For the NRA, It's All About Fear

[jpak]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dennis-a-henigan/for-the-nra-its-all-about_b_857526.html

From all reports, at its annual convention last weekend in Pittsburgh, the National Rifle Association, as usual, cloaked itself in patriotic themes, claimed special kinship with the Founders, and portrayed itself as the true protector of American values. There was much talk of "freedom". More than anything else, however, the NRA gatherings are celebrations of fear.

The NRA is the most accomplished marketer of fear in American political life.

There is, first, the fear of imminent violent attack. I'm not talking about a healthy concern for personal and family security. The NRA, and its gun industry patrons, need average Americans to believe that the threat of attack is constant and pervasive; that we are at serious risk all the time and everywhere we go. It's not enough to have a gun in the home for self-defense; you need multiple guns throughout your home so you're never too far from your gun. It's not enough to carry a concealed weapon outside your home; the law must allow you to carry it virtually anywhere an attack might conceivably occur, into restaurants, bars, sports stadiums, community centers and churches.

Indeed, NRA Executive Director Wayne LaPierre devoted much of his convention speech to reciting statistics about our continuing violent crime problem (which is interesting, given the NRA's competing message that crime rates are down because states have made it easier to carry concealed weapons). According to the gun lobby, even our college campuses (with murder rates 44 times lower than the national rate) are sufficiently unsafe to justify forcing universities and colleges to allow concealed weapons on campus. Legislation to enact this absurd idea into law fortunately has failed 51 times in 27 states in recent years, the latest being Governor Jan Brewer's recent veto of NRA-supported legislation in Arizona.

<more>

[no_hypocrisy]

1. NRA wants to perpetuate the myth that ownership of weapons is a necessity to protect

ordinary American citizens from attack by any known or known enemy. Sort of the other side of the American Dream. You have something to protect and you need something to do the job.

[jpak]

2. Fear = $$$$

yup

[Buzz Clik]

3. That's the way I see it.

Why would anyone want to carry a concealed weapon in a church unless they were scared witless?

[aikoaiko]

4. a better quest is why would the state enact laws to criminalize carrying a concealed gun in church

When it is lawful to carry in most other places.

Its a civil liberty thing.

[Buzz Clik]

5. It's also interesting how many people are under the misconception...

... that the right to "bear arms" is universal. Every right -- every one -- has restrictions.

If you're too afraid to sit in a church without a firearm tucked away, then stay home and watch on tv. You have the right to have as many weapons as you want in your home, car, etc.

[beevul]

11. Isn't it just?

"If you're too afraid to sit in a church without a firearm tucked away, then stay home and watch on tv."

If you're too afraid to sit in a church where people have firearms tucked away then stay home and watch on tv.

See how that works?

[Buzz Clik]

31. No, that isn't how it works at all. It's your fear that brings weapons to church, not mine.

I don't fear you or your guns. I simply want you to have the courage to leave your weapons outside.

It's quite simple.

[petronius]

37. Why do you want him to leave his weapons outside?

[Buzz Clik]

39. Would you agree that some people are uncomfortable around firearms?

[petronius]

44. I think that's obvious - but "uncomfortable" sounds a lot like fear, and isn't this

the sub-thread where you argue that your support for banning guns in churches is not motivated by fear? :shrug:

What non-emotional-response-based reason do you have for wanting him to be required to leave his gun outside?

[Buzz Clik]

47. I said I'm not afraid of weapons. I did not suggest that no one fears weapons.

Regardless of the reason for not wanting firearms in a given location, would you agree that it makes sense to not have firearms in places where the owners of a private location do not want weapons?

[petronius]

50. The post that started the sub-thread was about the government excluding firearms

from a place, not the owner.

I have no objection to private owners being allowed to exclude firearms (and many other things) from their own property. Balanced, of course, with the rights and freedoms of others...

(On edit - the second post in the sub-thread is the one I'm thinking of)

[Buzz Clik]

55. Post #3 was mine and had nothing to do with legislation. It was a response that brought it up.

I don't agree with states make it a crime to carry a firearm into any church, but states have the right pass such laws.

[petronius]

58. I know, I edited (sorry). I don't agree with such laws either, and I'm uncomfortable

with states having the right to pass them - I don't like (as I said) religious institutions being singled out that way...

[Starboard Tack]

95. Since when was common sense an emotional response?

What non-emotional-based reason would anyone have for carrying a gun in church or the classroom?

[rl6214]

98. Common sense says to be prepared for any situation

I carrying a gun, I am prepared for any situation, just like carrying a spare tire, jumper cables or medical kit in my car, a cell phone or pocket knife in my pocket.

[Starboard Tack]

103. Sorry, I thought you were carrying a gun on the off chance that you

might have to shoot or, at least, intimidate someone. If I'm correct, would you be doing that without emotion? If I'm incorrect, what use would you have for it?

[rl6214]

118. You don't carry a gun "on the off chance that you might

have to... intimidate someone".

I don't let emotion get into why I carry a gun.

[Starboard Tack]

144. OK so why do you carry it?

Are you saying you carry it unemotionally to shoot someone if you feel the need arises? Or to shoot someone without "feeling" the need? Like in cold blood. I'm honestly trying to understand the thought process that would induce someone to strap on a gun to go to church or the store or wherever, unless, maybe, you're a cop on duty.

[Hoyt]

137. I think the boy scout thing stops when you degrade society by packing a gun in public.

[oneshooter]

150. So much for your "thinking". n/t

[petronius]

108. It's not. And "common sense" is not the reason for desiring someone to leave a firearm outside

the church.

The reason a person might choose to carry is to be prepared for situations that are unlikely to occur, but high-cost when they do...

[Starboard Tack]

138. And you don't think that toting a gun in church is just a tad over the top?

You consider it reasonable, like carrying an umbrella when the forecast says rain, or as likely to be needed as a spare tire? Do you also carry a defibrillator around? The odds of you having a heart attack are many times greater than needing a gun.

[petronius]

142. I argue that everyone has the right to make that choice for themselves,

based on the totality of his/her own life experience. And given that RKBA is an enumerated Constitutional right, I feel quite strongly about protecting that freedom of choice.

How I personally choose is irrelevant, as is the relative need-ranking of firearms vs umbrellas vs defibrillators ("need" as determined by you, me, or anyone else is not part of the equation). As I've said elsewhere, I don't carry a firearm and never have - but what feels best for me is not necessarily best for anyone else...

[Starboard Tack]

147. "what feels best for me is not necessarily best for anyone else..."

This is where we agree, but apparently interpret differently. I think what is good for society as a whole trumps my personal choice when that choice impacts society. We are not discussing sexual preference, abortion rights, or private alcohol or drug consumption, which have nothing to do with society as a whole. Neither does the right to own and keep a gun on private property, or as part of a well organized militia. The latter, of course, is what needs to be redefined to address today's society and clarify exactly what limits, if any, our enumerated right may be subject to.

[RSillsbee]

153. Just my having a gun

doesn't impact society unless you count the impact of me being politer and less likely to engage in a confrontation because I'm carrying one

[Starboard Tack]

154. I've heard that argument before and it's interesting.

Like a form of self medicating to control one's anger. Personally, I think marijuana is a better solution. Or yoga, maybe.

[RSillsbee]

158. I do yoga

Can I assume you'd prefer I not do Marijuana while armed?

BTW you heard that argument from me

[Starboard Tack]

162. I don't know you. So I can't say.

I would definitely advise not drinking alcohol while armed.

[petronius]

156. Until you can define "good for society" and "impacts society" in ways that don't

circle back to 'common sense', then there is no foundation for limiting basic rights. Any limit on a Constitutional right must be, IMO, based on a significant empirical justification, and the limit must be as narrow as possible to serve its purpose (note that I'm not just talking about guns here)...

[Name removed]

265. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[GreenStormCloud]

65. It is concealed. They don't know. N/T

[Starboard Tack]

96. How does the deception make it better?

[rl6214]

100. Ah, you and your 'deception' foolishness

So detectives that wear a jacket with their firearm underneath are being deceptive?

[Starboard Tack]

104. Duh! That's why they're detectives

Same reason they wear plain clothes. It's their job to be sneaky. You should know that. Why else wouldn't you display your gun? Surely not because you know it is offensive?

[rl6214]

119. Offensive? Only to you

To the rest of us it is common sense.

And I would say the detectives are being discrete.

[Starboard Tack]

145. Not only to me. I think to most people

When you say "to the rest of us it is common sense", I think you are referring to your fellow toters. Common within your group. On my current odyssey across the country which started 3 weeks ago, I have made a point of asking people I've met 2 questions:
1. Do you think non LE individuals should be walking around with concealed weapons?
2. Do you think the 2A is valid in today's world.

Out of about 40 individuals (I realize not a very scientific poll) of different political persuasions, and all walks of life, though mostly Dems., only one said he did not have a problem with CC.
A handful said they had seen people carrying openly and thought they were freaks.
Very few (3 or 4) were against gun ownership period.
One admitted to owning a gun and carried it, justifiably, during the Katrina disaster.
Most thought 2A was way outdated and horribly distorted by the NRA, in terms of RKBA being interpreted as a right to carry and bear outside a well organized militia.
Those conversations took place in Arizona, Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee and Virginia (mostly in Texas and Louisiana), hardly the liberal bastions of this country.

[GreenStormCloud]

133. The nervous folks won't get upset by what they don't know about.

I helps keep them calm.

[Starboard Tack]

149. Now I understand.

Like a government suppressing information that might make the population uncomfortable, or like being blindfolded in a snake pit.

[rl6214]

86. If it's concealed, how do you know to be uncomfortable?

[rrneck]

42. If it's your church you can do that.

Why do you want the government to do it for you? And by what right would you mandate your personal preference?

[Buzz Clik]

43. I don't want the government to do anything but stay out of the way.

[rrneck]

64. Then why are we having this conversation? nt

[beevul]

52. As most people hereabouts know...

I don't carry a gun.


I also don't go to church.

[Buzz Clik]

56. So, you're just stirring the pot. Fair enough.

[beevul]

62. Yep.

Just like I "stir the pot" when I speak in suport of abortion rights, as a man who doesn't get abortions.

Any questions?

[Hoyt]

136. Since only 2-3% of population feels a need to carry, attendance would really drop.

[petronius]

34. I haven't noticed anyone under that misconception. What I do see is people insisting

that limits on rights (any rights, that is) must be empirically and logically justified, and as narrow as possible.

As far as churches, I don't see why they should be treated differently than any other public space. Rather the opposite, actually - I object to the idea that laws should treat religious institutions as special or more important...

[Buzz Clik]

40. A church is a public space?

[petronius]

49. Perhaps it's not the most correct term. Take it to mean 'place outside the home,

where members of the public congregate', or simply drop the word entirely - it doesn't change my meaning. Why should churches be treated differently (privileged) over other places?

[Buzz Clik]

57. Churches and any privately owned area have the right to control their space.

Just as freedom of speech has limitations, so does the second amendment.

Do you really advocate that privately owned businesses should not be able to control what their clientele do on their premises?

[petronius]

60. Not advocating that at all, as I think I've clarified in the other sub-sub-thread

What I am advocating is that legal limitations on rights be as narrow as possible, and fear or discomfort don't support those limitations...

[spin]

72. A church or a private business can post a "no-guns" sign ...

and I will not enter.

I may call the establishment and politely tell them that they will no longer enjoy my business. I rarely see "no-guns" signs in Florida but they were common back in 1987 when "shall issue" concealed carry first passed.

[Starboard Tack]

102. What if a town passes an ordinance banning the carrying of guns?

Will you comply?

[oneshooter]

123. It would depend on the State Law.

If the state had a law that stated no local law shall be passed more restrictive than the state law. Then the town, county or city law would be invalid.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Starboard Tack]

140. Fine. Then the local government could appeal up to SCOTUS

[spin]

126. In Florida the state law counts - not the local law.

For a while some local ordinances were passed to harass those with concealed weapons permits in Florida despite state preemption. Some local officials ignored state preemption because there were no penalties for passes such an ordinance. A bill has passed the Florida legislature and awaits the Governor's signature that will correct this problem.

A third bill, HB 45, will prohibit local governments from passing anti-gun laws that are in violation of state law. This will help keep the state from becoming a patchwork of various anti-gun laws. HB 45 also adds teeth to the law, allowing for monetary penalties and for elected officials to be fired for violating the law.
http://gunowners.org/a05042011.htm

But your question was, "What if a town passes an ordinance banning the carrying of guns?"

I would comply if I was aware of the law. That was the problem. If every local town had its own rules on carrying a firearm, I would need a legal directory the size of a phone book to travel around the state.

[Starboard Tack]

143. Good point. Thanks for the info

That's why I think the 2A will eventually be amended, as more towns and cities find themselves being bullied by state legislators, who are bought and paid for by the NRA and the gun industry. This is becoming more and more a struggle between urban and rural America and both have a right to exist the way they want.

[spin]

167. many urban areas in the United States allow concealed carry ...

for example in Florida you have the urban areas of Miami, Jacksonville, Tampa Bay and Orlando. I lived in the Tampa Bay area for 37 years and the majority of my neighbors and co-workers owned firearms and many had concealed carry permits. I never met anyone who proposed changing the Second Amendment although I'm sure there were a few in the Tampa Bay area.

Amending the Constitution is a daunting task and I don't think you and others like you with similar views could ever drum up enough support to do it.

However, it is a free country and I fully support your right to try.

[Starboard Tack]

99. How would you feel if it weren't a right?

Let's say 2A gets updated/amended and RKBA no longer exists as a constitutional right.

[petronius]

109. I would feel the same. My position is to oppose legal limits on any choice, freedom,

behavior, opportunity, etc, unless a valid, rational, and empirically-justifiable reason for the limit is presented. That opposition is more emphatic when the freedom at issue is one of our Constitutional rights...

On edit: the 'special treatment for churches' aspect of this discussion is also troubling to me - I see no reason for religious institutions to be granted special laws intended to protect them (even if I think it's an empty protection).

[aikoaiko]

36. Why should the government be telling churches who or what they should let into their church?

I understand your point of view, but should we really mandate that by law?

Yes, every right has restrictions. Some make sense, but some are born of bigotry.

[Buzz Clik]

41. Wow! Where did you get that? Who said that the government should be making this decision?

[aikoaiko]

46. There are laws in existence in some states because some people think like you.

So, are you in favor of those laws going away?

edited to add: I think this is what made me think that you thought the government was entitled to ban concealed carry in churches.

From your post #5: "If you're too afraid to sit in a church without a firearm tucked away, then stay home and watch on tv. You have the right to have as many weapons as you want in your home, car, etc. "

Its as if you think the 2nd Amendment only exists with in house or car. If the carrier and church are OK with concealed carry, I'm fine with it and I would think anyone supportive of civil liberties would be as well.

[Buzz Clik]

53. I don't believe that the government should mandate anything about firearms in private spaces.

My reference is the churches making these decisions (or other private institutions), not the government. The government needs to stay out of the discussion entirely.

[aikoaiko]

54. I agree with that and think that regulations about public space guns should be under stric review.

Few as possible.

[Buzz Clik]

59. We agree. I doubt that we would agree ...

... on which public institutions have the right to exclude weapons, but I'm okay with that.

[aikoaiko]

74. I would say that many public places could if they screened people for weapons before entry

like secure areas of the airport, court houses, jails and prisons. Maybe that puts us even a little closer.

;)

[Starboard Tack]

101. How would gun laws be born of bigotry?

What class of people is excluded? Oh, yeah, I forgot, those with felony convictions.

[aikoaiko]

125. Bigotry doesn't mean what you think it means.

big·ot·ry
Show IPA
–noun, plural -ries.
1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.

[Starboard Tack]

139. Like the NRA's intolerance of those who would like to stop the proliferation

of guns on the streets and in the classrooms of America. That kind of bigotry?
I am not intolerant of your or anyone's opinion. I welcome different opinions. Carrying a gun in public, without a demonstrable need, is not an opinion, creed, or belief. It is an action, an inherently hostile action and offensive to the public in general. It is an arrogant, selfish and elitist mode of behavior.

[beevul]

141. LOL.

"Carrying a gun in public, without a demonstrable need, is not an opinion, creed, or belief.It is an action, an inherently hostile action and offensive to the public in general."

If you had added the qualifier "In two or three states", you might be closer to being correct. Without that qualifier? Not so much:

[Name removed]

148. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[beevul]

157. Translation: "Hey, look over there"...

"Carrying a gun in public, without a demonstrable need, is not an opinion, creed, or belief.It is an action, an inherently hostile action and offensive to the public in general."



Thats what you said.


If you have a problem with it being addressed, perhaps you shouldn't have said it.

[Starboard Tack]

160. So what's your point? I know I said it. Why shouldn't I?

[beevul]

166. The morale of the story...

If youre going to say things that contradict reality and state them as fact that contradicts reality as opposed to an ignorant opinion which contradicts reality...


Expect to get taken to task on it - every single time.

[Starboard Tack]

168. And how could your response be construed as taking me to task in any way?

[beevul]

174. You said something that clearly and obviously does not mirror reality...

You said something that clearly and obviously does not mirror reality, an opinion, and stated it as if it were fact.


You were called on it.

[Starboard Tack]

180. Please be specific. I say lot.s of things

What did I say that doesn't "mirror" reality?

[beevul]

182. Post 157, already done.

If you really need me to requote and underline the part that doesn't mirror reality, I'd be happy to.


But you don't really need that, do you.

[Starboard Tack]

183. Let me repeat

"Carrying a gun in public, without a demonstrable need, is not an opinion, creed, or belief.It is an action, an inherently hostile action and offensive to the public in general."
I stand by this. Which part does not mirror reality? Please be specific, as I am saying several things here. So feel free to parse away. Let me know if you need help, because I'll gladly break it down for you.

[beevul]

206. I guess you do need it spelled out for you.

"Carrying a gun in public, without a demonstrable need, is not an opinion, creed, or belief.It is an action, an inherently hostile action and offensive to the public in general ."


There ya go.

And thats where the pretty pretty map comes in.



If it were offensive to the public as you assert it is, the progression you see in that map would not have happened.


In terms of it being inherantly hostile?

Thats your opinion, not fact.

Next time try stating it as opinion, rather than fact.

[Starboard Tack]

232. The "progression" you see on the map hasno relevance as to how the

general public think. Most folk are unaware that this is going on, because they have more important things on their minds like feeding their families. You imply that most people support CC permits yet the polls differ depending on how the questions are asked.

[beevul]

252. It has more relevance than your unsupported assertions. N/T

[DonP]

253. The people aren't nearly as smart as he is

That's really the long and short of it. Gun control fans have to grudgingly acknowledge that they are losing the battle in every way.

Their only solution is to declare that all those citizens voting for it everywhere, and the 10 million CCW people, just aren't nearly as smart or know what's good for them as the gun control fans do. People like that scare the crap out of me because given the opportunity they would be "benevolent despots" for "our own good".

I just wonder what they are doing on a progressive site with what seem to be totalitarian values?

[beevul]

254. Mmhhhmmm.

They often couch it in terms such as "uncivilized" too.

"People like that scare the crap out of me because given the opportunity they would be "benevolent despots" for "our own good"."


And I think thats really where the break is.

I think it breaks cleanly into two groups, no matter what the issue. (not that everyone neatly fits into either camp, )


One group that thinks, and rightly so, that nobody has better information with which to make decisions with than they themselves do as individuals,

And,

One group that can be distilled down to "its for your own good".

And the "its for your own good" camp plays all sorts of semantic games and casts all sorts of aspersions on those that disagree, in an effort to keep people from seeing it.

People that would rather try to control what appears on a television for everyone, rather than simply changing the channel - for example.

[Starboard Tack]

255. In your mind

[beevul]

256. "Nya nya nya."

If thats all you have, save yourself some time and just post it to start with.

[aikoaiko]

152. No, not like that. Protecting a civil liberty is different than removing a civil liberty

Saying you're not intolerant of someones opinion, belief, or creed, but only the expression of the opinion, belief, or creed when they wish to carry a firearm openly in public is not really tolerance.

Its like when someone says they are fine with "mixed race" marriages as long as they don't hold hands or kiss in public.

Or its like when someone says they are fine with alternative political opinions as long as they don't express them in public.

That type of tolerance is weak. In and of itself, carrying a firearm in public poses no threat to anyone.

[Starboard Tack]

163. How does my having an opinion about something make me intolerant?

Because I don't like toting does not mean I don't tolerate it. Where do you get the intolerance thing from? We're in a forum exchanging ideas. I strongly disagree with many things, like the death penalty, but I am tolerant of it. I totally tolerate toting. I just find it absurdly ridiculous when people do it in populated areas. It doesn't anger me. I am bemused by it.

[rrneck]

161. Demanding demonstrable need

without taking into consideration the reality of people's lives - especially if they don't enjoy the socioeconomic advantages of class as yourself - is the very definition of elitism.

Busted again.

[Starboard Tack]

164. Where did I demand anything?

What do you mean by "Busted again?" I do enjoy the advantages of living a wonderful life and am very fortunate in that. It is no means based on my socioeconomic class, but rather on good genes and a reasonably healthy lifestyle. I would like to be able to afford health insurance, but like so many I have to take my chances. Had a visit to the clinic a couple of months ago to have a small growth removed and it cost me half my savings. Didn't feel very elitist, I can assure you.

[rrneck]

165. You gotta be rich to think like that.

And if you aren't rich you certainly have no business parroting such elitist arrogance.

Do you think people should show demonstrable need to carry a gun? Remember, this site has a search function.

[Starboard Tack]

169. I parrot nobody, unlike some around here.

You seem to be obsessed with money and class, which I find totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand, which is the carrying of firearms in public. I would prefer that nobody carry, but that is obviously unrealistic in today's America. If people must, then they should prove a demonstrable need.
I have know idea why you remind me of a search function. You're responses are quite odd at times.

[rrneck]

170. Define "demonstrable need" and how

your definition would apply to the lives of everyday people.

Then define how you would enforce compliance with your understanding of "need".

Then evaluate your lifestyle and your understanding of civilized behavior.

At the nexus of your self image, ideology and lifestyle you will find the elitism in your position. Look close, it may be covered in arrogance and condescension.

As happens frequently here, this discussion is more about faith than fact.

[Starboard Tack]

172. Unfortunately, there is no civilized discussion with you

Your pedantic, elitist position leaves no room for an intelligent exchange of ideas. You constantly ask for answers to questions you feel have already been answered, all without any thought of seeking a solution. Frankly, I don't believe you have any interest in Obama being re-elected, unless you are the defeatist you claim to be, which I doubt. Your disingenuous remarks never cease to amaze me.

[rrneck]

173. How would your policy proposals help the Democratic party?

Civil does not mean "agree with you". It didn't take you long to acquire the insulting language of your fellow whining scolds, and if you will look back to our first interactions I have spent a great deal of time being civil with you. You returned my courtesy with mendacinous sophistry. You have discovered I can give back better than I get, and you're insulted because I punch holes in your cognitive dissonance.

If you plan to post here get ready for more of the same from worse than me.

[Starboard Tack]

175. How you ask? By reining in the mavericks like you who support a mode

of behavior which you preach but do not practice.You should be able to relate to that, as a fellow farm boy. By separating the wheat from the chaff. I am not insulted by your unfounded assumptions about me, my life style or my economic status. The Dems will keep the WH regardless of our squabbling over toting guns around. If you think that we should forgo our principles by suppressing our thoughts and ideas about how to improve society as a whole, you are mistaken.

[rrneck]

176. Nice sermon.

Can you be more specific?

I don't carry a gun because I don't think I need to. I don't advocate banning carry because I don't know the particulars of other people's lives and I don't have a better self defense solution than a firearm.

I know what useless gun control laws did to Al Gore, Ann Richards, and the Democratic party in the nineties.

You got something better?

[Starboard Tack]

177. As we have discussed, neither of us carry for the same reason

So what is wrong with demonstrable need, which does not mean banning carry?

[rrneck]

178. Criminals dont make an appointment.

A mugging/rape/home invasion/murder is by definition a surprise attack. Requiring people to "demonstrate need" to the same authorities that cannot keep them safe or are even required by law to do so is exactly the kind of arrogant, elitist bullshit that costs Democrats elections.

[Starboard Tack]

179. OK That's where we differ

Surprise attacks aren't going to go away because of more guns on the streets. Muggers are going to mug as long as there are muggers. Rapists are going to rape as long as there are rapists. Most rapes do not occur on the streets. Neither do murders. They occur mostly inside homes, as do home invasions. The same place most suicides and accidental shootings. They don't happen in churches and classrooms. Street murders are predominantly gang related. So that basically leaves mugging, a desperate bottom feeder crime. If I were mugged by someone with a weapon (gun or knife), I would probably just hand over whatever cash I had on me, which would not be much. I think most folk would do the same. Who wants to have a shoot out with a junkie? Even if I thought I could take him, I'd still probably hand it over. Carrying a gun would only serve to escalate the situation. Most women I know who feel vulnerable carry mace and/or walk with a dog.

[rrneck]

181. Nobody gets mugged in a police station.

We don't enjoy the luxury of simply writing off the victims of crime with terms like "most" and "usually". We can't force a risk assessment on others based on our own experience.

Your parsing of the issue is dismissive and elitist. Muggers and rapists won't cease to exist because a few people carry guns. Guns are carried to equalize a disparity of force in a fluid tactical environment. They are simply the best solution. If you don't want guns on the street you are going to have to come up with something more than vague rhetoric.

Don't think we didn't notice how you ignored my response to your question about demonstrable need.

[Starboard Tack]

184. Nobody is writing off the victims of crime.

You say that we can't force a risk assessment on others base on our own experience. Very true, yet you feel it is OK for individuals to force their risk assessment on the general public, based on their personal sense of security, or lack thereof.
I find your lack of parsing of the issue to be dismissive and elitist. You talk about muggers and rapists and guns being carried to "equalize a disparity of force in a fluid tactical environment." Sounds like a bad line from a Schwarzenegger movie. Such colorful blather contradicts what you claim to be your true motive, which is only to re-elect a Democratic President.
This gives me cause to doubt your sincerity and makes me wonder if your true motive lies elsewhere.

[rrneck]

185. Would you rather

have someone who has no history of criminal activity or mental illness carrying a gun or that same individual forced to face a criminal who clearly intends to do them harm without a means to defend themselves? (And do you have some means better than a firearm?)

If you choose the latter, how do you expect a politician to explain that distinction? Do you think the voter he would disarm would vote for him?

ETA: Just a reminder. I'd tell you which number you are but I think you've hit all of them by now.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=370200&mesg_id=370200

[Starboard Tack]

186. "forced to face a criminal who clearly intends to do them harm"

How do you come up with this stuff? Anyone who feels they can't leave home without being forced to face a criminal who clearly intends to do them harm should definitely not be carrying a weapon of any sort. Are you seriously suggesting that toters feel that way? I give them a lot more credit than that.
Where did I suggest disarming anyone? Issuing a permit to carry in certain areas based on demonstrable need is not about disarming anybody?
And in terms of voting for presidents, people tend to vote their pocketbooks. I know, you see this as a wedge issue. I don't.

[rrneck]

187. Elitist sophistry. Busted again.

Do people EVER get assaulted outside their homes?

Do people live/work/traverse dangerous places?

Can you say with anything approaching certainty exactly when an assault will happen?

If someone fails your "demonstrable need" criteria will you allow them to carry a firearm anyway? If not you just disarmed them.

You're an articulate fellow. Why don't you tell us what you would say to the family and friends of someone you disarmed why your policy was such a good idea.

You cannot deny the blistering arrogance and elitism of establishing some arbitrary criteria for self defense options without remedy. Your attitude on this issue is the very definition of someone who is perfectly willing to sacrifice the lives of the poor to project his own jaundiced reflection of himself on the world around him.

[Starboard Tack]

191. Did you practise saying all that in the mirror?

because you took the words, once again, straight out of my mouth. Amazing. Busted yourself again.
I wonder why you don't practice what you preach and you surely preach a lot.

[rrneck]

192. There are questions pending.

Answer them now.

[Starboard Tack]

197. Jawohl! Mind pointing them out?

I don't see any in my inbox and I would note that I do actually have a life outside this sandbox. Gotta come up for air occasionally.

[rrneck]

201. LOL! That's how you stall for time? Really?

Y'know, you could just wait to reply until you thought up more elitist sophistry. But just for you...

Post # 165,170,173,176,185,187.

It's called the entire sub thread and thousands of people are reading it and watching you squirm right now.

[X_Digger]

202. Post #287. n/t

[rrneck]

225. Opted to slink away, did we?

If you want to discuss the issue, produce something to discuss. Your constantly fluctuating opinion is useless.

[Starboard Tack]

247. Then why do you bother responding? I know how much you miss me but

I'm busy reloading right now.

[rrneck]

250. Because

it's interesting to see how hard you will work to avoid the obvious. And it is informative for others reading your flailing attempts to support your elitist position. That is how people decide important social and cultural issues, by discussing them and figuring out who makes the most sense. The bigger fool you make of yourself, the more others learn from your example.

Many Democrats are wrong on the guns issue, and it helps to see just how wrong they are.

Done reloading yet?

[Starboard Tack]

259. " it's interesting to see how hard you will work to avoid the obvious."

But you are my mentor. I'm so glad you are managing to educate all those "wrong Democrats"

Many Democrats are wrong on the guns issue, and it helps to see just how wrong they are.

Roll up folks, We can still be saved by the Great Sage of the Gungeon - RRNECK

Yea, though he walketh not with gun himself, he doth fight for your right to walketh with guns. Why, you may ask, my friends. The answer is simple. You must defend yourselves from the evildoers of this world. He is immune from these evildoers because he was born on the planet Krypton and wears a special cape.

Please show us, Oh Holy One. Point us to the nearest Gun Church for our salvation. Help us escape from our elitism and our arrogance. Help us to share your humility. How could we have strayed thus and followed the evil paths of gun nakedness, civility and independent thought.

[rrneck]

261. LOL!

You have a great future ahead as a revival preacher if you decide to go that way.

You're just finding out what it's like to be a politician. You figure you have a pretty good plan and people line up across the street to tell you how wrong you are screaming "what about meeeeeeeee!" All I and a half dozen other people are doing is demanding that you define what you plan to do about all the people who will fall through the cracks in your policy proposal. Making policy isn't easy. It's hard work.

The hard part is getting someone to actually say what they think, especially if they already know what they think won't work. They just hate to admit it. They are emotionally invested in their opinion and the harder you push them the more they dig in their heels. Mother Jones had a fascinating article on the subject a while back. (http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/denial-science-chris-mooney) You will notice I haven't made any policy proposal. That's because I don't have one, so don't ask. I think the system works about as well as it can right now. If we work on more pressing socioeconomic problems, the gun issue will take care of itself. Unfortunately, Democrats burn a pile of political capital worrying about guns and political capital ain't cheap.

The problem I see (as near as I can tell) is that people of any political persuasion seem to want to create a system and invest so much in maintaining and promoting their system they forget about the people that will be impacted by it. We are a nation, if not a world, of system developers rather than people. We owe our allegiance not to each other, but to various systems. For all intents and purposes, all I am doing is asking how any given policy will actually impact people and their lives as they live them. I am interested in people, not systems.

All the complaints about the VPC and the NRA and whatever other alphabet soup lobbyist group has a bug up their ass are just complaining about whoever designed various competing systems that have been sold to them like underwear or soap flakes. It has gotten to the point where the best way to deal with our own government is to pour money into these ideology production centers and hope some decent policy squirts out of Washington at some point. Unfortunately, most of the time what people get is fucked by corporate America for their trouble.

In short, your ideas won't work. They have been tried here many times before and will be tried here again. No matter what you do, there will be about half dozen people screaming, "what about theeeeeeem!". Cops can't jump through a rip in the fabric of time, and there will always be people out there willing to hurt others just because they can. There are three hundred million guns in this country because they work better than any other self defense tool. And anybody that owns one knows that. Any politician that tries to tell them different will have a hard time holding office because he will be telling people, "I can't help you if you get in trouble, but I won't let you help yourself." It's hard to get elected by pissing off the electorate.

Here's a book you might find interesting:

http://www.amazon.com/Voltaires-Bastards-Dictatorship-Reason-West/dp/0679748199/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1305165445&sr=8-1
Voltaire's Bastards: The Dictatorship of Reason in the West
Known for his novels of international intrigue, Saul in his first work of nonfiction delivers a passionate jeremiad on the follies of our age. Reason, he argues, has run amok; instead of the enlightened utopia envisaged by Voltaire, the modern West is a soulless machine run by technocratic elites that promise efficiency but create disasters. The author targets the insane waste of our "permanent war economy," the perils of nuclear power, the co-optation of democracy by vested interests, the news media's focus on false events and manufactured celebrities, the "personality politics" of presidential campaigns. He critiques the Harvard Business School's management teachings, profiles such figures as Thomas Jefferson, Robert McNamara and Charles de Gaulle, flunks our colleges for failure to reward creativity and imagination. He blames novelists from James Joyce onward for "rendering literature inaccessible" and divorcing fiction from social concerns. He roams freely through history, politics, theology, art and film, challenging his audience on every page. This wonderfully provocative inquiry, a work of bold sweep and originality, may nonetheless leave some readers wondering whether misplaced faith in reason underlies all the ills discussed.

It's not some Post Modern feel good jeremiad, but an interesting look at where out allegiances really lie and how they got there.

[Starboard Tack]

263. I'll check the book out and I agree with most everything you say.

My ideas won't work. I know that, but neither will those of the opposite viewpoint. Doesn't make my ideas wrong. Doesn't make them right either. But I'm glad I have them and I'll continue to explore them because the status quo sucks and the path being followed by our species is rather tenuous. Most don't seek ideas because they might lead to solutions and that would mean recognizing and identifying problems. Much easier to crack open a cold one and numb the mind with another episode of The Apprentice.
I want to thank you for being a prickly SOB. You'd probably make a good drill sergeant.
Thankfully I've never had the slightest political aspiration. Politics in general bores the crap out of me, but I enjoy a lively discussion, with a little jab, thrust and parry here and there. Not into blood and meanness. Hate it when I get drawn into that.
Peace

[rrneck]

264. You're more than welcome.

Your feelings about the issue are perfectly appropriate and not far from my own. If I find myself in front of a proper keyboard I'll gin up an OP and you can throw rotten vegatables to your hearts content.

Good talkin' to ya!

[oneshooter]

266. Not to mention the lies and deceit that you use. n/t

[X_Digger]

194. "I know you are, but what am I.." -- is usually left in grade school.

You have questions pending.

[Starboard Tack]

195. Right, like playing with guns

[X_Digger]

203. You may have 'played' with guns..

In that case, yes, you probably shouldn't own or carry.

[Starboard Tack]

207. Thanks for the advice and rest assured

I would never be so foolish as to carry a gun around. I'm not paranoid. I have no reason to be afraid of others, because I have nothing anyone would want that I would risk my life for.

[X_Digger]

193. Had he said that people feel that way, you might have a point.. since he didn't...

In the US there are 400,000 residential fires every year, and there are ~105,000,000 homes. Odds of a home fire? 1 in 263.

http://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreationalSafety/Fire-Prevention/fires-factsheet.html

According to the DOJ, the rate of being the victim of a violent crime is 20 / 1,000 overall (as high as 27 / 1,000 for some groups like african americans.) That comes out to 1 in 50.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=1743

Do you only keep a fire extinguisher in your home when you expect to have a fire?

[Starboard Tack]

196. To be honest the only reason I keep a fire extinguisher in my home is

because it is mandated by law.

[X_Digger]

198. So if given a choice, you would choose to not be prepared for a rare, yet dangerous situation....

.. and you have the gall to impugn the choices that others make to do so?

Did I get that right?

*snort*

This just gets better and better.

[Starboard Tack]

200. How do I impugn others?

I don't care how many fire extinguishers or guns or fucking hand grenades you have in your house?
I try to be prepared for dangerous situations and often find myself in them. What do guns have to do with that? The only reason I can think of for carrying a gun is if I want to shoot something or someone. Now, if you live in some kind of war zone, or you're a member of a criminal gang, or a cop on assignment, I can see why you might want to. Otherwise, makes no sense. Sorry.

[X_Digger]

204. "The only reason I can think of" -- is only valid inside your head.

Others get to make their own choices, based on their own criteria.

Your limited thinking is not a valid criteria for curtailing the choices of others.

[Starboard Tack]

212. "Others get to make their own choices, based on their own criteria. "

No shit. Of course they do. I don't make the laws. I'm not curtailing anything. I'm expressing my opinion based on my "limited thinking". Serves me well. While you're toting and shooting I'll be thinking. That's what choices are all about. Stay safe.

[rrneck]

219. You would

vote for a politician that proposed those laws. Which is to say you would support them but not take responsibility for them.

Hire your dirty work done out to others and disavow culpability. Standard corporate modus operandi. You gotta be rich to think like that.

[Name removed]

231. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rrneck]

236. All other things being equal

which would you prefer?

Explain who might be injured by your policy preferences and propose a remedy.

[rrneck]

234. Often find yourself in dangerous situations do you?

LThen explain this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php/www//seattletimes.nwsource.com/counterpunch.org/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=392628&mesg_id=393187

Do I smell something burning...?

[Starboard Tack]

199. Is there a point you're trying to make by talking about fires?

Some kind of connection to guns and gun policy? We can talk about how well the Rockies are doing this season if you like.

[X_Digger]

205. I'll be more explicit if you're having difficulty.

Why is it a good idea (mandated in some places) to have a fire extinguisher in your dwelling when the chances of having a fire are so low?

If it's a good idea to be prepared for one potentially life-threatening yet rare event (fires), why do you think it's not just as good an idea to be prepared for yet another potentially life-threatening, rare event (violent crime)?

Statistically, you're more likely to be the victim of violent crime than have a house fire, yet those who have fire extinguishers aren't accused of 'looking for a fire to put out' or called pyromaniacs.

[Starboard Tack]

209. Because fire extinguishers are designed to put out fires

Guns are designed to kill people. I have no desire to kill anyone, even if attacked. I would rather try to defend myself with whatever non-lethal means available to me at the time. The presence of a gun is just as likely to escalate and worsen an already bad situation. You take your chances and I'll take mine. Enjoy your gun. I hope it makes you sleep better and feel more secure.

[eqfan592]

211. Thats a serious over-simplification of firearms...

...but that not withstanding, if you chose to not use the most effective means available then that is your choice. But you appear to be unable to provide any evidence to support your assertion that the "presence of a gun is just as likely to escalate and worsen an already bad situation," so this really boils down to your own personal prejudice against firearms and firearm ownership and not true rational thought.

And that's fine and dandy. If you don't want to own a gun, don't own one. Like I said before, that's your choice. But don't get on the case of others for making a different and perfectly viable choice of a firearm for self defense.

[Starboard Tack]

216. The most effective way to have killed Bin Laden

would have been to nuke the whole region. Because something is the most effective, doesn't necessarily make it the most prudent. I have no prejudice against firearms or firearm ownership. My issue is with toting in populated areas where most folk would prefer a gun free environment not be dictated to by the NRA and it's minions. If someone is too afraid to leave home without a gun, then they should probably stay home or seek some other kind of help.

[rrneck]

221. Wrong.

There would be tremendous collateral damage. How much collateral damage would there be from disarming people?

You have questions pending.

[Starboard Tack]

226. Who knows how much. Do you? And how much is too much.

There is no right or wrong when it comes to deciding whether to carry a gun. It's about risk assessment and potential consequences.

[rrneck]

227. Then

do you approve of the carriage of firearms outside the home and would you support making the practice of public firearms carriage illegal?

You have questions pending.

[Starboard Tack]

230. I approve of carrying long guns outside the home in designated areas.

I would support restricting public carry without proof of demonstrable need. I would support severe penalties for carrying a loaded firearm in restricted zones. Next question please.

[rrneck]

235. Sure

Define your understanding of "demonstrable need".

Define your understanding of "restricted zones".

If the sight of a handgun in public is "uncivilized" and "offensive" to society how is the sight of a long gun less so? Surely you see the incoherence here. You would require people to submit in the most obvious and inconvenient way to public calumny based on your personal understanding of civilized behavior.

Define your understanding of civilized behaivor. Remember that that those who fail to behave in a "civilized fashion" expose themselves to a charge of disorderly conduct.

[Starboard Tack]

239. Do you not have a dictionary?

de·mon·stra·ble (d-mnstr-bl)
adj.
1. Capable of being demonstrated or proved
2. Obvious or apparent

You probably know what "need" means.

I'll make it simple for you. Here are some examples that an issuing body might consider

Example 1: I need a CC permit because I have to personally carry large sums of money/valuables from A to B, or C to D on a regular basis, which could realistically put me at risk of being robbed.

Example 2: I have have received credible threats on my life.

Example 3: I am employed as a personal bodyguard to someone whose life has been threatened.

Restricted Zones would be areas designated by whatever government body prevails. Federal for federally controlled areas, then city and state.

[X_Digger]

240. So protecting property is okay, but a woman in a poor neighborhood with high crime?

Well, she doesn't carry large sums of money / valuables, and she isn't a bodyguard, therefore she shouldn't be able to carry a gun to protect herself?

Did I get that right?

[Starboard Tack]

243. That would be up to her what she carries

I gave 3 examples of what I would consider to be demonstrable need. Each application should be considered on it's own merits. You can't put words in my mouth to suit your hypothetical scenarios. I seriously doubt that many women who live in poor neighborhoods would be spending their money on guns. You always use women as a justification for CC, yet the majority of permit holders are men. Interesting. I wonder how many of these men live in poor neighborhoods. From the posts I see here, most appear to have several guns. One for each occasion. Kinda like hats.

[X_Digger]

244. So you would not grant her a permit? Correct?

It's a simple yes or no question.

[Starboard Tack]

245. I don't answer hypothetical questions with definitive answers

Neither am I or would I be a member of the issuing body.

[X_Digger]

246. Matrix-worthy dodge.

Based on the criteria you specified above, this looks like a..



from you.



If you can't face up to what the reality of your criteria leads to, perhaps you should rethink them.

[rrneck]

248. He fails to note that

his criteria is hypothetical as well.

Pesky cognitive dissonant blinders.

[rrneck]

251. Soooooo

would you vote for a politician who proposed to create the rules for an issuing body that conformed with those you propose?

When will you learn the pattern here?

[Starboard Tack]

258. Noooooooooooooo! Unless I liked that politician for other. more important reasons

But I can say that it would definitely be a plus.
Sorry about not being up to speed with the pattern. I'm a bit of a slow learner, but once I catch on I'll be fine.

[rrneck]

260. Hence the phrase: "All things being equal". nt

[safeinOhio]

257. "When did you stop beating your dog?"

I thought you'd gotten past such things as loaded questions.


:rofl:

[X_Digger]

262. And here I thought you'd actually learned something..

You know, at least you're learning the terms, but you need to learn how to apply them. Again..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question

A loaded question is a question which contains a controversial assumption such as a presumption of guilt.

My question doesn't assume anything-

I would support restricting public carry without proof of demonstrable need.

Example 1: I need a CC permit because I have to personally carry large sums of money/valuables from A to B, or C to D on a regular basis, which could realistically put me at risk of being robbed.

Example 2: I have have received credible threats on my life.

Example 3: I am employed as a personal bodyguard to someone whose life has been threatened.

Those are his examples of 'demonstrable need'.

The situation I described does not meet any of the examples.

"A woman in a poor neighborhood with high crime, who doesn't carry large sums of money / valuables, and isn't a bodyguard."

Hence my question.

Based on the criteria that Starboard Tack laid out in the above quotes, it would appear that this woman would be shit out of luck.

[rrneck]

242. Sooo

"I live/work/drive through a crime riddled neighborhood " isn't enough.

"Three homes on my street have been burglarized" isn't enough.

"I see drug deals going down on my street corner " isn't enough.

"I am old/slow/disabled/female/out of shape" isn't enough.

"Police can't jump through a rip in the fabric of time" isn't enough.

How would your "issuing body" deal with that and what compensation do you offer when it fails?

"Whatever governing body" is duly elected by a plurality of chickenshit authoritarian elitists...

Just another dodge.

I asked for YOUR UNDERSTANDING of those terms. Cough it up.

[rrneck]

249. There are questions pending.

You fail to notice that most people of modest means don't have to hire somebody to haul their money around for them.

Every time you answer you reestablish your rich elitist cred.

Care to try again, or do you prefer to slink away... again?

[X_Digger]

213. Why does the intent of the designer matter?

Is there some moral precept that you just can't spit out?

I have no desire to kill anyone, even if attacked. I would rather try to defend myself with whatever non-lethal means available to me at the time.

And if you had your 'druthers', you'd make this same choice for everyone. Tell that to the 120 lb woman facing a 200 lb rapist. Or the 60 year old man facing am 18 year old thug. Or the guy with a bad back.

Free hint: it's not all about you, or me. It's all those pesky individuals who can't just weigh anchor and sail off to somewhere else.

[rrneck]

220. Who are they drsigned to kill

and more to the point in your case - where?

You have questions pending.

[Starboard Tack]

208. I would rather have nobody carrying a gun, which I have said repeatedly

The very desire to carry a gun without a demonstrable reason implies a high probability of mental instability or at the very least a bizarre form of self medication. Do you think it is sane to carry a gun in church or a classroom? Please answer immediately so you won't be seen as squirming by the thousands who wait with baited breath for your sanctimony.

[X_Digger]

210. Nice dodge.

And nice set of opinions on the mental state of those you don't know.

I have no problem with carrying in a church or school. There's nothing inherently special about a church that makes it crime free. Even if I believed in a deity, I can't imagine some magical shield protecting those inside from harm. Schools have been the scene of mass shootings, I have no problem with licensed individuals carrying there.

I would rather have nobody carrying a gun, which I have said repeatedly

So you'd rather have a completed rape than a dead rapist? Would you bring flowers to the 65 year old man in the hospital when he's beaten over his wallet? Would you attend the candlelight vigil for the store clerk killed by a thug over the contents of the cash register and some cigarettes?

[Starboard Tack]

214. So you'd rather have a completed rape than a dead rapist?

What kind of question is that? Most rapes are date rapes. You think women should take guns on all dates in case things start to get out of hand? Rape is a social issue that needs to be seriously addressed in this society and the best defenses that women can use are martial arts and mace. A gun is the worst tool a woman could use for self defense.

[X_Digger]

215. Riiiight..

Tell that to Ronnie Preyer's victims..

http://www.kfvs12.com/story/9273275/accused-rapist-shot-killed-by-victim?redirected=true

CAPE GIRARDEAU, Mo. - No charges will be filed against the Cape Girardeau woman who shot and killed a registered sex offender trying to break back into her home.

Ronnie Preyer, 47, of Jackson died seven hours after being shot in the chest.

Cape Girardeau County prosecuting attorney Morley Swingle tells Heartland News that Preyer is the same man who raped the 57-year-old woman on Saturday, October 25th.

Yes, this 57 year old woman should have used ninja martial arts or mace to stop the man from breaking into her house and raping her *again*.

Hint, it wasn't a date, either.

[Starboard Tack]

217. I support having a gun in the home. She did the right thing.

Has nothing to do with toting a gun around.

[X_Digger]

218. "A gun is the worst tool a woman could use for self defense."

Oh, you just meant that outside the home, eh? Something magical happens when she steps outdoors, and what, the gun becomes less effective? The criminals become more vicious?

How is it that inside the house, "She did the right thing" but outside the home, "A gun is the worst tool a woman could use for self defense."

How do you reconcile those?

:popcorn:

[Starboard Tack]

228. Yes outside the home. Men included, not just women.

You were talking about rape scenarios, but I guess that could include men. Do you really not see the difference between defending oneself in one's home and defending oneself in the public arena? What do you do? Pull a gun on every person you don't like the look of who comes within a certain distance of you? I doubt it.
If someone invades your home, their malicious intent is apparent and obvious. So defensive action is appropriate.
Outside the home, one keeps a certain level of awareness and vigilance and responds accordingly. We all do and avoidance is the best option when considering a potential danger or confrontation. When one succumbs to the element of surprise, then probabilities are that the attacker will succeed even if the victim is armed, especially if the victim is carrying a concealed weapon. I admit an OC weapon may act as a deterrent. But what normal person would want to walk down the street openly carrying a gun?
One of the best tools to scare off would be attackers is a high decibel air alarm in one hand and a 911 button in the other.

[X_Digger]

233. I would pull a gun if confronted by the threat of grevious bodily harm, inside or out.

How you get from an attempted rape (or robbery, or assault, or..) to "Pull a gun on every person you don't like the look of who comes within a certain distance of you" is beyond me.

Hyperbolic hand-wringing, perhaps?

probabilities are that the attacker will succeed even if the victim is armed, especially if the victim is carrying a concealed weapon.

Except the stats don't back that up. Successful avoidance of harm is most likely with armed self-defense, followed by offering no resistance, followed by non-armed resistance. (NCVS, I believe.)

[Starboard Tack]

237. What stats? Remember I said "surprise attacks"

[X_Digger]

238. Knock yourself out..

http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/NACJD/NCVS/

The most effective response to criminal attack is armed. Second best is no resistance. Third is non-armed defense.

[X_Digger]

222. How about this woman, eh?

http://www.post-gazette.com/neigh_city/20021016shooter1016p1.asp

"Why should I get hurt if I've got something on the side of me?" Dunbar asked yesterday afternoon, five days after she shot a man after he threatened her with a rifle. The man turned out to be Charles Wesley, who police say is responsible for a recent string of sexual assaults in the East End.
...
Police say Wesley may have intended for Dunbar, 42, to be his seventh victim. The six women he's charged with assaulting tried everything to keep their attacker at bay. One told him she had recently given birth and had stitches. Another pretended to pass out. When that didn't work, she told him she was menstruating. Another screamed, a fourth struggled.
...
The attacker didn't merely sneak up on women and teen-age girls and grab them around the neck before sexually assaulting them. He choked one into unconsciousness, hit another with his hands, and threatened to hunt down and kill several if they breathed a word to police.
...
The documents say Wesley, 25, raped a 14-year-old girl and then stole $2 from her back pocket before sending her on her way to school.
...

Should she have used 'martial arts or mace' against this guy?

[rrneck]

224. It was a direct question.

What of the rapes that aren't date rapes? For you they're just collateral damage to be ignored. We can't let the tragedies of others disturb our high minded exercise in self congratulary sophistry now, can we?

You have questions pending.

[rrneck]

223. You have yet to define

"demonstrable need" and yet you would presume to evaluate others mental stability on criteria that only you possess. Have you ever read a history book? Google "political reeducation" sometime.

You have questions pendind. Why don't you answer them while the help brings you another glass of Chardonnay.

[rrneck]

229. Soooo

people defending themselves because the state cannot are "chaff". Has your personal ass wiper shown up for work this morning? Good help is so hard to find.

[GreenStormCloud]

14. Why not carry a gun to church? I do.

Churches aren't exempt from violent crime or mass shootings. I carry everywhere I go, except where it is illegal.

[Buzz Clik]

22. Many churches exclude guns. That was my point. Sort of.

Carry a gun to church. Well, ok.

[GreenStormCloud]

24. Mine doesn't. In fact, I don't know of any that do.

All the ones that I know have no stated policy regarding guns. I haven't seen any with a 30.06 sign.

[WatsonT]

188. I don't get the obsession with guns/churches

does the fact that it's a church matter so much? People can be shot or robbed anywhere. Churches don't appear to be under divine protection.

If the church forbids it then discussion over, if they don't then what's the problem?

[jpak]

33. WWJC - what would Jesus carry?

Guns in church make a mockery of christianity

God + Guns = stupid

yup

[spin]

73. If not for guns, you would be speaking German today ...

and celebrating the "Thousand Year Reich".

[jpak]

77. If weren't for guns, Europeans would not be here

and we would not be celebrating Columbus Day or Thanksgiving

yup

[spin]

78. You need to study more history ...

Smallpox, Typhus, influenza and diphtheria killed off as much as 90% of the native Americans.

Plains Indian Smallpox

Native populations of the Americas lacked immunity to the infectious diseases that ravaged Europe and Asia for centuries. Sparse populations on the Plains and pristine valleys of the Rocky Mountains prevented a buildup of communicable diseases. The "white man" diseases…measles, chicken pox, typhus, typhoid fever, dysentery, scarlet fever, diphtheria, and after 1832, cholera…devastated the American Indian. Lumped together, these diseases did not equal the havoc of smallpox in terms of number of deaths, realignment of tribal alliances, and subsequent changes in Canadian and American Indian Cultures.
Smallpox in the New World:

Some of the African slaves brought by Columbus to be used on the sugar plantation of the West Indies carried the smallpox virus. In 1495, fifty-seven to eighty percent of the native population of Santa Domingo, and in 1515, two-thirds of the Indians of Puerto Rico were wiped out by smallpox. Ten years after Cortez arrived in Mexico, the native population dropped from twenty-five million to six million five hundred thousand a reduction of seventy-four percent.

Prior to the arrival of Europeans, various sources estimate native population in North and South America at ninety to one hundred million. It is impossible to arrive at the number of Indians in the Americas killed by European diseases with smallpox the deadliest by far. Even the most conservative estimates place the deaths from smallpox above sixty-five percent (Bray).

Stearn and Stearn estimated there were approximately one million Indians living north of the Rio Grande in the early sixteenth-century. By the end of the sixteen hundreds, smallpox had spread up and down the eastern seaboard and as far west as the Great Lakes. Bray estimated by 1907 there were less than four hundred thousand Indians. This decline was not due to smallpox alone. Other diseases played a role, as did intertribal warfare and conflicts with the United States.
http://www.thefurtrapper.com/indian_smallpox.htm

[rl6214]

88. Another stupid response when the adults are having a conversation

[RSillsbee]

17. Please google New Life Church Shooting

You know the one that was stopped by a citizen w/ a CHP?

[Buzz Clik]

23. Let me ask you this:

Is there any situation that could possibly exist in which you would voluntarily leave your gun at home?

[GreenStormCloud]

25. Why should I?

What harm do I do when I carry a gun? How does my being prepared to deal with a violent assault harm you in any way? Why are you afraid of me? Along with my fellow CHL holders we have a gun safety record better than that of the police and far better than that of the general public. You have about a 30 times greater chance of being struck by lightning than you do of being illegally shot and killed by a CCW holder.

[Buzz Clik]

29. I were afraid of you, I, too, would be carrying a firearm. Please don't project your fears onto me.

[GreenStormCloud]

32. You are trying to get me to not carry a gun.

Therefore I conclude that you are afraid of me and the 10 million Americans like me who have CCWs. Why are you afraid of us?

[Buzz Clik]

38. LOL! That won't work. I don't fear you or your guns.

You can conclude whatever you like, but you will be wrong when you conclude that my questions are motivated by fear. If I were truly afraid, I'd be the one packing weapons. (And, yes, I own firearms)

[GreenStormCloud]

67. Then why are you trying to stop 10 million of us from carrying?

If you weren't afraid of something you would not care.

[RSillsbee]

93. Then why do you give a damn if I'm carrying a gun? NT

[spin]

75. You are projecting your own fear onto those who carry concealed.

You play an amateur psychiatrist when you say people who carry concealed do so because they are afraid. Then you turn defensive when the same tactics are used on you.

It is possible that people who carry concealed do so for many reasons and fear is not the primary one, just as it is possible that you don't fear people who carry.

[RSillsbee]

92. Not that I can think of.

If I were going to Fort Carson I would because no weapons are allowed on post. Other than that I have a lock box in my car to lock it up if I have to go into a victim disarmement zone.


My Turn let me ask you this: How are you measurably affected if I am carrying a gun? I really have used my gun to ward off a would be mugger. Have you ever been threatened by a legal gun carrier?

[TheWraith]

80. Maybe you should ask Dr. George Tiller.

Except you can't--he was murdered in a church. But you can ask Jeanne Assam, the woman who stopped the attack on the Unitarian church.

[RSillsbee]

97. New Life is NOT a Unitarian church

It is a Charasmatic Full Gospel (read Holy Roller) church that runs about 10K ever Sunday. If I turn my head and look out the window I can see it

[rl6214]

85. Yeah, like attacks never happen in churches

(CBS/AP) As police investigate a violent Saturday morning church service in suburban Milwaukee, it appears none of the congregation was worried, or had any reason to be, when they saw Terry Ratzmann, 44, walk into the service.

It had been a couple of weeks since he had last joined the Living Church of God congregation at the Sheraton Hotel conference room in Brookfield where they regularly held worship services, which he usually attended. Friends and neighbors describe Ratzmann as a buttoned-down churchgoer known for sharing homegrown vegetables with his neighbors.

But seconds after he walked into the room, he opened fire on the group, unloading 22 bullets from a 9 mm handgun within a minute. Before the shooting stopped, the pastor, the pastor's son, and five other church members were dead, four others were wounded, and Ratzmann had killed himself.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/14/national/main679823.shtml

[beevul]

6. Dennis hennigan?

Bwahahahaha


Say, doesnt he work for the republican (edit:moran) led republican founded batty bunch?

And isn't he the guy that couldn't seem to utter the word "people", when talking about the right of the people to keep and bear arms?

What a swell guy. :eyes:

[safeinOhio]

7. I have no more use for Hennigan

than I do for NRA spokesperson sista Palin or Board members Ted Nugent and Grover Norquist. Seems all the asshats are at the extremes on gun issues.

[iverglas]

8. don't forget

fear of the GOVERNMENT, which is OUT TO GET YOU.

That's the biggest marketing line of the right wing everywhere.

[RSillsbee]

19. We need guns to keep Canada from invading NT

( Do I really need this damn thing?):sarcasm:

[iverglas]

28. Where is NT?

I'll get the party onto it soonest.

[RSillsbee]

91. The klittle sarcasm thingy doesn't count as "text" No Text

[iverglas]

111. c'mon now

We need guns to keep Canada from invading NT
Where is NT?

Join me:

:rofl:

[RSillsbee]

131. AARGH !

After reading this thread do you understand why it's such a breath of fresh air to have an opposing viewpoint(such as your's) that actually makes you think instead of just "The NRA SUCKSyup yup yup" all the time?

I doubt we'll ever see eye to eye on this but you have my respect

[TheCowsCameHome]

9. "Ted, Ted, Ted, Ted, Ted, Ted, Ted, Ted, Ted, Ted, Ted, Ted, Ted..

...how they love and admire the likes of Ted Nugent.

[iverglas]

10. Alan, Alan, Alan, Alan, Alan, Alan, Alan, Alan

I'm sorry, I just could not resist!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xaPepCVepCg

[DWC]

12. Dear Mr. Hennigan

It is your story and you can tell it any way you want.

As a proud, life member of the NRA, I am confident there must be some members of the NRA who are motivated by fear (herd mentality). However, in my 30+ years of active membership, I have found the vast majority of NRA members to be extremely responsible individualists motivated by logic and common sense.

Semper Fi,

[Upton]

13. Henigan is the VP

of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. The Bradys...the same folks who have called for the banning of handguns in the past..while consistently leading an attack on law abiding Americans 2nd Amendment rights..

As a gun owner..why should I trust one word that comes out of this authoritarian's mouth?

[safeinOhio]

15. Like I said

you should not trust any word that comes out of his mouth any more than you would Ted Nugent's or Grover Norquist's. All extremest are driven by ideology and that includes their facts.

[DonP]

16. Agreed, but nobody posted a Nugent speech or a Norquist rant as if it has credibility

[iverglas]

20. "All extremest are driven by ideology and that includes their facts."

Of course, simply calling someone an extremist (or authoritarian, blah blah blah) does not constitute a fact, itself.

[beevul]

21. Very true.

Of course, sometimes, it can be proven factually that someone is a lieing extremist:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x411467#411543

[iverglas]

27. in your head, I guess

In mine, your opinion (even if actually honestly held) ain't a fact. Sorry 'bout that.

[beevul]

30. The fact the helmke LIED, is documented right there for you to see.

If you can't see it, the problem is in YOUR head, not mine.

Lieing about not being a "gun ban" group, is in fact lieing about not being an extremist group, because gun banners and gun ban groups ARE are extremists.

Thats a fact.

[iverglas]

35. yes, yes, we know

I support my local ban on pit bulls, ergo I am a "dog banner".

It just gets so old, don't you find?

[beevul]

48. Equivcation attempt: failed.

"I support my local ban on pit bulls, ergo I am a "dog banner"."

If you were the leader of a "dog safety" group, and had said a month or two before making that statement "We're not a dog ban organization. We don't push for dog bans" (note the plural there, as banning them all would be singular), then, after making that statement, pushed for a dog ban, or even to keep one, you would be lieing.

And thats a fact that no amount of equivocation, obfuscation or sophistry is going to make go away.

"It just gets so old, don't you find?"

Yes, I DO find your attempts to deny and equivocate your way out of things that obviously are what they are, get so old.

And that also doesnt cover the lie he told when he said glock handguns "aren't suited for hunting or self defense".

[iverglas]

61. you said it: equivocation attempt failed

It's what I've always said about these silly efforts.

Bzzt to you.


Nope, recommending that certain instances of "X" be prohibited is not a basis for an honest claim of "X banner".

Consider if the verb were "eat".

Two months ago, I stated that I would not attempt to have meat-eating banned.

I now recommend that the eating of children be prohibited.

Now you go ahead and say that I am a meat-eating banner. I think you must. Really.


Sad and disgusting that this goes on year after year after year in this place. I'm sure there really are much better places to play these dirty games.

[beevul]

63. I'll make this really simple for you.

If someone says "we don't push for gun bans", clearly talking in multiples, meaning not an all out ban, but any kind of gun bans, then pushes for a gun ban, they are LIEING.

"Two months ago, I stated that I would not attempt to have meat-eating banned."

Nope. Youre changing the wording. Lets just fix that:

"Two months ago, I stated that I would not push for meat bans."

The exact same wording NOW, as helmke saying "we don't push for gun BANS" (plural, meaning hes talking about multiple "less than all of the guns type bans)

And well change children to chicken too - because that just clouds the issue.

"I now recommend that the eating of chicken be prohibited."


You'd be lieing, just like helmke was.

"Sad and disgusting that this goes on year after year after year in this place. I'm sure there really are much better places to play these dirty games."

And yet you make no effort in finding a place to do just that.

And again, that also doesnt cover helmke saying glock handguns "aren't suited for hunting or self defense".


Another documented lie.

[iverglas]

66. no thanks

We'll go with your wording and you will forgive my sloppiness.

But I picked my example, and I'll stick with it.

Last year: I don't push for meat-eating bans.

This year: Eating children should be banned.

Was I lying? Your answer doesn't really matter.

If you say "yes", you're just making yourself look foolish.


And again, that also doesnt cover helmke saying glock handguns "aren't suited for hunting or self defense".
Another documented lie.

Gosh, if I called you a liar every time you stated an opinion that I disagreed with and against which I could present a better argument ... well, you wouldn't be reading this post, would you?

Ah, civil discourse. How one longs for it sometimes.

[beevul]

68. Your example fails.

Children arent meat.

Children arent something that are currently legal to eat that you'd be changing to illegal.

Handguns, which are in fact at the heart of the lie in question, are legal.

So your example fails, its not a true parallel - which is why you picked it.

All that shuck and jive over a lie a republican told. Why?

"Gosh, if I called you a liar every time you stated an opinion that I disagreed with and against which I could present a better argument ... well, you wouldn't be reading this post, would you?"

Gosh, if I went and stated something authoritatively in a newspaper as fact (not in an opinion column mind you), and it wasn't actually a fact...I dunno...theres words that describe such things...

But you appear both unwilling to say them or apply them to the republican in question.

Again, why?

[iverglas]

69. specious (and false) distinctions

do not an analogy demolish.

Children are as much meat as chickens are. Yeesh.

Handguns, which is in fact at the heart of the lie in question, are legal.

So was slavery.

You use circular arguments, you get what you deserve.

All that shuck and jive over a lie a republican told.

Dang, and here I expressly considered and rejected that very expression when characterizing your own post, because of its ... unpleasant ... overtones.

Party labels, especially in the US, aren't of much interest to me. Is there some evidence that the individual in question is right-wing and authoritarian (by generally accepted standards, like at politicalcompass.org) himself? Any more than, oh, yer average Democratic Party legislator in Florida?

[beevul]

70. Obfuscatory on your part.

Not a terrible surprise.

"So was slavery."

Were not talking about what was, were talking about what IS.

Helmke claims they dont push for bans on a thing which is legal.

They then push for a ban on that same thing which is legal.

His claim is a lie. Period.


Theres just no escaping that. Why you put so much time and effort into asserting that the words of this human piece of excrement mean something other than they actually do, is anyones guess.



"specious (and false) distinctions do not an analogy demolish."

Claiming correct and proper discinctions to be false and specious does not make them so.

Besides, the one changing things from direct parallels to NOT direct parallels in order to change the game, is you.

Use a direct parallel, and its a lie. Period. Not because I said so. But because it is.

"Is there some evidence that the individual in question is right-wing and authoritarian (by generally accepted standards, like at politicalcompass.org) himself?"

I generally make no distinctions between right wing and left wing authoritarians. A boot in the ass hurts equally as much from either brand.

Do you?

[iverglas]

71. sometimes I really don't believe it

Really, I mean.

Were not talking about what was, were talking about what IS.

At one time, slavery was legal in the US.

The fact that something IS legal has precisely bugger all to do with whether it SHOULD BE legal.

Period.


I generally make no distinctions between right wing and left wing authoritarians.

I wasn't asking you to. You're arguing by labels -- "Republican" -- at least you are here, the one instance out of brazillions where it suits you.

Labels don't much concern me. Whether someone is right-wing and/or authoritarian does.

For you, too:

Canadian election 2011


US election 2008


So where does Helmke fall on the axes?

It's entirely possible for a particular Republican to be lefter and libertarianer (I use the word in its true sense) than a particular Democrat.

Viz. Spiro Agnes and George Mahoney.

[gejohnston]

105. The Canadian Greens to the right of NDP?

[iverglas]

113. absolutely

Someone in LBN was congratulating Elizabeth May on winning a seat this week -- as one eco-socialist to another.

I'm happy to share my witty riposte with you. ;)

That's ego-capitalism, the Green Party being an organ of Elizabeth May's body.

It's been an actual front for the Conservative Party in more than one instance, and May is a narcissist that even much of her own party can't much stomach.

Somebody should have tradmarked the brand while they could, and brought an infringement action against the Canadian greens.

Sadly, a lot of people really have been deluded by the brand.

[beevul]

120. I bet you don't.

"The fact that something IS legal has precisely bugger all to do with whether it SHOULD BE legal."

If only this discussion contained statements to the contrary - that might make some sense, even even be applicable.

The fact that something IS legal, has everything to do with drawing a proper direct and accurate parallel, to what helmke in fact said, as you well knew when you said that in an attempt to muddy the watters.


But hey, lets just get right to it shall we?


"Were not a gun ban organization. We don't push for gun bans".


What does that statement actually mean, and what message is it intended by its original speaker to send to those that read it?


And why does he use the word "bans" rather than the singular word "ban"?


In your own word, please.

[Atypical Liberal]

89. Yup, that would be lying.

Last year: I don't push for meat-eating bans.

This year: Eating children should be banned.

Was I lying? Your answer doesn't really matter.

If you say "yes", you're just making yourself look foolish.

LOL. Look, if you say you aren't going to push for any meat-eating bans, and then you turn around and advocate banning eating a certain type of meat, then you have gone back on your earlier statement that you don't push for meat-eating bans.

But let's quit with the foolish food analogies and cut to the chase. Helmke, like most anti-firearm folks, are just plain afraid (or whatever euphemism you are more comfortable with) to state publicly what their real goals probably are - the banning of all firearms - because they know what an extreme position that is and that it will never fly.

So Mr. Helmke is forced to say things like, "We're not a gun ban organization. We don't push for gun bans." to try and avoid being laughed off the national stage and relegated to obscurity, and then he turns around and advocates for the banning of certain types of firearms, hoping they can gain traction because the firearm looks sinister or some other nonsense.

[iverglas]

114. hold onto those goalposts, nellie!

Look, if you say you aren't going to push for any meat-eating bans

you just begged that question rotten.

You're the one asserting that "bans" means "ANY bans", although you haven't come right out and said that.

You and I know perfectly well it doesn't, but maybe you thought I just wouldn't notice if you kinda slipped it in there.


Helmke, like most anti-firearm folks, are just plain afraid (or whatever euphemism you are more comfortable with) to state publicly what their real goals probably are - the banning of all firearms - because they know what an extreme position that is and that it will never fly.

I would have thought you'd be afraid ... yeah, that works ... to say this out loud, because you'd know what a loon it would make you look like.

[Atypical Liberal]

127. Nice tapdancing.

You said:

Last year: I don't push for meat-eating bans.


This year: Eating children should be banned.


You're the one asserting that "bans" means "ANY bans", although you haven't come right out and said that.

Allow me to come right out and say it. When someone says "I don't do X", that is what is called a "blanket statement". Most people interpret such a statement to mean that the person doesn't do X ever.

If you say, "I don't push for meat-eating bans", yes, most people would interpret this as meaning "any" bans, and most people would look at you sideways if you later started advocating banning the eating of certain types of meat. You seem to be the only person here present who thinks it means something else.

When Helmke says, "We're not a gun ban organization. We don't push for gun bans.", I don't see how this can possibly be interpreted any other way than that they don't push for any gun bans. I mean the guy was pretty emphatic about it, stating the same thing in two different sentences.

I can't believe you're trying to make a semantic issue over what is a pretty obvious statement.

I would have thought you'd be afraid ... yeah, that works ... to say this out loud, because you'd know what a loon it would make you look like.

Well, allow me to say it out loud for you again: I think it's a very intuitive interpretation of his motives and the motives of groups like the Brady Campaign (originally Handgun Control). This is what Pete Shields, one of the past presidents of the group Helmke is now president of, said:

"We'll take one step at a time, and the first is necessarily - given the political realities - very modest. We'll have to start working again to strengthen the law, and then again to strengthen the next law and again and again. Our ultimate goal, total control of handguns, is going to take time. The first problem is to slow down production and sales. Next is to get registration. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and ammunition (with a few exceptions) totally illegal."

Of course, this particular statement "only" advocates for a complete ban on handguns. But I'm not so naive as to believe this is all they want. Too many times gun control advocates have let slip their true intentions.

[iverglas]

132. "I can't believe you're trying to make a semantic issue

... over what is a pretty obvious statement.

Well we can scratch each other's heads there.

The world of ordinary rational people of goodwill knows that "ban guns" means "ban all guns", and that when someone says "We don't push for gun bans", that is what they are talking about.

That's an exceedingly obvious statement.


A ban on poodles in a public park is a "dog ban". It is a ban on SOME dogs.

(For the purpose of this discussion, there actually are no such things as dogs, let alone poodles. I made them up. They are imaginary beings. This means we need not examine in detail the analogy drawn between guns and dogs and between handguns and poodles.)

But if you said "there is a dog ban at this park" to ANY ordinary rational person of goodwill, they would have no doubt that you meant that ALL dogs were banned from the park. It would not occur to them that you meant something different. Not for an instant. Not one ordinary rational person of goodwill would look at you and say "which dogs?"

If you proposed to ban poodles from your local park, and your opponents repeatedly rose at public meetings and pitched fits about your proposed "dog ban", and had the local media talking about your proposed "dog ban", and your friends and family kept berating you for wanting to ban dogs from the local park, I think you'd be fighting the urge to poke someone in the eye.

You would have no doubt that when you said you were not proposing "dog bans" in public parks, you had no intention of anyone understanding that to mean that you necessarily rejected all restrictions on dogs in public parks -- that your position was that no dog could ever be barred from a public park for any reason, or admitted subject to any condition. After all, the organization you represent is dedicated to finding ways of reducing the harms done by dogs; obviously that is going to involve restrictions on dogs' access to public places and, where certain types of dogs were plainly the source of more harms than others, restrictions on those dogs' activities in particular. And you would be gobsmacked that anyone would pretend to have understood what you said that way, or, in a liberal democracy, try to portray you as having meant that.

Well, there you are, you'd have just walked a mile in those shoes.

When ordinary rational people of goodwill speak, they expect their listeners will be similarly rational and have similar goodwill, and will listen for the meaning in their words, and respond to that meaning. Most ordinary people are still gobsmacked when someone twists and spins their words to mean things they plainly never meant. And because of some weird twist of human nature, an awful lot of people are deceived or pretend to be deceived by the twisting and spinning -- and that's without counting all of the entities that stand to enjoy huge benefits if they can deceive those people or persuade them into the pretense, and devote considerable resources to that end. So ordinary rational people of goodwill are just never playing on a level field in this regard.

Or, as Mark Twain said, A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still tying its shoelaces.

I would add that while the truth is bent over doing that, still believing there is sincerity on the other side, the other side will just kick it over.


I think it's a very intuitive interpretation of his motives and the motives of groups like the Brady Campaign (originally Handgun Control).

"A very intuitive interpretation." I'm really going to have to remember that one.

[beevul]

135. Wow. Just wow.

"The world of ordinary rational people of goodwill knows that "ban guns" means "ban all guns", and that when someone says "We don't push for gun bans", that is what they are talking about."


No. In the world of ordinary rational people of goodwill, and honest use of language, when someone says "we don't push for gun bans", they clearly ARENT talking about banning all guns, or they'd have said "a gun ban". Note the difference between singular and plural, and the differences in what one actually means versus the other, wont you?

Or you could continue to ignore and obfuscate and deny.

Did you really think that your assertion - which by definition would mean "multiple bans that each ban all guns" was really going to fly?

Helmke chose the words he used, and chose in using them to impart a message to the people that read it:

"were not a gun ban group. We don't push for gun bans".


That means exactly what it says. No more, and no less.

The message it is intended to give is one of "trust us, were not for banning guns".


Prentense otherwise, is just plain foolish.

"The world of ordinary rational people of goodwill knows that "ban guns" means "ban all guns", and that when someone says "We don't push for gun bans", that is what they are talking about."

The phrase "ban guns" is not the phrase in question.

The phrase "gun bans" is.


I don't much like poodles, so well go with a dog I DO happen to like - the mighty pomeranian.


If someone says "we aren't a pomeranian ban group. We don't push for pomeranian bans"


But then afterwards pushes for a ban on BLACK pomeranians, they were in facting lieing.


End of story.

And none of your semantic and verbal gymnastics and contortionisms will change the simple truth of the matter.


Wont you tell us - us being everyone in this thread that has bothered to adress the statement, all of which seem to agree on the meaning of the actual words in question:


What exactly was the message helmke intended to convey to the people reading it, when he said "we're not a gun ban group. We don't push for gun bans"? And why did he say "gun bans" instead of "a gun ban"?

Go ahead - take your best shot.

Or you could simply dodge the question - I know answering it HONESTLY simply destroys all the work you have invested in asserting that the words of this three time republican mayor mean something other than they clearly and obviously and actually mean.

[Atypical Liberal]

146. TL;DR

I made it as far as your next analogy attempt and discovered that I'm just too tired from cutting down trees from the recent tornado to try and decipher what you are saying.

[Atypical Liberal]

87. I find it strange.

I find it strange that so much of your debating style revolves intricate semantic games. Your case must be exceedingly weak if you have to resort to such verbal nit-picking.

[Name removed]

115. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Atypical Liberal]

129. It seems clear enough to most people.

Even the moderators.

[TPaine7]

112. Yawn...

meat

- noun 1. the flesh of animals used as food
2. the edible part of a fruit, nut, etc.
3. the essential part; gist

...

soph·ist·ry

- noun, plural-ries 1. clever but unsound reasoning

Source: dictionary.com

I know, I know. "Clever" is a stretch.

[iverglas]

116. so children are what, now?

Minerals?

I'd have thought a bright young fellow like you would have said something Swiftian for us.

[TPaine7]

121. As everyone reading this exchange knows,

when people speak of meat, "meat" clearly excludes other humans.

There are exceptions: psychopaths, the insane, people trying to survive a crash landing in the mountains, and sophists trying to maintain unsupportable arguments.

When people speak of guns, however, "guns" does not exclude rifles. "Guns" does not exclude shotguns. "Guns" does not exclude revolvers. "Guns" does not exclude semi-automatic handguns. I bet even you will not lie and deny this obvious fact.

Knowing very well the fallacy in your "reasoning", you try to entangle people in your web of bullshit-- the gun control reality distortion field. But being confident that I've made it impossible for any reasonable intelligent person to be taken in, I think I'll take my leave. Staying won't help anyone, I have better things to do (a barber appt), and I can't stand the smell.

Debate yourself, you're dismissed.

[iverglas]

122. gosh darn it

You really are such a clever young fellow, aren't you?

No, don't answer; not because the question itself is rhetorical, just because I know what your answer is.



Git it? Holy cow?

Hahahahahaha.

[Atypical Liberal]

130. Next up: The meaning of "is".

You know what they say: When the law is against you, argue the facts. When the facts are against you, argue the law.
When both are against you, attack the plaintiff.

I guess when all that fails, argue semantics.

[beevul]

18. His boss sets the tone for the org.

Batty bunch submits amicus in support of support of DC handgun ban, in january 2008.

http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/documents/07-290tsacBradyCenter.pdf


Paul Helmke:...We're not a gun ban organization. We don't push for gun bans."

Posted July 3, 2008.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-helmke/nra-gun-licensing-and-reg_b_110778.html

Leading the gullible and niave to believe they've perhaps had a change of heart - while the rest of us know better.

And then, clearly unable to resist, he admits what we already knew:

Mon. May. 11, 2009 - 10:17 am EDT

Helmke favors a middle ground. He would limit how many guns people can buy at one time, ban sales of semiautomatic rifles and increase law oversight of gun sales."

http://www.news-sentinel.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090511/NEWS/905110327

And, as if those lies aren't enough to wet his appetite, he spews forth more of them:

Glock handguns are "not suited for hunting or personal protection,” said Paul Helmke, the president of the Brady Campaign."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/10/opinion/10collins.html?_r=3&hp




Lie much helmke?

And helmkes brother is a staffer for lugar, and also supports strong gun control.

[GreenStormCloud]

26. For the Bradys, it really IS all about fear.

For some strange reason, they fear law-abiding gun owners.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

110. Some of the Brady bunch...

...seem to worry about the guns infecting the minds of their owners and making them violent.

[rrneck]

45. It's not about fear.

It's about money. Disaster capitalism at work.

[ileus]

51. trouble doesn't make an appointment...

[DainBramaged]

76. OH MY GOODNESS BUY ALL THE GUNZ YOU CANS a Black man is going to take them away

Record gun and ammunition sales 2008, 2009 and probably 2010 because of fear.

In a year of job losses, foreclosures and bag lunches, Americans have spent record-breaking amounts of money on guns and ammunition. The most obvious sign of their demand: empty ammunition shelves.

At points during the past year, bullets have been selling faster than factories could make them.

Gun owners have bought about 12 billion rounds of ammunition in the past year, industry officials estimate. That's up from 7 billion to 10 billion in a normal year.

It has happened, oddly, at a time when the two concerns that usually make people buy guns and bullets -- crime and increased gun control -- seem less threatening than usual.

The explanation for the run on bullets lies partly in economics: Once rounds were scarce, people hoarded them, which made them scarcer.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/02/AR2009110202712.html

[aikoaiko]

79. An excellent example of race baiting.

Talk about fear..

Reason for alarm?

The high sales have alarmed some anti-gun groups. Josh Sugarmann of the Violence Policy Center said he worries about a revival of the anti-government militia movement of the Clinton era.

"This is a pattern that is repeating itself, and it is a pattern that has tremendous risk attached to it," Sugarmann said.

[iverglas]

117. that's gotta be the funniest thing today

No, not just your pretense of taking what was said as if it had been said with a tongue carefully kept out of cheek.

The idea that someone else around here is using race as their trump card (which is what was actually being done) and someone got distressed about it.

Goddamn it, don't we all know that the roots of gun control are in racism???

Certainly we don't, we all know that's the Big Lie, but we still hear it hourly.

The idea that Obama's race is a source of the frenzied efforts to rile people up against him, using firearms in this instance as just part of the whole web of deceit, is ... well, almost too obvious to even mention.

[aikoaiko]

124. I assure you the run on guns and ammo would have happened regardless of the President's race.

It would have happened if Hillary were elected with a Democratic House and Senate.

Welcome back to your favorite sandbox.

[DainBramaged]

151. From the link I posted

Still, in interviews with gun owners and ammunition dealers, many said the run on bullets was sparked by worries about what Obama might do.



If they weren't in denial, they'd have read the entire article. And the hatred and racism over the election of this man as President isn't hidden, the birther controversy proves it, as do so many websites and statements you can find just by search fr Obama and guns.....Jesus the NRA decided they wouldn't even sit down and meet woth him, talk about insulting......


“Why should I or the N.R.A. go sit down with a group of people that have spent a lifetime trying to destroy the Second Amendment in the United States?” said Wayne LaPierre, the longtime chief executive of the National Rifle Association.

He named Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who has almost no role in gun-related policies, and Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/15/us/politics/15guns.html

[aikoaiko]

155. Sadly, you are the one injecting the race of the President into that quoted line.

That you are in denial that the big run on guns and ammo had much more to do with the President's stated positions and not his race is just sad.

Really, the run on guns and ammo would have happened if the President were Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden.

[beevul]

159. To put a finer point on it...

To put a finer point on it, had it been Hil the run may have been a bit larger than it was.


Had it been Biden, it would have been twice, maybe three times what it was.


I suspect his presence as VP contributed to the run as it actually happened.

[ileus]

81. 2009 old news....there's plenty of ammo now.

[DainBramaged]

83. Wasn't the point, but that's OK, keep polishing.......

[rl6214]

94. Black only seems to matter in your mind

[DainBramaged]

106. BBBAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWHHHHHH

You gunniez make me laugh, denying the the bullshit on the Internet. So cute.

[GreenStormCloud]

134. Obama's race has nothing to do with it.

Obama's record on guns has been posted many times here. He is very strongly anti-gun. You are simply trying to falsely claim that gun owners are racists.

[WatsonT]

189. Likewise I've heard the republicans don't in general care for this president

THAT HAS NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE AND CAN ONLY BE EXPLAINED BY RACISM!!!!1111!!!!!!!!

[ileus]

82. It helps to be proactive and not reactive to a threat. weaker or otherwise

[rl6214]

84. Didn't you mean to say for the anti-gun crowd it's all about fear?

Cuz that's the truth of the matter.

[Atypical Liberal]

90. Speaking of fear...

Speaking of fear, you've got tons of people who, out of fear of firearm crime, want to restrict concealed carry when we know that CCW permit holders are hardly ever involved in crime, let alone firearm-related crime.

I guess there is plenty of irrational fear to go around on both sides.

[krispos42]

107. Yet you tell me to be afraid going to states that have Castle Doctrine laws...

and that allow concealed carry.

[ZombieHorde]

128. "Both sides" of the gun control issue is all about fear.

What pro-gun control argument is not based on fear?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

171. +1 very true

[WatsonT]

190. What?!?!

Blood running in the street, dead babies everywhere, husbands murdering wives and so on this is fear mongering?

The hell you say!

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

241. Yes, Fear...

...that's the response which most people have to the prospect of 'Blood running in the street, dead babies everywhere and husbands murdering wives'.

Fear, with a big 'F'.