LOL. Ok. I see - can’t win either way. Never mind they fight for EVERYONE’S rights. They clearly aren’t fighting for SOME peoples rights because we ALL know, wink, wink, what they are really about. Everyone supporting this right clearly fits this caricature in one’s head, sharing the same views and opinions. And even if these people claim not to, they do so indirectly because that is REALLY what its all about! Got it.
This, some comments above, and Cory’s wonderfully colorful language - just… nice…
I realize I was making self depreciating comments based on Cory’s prose, but I find it ironic you didn’t throw an ad hominem flag. The opposite, actually. I guess that one got by you. Maybe next time.
1st not everyone who supports “this” right agrees with you, and especially not the NRA brass, about what exactly that right is. Nor how it should be protected.
Second the NRA leadership certainly fits the stereotype that’s standing right in front of us at the podium.
And its relatively clear that the NRA doesn’t protect everyone. They aren’t even particularly concerned with protecting their members. Its fairly obvious their main goal is to protect and empower fire arms manufacturers.
Defend gun ownership all you want. In the past I’ve found I often agree with you on the subject.
But defending the NRA is a lost cause. And the “but if these laws were racist blah blah then the laws should be potatoes!” argument is just bullshit.
Look, I don’t agree with every statement the NRA puts out. Some of them are face palmingly bad. They have a plethora of spokespeople and they vary greatly in their tone and approach. (Like many entities, they give them a platform with an asterisk that it may or may not match the officials positions.) They and others within the org do differ on some of the positions. Some of them I like, some of them I think hurt the cause more than help it.
I do not like the trend in the last 6-8 years where they have been playing more and more to the far right. I understand partly why they do so, because that is the base that is so solid and most vocally supportive. I’d encourage way more moderate and even left leaning voices in the support for the right.
That said, there is no other game in town when it comes to a group actively working to keep those rights. It’s the votes. It’s the calls, emails and letters. Most of the money is from individuals. Their political clout comes from the fact that when something comes up, they will organize and mobilize their members to ACT - sending their sentiments to the people in congress.
I never claimed they are perfect, but the only other option between the “not perfect NRA” is nothing. No other group has the clout and mobility. There GOA is a joke, IMO, and honestly I think may be a scam. The smaller rights groups do some good here and there, especially some of the state based ones locally, but there really isn’t another option on the national level.
And finally, no, I don’t think your last sentence is fair. The NRA conceded on gun laws in the 60s, and I have acknowledged some of that support was racism based. I was mainly talking about the 68 law; it had broad bipartisan support, and the reasons for it was more than just black radical groups. So I don’t think one can label everyone who supported it did so for racist reasons. Some people supported it for the very reasons some people support those same laws today.
We aren’t discussing the positions put forward by the craziest fringe members of the organization. We’re talking about the positions put forward by the NRA’s top leadership (like President Wayne LaPierre) and most prominent official spokespeople (like Dana Loesch). If those people aren’t a fair representation of the NRA’s views then who the hell is?
No, an ad hominem is attacking the person instead of attacking their argument. I did no such thing. I took apart your argument, and then I agreed with your own statement. (You should never hand someone a gun unless you’re sure where they’ll point it. Your mistake). In giving me a statement that I happened to completely agree with, and I quote:
I simply replied with a gif of “If the shoe fits…” But agreeing with your own words is not ad hominem. Sorry (not sorry) if what you consider to be self-deprecation is something that I see as a simple admission of fact. You even made sure to emphasize that those were not my words to begin with, thereby emphasizing that it wasn’t an ad hominem.
Exactly. At this point, the NRA is effectively a domestic terrorist organization, given how their policies are making people across the US living in abject terror and asking the question, “Am I next?” We all live in fear of them and their members, hoping that today, they won’t decide to engage in a little recreational murder. But we can’t do anything to stop them. They are the Cult of Moloch, and I’m sick and tired of sacrificing children’s lives and the lives of other innocents to an idol that always yearns for more blood sacrifice.
All rights come with commensurate limits and responsibilities–except for firearms. Your right to free speech does not allow for the right to spew hate or to panic a crowd. Your right to privacy can be overridden in a limited fashion if there is reasonable cause for a search. Your right to freely practice your religion does not allow you to force others to participate in that practice. Your right to report the news stops at the distribution of libel. But gun fondlers refuse to accept the concept that they should have any responsibility or restriction to go along with the “right to bear arms”.
As such, since gun fondlers have repeatedly shown, as a group, that they are irresponsible, either in the taking of lives directly, or in the refusal to consider accepting a degree of restriction commensurate with the incredible power of being able to end a life or permanently maim on a whim, then the rest of us need to revoke that right from them–because our right to live (should) outweigh their right to murder the rest of us on a whim.
I will enjoy reading this later… but assuming the numbers are right: how would 80,000 people, which make up .1% of gun owners (assuming ~80Million gun owners) be responsible for 20% of injuries? I’d postulate that the person who was “in” to guns enough to actually go to the convention, would be an above average user in terms of both proficiency and safety.
But, let’s just assume they were 80,000 novices, that doesn’t seem right that such a small slice of the population would account for a full 20% reduction. If they are only measuring three weeks before and after, that could be coincidence. Is there similar peaks and valleys in the data at other times of the year? Does every year the convention takes place you see the same drop (as the convention varies from year to year where it is held, and generally the attendees are locals).
But seriously, thanks for the actual link to the paper, as the twitter thing did not have a link.
