Is this story accurate? Is the NRA nuts?
- Thread starter thebullet
- Start date
cloudy
Alabama Slammer
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2004
- Posts
- 37,997
I can't find anything on it, and to be quite honest with you, I grew up with the NRA (my father was a regional director) and I can't see it as anything other than something made up purely to get the kind of reaction it so obviously got from you.
On the bill about the lawsuits: you neglect to discuss what that bill was really about. Here's some actual information:
There is no doubt that Senate passage of this bill represents a significant defeat for gun control advocates, but in actuality the legislation is less about guns than it is about economics - specifically the growth of a kind of economic warfare in the U.S. Through liability suits of expanded and imaginative scope, civil courts are being used to put the squeeze on an industry and achieve economically what was not achieved politically.
The Senate bill addresses this process and invokes the constitutional separation of powers when it finds that "the liability actions commenced or contemplated by the federal government, states, municipalities, private interest groups and others attempt to use the judicial branch to circumvent the Legislative branch of government to regulate interstate and foreign commerce..."
From an economic standpoint, the key words in that part of the bill are "federal government," "states" and "municipalities." If they were not involved in the civil court actions, there would probably be no need for this bill - the gun manufacturers could likely fend for themselves just as any other business.
The introduction of cash-hungry government into a legal action, though, changes the economic balance. No corporation or industry, however large, can outlast the bottomless resources of time and money that government can and will bring to bear on a case if it smells a big payoff.
This was certainly the history of the tobacco industry. It was waging a win-some, lose-some legal battle with private and class- action liability lawsuits, and surviving.
When federal and, especially, state governments joined in, however, there was no longer a chance of survival without surrender, settlement and payment of tribute. Anti-tobacco forces got what they wanted even though they lacked the political support to get Congress to act. And the states got what they wanted: the money.
Now, it seemed, it was the gun industry's turn.
Echoing tobacco's experience, firearms manufacturers had been dealing with a stream of lawsuits by individuals and groups, but when large cities smelled money and jumped in, the industry recognized that it faced extinction.
The legal argument that it was a highly regulated industry and its products were manufactured and sold in accordance with the law would carry no more weight than it had in the tobacco industry squeeze. The rules had changed: now it was pay or die - unless Congress stepped in.
The arms act does not endow the firearms industry with blanket immunity to civil lawsuits. Firms in the business are still subject to the usual product liability claims that all businesses deal with and, in addition, to damage claims that include either negligence or complicity in violating laws or regulations covering firearms sales and distribution.
It simply eliminates the manufacturer's liability when the product is used criminally or otherwise unlawfully.
The Senate bill does raise some interesting economic questions. The first is whether the market would be more efficient for having Congress interfere on a selected industry basis. As an isolated, academic question, the answer is clearly no. As far as the real world goes, however, we do have to allow that Congress has been interfering with our markets and industries since day one of the Republic - and we haven't done so badly.
The alternate question is whether our economy and its markets would be better off if Congress did nothing in this matter. Here the economic costs are clear. Both jobs and capital would be lost if predatory civil litigation were allowed to stifle the firearms industry.
What has more potential economic impact, though, is the ultimate effect of government entities being enlisted as mercenaries in legal battles. In this respect, there is a disturbing resemblance between the tobacco and firearms legal histories, and the abuses of eminent domain, where one party, a development company for example, can manipulate the power of local government and thereby further its own private economic interests.
The decision of Congress to fix the litigation problem of the firearms industry is a stopgap measure that leaves the larger issue unaddressed. It doesn't take too much imagination to see that unrestrained and unfair litigation represents a threat to our economy. We need to do something about it.
James McCusker is a Bothell economist, educator and
On the bill about the lawsuits: you neglect to discuss what that bill was really about. Here's some actual information:
There is no doubt that Senate passage of this bill represents a significant defeat for gun control advocates, but in actuality the legislation is less about guns than it is about economics - specifically the growth of a kind of economic warfare in the U.S. Through liability suits of expanded and imaginative scope, civil courts are being used to put the squeeze on an industry and achieve economically what was not achieved politically.
The Senate bill addresses this process and invokes the constitutional separation of powers when it finds that "the liability actions commenced or contemplated by the federal government, states, municipalities, private interest groups and others attempt to use the judicial branch to circumvent the Legislative branch of government to regulate interstate and foreign commerce..."
From an economic standpoint, the key words in that part of the bill are "federal government," "states" and "municipalities." If they were not involved in the civil court actions, there would probably be no need for this bill - the gun manufacturers could likely fend for themselves just as any other business.
The introduction of cash-hungry government into a legal action, though, changes the economic balance. No corporation or industry, however large, can outlast the bottomless resources of time and money that government can and will bring to bear on a case if it smells a big payoff.
This was certainly the history of the tobacco industry. It was waging a win-some, lose-some legal battle with private and class- action liability lawsuits, and surviving.
When federal and, especially, state governments joined in, however, there was no longer a chance of survival without surrender, settlement and payment of tribute. Anti-tobacco forces got what they wanted even though they lacked the political support to get Congress to act. And the states got what they wanted: the money.
Now, it seemed, it was the gun industry's turn.
Echoing tobacco's experience, firearms manufacturers had been dealing with a stream of lawsuits by individuals and groups, but when large cities smelled money and jumped in, the industry recognized that it faced extinction.
The legal argument that it was a highly regulated industry and its products were manufactured and sold in accordance with the law would carry no more weight than it had in the tobacco industry squeeze. The rules had changed: now it was pay or die - unless Congress stepped in.
The arms act does not endow the firearms industry with blanket immunity to civil lawsuits. Firms in the business are still subject to the usual product liability claims that all businesses deal with and, in addition, to damage claims that include either negligence or complicity in violating laws or regulations covering firearms sales and distribution.
It simply eliminates the manufacturer's liability when the product is used criminally or otherwise unlawfully.
The Senate bill does raise some interesting economic questions. The first is whether the market would be more efficient for having Congress interfere on a selected industry basis. As an isolated, academic question, the answer is clearly no. As far as the real world goes, however, we do have to allow that Congress has been interfering with our markets and industries since day one of the Republic - and we haven't done so badly.
The alternate question is whether our economy and its markets would be better off if Congress did nothing in this matter. Here the economic costs are clear. Both jobs and capital would be lost if predatory civil litigation were allowed to stifle the firearms industry.
What has more potential economic impact, though, is the ultimate effect of government entities being enlisted as mercenaries in legal battles. In this respect, there is a disturbing resemblance between the tobacco and firearms legal histories, and the abuses of eminent domain, where one party, a development company for example, can manipulate the power of local government and thereby further its own private economic interests.
The decision of Congress to fix the litigation problem of the firearms industry is a stopgap measure that leaves the larger issue unaddressed. It doesn't take too much imagination to see that unrestrained and unfair litigation represents a threat to our economy. We need to do something about it.
James McCusker is a Bothell economist, educator and
G
Guest
Guest
The story is a hoax aimed at discrediting the NRA. The NRA does not push for legislation of this sort and is in full agreement with guns being prohibited in the work place.
I am an NRA Life Member (as is my husband) and have recieved nothing from the NRA even mentioning this.
I am an NRA Life Member (as is my husband) and have recieved nothing from the NRA even mentioning this.
Virtual_Burlesque
Former Ecdysiast
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2004
- Posts
- 4,083
NRA urges members to boycott oil giant
ConocoPhillips opposes Okla. law allowing guns on company property
MSNBC News Services
Aug. 2, 2005
IDABELL, Okla. - The National Rifle Association is urging its 4 million members to boycott ConocoPhillips gas stations and products because the oil giant is trying to block an Oklahoma law that allows employees to keep guns in their cars when parked in company lots.
Conoco is among several companies challenging the state law in federal court, but the NRA singled it out for the boycott.
“Across the country, we’re going to make ConocoPhillips the example of what happens when a corporation takes away your Second Amendment rights,” NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre said.
The law was passed after Weyerhaeuser Corp. fired 12 employees in 2002 at a plant near Idabell for violating a policy forbidding firearms on company property.
“If you are a corporation that is anti-gun, anti-gun owner or anti-Second Amendment, we will spare no effort or expense to work against you to protect the rights of your law-abiding employees,” LaPierre added in a news release Monday.
The NRA routinely cites the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment as prohibiting restrictions on gun ownership and possession by “law-abiding” citizens.
Conoco's response
Conoco said in a statement that it wants to protect its workers from possible violence.
“ConocoPhillips supports the Second Amendment and respects the rights of law abiding citizens to own guns,” the company said. “We are simply trying to provide a safe and secure working environment for our employees by keeping guns out of our facilities, including our company parking lots.”
According to a study by Handgun-Free America, which seeks to ban private handgun ownership, there were 164 workplace shootings in the United States between 1994 and 2003, in which 290 people were killed and 161 were wounded.
The NRA plans to purchase billboard advertising urging motorists to join the boycott of ConocoPhillips motor fuels, which are marketed as Conoco or Phillips 66.
A judge has blocked enforcement of the Oklahoma law pending resolution of the federal lawsuit.
The energy company has more than 3,100 workers in Oklahoma, the majority at the company’s refinery in Ponca City.
MSNBC has a Live Vote link on the page.
Do you support the National Rifle Association's boycott of ConocoPhillips?
16947 responses
Yes = 53%
No = 47%
ConocoPhillips opposes Okla. law allowing guns on company property
MSNBC News Services
Aug. 2, 2005
IDABELL, Okla. - The National Rifle Association is urging its 4 million members to boycott ConocoPhillips gas stations and products because the oil giant is trying to block an Oklahoma law that allows employees to keep guns in their cars when parked in company lots.
Conoco is among several companies challenging the state law in federal court, but the NRA singled it out for the boycott.
“Across the country, we’re going to make ConocoPhillips the example of what happens when a corporation takes away your Second Amendment rights,” NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre said.
The law was passed after Weyerhaeuser Corp. fired 12 employees in 2002 at a plant near Idabell for violating a policy forbidding firearms on company property.
“If you are a corporation that is anti-gun, anti-gun owner or anti-Second Amendment, we will spare no effort or expense to work against you to protect the rights of your law-abiding employees,” LaPierre added in a news release Monday.
The NRA routinely cites the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment as prohibiting restrictions on gun ownership and possession by “law-abiding” citizens.
Conoco's response
Conoco said in a statement that it wants to protect its workers from possible violence.
“ConocoPhillips supports the Second Amendment and respects the rights of law abiding citizens to own guns,” the company said. “We are simply trying to provide a safe and secure working environment for our employees by keeping guns out of our facilities, including our company parking lots.”
According to a study by Handgun-Free America, which seeks to ban private handgun ownership, there were 164 workplace shootings in the United States between 1994 and 2003, in which 290 people were killed and 161 were wounded.
The NRA plans to purchase billboard advertising urging motorists to join the boycott of ConocoPhillips motor fuels, which are marketed as Conoco or Phillips 66.
A judge has blocked enforcement of the Oklahoma law pending resolution of the federal lawsuit.
The energy company has more than 3,100 workers in Oklahoma, the majority at the company’s refinery in Ponca City.
MSNBC has a Live Vote link on the page.
Do you support the National Rifle Association's boycott of ConocoPhillips?
16947 responses
Yes = 53%
No = 47%
cloudy
Alabama Slammer
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2004
- Posts
- 37,997
VB, that's to keep the gun in their locked car in the parking lot, not to be able to bring the damn thing into work with them.
I have a permit to carry a concealed handgun. For several years I worked in Birmingham, and since I'm in retail management, I was expected to close the store at least two nights a week.
I had to drive through the worst neighborhood in the city on my way home. It's not an area I like to be in during the day, but at night, it's even worse. You can bet your ass I had my gun with me. In fact, the store manager I worked for even allowed me to bring it into the store with me, instead of out in my car where I was afraid it might get stolen. The only stipulation he had was that it stay locked in my locker.
Y'all kill me, I swear. The NRA promotes responsible gun ownership, and that includes education and training. Try looking at their website instead of just reading flame pieces by those who are just like you. They promote the use of gun safes, etc.
Good lord, what lemmings.
I have a permit to carry a concealed handgun. For several years I worked in Birmingham, and since I'm in retail management, I was expected to close the store at least two nights a week.
I had to drive through the worst neighborhood in the city on my way home. It's not an area I like to be in during the day, but at night, it's even worse. You can bet your ass I had my gun with me. In fact, the store manager I worked for even allowed me to bring it into the store with me, instead of out in my car where I was afraid it might get stolen. The only stipulation he had was that it stay locked in my locker.
Y'all kill me, I swear. The NRA promotes responsible gun ownership, and that includes education and training. Try looking at their website instead of just reading flame pieces by those who are just like you. They promote the use of gun safes, etc.
Good lord, what lemmings.
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
not sure, but have a look
here's something similar, from a pro gun website "gun watch":
Thursday, April 21, 2005
Arizona: Guns in bars bill reaches governor: "Carrying your loaded gun into a nightclub, bar or restaurant that serves alcohol could soon be legal as long as you don't drink under a bill that emerged from the Legislature on Monday. But don't load those holsters and head for the dance floor just yet. Gov. Janet Napolitano still has to sign the bill. And her cryptic statements so far indicate she is leaning on the side of Arizona's tourism and hospitality industry, neighborhood groups and major public-safety organizations who have all strongly opposed the measure.
The Senate gave final passage to Senate Bill 1363 by a vote of 17-12. The National Rifle Association, the main force behind the bill, says its membership has practical reasons for wanting the law changed. Law-abiding gun owners don't want to have to leave their weapons at home or in the car, where they are useless for protection, when they dine in restaurants that serve alcohol."
here's something similar, from a pro gun website "gun watch":
Thursday, April 21, 2005
Arizona: Guns in bars bill reaches governor: "Carrying your loaded gun into a nightclub, bar or restaurant that serves alcohol could soon be legal as long as you don't drink under a bill that emerged from the Legislature on Monday. But don't load those holsters and head for the dance floor just yet. Gov. Janet Napolitano still has to sign the bill. And her cryptic statements so far indicate she is leaning on the side of Arizona's tourism and hospitality industry, neighborhood groups and major public-safety organizations who have all strongly opposed the measure.
The Senate gave final passage to Senate Bill 1363 by a vote of 17-12. The National Rifle Association, the main force behind the bill, says its membership has practical reasons for wanting the law changed. Law-abiding gun owners don't want to have to leave their weapons at home or in the car, where they are useless for protection, when they dine in restaurants that serve alcohol."
G
Guest
Guest
Another example of tactic common in the anti-gun movement as well as the media in general; take a small bit of the truth and twist it around to suit you purpose ignoring context and facts that don't support your cause. They want to stir up an emotional response with misinformation to ellicit an effect that supports their cause.
The NRA is not pushing to allow guns in the workplace. Never has. Never will. There are corperations that are backing the the anti-gun movement that, as group are trying to chip away at the rights of American citizens for their own agendas. If they can pass legislation to prevent people from having firearms in their vehicles at work, then they have a precedent to work from to bar possession of a firearm on any piece of public property. This will prevent gun owners from stpping at a gas station or convenience store on their way to and from a legitimate shooting range or competition. This in turn will set a precedence to bar transportation of firearms on public highways. Eventually leaving the gun owner with the right to own a gun they cannot remove from their home.
It is much the same as the so-called "Assault Weapons" ban that that didn't do anything more than waste tax money. The law did not ban the "Assault weapons" themselves but rather componants that had similar traits to the weapns that were already illegal to possess, i.e. high capacity magazines and barrels with threaded muzzles. They even tried the same tactics when the the ban was repealed, claiming that the repeal would allow anyone to immediately purchase fully automatic machine guns. This was a blatannt lie but it didn't matter to them. What mattered was getting ALL firearms banned.
BTW: The "Assault Weapons Ban" was intended to reduce the number of crimes commited with "Assault Weapons". It failed miserably as violent crime rates not only continued to rise, so did the number of crimes committed with the weapons the ban was supposed to stop.
The same tactics were used aginst gun owners to prevent the concealed carry law that was passed here in Ohio last year. Anti-gun protestors claimed violent crimes would rise dramaticly with the passing of the law. In fact after the passing of the saw a dramatic DECREASE in violent crime.
The NRA is not pushing to allow guns in the workplace. Never has. Never will. There are corperations that are backing the the anti-gun movement that, as group are trying to chip away at the rights of American citizens for their own agendas. If they can pass legislation to prevent people from having firearms in their vehicles at work, then they have a precedent to work from to bar possession of a firearm on any piece of public property. This will prevent gun owners from stpping at a gas station or convenience store on their way to and from a legitimate shooting range or competition. This in turn will set a precedence to bar transportation of firearms on public highways. Eventually leaving the gun owner with the right to own a gun they cannot remove from their home.
It is much the same as the so-called "Assault Weapons" ban that that didn't do anything more than waste tax money. The law did not ban the "Assault weapons" themselves but rather componants that had similar traits to the weapns that were already illegal to possess, i.e. high capacity magazines and barrels with threaded muzzles. They even tried the same tactics when the the ban was repealed, claiming that the repeal would allow anyone to immediately purchase fully automatic machine guns. This was a blatannt lie but it didn't matter to them. What mattered was getting ALL firearms banned.
BTW: The "Assault Weapons Ban" was intended to reduce the number of crimes commited with "Assault Weapons". It failed miserably as violent crime rates not only continued to rise, so did the number of crimes committed with the weapons the ban was supposed to stop.
The same tactics were used aginst gun owners to prevent the concealed carry law that was passed here in Ohio last year. Anti-gun protestors claimed violent crimes would rise dramaticly with the passing of the law. In fact after the passing of the saw a dramatic DECREASE in violent crime.
Virtual_Burlesque
Former Ecdysiast
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2004
- Posts
- 4,083
Well, Cloudy, the article I posted is the one that thebullet was asking about, so, don't snap at me just because some Oklahoma oil company doesn't want their employees to have guns conveniently available when they decide to hold a dispute where fisticuffs don't provide satisfactory enough injuries.
I can also see that a parking lot filled with cars containing guns will either require otherwise unnecessary special guarding, or be a constant target.
Please don't give me that old story about needing a gun. I bet that I have walked down far more dangerous streets, through parking lots, or spent time waiting at bus stops next to a strip of seedy bars, right after closing time, which were just as challenging as driving your car down dark streets.
In my opinion: Guns don't protect you, they just bring you a different — usually more serious — form of trouble.
And I'm with thebullet, the NRA IS nuts!
Nor am I going to argue about it. I no longer have to.
Luckily, I now live in a country where I’m as liable to be killed by gunfire, as I am by space debris.
I can also see that a parking lot filled with cars containing guns will either require otherwise unnecessary special guarding, or be a constant target.
Please don't give me that old story about needing a gun. I bet that I have walked down far more dangerous streets, through parking lots, or spent time waiting at bus stops next to a strip of seedy bars, right after closing time, which were just as challenging as driving your car down dark streets.
In my opinion: Guns don't protect you, they just bring you a different — usually more serious — form of trouble.
And I'm with thebullet, the NRA IS nuts!
Nor am I going to argue about it. I no longer have to.
Luckily, I now live in a country where I’m as liable to be killed by gunfire, as I am by space debris.
Colleen Thomas
Ultrafemme
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2002
- Posts
- 21,545
This comes down to a major defeat of the anti gun lobby and they know it. And they are using whatever tactics thay can to try and stop it. Because they know sueing in civil court until it's economically impossible to make guns without having to have lloyds of london insure you is the only chance they have of takeing guns away from responsible citizens. It seems that pesky document, the Constitution, keeps getting in their way eery time they try to just pass a law to do it.
In my home state, you can carry a gun in your vehicle for personal protection without a liscence. At one place I worked, guns were banned from the workplace. My employer's policy came into direct conflict with a state law. When the company got tough in trying to enforce it, a group of us complained to our reps & senators and the company got a pretty clear ultimatum to back down. They did.
The solution was apretty simple compromise that cost the company fifteen posts and about 25ft of chain link fence. In basic terms, they separate the parkinglot from the rest of the premisis and the policy was amender to no guns on the premisis excepting the parking lot.
The only person who carried a gun onto the premises had a state issued liscence to carry a concealed firearm. Her situation was much like cloudy's, in that she carried the recepts for deposit each night.
I worked in a bad part of town. that's just the way things went. Noone was demaning a right to carry a gun into the building, but we all demanded the right to carry weapons in our cars for the drive in and home.
Luckily, the company was not headed by anti-gun nuts. Just by people with a sincere wish to protect us all from work place violence. When you work in an unairconditioned metal warehouse in mississippi in the summer, tempers are going to flare. They did so regularly.
It was a sensible policy. And a sensible compromise was worked out. Of course, it is a lot easier to reach a compromise when the two sides are both basically conservatives and where there was little or no political motivation. Management wanted guns out of the building. we wanted guns in our cars. The state law was on our side. Common sense was on theirs. We could see their reasoning. Since they drove though the same streets to get to work as we did, they could see ours.
Sensible compromise is possible when the sides involved trust one another and each other's motives.
When their is no trust, there can be no compromise. We (gun owners) don't trust the anti-gun lobby. So we join the NRA & support them in thier fight to keep our right to own firearms. We acept their extreme position as the only sensible way to fight a group who holds equally extreme positions. The anti-gun lobby wants to take awy my right to own a firearm. And if they can't do it legislatively, they'll try to do it by adjudication.
Expect a lot of this type of spin from the anti-gun lobby. They know their most effective tool for winning their campaign against firearms is being severely curtailed and they will mount as large a PR campaign as they can afford to try and stop it.
In my home state, you can carry a gun in your vehicle for personal protection without a liscence. At one place I worked, guns were banned from the workplace. My employer's policy came into direct conflict with a state law. When the company got tough in trying to enforce it, a group of us complained to our reps & senators and the company got a pretty clear ultimatum to back down. They did.
The solution was apretty simple compromise that cost the company fifteen posts and about 25ft of chain link fence. In basic terms, they separate the parkinglot from the rest of the premisis and the policy was amender to no guns on the premisis excepting the parking lot.
The only person who carried a gun onto the premises had a state issued liscence to carry a concealed firearm. Her situation was much like cloudy's, in that she carried the recepts for deposit each night.
I worked in a bad part of town. that's just the way things went. Noone was demaning a right to carry a gun into the building, but we all demanded the right to carry weapons in our cars for the drive in and home.
Luckily, the company was not headed by anti-gun nuts. Just by people with a sincere wish to protect us all from work place violence. When you work in an unairconditioned metal warehouse in mississippi in the summer, tempers are going to flare. They did so regularly.
It was a sensible policy. And a sensible compromise was worked out. Of course, it is a lot easier to reach a compromise when the two sides are both basically conservatives and where there was little or no political motivation. Management wanted guns out of the building. we wanted guns in our cars. The state law was on our side. Common sense was on theirs. We could see their reasoning. Since they drove though the same streets to get to work as we did, they could see ours.
Sensible compromise is possible when the sides involved trust one another and each other's motives.
When their is no trust, there can be no compromise. We (gun owners) don't trust the anti-gun lobby. So we join the NRA & support them in thier fight to keep our right to own firearms. We acept their extreme position as the only sensible way to fight a group who holds equally extreme positions. The anti-gun lobby wants to take awy my right to own a firearm. And if they can't do it legislatively, they'll try to do it by adjudication.
Expect a lot of this type of spin from the anti-gun lobby. They know their most effective tool for winning their campaign against firearms is being severely curtailed and they will mount as large a PR campaign as they can afford to try and stop it.
Colleen Thomas
Ultrafemme
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2002
- Posts
- 21,545
Virtual_Burlesque said:
Lets see. I'm an american citizen. I have no police record. Haven't commited any crimes and certainly have never used a firearm in comission of a crime. And I own a gun.
You (the anti-gun lobby) want to take my right to own one away. You don't have any basis for that, other than a quasi-religious faith that removing firearms from the hands of honest citizens will reduce violence in society as a whole. You want to remove a basic right, guarenteed to me by the constitiution, on your belief that it will make the country safer for all.
And you call the NRA nuts?
In that reguard, you are no better than the fundys trying to take away my right to read what I want based on their belief that it's bad for me to read certain things.
The NRA's position is extreme. The position of their opponents is extreme. It's rather self serving to select the extreme positions the NRA holds and castigate them for them, while ignoring with a wink and a nudge the equally extreme positions they oppose. In a political battle, the NRA cannot afford to moderate, because the people opposed to them will take anything they can get as a starting point to continue thier crusade.
Only a fool or a man with a very strong castle, gives up the country side and frontiers and lets the enemy arive on his doorstep before he fights. The Athenians tried it and lost. As did the Cartheginians. It's wise to make the enemy fight every battle in the outlying areas, sapping him of his strength before he reaches your main line of defense.
If nuts describes the NRA, then it goes double for the anti-gun lobby. So you have a battle of nuts. I prefer the nuts who are protecting my constitutional rights in their zealousness to the nuts who want to take away my rights.
thebullet
Rebel without applause
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2003
- Posts
- 1,247
Does anyone else notice the total absurdity of this bill? If you don't intend to drink, why the fuck are you walking into a bar? Guess where there are a lot of bar fights? Yep, in bars. I sure hope the next time I'm in a bar when a fight breaks out, all of the participants are packin'.
Is this a great country or what?
thebullet
Rebel without applause
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2003
- Posts
- 1,247
Now, Colly, you're falling for the NRA line, aren't you? The average person, (like me, I guess) would just like to see some sanity enter the picture. We don't want to take your precious firearm away from you. But do guns have to permeate every aspect of our society? Is there no middle ground?
I deal with many police departments in my business. I don't know a cop who thinks that armor-piercing bullets should be available for public consumption. But the NRA insists that they be sold. Does the NRA hate cops? The only people in our society who are wearing armour generally are cops. These are cop-killer bullets. Colly, do you support their sale?
What good does an assault rifle do for your personal defense? Unless you are being attacked by an army, wouldn't a pistol provide you with sufficient protection? Why does the NRA insist that these weapons be sold to the public? Why does the NRA hate policemen? The criminals are better armed than the good guys today. We have an arms race going on in local law enforcement, and because of the NRA, the good guys are losing.
Colleen, is there no middle ground? Is it all or nothing at all?
thebullet
Rebel without applause
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2003
- Posts
- 1,247
Geez, Colly, this is a 'belief' that isn't very hard to prove. Check out what they say on the website of the American Foundation for Suicide Provention:
Only 2 out 100 firearm-related deaths in the home are of intruders during break-ins. All the other deaths are family members (I think that comes out to 98 out of 100).
You will talk about gun safes and proper gun-related education and it will all sound so logical. And next year the statistics will be just as horrible.
Colleen Thomas
Ultrafemme
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2002
- Posts
- 21,545
thebullet said:
Don't patronize me. You haven't earned the right.
The anti-gun lobby doesn't advocate sanity, compromise or a moderate stance. It advocates removing my right to own a weapon to defend myself. Period.
Don't try the sophistic spin of police and criminals. Criminals will get the heaviest hiting harware they can afford. And a law saying they can't have it isn't too likely to convince them not to get it. I really don't see criminal X going, "Oh, hey, none of that. I may be willing to rob people or kill folks or whatever, but I'm not going to take the semi auto tech 9 with the parts for an upgrade. That's illegal."
Doh.
If the question, were simply do I support the sale of armor-piercing rounds, then the answer is no. I don't think too many deer wear kevlar and your average criminal isn't wearing body plate. But that isn't the question. The question is do I favor setting a precedent that that munitions can be made illegal to legal owners. And there I say no, because if you (anti-gun nuts) manage to set the precedent you can make munitions illegal, you can get around the constitution. Guns aren't illegal, bullets are.
In NYC handguns are illegal. Haven't noticed it did a lot to curtail crime. In NY state, the hoops and red tape you have to go through to get a liscence would require a lot of money and a lawyer most likely. Haven't noticed that it has done much to deter crime.
No one needs an assault rifle. But again, I'm not for letting you outlaw a class of weapon. It sets a precedent. Besides that, fully automatic weapons are already closely regulated. So why the ban? Because it sets a precedent that's why.
I own a firearm. I am going to continue to own one. If you make it illegal, you are going to get prohibition again, where a huge portion of otherwise law abiding citizens become criminals over night.
I have a right, to protect my home, property and person. You want to see that right removed. It comes down to that. In a nut shell. I'm small, I'm not particularly strong and I don't have a black belt in Tai Kwan Leap. I do have a .38 chief's special however. And I know how to use it. So your size, speed, and relative advantage in strength mean little. Semi-wad cutters being an amazing equalizer.
If the anti gun lobby wanted sensible legislation and regulation, the story would be different, but that isn't your goal. Your goal is all or nothing. A ban on fierarms. So the opposition has no choice but to stand on the opposite side. No regulation. That makes you fight perhipheral battles on real non issues like assault weapons, fully auto weapons, star shells and Ap munitions. And as long as the battle is out there, you aren't making much headway in your real objective, taking my precious gun away from me.
Like it or don't, that's the reality.
R. Richard
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2003
- Posts
- 10,382
Colleen Thomas said:
Colly:
Good for you! You have summarized the situation very well. A large, strong man may be able to defend his home with fists or a fireplace poker; the average woman cannot. Banning gun ownership is to remove the right of a woman to defend herself. There are a lot of other issues, but that is a key one.
By the way, the real reason they anti-gun people don't want you to shoot an intruder is that the intruder likely dies and then the poor sod does not get a fair trial as guaranteed in the Constitution.
Colleen Thomas
Ultrafemme
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2002
- Posts
- 21,545
thebullet said:
Spin away bullet boy. As Archie Bunker said, would you be happier if they had thrown themselves off a bridge?
As an aside I don't favor gun safes. It seems self defeating to have your weapon stored somewhere you can't get it quickly should you need it. My dad kept his in the closet. Everyone in the family knew where they were, and we all knew which one was kept loaded in case it was needed. No one was ever killed or injured with a firearm, unless you count a bruised shoulder from firing My grand father's 10guage.
If you understand what a gun is, what it is capable of doing and you are comfortable with them, there are no accidents, because you know better than to play with them. I treat every gun like it's loaded, even the black powder one which I know isn't. I know it isn't for a fact, because I have no intention of ever loading it. It' an antique, modern black powder would probably damage it. I still don't point it at people or play with it.
cloudy
Alabama Slammer
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2004
- Posts
- 37,997
Colleen Thomas said:
Amen, Colly!
I've been able to take a gun apart and put it back together since I was around 10 years old, and I'm VERY comfortable with my 9mm - it was a graduation gift from my father 25 years ago or so.
There were five of us kids growing up in a house where there were always guns. We knew where they were, we knew they were loaded, and we knew very well what they could do, and how to use them. One of the first things you learn is you never point a gun at something you aren't planning on shooting - period. The second thing you learn is that you always check the chamber, even if the clip is out of it (for a semi).
According to people like the Bullet and VB, at least two or three of us should have been killed before reaching adulthood, since accidents are so common.
For those not comfortable with them - fine, don't have one. *shrug*
Just don't assume that all people who advocate the private ownership of handguns/firearms are Jethros with just enough sense to shoot themselves or their children the minute they pick their gun up.
Bullet - like Colly says, you want all or nothing, so those of us on the other side will go for it all, too. And, if they're made illegal one of these days (which I really, really doubt is ever going to happen), then I guess I'll just be a criminal, then. Mine's not going anywhere.
Colleen Thomas
Ultrafemme
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2002
- Posts
- 21,545
R. Richard said:
For an intruder to get a fair trial, I have to become a victim first. If I refuse to become a victim, then he will be getting last rights rather than exercising his constitutional rights, but if he is in my home with evil intent, I think he has already abrogated those rights.
I refuse the idea I should be rendered helpless to further someone elses iedalistic vision for society. AS long as there are criminals and as long as they have no respect for my rights, I feel I should have the ability to protect myself from them.
Arrest and prison, after I have been beaten, raped or killed, seems to do very little for me. Blowing a hole in him you could drive a mack truck through BEFORE I am beaten, raped or killed seems a far more satisfactory outcome to me. It would seem to me, my right to defend myself should always trump his right to do me harm, but that isn't the position of some folks. And those folks have to be fought.
Weird Harold
Opinionated Old Fart
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2000
- Posts
- 23,768
thebullet said:
I dont know, I suppose somebody with a concealed carry permit might want to eat dinner someplace nice that just happens to have a liquor license.
Or maybe they just need to use the bathroom and a bar happens to have the nearest public bathroom.
Maybe some rich dude wants to get drunk in a bar and his bodyguard just wants to do his job -- stay sober and protect his boss.
thebullet
Rebel without applause
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2003
- Posts
- 1,247
My goal? How do you read it as my goal? I'm the one who asked, "Isn't there a middle ground?"
But you state that your goal is all or nothing. You said yourself that there is no room for compromise in your world: " I'm not for letting you outlaw a class of weapon. It sets a precedent" - when Remington comes out with a personal sized H-bomb, you'll be first in line to support its sale, is that it? Is there never a line to be drawn anywhere?
Colleen, you give me a lecture about how safe you are in your little world with your firearms, and how no one has ever been hurt in your family. Good for you and fuck the statistics, is that your POV? The fact is, for every two intruders who are killed breaking into a home, three children die accidentally by playing with guns they find in the home. I'm glad it hasn't happened in your life, but it's certainly happening.
Is there no room for sanity in this argument? Because I ask the question, does that make me an extremist?
thebullet
Rebel without applause
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2003
- Posts
- 1,247
Don't patronize me, to quote our esteemed friend, Colleen. You and Colly are so paranoid that you can't have a civil discussion without twisting my words and lying about what I said.
You are learning well from your leaders at Fox News and the NRA. Never tell the truth. Always pervert and cast aspersions.
Please, dear Cloudy, find somewhere where I said this. Just quote me directly, don't 'paraphrase' or say you remember somewhere where I said it. I recommend you read the current thread and tell me where I said that I want all or nothing, or any statement like it.
I'll tell ya, Cloudy and Colleen: I'd appreciate it if you would stop misquoting me.
I will gladly hold myself to the same standards in addressing what you say.
cloudy
Alabama Slammer
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2004
- Posts
- 37,997
thebullet said:
I don't watch Fox News, smart ass. Just because I believe I should be able to keep my right to own a firearm, it doesn't make me some wild-eyed neocon, okay?
I agree, there should be some middle ground on all this, but extreme-ism begets extreme-ism. As Colly mentioned, getting people to agree on a definition for an "assault" weapon is like moving a mountain, for one thing. For some, my 9mm is semi-automatic, and therefore it should be classified as an "assault weapon." I disagree. And, yep, I agree that there's no reason that someone like me should need armor-piercing bullets, either. But, one question for you: just how do you think making them illegal is going to help anything? Do you actually think that just because they're illegal they'll go away?
I don't think you're quite that stupid.
Idealism is all good and well until it runs smack into reality.
G
Guest
Guest
thebullet said:
Does the website state how many of those deaths were intruders who shot the home owner? How do those numbers compare to those of people stabbed to death in the home with kitchen knives? How do they compare to the number of drownings in backyard swimming pools?
Before you spout a vague fact like that maybe you should be prepared to present ALL of the fact that back up those numbers. YOUR logic doen't hold water.
Similar threads
