NRA bans guns at their forum attended by Mike Pence

[KeithD]

So rights are not erased by death? Please explain my posthumous rights.

You have the posthumous right to say that Trump isn't welcome at your funeral.

 

[EllieTalbot]

So rights are not erased by death? Please explain my posthumous rights.

And while various forms of murder may be equally heinous, shooting is easier, hence its popularity. Strangulation is just *SO* tedious...

I repeat: If you haven't the right to live as a person born, you have no rights.

If anyone can shoot you dead whenever they want, your 'rights' to live, speak, vote, or work don't exist.

Yes, Pox, we get the point.

What you don't understand, or maybe you do and just don't care, is that you've been treating the subject as though your rights don't exist as long as anyone is around who might have a gun, and might shoot you with it. The way you rant and rave about live or die, kill or be killed is so insane that you sound as if you belong on a watch list.

Yes, drama queen, when you're dead your rights are a moot point as far as you're concerned, but they only cease to exist if you're one of those myopic, semi-sociopathic bores who thinks the rest of the world ceases to exist as soon as you do.

In all likelihood, you move about somewhat freely among all kinds of people, including some who own guns, and they don't threaten or shoot you.

In the unlikely event someone shoots you, there's a very real chance it won't have been a fatal wound, and you'll live to see your rights legally acted upon and the perpetrator(s)' rights be taken away when they're sent to jail, etc.

In the even more unlikely event that you're fatally shot, your family, friends, and law enforcement will do their best to see that justice is delivered on your behalf, which is in itself an acknowledgement of your rights - an acknowledgement that occupies a great deal of the thought, effort and time of many other lives. You also have rights involving property, family arrangements, etc - you just have to have arranged them before.

But I'm sure you'll screech it again, so allow me to do it for you.

*ahem*

OMIGAWD! There's no such thing as RIGHTS when there might be someone out there with a gun!!! Kill or be KILLED! MY so-called RIGHTS are MEANINGLESS unless I, I repeat Iam here! Me-Me-Me-Me-Me!

I must say, your AV is very apropos.

Approving in Appalachia,
Ellie

 

[KeithD]

What you don't understand, or maybe you do and just don't care, is that you've been treating the subject as though your rights don't exist as long as anyone is around who might have a gun, and might shoot you with it.

That does seem to be the reality as long as some jackasses, including posters to this forum, won't accept that the right of individuals to live and to attend church and go to school and concerts without being mowed down by an AR-15 supersede anyone else's right to own an AR-15 (which, incidentally, the 2nd amendment doesn't specifically guarantee, just as it doesn't guarantee the individual's right to own a nuclear bomb).

 

[EllieTalbot]

That does seem to be the reality as long as some jackasses, including posters to this forum, won't accept that the right of individuals to live and to attend church and go to school and concerts without being mowed down by an AR-15 supersede anyone else's right to own an AR-15 (which, incidentally, the 2nd amendment doesn't specifically guarantee, just as it doesn't guarantee the individual's right to own a nuclear bomb).

And once again someone comes along to demonstrate just how little interest they have in making any sort of real progress by making another facile, hyper-emotional statement that argues nothing.

All you're saying is that you're happy to adopt the bigoted notion that gun owners don't accept anyone's right to live a peaceable life, just as some gun owners are happy to perpetuate the bigoted notion that people who advocate for some gun control measures are fascistic anti-Americans who want to shred the Constitution.

Have at it! But don't ever pretend you're not part of the problem.

Toodles from Tinseltown,
Ellie

 

[KeithD]

Fairly typical of head-in-the sand and la-la-la-la I hear nothing but my own selfish lies from you, Ellie. Pathetic and disgusting. Retribution for your stonewalling very well may be you and/or you loved ones being in the cross-hairs of the next AR-15 slaughter. Wouldn't that be a kick in the "what you deserve"?

Don't bother to answer. You're a nothing, who has now disappeared along with so many others from my Literotica experience.

 

[EllieTalbot]

Fairly typical of head-in-the sand and la-la-la-la I hear nothing but my own selfish lies from you, Ellie. Pathetic and disgusting. Retribution for your stonewalling very well may be you and/or you loved ones being in the cross-hairs of the next AR-15 slaughter. Wouldn't that be a kick in the "what you deserve"?

Don't bother to answer. You're a nothing, who has now disappeared along with so many others from my Literotica experience.

Oh, goody! Does that mean you have me on iggy?

I must admit, that's a first. I've been put on iggy before, but this might be the first time their closing words were to wish violent death upon me and my loved ones, hehehe.

Quite the parting "shot," keith! Yes, I can see how you're quite the peace-loving fellow.

Amused in Amherst,
Ellie

 

[Carnal_Flower]

Yawn. Not worth the effort, as I expected.

You add nothing which answers my questions to your original post. Still waiting on those "anti-gun" celebrities. Still waiting for your rationale for collapsing gun control advocates into "anti-gun" advocates. ?

The organization you quote (you should have quoted Everytown USA, you'd have a better chance of twisting it for your argument) has no "celebrities" and says nothing about being "anti-gun."

This is their mission:

#NoRA is a new kind of collective action.

We’re a culture hack. We’re for moving culture into a less violent place by counteracting the influence of NRA money in the American political system. And we’re going to win.

Soooo . . . where are the examples of Nora being full of "celebrities" who "make gun violence cool" packing heat? Anyone?

I'll help you out. Amy Schumer is quite pro gun control. Not anti-gun, but pro gun control. Got any examples of Amy with armed guards? Olivia Wilde?

Wait a minute--Kim Kardashian. There we go! I'm betting her bodyguards are loaded. But whoops, she's not "anti-gun," just "pro gun control."

I fear we have another Bitter Boy on our hands. One of these "independent" "non-partisan" types who thinks they're the only ones above the fray. Except, when pressed, their "both sides do it" always break down when they cannot support their false comparisons = whataboutisms

If you want to argue that the OP post is stupid, go for it. But your "whatabout" those pistol-packing liberals doesn't hold up. You cannot provide any evidence of "both sides" being hypocritical.

It''s always fun when they just dissolve into utter silliness.

Snickering at my Snacks,
Ellie

 

[EllieTalbot]

Yawn. Not worth the effort, as I expected.

You add nothing which answers my questions to your original post. Still waiting on those "anti-gun" celebrities. Still waiting for your rationale for collapsing gun control advocates into "anti-gun" advocates. ?

The organization you quote (you should have quoted Everytown USA, you'd have a better chance of twisting it for your argument) has no "celebrities" and says nothing about being "anti-gun."

This is their mission:



Soooo . . . where are the examples of Nora being full of "celebrities" who "make gun violence cool" packing heat? Anyone?

I'll help you out. Amy Schumer is quite pro gun control. Not anti-gun, but pro gun control. Got any examples of Amy with armed guards? Olivia Wilde?

Wait a minute--Kim Kardashian. There we go! I'm betting her bodyguards are loaded. But whoops, she's not "anti-gun," just "pro gun control."

I fear we have another Bitter Boy on our hands. One of these "independent" "non-partisan" types who thinks they're the only ones above the fray. Except, when pressed, their "both sides do it" always break down when they cannot support their false comparisons = whataboutisms

If you want to argue that the OP post is stupid, go for it. But your "whatabout" those pistol-packing liberals doesn't hold up. You cannot provide any evidence of "both sides" being hypocritical.

Yawns, indeed.

You still haven't read the follow-up posts, have you?

You're wasting an awful lot of time on dismissing things you said you'd already dismissed.

Okay, I'll tell you what. Since you're fond of spending time reading but not reading, this time I'll help you out.

The poster named oblimo already tried that approach. They quoted this part of my post:

Then you're also obliged to sneer at anti-gun celebrities because their entire argument is that everyone is safer without guns, but their actions contradict what they claim to believe.

But instead of trying at it with some silly confrontational fluff about who the celebrities are and whether they're "anti-gun" or "pro gun control" (really?), they actually challenged the idea with:

Originally Posted by Oblimo View Post
No, that is not their argument. No one is saying everyone’s safer completely without guns. That would be stupid.

Likewise, no gun enthusiast is arguing for 100% unfettered access to any weaponry. That would also be stupid.

((my response))

...which is why the sentence you quoted was the inverted reflection of a statement from the person I was replying to.

Both sides are so eager to demonize each other they might as well not have an opinion on the matter at all, because their behavior betrays that they have zero interest in progress.

Hence my reasons for pointing out that neither group is any more or less hypocritical than the other, and that the thread topic itself is moot - for anyone honestly interested in progress, that is.

Generally on the GB,
Ellie

My post was merely an inverse reflection of the post I was replying to, to highlight the ridiculousness of it. Both groups demonize the other and set up the other sides' arguments as strawmen.

Which you've just spent a great deal of time trying to take seriously.

Poor you.

Sighing by Shoals,
Ellie

 

[phrodeau]

The latest NRA recruitment commercial makes it clear that there is no middle ground. Every single model of firearm has an essential purpose that the nation can’t do without, so either allow everything or ban all firearms. Now that’s no straw man. That’s the NRA’s staunch position.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

Your statement was not an "inverted reflection" of the OP. (I didn't come up with bullshit, they did, all I did was mirror it in a masterful rhetorical ploy). It was a whataboutism that the link you suggested I look at does not hold up.

Oblimo did you a favor by translating your original b.s. into something you like better and which you can claim (after the fact) that that is what you meant.

Oblimo gets the credit here, not you, and it's besides the point to my comments to your post.

Yawns, indeed.

You still haven't read the follow-up posts, have you?

You're wasting an awful lot of time on dismissing things you said you'd already dismissed.

Okay, I'll tell you what. Since you're fond of spending time reading but not reading, this time I'll help you out.

The poster named oblimo already tried that approach. They quoted this part of my post:



But instead of trying at it with some silly confrontational fluff about who the celebrities are and whether they're "anti-gun" or "pro gun control" (really?), they actually challenged the idea with:




((my response))



My post was merely an inverse reflection of the post I was replying to, to highlight the ridiculousness of it. Both groups demonize the other and set up the other sides' arguments as strawmen.

Which you've just spent a great deal of time trying to take seriously.

Poor you.

Sighing by Shoals,
Ellie

 

[EllieTalbot]

The latest NRA recruitment commercial makes it clear that there is no middle ground. Every single model of firearm has an essential purpose that the nation can’t do without, so either allow everything or ban all firearms. Now that’s no straw man. That’s the NRA’s staunch position.

It would be interesting to see the specific ad. I mean, you did tell me that Brandon Lee was killed by a blank, and that wasn't true.

But I've seen enough NRA ads to know they're quite staunch (to put it mildly). However, the average gun owner isn't answerable to that. Nether are many NRA members, I expect. I'm not one, so I can't speak for myself, but I know a few, and all of them part ways with the NRA's official stance on several issues. My grandfather, for example, (an old Rooseveltian Democrat) was an NRA member back when it was just an organization promoting knowledgeable firearm stewardship and use.

It would do well to go back to that. Its metamorphosis into a political action group was in reaction to gun control advancements and I suppose it's not unexpected that a group centered around firearms would end up becoming political when firearms become a political issue, but their aim is off (pardon the pun). They're also over-demonized (the NRA is to the left what Soros is to the right), which doesn't help advancement, either.

It's also no straw man that a former Supreme Court Justice called for the second amendment to be overturned, but it wouldn't be fair to hold the average gun control advocate to that, either.

Listening in Lichtenstein,
Ellie

 

[EllieTalbot]

Your statement was not an "inverted reflection" of the OP. (I didn't come up with bullshit, they did, all I did was mirror it in a masterful rhetorical ploy). It was a whataboutism that the link you suggested I look at does not hold up.

Oblimo did you a favor by translating your original b.s. into something you like better and which you can claim (after the fact) that that is what you meant.

Oblimo gets the credit here, not you, and it's besides the point to my comments to your post.

Well, I must say that's quite an acrobatic display. You're gifted with making honest words do dishonest work for you.

If you really believe what you just wrote, though, I sincerely suggest that you put down the crack pipe and back away slowly.

Walking Away from the Warped,
Ellie

 

[ThatsTheGuy]

Your statement was not an "inverted reflection" of the OP. (I didn't come up with bullshit, they did, all I did was mirror it in a masterful rhetorical ploy). It was a whataboutism that the link you suggested I look at does not hold up.

Oblimo did you a favor by translating your original b.s. into something you like better and which you can claim (after the fact) that that is what you meant.

Oblimo gets the credit here, not you, and it's besides the point to my comments to your post.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

[Carnal_Flower]

How so?

The "both sides are being hypocrites" argument is built on a completely false caricaturization of one side, devoid of fact. When pressed, the poster resorts to insults, picks up her blocks and goes home.

Clearly she does not understand the so-called "anti-gun" [sic] side, and cannot back up her caricature with real examples. She outright lied about the one example she did cite to back up her claim.

If you want to make a strong case for being fair-minded and non-partisan, you have to be clear on your facts.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

[Hypoxia]

Non-members of well-regulated militias, carrying in public, are rogues who should be executed on the spot. Anyone carrying MUST be assumed to be uncontrolled, a danger to society. That's the problem with ubiquitous carrying: everyone is a potential enemy.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Non-members of well-regulated militias, carrying in public, are rogues who should be executed on the spot. Anyone carrying MUST be assumed to be uncontrolled, a danger to society. That's the problem with ubiquitous carrying: everyone is a potential enemy.

You wont do it though because you're a little bitch with no faith in your convictions.

 

[BotanyBoy]

That does seem to be the reality as long as some jackasses, including posters to this forum, won't accept that the right of individuals to live and to attend church and go to school and concerts without being mowed down by an AR-15 supersede anyone else's right to own an AR-15 (which, incidentally, the 2nd amendment doesn't specifically guarantee, just as it doesn't guarantee the individual's right to own a nuclear bomb).

My owning an AR15 doesn't infringe on your right to go do any of those things without being "mowed down".

Nope but it does say arms, and semi-automatic guns are the bar standard in personal armament so good luck banning those!!

 

[phrodeau]

Anyone who demands a right at gunpoint ought to be arrested.

 

[EllieTalbot]

How so?

The "both sides are being hypocrites" argument is built on a completely false caricaturization of one side, devoid of fact. When pressed, the poster resorts to insults, picks up her blocks and goes home.

Oh, dear. You poor, poor thing. Your reading comprehension is terrible (either that or you're just a total asshat). You not only take my little sign-offs literally, you can't comprehend very basic statements.

Welcome to my first post in this thread:

Why is this even a thing?

Some of the biggest proponents of gun control are celebrities and politicians who have armed bodyguards. Some of the biggest proponents of second amendment rights eschew firearms at their conventions. In both cases you're dealing with people who have an unusual amount of notoriety and live in heightened danger.

I don't see how either group is worth demonizing or sneering at. They're just exercising common sense; any hypocrisy involved is incidental.

Looky at that! No caricatures, no claims about celebrity organizations. Why, there's not even the phrase "anti-gun."

When did the caricature come about? Hm...

It's worth sneering at because the entire argument of the NRA and Trump's administration when it comes to gun control is that more guns make everybody more safe. Their actions directly contradict what they claim they believe. If they actually believed what they say and aren't just making up dumb rhetoric to boost gun sales they would allow as many guns around them as possible.

Now, I could've gotten into a twist and started demanding proof of where the Trump administration literally argued that "more guns make everybody more safe," etc., but that would've been made me a tedious git like you. Blue was clearly being hyperbolic, so I just reflected Blue's own hyperbole in an inversion to demonstrate the fallacy.

Then you're also obliged to sneer at anti-gun celebrities because their entire argument is that everyone is safer without guns, but their actions contradict what they claim to believe. They're fine with making gun violence cool onscreen and surrounding themselves with armed guards. If they actually believed what they say they wouldn't allow guns in their lives, much less use them to boost ticket sales.

As far as hypocrisy goes, it's a draw, and therefore a useless observation.

As one can see, it was intentionally hyperbolic, and even then there's nothing about "anti-gun celebrity organizations."

When did that happen? Let's see...

What is the "anti-gun celebrities" organization of which you speak? I don't recall being solicited for membership in it or for donations to it. I can't say the same about the NRA.

You and Nicky should team up. Full of all sorts of dishonest imaginings, both of you, and the nature of my stance on the hypocrisy issue flew over both your heads at equally stratospheric heights. My reply to him?

I didn't speak of any anti-gun celebrity organizations, but since you mention it, there's one I'm aware of, and yes, they've hit me up. https://noranow.org/about/ I'm an independent who's politically active on both sides of the fence, so I'm on all kinds of lists. Can't say I've received a solicitation from the NRA, though.

Since then, you've appeared and opened with a personal attack based on your own convoluted imaginings of my posts, gone on bizarre rants about how I'm a liar because your supposedly extensive research into NoRA didn't come up with celebrity names attached (which either makes you a liar or your research sucked), and making silly demands that I provide you with lists of said celebrities.

Let me give you a tip: I don't usually humor silly demands, and never the demands of someone who behaves the way you do.

You're one freaky piece of cheese.

If you want to make a strong case for being fair-minded and non-partisan, you have to be clear on your facts.

Then it's a good thing you haven't directly claimed to be fair-minded and non-partisan, because if you had the biggest hypocrite in this thread would be you.

Dwelling in Dèjá Vu,
Ellie

 

[KeithD]

My owning an AR15 doesn't infringe on your right to go do any of those things without being "mowed down".

Sure it does, because you are one of those crazies who never should be given access to a gun at all.

 

[dan_c00000]

In the unlikely event someone shoots you

It doesn't make you any less shot. I find it interesting that there always seems to be limits to certain people's rights but there's NO limit when it comes to white people owning guns.

For example, dead asshole Ronald Reagan was for limiting gun rights when black people had them. It should be noted when noted racist Cliven Bundy (a white dude) violated the law and then had his moron sons commit an act of terrorism nothing happened.

Teahadits are certainly pissed that their rights are being violated when it comes to taxes. But of course those same people live in states that are moochers off us hard working alt-left states. In fact, of the top 10 most federally dependent states all but one voted for Trump.

I don't even need to put out the obvious conservative BS: that abortions are bad and the death penalty is good, the law and Jesus party is just fine with Trump enriching himself and his family, and that Trump said "they will never, ever be under siege as long as I’m your president.”

The con of course is that stoking white fear is easy and profitable. Not just for gun makers but gold coin scams, survivalist shit, and other products that have no real market.

In other words you got played. The right always gets played. They've got a psychological need for authoritarian morons who are fundamentalist reactionaries fearful of losing their special place. They'll happily stoke fears about rights, black/brown people, and whatever other nonsense they can pull from their asses in order to keep ripping you off. And if a few hundred kids die in the process, that's just the price of doing business.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

Oh yeah, I didn't see your first post. My apologies--you do say "proponents of gun control" and not "anti-gun." My mistake.

Still, I don't think this is an accurate description of either side.

In order to make a valid comparison, you really need a lefty counterpoint to the NRA. Citing a few mythical "celebrities and politicians" doesn't cut it, neither does the lame-o link you provided. I would suggest Everytown for Gun Safety, but they don't have much a profile even though they are the biggest organization.

Really the most relevant comparison nowadays is the #neveragain movement and the Parkland Students. Those kids are kind of celebrities in a way, and do have celebs attached to them. But to be fair, you'd really have to show where they argue against any guns appearing anywhere, and likewise show that they travel around with armed guards.

Then you go on to fudge the description of the NRA.

On the one hand, since you say "their conventions", you're clearly talking about a collective like the NRA. In the next sentence, we're only dealing with "people" (like "celebrities and politicians") with unusual notoriety. That applies to Pence, sure, but not to entire collective like the NRA.

The OP is about the NRA and its rhetoric.

Maybe you'd like to try again setting up a valid comparison (perhaps the March For Our Lives vs. Pence at the NRA Convention). I think your first attempt failed, considering the numerous objections to it, and the encyclopedic way you've had to explain yourself. If you had a clear and fair comparison to begin with, there wouldn't have been such confusion.

Also, a friendly suggestion: the more you load on the insults and ratchet up the arrogance and condescension, the more "emotional" and insecure you sound. Just sayin'

Some of the biggest proponents of gun control are celebrities and politicians who have armed bodyguards. Some of the biggest proponents of second amendment rights eschew firearms at their conventions. In both cases you're dealing with people who have an unusual amount of notoriety and live in heightened danger.

I don't see how either group is worth demonizing or sneering at. They're just exercising common sense; any hypocrisy involved is incidental.

 

[EllieTalbot]

Oh yeah, I didn't see your first post. My apologies--you do say "proponents of gun control" and not "anti-gun." My mistake.

Still, I don't think this is an accurate description of either side.

In order to make a valid comparison, you really need a lefty counterpoint to the NRA. Citing a few mythical "celebrities and politicians" doesn't cut it, neither does the lame-o link you provided.

*snicker*

This is too easy.

In order to make a valid comparison, you need to first understand that you're still basing your response on a stance I didn't take. You're now merely using my first post and infusing it with meaning from the later hyperbole, and again you're harping on about a link I provided to Nicky as a mere aside, not as a bolstering of any real point.

No one is confused about this but you.

I would suggest Everytown for Gun Safety, but they don't have much a profile even though they are the biggest organization.

Really the most relevant comparison nowadays is the #neveragain movement and the Parkland Students. Those kids are kind of celebrities in a way, and do have celebs attached to them. But to be fair, you'd really have to show where they argue against any guns appearing anywhere, and likewise show that they travel around with armed guards. In order for them to be hypocrites, that is.

Again, a wasted effort on your part since it's in response to hyperbole (which you now no longer argue was hyperbole).

Then you go on to fudge the description of the NRA.

On the one hand, since you say "their conventions", you're clearly talking about a collective like the NRA. In the next sentence, we're only dealing with "people" (like "celebrities and politicians") with unusual notoriety. That applies to Pence, sure, but not to entire collective like the NRA.

No kidding. Yes, dear. Everyone else got that.

Maybe you'd like to try again setting up a valid comparison. I think your first attempt failed, considering the numerous objections to it, and the encyclopedic way you've had to explain yourself. If you had a clear and fair comparison to begin with, there wouldn't have been such confusion.

Poor boy. The people objecting to that part stopped doing so within a post or two. You're the only one who's required "encyclopedic" explanations. You apparently need your hand held, like a toddler crossing the street, in order to simply read what you're replying to. But that's just part of it. You're also just a reactionary asshat who thinks he's achieving great feats of baiting and manipulation, and no amount of disingenuous invitations for me to try at what you imagine to be "valid" can veil that, Mr. Obvious.

Meanwhile, I'm just snacking and watching you (and others, although they're far more blatant about it *cough cough* POX) prove one of the points I've been genuinely making: no one who argues the way you, the OP, and many others in this thread do is genuinely interested in decreasing gun violence.

Mercurial on Mercury,
Ellie

 

[EllieTalbot]

Also, a friendly suggestion: the more you load on the insults and ratchet up the arrogance and condescension, the more "emotional" and insecure you sound. Just sayin'

Last edited by Carnal_Flower : Today at 09:20 AM.

So it took you almost an hour to edit in a nakedly desperate plea for me to stop insulting you?

I suggest you read your first post to me in this thread.

Honing in on Hypocrisy,
Ellie

 

[Carnal_Flower]

Not at all. Realizing I had overlooked your very first post, I read it, quoted it, and responded to the words you wrote. Pretty simple.

Clearly it's your choice to say "That's not what I meant," but I stand by my interpretation.

LMAO at the insults. Keep 'em coming, freak. Have you met Dawn O'Day?

You might want to brush up on the gun control movement, though

*snicker*

This is too easy.

In order to make a valid comparison, you need to first understand that you're still basing your response on a stance I didn't take. You're now merely using my first post and infusing it with meaning from the later hyperbole, and again you're harping on about a link I provided to Nicky as a mere aside, not as a bolstering of any real point.

No one is confused about this but you.



Again, a wasted effort on your part since it's in response to hyperbole (which you now no longer argue was hyperbole).



No kidding. Yes, dear. Everyone else got that.



Poor boy. The people objecting to that part stopped doing so within a post or two. You're the only one who's required "encyclopedic" explanations. You apparently need your hand held, like a toddler crossing the street, in order to simply read what you're replying to. But that's just part of it. You're also just a reactionary asshat who thinks he's achieving great feats of baiting and manipulation, and no amount of disingenuous invitations for me to try at what you imagine to be "valid" can veil that, Mr. Obvious.

Meanwhile, I'm just snacking and watching you (and others, although they're far more blatant about it *cough cough* POX) prove one of the points I've been genuinely making: no one who argues the way you, the OP, and many others in this thread do is genuinely interested in decreasing gun violence.

Mercurial on Mercury,
Ellie