a human right that’s being impeded?[/quote]

Again, you are somehow rationalizing that the misuse of the minority warrants further restriction of the peaceful majority. Which is the same rational for bullshit like the War on Drugs. People on drugs are a danger to themselves and/or others and many people on drugs commit crimes to fuel their use - even though the vast majority of people who do drugs don’t hurt anyone. And yet just like the War on Drugs you have a delusion that taking guns away from the peaceful will some how stop those who want them from getting and abuse them.

[quote=“teapot, post:24, topic:38055”]
Pfft. Please explain the ‘legitimate use’ of a military weapon, outside of combat.

Protip: It’s not called a military weapon by
accident. I can open a beer with a moving chainsaw: is that a legitimate use of a chainsaw? Sure, it works… but there are other, far less dangerous ways to open a beer.[/quote]

I do not get how one can justify this irrational fear of a hunk of metal and plastic. It isn’t evil. It isn’t made of demon blood and baby’s tears. It’s a tool. It’s made to shoot bullets. Just like a sword (made only for killing) or a knife (made for killing too, but I guess has a “legit” use of slicing carrots) are made to cut things, few people are using them to actually harm others.

You can look at the original purpose as “killing people”. Obviously that isn’t what most people are using theirs for. Crypto technology was originally used to spy on other nations, now we use it to protect our data. Rockets that can go into space were designed for one thing - to launch bombs. Obviously we found a legit use for them.

Let’s be clear, I am arguing for the owning of AR-15s and the like, which some people call “assault rifles”, though those are military full auto guns, not the semi-auto ones I am talking about.

You are right, they aren’t used in the Olympics, but there are several sports that uses ARs, such as National Match Rifle (featured at Camp Perry, one of the oldest and largest competitions), using both modern and vintage military issue rifles, usually modified slightly with heavier barrels. And then there is the more and more popular sport called “3 Gun” where one uses an AR (or something similar), a pistol, and a shot gun. http://www.nssf.org/events/featurette/2012/0712.cfm

Guess what folks - these are legit uses. Not long ago I posted the half dozen different sports for handguns that were “only made to kill people at close range”. The fact I just shot 300+ rounds at round paper targets Sunday is an example of LEGIT USE.

You may not like them - but even ignoring the personal defense aspect - millions of guns are used safely for FUN, LEGIT uses. I don’t tell you not to choke yourself while jacking off, or climb rocks with out ropes. Don’t worry about me shooting holes in paper or at steel - which is all nearly every gun in America will ever do.

Make the most epic of strawmen - chastise others for theirs. Classy.

Though I wasn’t trying to make strawmen. I was trying to show how the concept of “legitimate use” is absurd.

4 Likes
30

No, legislatures interpret that amendment for the purposes of law. Nobody else can. Others interpret that amendment for their own reasons.

31

Well, if you insist. I am not really a gun-nut, but more of a constitution-nut.

Check out this article. Really read it.

Their claim is that armed civilians do NOT stop mass shootings (of course, this was written a couple of years ago. A doctor stopped what could very well have been a mass shooting just earlier this week). Let’s count the logical errors:

  1. Their definition of “civilian” excluded ANYBODY who is, was, or has ever been in either the military or police. They even exclude the “New Life Church” shooting because the lady to took out the bad guy was once a police officer, but was not currently one. So, using their definition, anybody who was ever in the military or police SHOULD be allowed to carry a concealed weapon. Yet if you were to suggest this, I am sure that they would scream that only active-duty police should be allowed to have guns. It must be easier to win arguments if you can change the definitions of words on the fly.

  2. One simple quote from their article:

it was “not clear at all” whether the kid had intended to do any further shooting after he’d left the building.

So of course, you can conclude that he was NOT going to do any more shooting. When in doubt, skew the numbers to favor your pet conclusion.

  1. Plus there are many instances where people stopped shooters BEFORE it became a mass shooting. Yet these don’t count.

So, yes, based strictly on this one article, they are completely biased and feel free to play fast and loose with the truth.

32

According to USconservatives.com, i.e., not a liberal source:

There are roughly 32,000 gun deaths per year in the United States.
They then go on to explain how it's really not as bad as it seems, but even they don't try to pull off the claim of only 8,000/year.
5 Likes
33

The implication is that the only thing that would get him to change his views is death. If you don’t see this as a literal call to arms, you’re blinder to the rhetoric than I ever imagined. He’s also leaving us few options, and he’s on my personal list of people I’d do away with if there were no consequences.

you are somehow rationalizing that the misuse of the minority warrants further restriction of the peaceful majority

That’s exactly what I’m doing. The danger presented to innocent bystanders by the “minority” is sufficient that the “peaceful majority” lose their alleged right to own weapons of war.

you have a delusion that taking guns away from the peaceful will some how stop those who want them from getting and abuse them.

Au contraire, the delusion is yours. Everywhere with restrictions on gun ownership have lower rates of gun crime and death by firearm. My ‘delusion’ is known by most of the world as ‘reality’. I also made no such claims, but to pretend that restricting access to guns for all doesn’t reduce “bad guys” access to them in patently dishonest and ignorant.

I do not get how one can justify this irrational fear of a hunk of metal and plastic.

Hey! We’re done with this distraction. It’s a weapon of war. You may be able to distract others with this, but not us. We have no fear of the item, we have an acceptance that humans are fallible pieces of nonsense and if you get us angry and put a ‘tool’ for mass killing in our hands, we might just mass kill with it.

Guess what folks - these are legit uses.

…in the eyes of dumb-arse Americans. Please, tell me all about the AR shooting competitions that take place outside America.

I don’t tell you not to choke yourself while jacking off, or climb rocks with out ropes.

No child died as a result of me jacking off while choking myself. Scores of people weren’t brutally murdered because someone climbed a rock without ropes. False equivalency is false. This is exactly what I meant when I said your IQ drops at least 50 points. You never make these logical flaws in discussions on other topics.

2 Likes
34

OT, but FYI:
Anybody can buy exempt quantity sources of Cs-137 because they do have legitimate uses as calibration sources and for educational uses.

1 Like
35

Well, those stupid old men managed to forge a country that has lasted over two centuries. They were NOT stupid. They did not have computers, but they were not ignorant. They were, in fact, well educated. Try reading the Declaration of Independence. Just the sentence structure and vocabulary used are rather impressive.

And as to the 2nd Amendment being foolish, they had a reason to do so. Governments become more oppressive as time goes on, and the intent was to have an armed populace be the ultimate deterrent to an oppressive government.

And as to more guns = more crime, I have a challenge for you…

Go to this page:

Now, copy and paste the table into your favorite spreadsheet. Delete all columns except for the state name, gun ownership rate (percentage), and murders (rate per 100,000). Then, select the two numerical columns and make an X-Y scatter plot. Next, select the group of little dots and add a linear trend line (how you do this will vary depending on the spreadsheet you use). You will notice that as gun ownership goes up, gun murders goes down. Washington DC has very LOW ownership rates, yes has a LOT of crime. Let’s throw that little area out. Delete that row. The trend is still inverse, but less so. You now have generated your own PROOF that more guns does NOT equal more murder. Congratulations…

Now, are there any other arguments you can give me that are easily disproved?

1 Like
36

Our previous interactions on this matter would suggest otherwise.

So, yes, based strictly on this one article, they are completely biased and feel free to play fast and loose with the truth.

Oh okay… how about based on the article we’re discussing?

1 Like
37

Yes lets look at the numbers. There are ball park around 2011.

~32,000 gun deaths
~9000 homocides
~20000 suicides
~850 accidental deaths
~2000 - other (ie justifiable homocide)

I don’t even like to include suicide deaths in gun stats. I think it’s bunk to further prop up the numbers. Gun laws aren’t made to stop suicides and we all know that. Anything that would be done to curb suicides won’t stop crime and vice versa.

The number of accidents I wish was lower, but given the million of owners, that number is really low. As I’ve pointed out you are more likely to have an accidental death in a home with a pool vs a home with a gun - yet no one is suggesting private pool ownership is somehow not legit.

38

Only in some countries. :frowning:
I am highly tempted to smuggle.

1 Like
39

To give him the benefit of the doubt…
Perhaps there are only 8,000 gun murders, then that means that if there are 32,000 gun deaths total, then there are 24,000 deaths due to mishandling guns.
If true, then that it pretty damning evidence that guns do in fact kill (or at least yahoos who don’t know how to handle/store/use guns kill).

Edit: I see that @Mister44 broke down the stats.
It would be interesting to see a break down of how many suicides were gun owners and how many were adjacent to (half-assed) gun owners

40

Well, on this subject, I am in the minority. I am also very much against NSA spying, and the TSA, but by the time I get to those subjects, I find that most people around here agree with me. :wink:

Uh, yes. I already covered that. This is similar to the case with Ted Kennedy, who managed to kill a woman and instead of involuntary manslaughter, gets off with a wrist-slap because he was rich. And yet he was a hero to the Democratic party.

Let me put this in perspective. When this guy started working for the NRA, computer databases did not really exist. When he applied for the job, if they inspected his record, here is what they would see:

  1. Spent some time in prison for murder, but the case was eventually thrown out. Was he really guilty? I don’t know. The police have been known to get confessions from innocent people. Was that the case here? Who knows?

  2. Spent time in the army. I do not know what is record was like, but there must have been nothing bad in there, otherwise Mother Jones would have mentioned it.

  3. Got a law degree. I assume that he did rather well.

Based on this information, you can either conclude that, as a kid, he screwed up and got lucky, or he was wrongly imprisoned. In either case, he has kept his nose clean since then and done well. They could not check is facebook page or google his name, because those things did not exist yet.