Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumThe Rude Pundit - According to the NRA, We're Screwed...Right Now
(cross-posted from General Discussion)
That ominous image up there is the cover of this month's NRA magazine. The magazine is called America's First Freedom, which, if it's referring to owning guns, is just wrong because of the word "second" in the Second Amendment. The article is "The Most Dangerous 700 Days America Has Ever Faced."
You might think, "Well, surely that's referring to a period of time right after we declared independence and fought the Revolutionary War." Or perhaps, "Oh, of course, it's an article about the most violent part of the Civil War." Or "Indeed, the time right after Pearl Harbor was quite trying for our nation." Maybe even "Gosh, I knew things were bad after 9/11, but I didn't realize it was the most dangerous time." Yes, yes, you might try each of those, but, fuck you, you unarmed traitor. That shit is happening now.
Those 700 days (give or take) encompass the last two years of President Barack Obama's term in office post-2014 midterms. Let the motherfucker with the combover of doom, Wayne LaPierre, lay it on the line for you: "If Obama and his allies succeed in their 'transformation' over the next two years, the America we know and love may cease to exist." Why? Because he's gonna take away the guns. The guns, goddamnit. Obama's coming after them, even though, as LaPierre admits, in the last six years, "the Second Amendment is the only freedom that has expanded while others have retreated."
Don't you get it? Obama's been playing the long game. He put on hold all his devious machinations to walk into your home and rip the rifle from you cold, dead hand. Sure, he's never actually talked about doing that or done anything at all other than suggest a few minor regulations that wouldn't affect the vast majority of gun owners. And, even though the NRA was sure that, right after his reelection, Obama was going to unleash the goons, no goons have appeared. But, one supposes, he was waiting until after he lost huge in the midterms. He has no more elections to worry about, they say. So, fuck it, let's get the gun melter going 24/7.
more
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026157114
http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2015/01/according-to-nra-were-screwedright-now.html
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,482 posts)petronius
(26,603 posts)Just seems like the appropriate theme song...
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,482 posts)NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)And I wonder if the OP realizes that he's sending traffic to the site.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)when I turn adblockplus off. Where have *you* been browsing? You do know which google ads appear for you is based off your own browser history, right?
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)I like my adblockers kept *on*!
hack89
(39,171 posts)it is amazing every gun owner doesn't know this.
ileus
(15,396 posts)I don't think these are the 700 most dangerous day for gun owners. I would point to the scare from Sandy Hook as the worst threat to the 2A progress we've seen in a long time.
Hopefully those days are behind us and we can look forward to a bright future for the Second.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,482 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Authors John Meany and Kate Shuster wrote in their 2002 book Art, Argument, and Advocacy: Mastering Parliamentary Debate that usage of the phrase "Think of the children" in debate was a type of logical fallacy.[1] They identified this as a form of an appeal to emotion.[1] The authors explained that the debater will utilize the phrase in an effort to emotionally sway members of the listening public instead of engaging in logical discussion.[1] Meany and Shuster gave as an example: "I know this national missile defense plan has its detractors, but wont someone please think of the children?"[1] The assessment that use of the exhortation: "Think of the children" is a type of appeal to emotion was echoed by Margie Borschke in an article for the journal, Media International Australia incorporating Culture and Policy.[3] Borschke went on to call this methodology a tactic of rhetoric.[3]
Ethicist Jack Marshall described "Think of the children!" as a tactic used in an attempt to cease back-and-forth discussion by invoking a powerful argument.[2] According to Marshall, the strategy proved useful due to its success at stopping individuals from engaging in rationality and reason.[2] He called this plan an unethical manner of obfuscating debate by misdirecting empathy towards another source which may not have been the focus of the original argument.[2] He wrote that usage of the phrase had positive intent but had a tendency to become irrational when used repeatedly by both sides in a dispute.[2] Marshall concluded that referring to the phrase had the impact of manipulating a simple act of following regulations into a confusing ethical quandary.[2] He cautioned that society should not fall into the mindset that citing "Think of the children!" had the ability to upstage all other morals and standards in civilization.[2]...
...Cory Doctorow wrote in a 2011 article for Make magazine that the phrase "Wont someone think of the children?!" was used by irrational individuals to support arguments about the dangers to youth of four types of groups on the Internet.[25] These four groups, collectively referred to as "Four Horsemen of the Infocalypse" included: "pirates", terrorists, organized crime, and child pornographers.[25] He wrote that use of the phrase in such a manner was done with the intent of gagging additional discussion on the merits of the underlying issues and stopping rational analysis.[25] Doctorow observed that these tactics were often used during the burgeoning period when society was determining the proper approach to legal aspects of computing.
And since your sort are fond of employing cartoons in discussions like these:
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)I hadn't actually said "think of the children" either, so your reply is a bit of a strawman My post was about glib sociopaths and magazine sizes.
Go post your opinions in that General Discussion thread, I dare you. I bet they fly like a lead balloon.
Straw Man
(6,625 posts)No points for your desperate attempts to conflate average gun owners with murderous psychopaths or for your delusion that banning particular pieces of hardware will somehow prevent the latter from achieving their gruesome goals.
You never met a gun control proposition that you didn't like, and you believe that anyone who doesn't swallow your belief system whole is guilty of indifference to the slaughter of the innocents. It's a lame canard and always has been. And yes, it's a Lovejoy.
Why should he? You already copy/pasted his post over there. So very classy. And what would be the point of anyone attempting to discuss anything in the "fuck 'em all" feeding frenzy that you're whipping up over there?
Don't pretend that you have any interest in actual discussion. It's an insult to everyone's intelligence, yours included.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)"You never met a gun control proposition that you didn't like"
I think confiscating all guns from everyone would be stupid and impossible to enforce too, so there I'm actually kind of a moderate compared to some gun control advocates. On a side note, I think I could still remember how to field strip, clean, and re-assemble an M16 in under five minutes, though I haven't done so in quite some time.
You clearly don't know me at all, but keep on posting, I enjoy it when you guys make yourselves look foolish
Straw Man
(6,625 posts)"You never met a gun control proposition that you didn't like"
So ... I'm accusing you of having an absolutist view while ... accusing you of having an absolutist view. Is there supposed to be something logically inconsistent about that?
The charge was that you never met a gun control proposition you didn't like. Since I haven't heard anyone propose the straw man you refer to above, I'll stand by my characterization. Unless, of course, you can identify an actual piece of gun control legislation that you oppose.
You're a moderate? Of course you are, bless your heart.
Very admirable -- and completely irrelevant. What does that have to do with your belief in gun control?
I know what you post, and I believe I have characterized it accurately. Nothing you have said here indicates otherwise.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)"never met a gun control prop he didn't like" type.
Straw Man
(6,625 posts)"never met a gun control prop he didn't like" type.
Not familiar with that particular organization. It doesn't sound like one I'd like to be involved with, given the grammar and spelling issues.
Perhaps you'd like to indicate which actual gun control legislation you don't support. That would be the only way to disprove my characterization.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)Join a 'well regulated militia' if you want to fully exercise your 2nd amendment rights. You can even get paid for it.
Straw Man
(6,625 posts)... the POTUS has said that he believes in the individual right to keep and bear arms. So why are you doubling down on the collective interpretation?
Are you saying that only the military should be armed? That people who get their jollies playing with M-16s should join the Guard? That you think your military experience gives you some kind of "gun cred" that magically makes you a moderate? None of this has any relevance to the matter under discussion. What exactly are you saying?
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)Care to find a POTUS comment or two on large cap magazines and universal background checks?
Straw Man
(6,625 posts)... the question about gun control legislation you don't support? Such a shame.
Not necessary. I know where he stands on those. I agree with him on the latter and disagree on the former. The individual vs. collective interpretation issue is far more important -- fundamental, actually -- and there you are in complete disagreement with the POTUS.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)That's not suprising- I've noticed most gun prohibtionists are rather shy about coming out of the closet
and prefer to hide their views when expressing themselves in public
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)with prior military service also belong to the unorganized militia.
It's federal law.
JackW
(6 posts)Except today we have a very powerful standing army and no well regulated militias like those of the Founding era, the exact opposite of what most of the Founders wanted. As Thomas Jefferson told George Washington, the Second Amendment was supposed to mean "freedom from standing armies."
beevul
(12,194 posts)"In your worldview your popguns are more important than innocent kids lives, I get it already."
You're projecting.
Its you lot who refuse to separate suicides from homicides, preferring to treat them as if they're the same, so that you can point the finger at the evil gun.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Show us how consistent you are in your love for the children.
ileus
(15,396 posts)besides it's good for the earth...carbon footprint reduction and all that jazz.
but firearms...now those are the real killers. If only we could convince all those guns to stop killing people.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Perhaps we can discuss why cheap appeals to emotion don't seem to be working towards:
It seems you and the other regular posters are less interested in reducing gun violence and
more interested in repeatedly proclaiming your moral superiority over those that disagree with
you.
Gun controllers have a bubble, one that is not much different than the "conservative/Christian
bubble"
Like them, you hate and fear those that do not believe as you do...
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)The hate and distrust in their writings is palatable.
Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #27)
Duckhunter935 This message was self-deleted by its author.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Last edited Sat Jan 31, 2015, 06:14 PM - Edit history (1)
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)enjoy the feedback http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026157114#post35
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)You should get out of the 'gun control bubble' more...
DonP
(6,185 posts)It's supposed to make all the gun owners feel bad. "See, everybody in GD thinks you're sickos too."
Doesn't work too well though.
Now, with many of the GD gun posts being locked, not as much fun for the control fans. But I guess it's better than the same 3 people that post in Echo Chamber Bansalot.
Too bad none of all those "avid gun control supporters" in GD won't even bother to go to his safe forum and opine, ain't it? Maybe they are "avid" as long as it's convenient and they don't have to click to a new forum?
The irony is all the whining about the NRA is increasing the number of NRA ads that show up on DU.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)That's why I despise both groups. They have become what they hate...
A rather good song about that mindset:
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/newtown-lawsuit-moral-work-gun-control
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)...than the astroturf creation of a billionaire otherwise known for decidedly unprogressive political positions
All of the cod-religious verbiage in the world can't change that...
Straw Man
(6,625 posts)Votes that are cast "with fanatic intensity" count no more than votes that are cast any other way. If these voters are truly a "small minority," no politician would care a whit what they think, NRA or no NRA.
beevul
(12,194 posts)"...ownership of weapons intended only to kill en masse..."
There ARE limits and controls on "manufacture and sale and ownership of weapons intended only to kill en masse".
Examples of weapons intended to kill en masse :
Bombs
Grenades
Nukes
Of course, you lot would like to convince everyone who will listen, that semi-automatic weapons which fire a single shot per pull of the trigger just like granddads shotgun or deer rifle, fit that definition.
Its dishonest, its disingenuous, and its contrary to reality.
In other words, good luck with that.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,482 posts)...just to be sure. Rephrased in my own words to be more concise: 'You guys are screwed, huh?'
DonP
(6,185 posts)The author, not you of course.
"...weapons intended only to kill en masse"
As the best selling rifles in America for over a decade so many are obviously faulty.
But it's easy for the 1%ers to keep the ignorant out there upset with the support of a handful of "useful idiots". Too bad they don't bother to vote about it too, huh?
"the gun crazy think about guns all the time, and vote on the issue with fanatic intensity."
Kind of the same way "92% agree with more gun control" ... they just can't be bothered to vote or post about it.
Oh, I'm sorry I forgot, some of them will even go as far as clicking a "Rec" button to show their deep meaningful support.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)but that is hard
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)I noticed something about that.
EGS has about 550K "supporters" by that metric, and that
"support" costs them nothing aside from having a Facebook account, which is free.
They claim to be grassroots. I rather doubt the veracity of that claim, but for the sake
of argument let us say that the claim is true.
Would not the NRA be even *more* grassroots, so to speak, as they have circa
7-8X EGS's membership? Not to mention that one must pay at least $20/year for
NRA membership, while EGS can be 'joined' for essentially nothing.
Yet the prohibitionists would have us believe the NRA is entirely the creation
of firearms manufacturers...
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Facebook likes..... 4,206,089
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)What a shocker!
krispos42
(49,445 posts)Democrats nationwide are hoping that, with the last midterm elections behind Obama, him unable to run for re-election, and him unlikely to run for elected office for the rest of this life, that he will therefore use this last two years to be the real liberal lion we've all wished he was.
But it's entirely crazy and paranoid to think that he might do something on guns.
And you go so far as to mock the very IDEA that he might.
I mean, your side calls private gun ownerships a blight, a cancer, a plague on America. You're willing give Republicans elections in order to remove ergonomic grips from rifles and shotguns. But it's absolutely insane and paranoid to even hint that Obama, in the final 23 months of his presidency, might make moves on guns that YOUR SIDE has been begging and petitioning and advocating him to do.
Wow, talk about a disconnect.
Your side openly wants to take guns away from people, yet mocks those that point this out as being paranoid loons.
DonP
(6,185 posts)We need to save this for use on a regular basis, every time one of them calls us paranoid in the same thread where another demands a gun ban of one flavor or another.
My personal favorite is the; "nobody wants to ban/take away your guns - we just want to get rid of the ones that are only good for killing masses of people."
I bet they'll be hard pressed to find just the right cartoons to defend against the reality and logic in your post.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)...you set up the talking-point that your opponent is a paranoid loon if they accuse you of doing "A", then once there's a media precedent established you in fact do "A" and let the established media response give you cover.
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)JackW
(6 posts)Thomas Jefferson played a strong part in the generation of the Bill of Rights. He called the Second Amendment "Freedom from standing armies," not "Freedom from gun control."
arcane1
(38,613 posts)One would think the "First Freedom" wouldn't be the SECOND amendment!
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)any of the other Amendments.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)For example, I'm one of the hosts of the Civil Liberties Group:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1168
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)And the crazy guy I know who ran for governor as a Libertarian.
Like Christians, only the nutjob 2A advocates ever get media coverage.