As the NRA actively worked for Obama's defeat

[G_j]

in the election, it's kind of strange to see their talking points repeated so often here.

[madamesilverspurs]

1. Indeed. n/t

[pipoman]

2. I've been searching for the illusive list of "NRA talking points"

I don't doubt there are some, but far more often hereabouts things are labeled "NRA talking points" by people who can't effectively argue the facts with others...

[pipoman]

4. So no link?

I'm thinking it is nonexistent..

I think if someone is going to accuse someone else of "NRA talking points" they should have to link to said point..otherwise, it's just more useless ad hominem on the DU..

[G_j]

5. I was trying to be subtle, but forget that, sorry

all I can tell you is I've payed some attention, I listen to a lot of news, talk shows, read a lot of news and discussion here and other places. I wont waste a lot time trying to debate the gun issue. I've tried to discuss the issue, for instance, the lack of stats available due to NRA lobbying over the years, and was met with a bunch of links, etc. so supposedly proving I was wrong. My problem is, the issue has been widely discussed in all kinds of media outlets corroborated over and over again, yet somebody expects me to produce links, research and disprove their charts etc.
What I find disturbing is that I believe the
person I was "debating" with knew I was right and was simply trying to muddle the discussion. That is intellectually dishonest. That's what the NRA does.
Do they have an official set of talking points? I really don't know, but anyone who hasn't picked up on the themes that are being repeated everywhere, not just DU isn't paying attention.

[pipoman]

21. I can see both sides of the issue..

I spent many years working within the justice system and am a pretty devout civil libertarian..on every issue. It happens that nearly all civil liberties issues have been strongly supported by Democrats/liberals and wished away by rethugs/cons..except for second amendment issues, for some reason this civil liberty is the opposite..it isn't logical..

OTOH, the argument has arisen that the second amendment violates others "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness"..which I understand, but hold a differing opinion..

There are many questions answered on this issue through case law and high court decisions. Without studying the issue many people believe things can be done which have already been determined cannot happen without a new SCOTUS ruling...reversals have happened..exceedingly rarely..So here we are. There are ways to get universal bg checks..have you ever noticed that the NRA spends almost no time trying to get federal laws enacted? They spend much time methodically pushing their wishes at the state level...there is a reason..

[MattBaggins]

8. My favorite is the line that we need to offer something in exchange for

Gun Safety Measures. We have seen posts suggesting that we have to negotiate with the NRA and 2nd amendment types and give them something in return. For every improvement in gun safety we have to ease gun safety in another area.

Very strange notion. If we were to tighten laws on murder, we wouldn't offer murderers free Murder Tuesdays on the third Tuesdays of odd numbered months.

[Robb]

11. "Free murder Tuesdays"

Awesome.

[graham4anything]

52. +1

[pipoman]

25. Well, not negotiating

didn't work out so well this last go-around, eh? What is it they say about 'doing the same thing over and over expecting different results'? Good luck..

[MattBaggins]

30. If we want to tighten laws on speeding

in order to increase public safety, we do not relax laws on seat belts and helmet wearing to appease those who are angry at the idea.

We do not have to throw any bones to the gun safety opponents. We do not need to strengthen one area of gun safety by loosening it three other areas. That would make no sense.

[pipoman]

33. OK

[Eleanors38]

129. There are controller/banners who decried getting nothing

Out if this last attempt at gun-control.

IMO, this was largely the result of banners going back to what they tried some 20 years ago: More bans. Somehow this was to produce a different outcome. It didn't.

You may wish to reconsider how politics works: Like it or not, it's compromise.

[tridim]

151. It only resulted in a solid majority voting for the bill.

But Republicans only allow Democratic Senators 3/5th of a vote.

[pipoman]

188. My understanding is that

both sides need the same number of votes to pass their respective bills, no?

[tridim]

190. Democrats need 60 votes to pass anything, Republicans only need 51.

[hack89]

6. Around here "NRA talking point" usually means "disagrees with me on gun control."

it is simply a means to end discussion.

[Robb]

12. Or perhaps it means "agrees with the NRA."

Occam is your friend.

[hack89]

13. I hold many positions in opposition to the NRA

yet I am called a NRA shill because I oppose the AWB or national registration. The old "one drop of blood" theory in use here?

[Robb]

14. I just think if someone calls you something

...they probably think you're whatever they're calling you.

If you think it's inaccurate, you can tell them in the moment, perhaps. Rather than preemptively trying to invalidate the position of someone who, as I see here, has called you nothing.

[hack89]

15. I didn't take the OP personally

I just gave my opinion as to how the phrase is used around here. It is simply a way to shut down discussion.

[DanTex]

28. And you also hold many of positions in agreement with the NRA.

Which is why you find yourself repeating NRA talking points so frequently.

[hack89]

40. Only two that I know of

opposition to the AWB and a national registry. And even the ACLU is in opposition to a national registry so the AWB is the only sticking point that I can see.

Do you see the opposition to the AWB as some sort of purity test that is more important than my support for other gun control measures?

[DanTex]

41. And you support Scalia's opinion on the second amendment.

You constantly chime in about how gun violence is not such a big deal and make absurd comparisons to swimming pools.

You play funny NRA-style statistical games to insist that "guns don't kill people".

You use the term "gun grabber" to describe people who disagree with you.

You probably support national concealed-carry reciprocity.

Etc.

NRA talking points.

[hack89]

45. Lets see here

You constantly chime in about how gun violence is not such a big deal and make absurd comparisons to swimming pools.

No - all I point out is that gun violence has fallen steadily to historic lows. This is to counter the "more guns = more deaths" posts. As for swimming pools, better check the archives. I don't think I have ever posted about swimming pools.

You play funny NRA-style statistical games to insist that "guns don't kill people".

I know that guns kill people. They just don't kill as many as they used to do.

You use the term "gun grabber" to describe people who disagree with you.

I use to use that term. I no longer use it - you will notice I use the more neutral term "controller" now.

You probably support national concealed-carry reciprocity.

Not really. I see it more as a bargaining chip than anything else. I so seldom carry in public that it is not an issue to me personally.

I will also point out that I am not a NRA member.

Just be honest. "NRA talking points" is simply the tool you like to use to smear your opponents and end honest discussion when people have the nerve to disagree with you. Lets remember what side needs a protected echo chamber to ensure dissent is never seen or heard.

[DanTex]

48. NRA talking points are a set of lies that arise from NRA press releases or gun blogs,

and get repeated, often verbatim, despite the fact that they have been disproved over and over again.

It's not a complicated concept. A lot of right-wing lobbies have talking points. Here are some examples:
"job creators"
"death panels"
"government takeover of healthcare"
"makers versus takers"
"the US has the highest corporate taxes in the world"

I haven't heard you repeat any of those, but for some reason, you side with the right-wing on a lot of gun issues, so you do repeat a bunch of NRA talking points, like "there is no loophole" and "swimming pools" and so on.

[hack89]

59. ok.

see you around.

[Duckhunter935]

60. add "gun safety"

it works for both sides. They found out it polls better then gun control which is still the main push.

[Sunlei]

72. yes, "push polls" they're experts at push polls.

define "push poll"

A push poll is an interactive marketing technique, most commonly employed during political campaigning, in which an individual or organization attempts to influence or alter the view of respondents under the guise of conducting a poll.

In a push poll, large numbers of respondents are contacted, and little or no effort is made to collect and analyze response data. Instead, the push poll is a form of telemarketing-based propaganda and rumor mongering, masquerading as a poll..... continued link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Push_poll

[Sunlei]

67. thats what to expect from the NRA who rose from hell- hand in hand with their KKK brothers.

[Eleanors38]

130. No, Dan. You are trying to smear people. It's so very obvious

[Progressive dog]

54. No it is a way to state a fact

Gun nuts love technicalities, but the position of the NRA on gun issues is widely known. Likewise the arguments that NRA spokespeople and board members use to support those positions is no secret.
So instead of talking points, do you suppose it would be more technically correct to just call it... the same tired old, mostly untrue stuff the NRA spokespeople say.
That may not be technically correct either, so what about..., the stuff the gun manufacturers lobby pays the NRA spokespeople to say.
Personally I lean more towards NRA talking points, it is simpler, in common use, and most people understand what it means.

[eqfan592]

31. Yes, because it is completely impossible that the NRA is right about anything.

Sorry, but that sort of absolutism is what puts so many folks here in the same camp as the teabaggers when it comes to rationality, at least on this particular issue.

[Robb]

37. Not impossible, but wholly irrelevant.

Klansmen, on balance, probably knew a hell of a lot about BBQ technique. I'd be willing to bet a lot of them could curl your toes with culinary talent.

But tell you what, see how well you do selling a KKK Cookbook. Being right about one small thing does not offset being wrong about 500 big things -- and pointing out how they're right about one small thing does nothing but lend credence to the rest of the bullshit.

It smacks of credulity and apologia.

[eqfan592]

44. Where did I ever say differently?

My point is that simply because somebody happens to point out a factoid that the NRA has also pointed out doesn't mean the factoid is suddenly invalid. I'm no fan of the NRA, but they do actually manage to get some info right from time to time (purely by accident I'm sure). But some folks here seem to be of the opinion that if the NRA said it, it must be false, no matter what anybody else says. THAT is pure idiocy in my opinion.

[Skip Intro]

23. Nail on the head. nt

[BainsBane]

113. It means disagrees with the Democratic Party

Since the NRA is a right-wing and pro-Republican organization, as are its supporters.

[hack89]

144. But there are pro-gun Dems who are not NRA supporters

and who support gun control to one degree or another. You routinely smear them as pro-NRA because they have the nerve to not agree with you on every aspect of gun control. It is a meaningless phrase used simply to vilify those that disagree with you and to end discussion.

As an aside, are you saying that the party is always right and that as good Democrat we must march in lockstep with president and other leaders? We are not allow to dissent one bit from the party line? Really?

[LanternWaste]

154. It certainly allows one to feel better by believing that...

It certainly allows one to feel better by believing that...

[hack89]

155. I know - that's why they use that phrase

remember, we are talking about a group that needs a protected forum to hide from dissent.

[Robb]

163. There are protected forums for many reasons.

The Gun Control Reform Activism group doesn't "hide from dissent," any more than the LGBT Group does.

We simply don't want people, like you, who accuse gun control proponents of being "fucking idiots" and of "dancing in blood to further our agenda."

Crazy, huh?

And before you ask, no, I don't think those are NRA talking points. I have no idea how to characterize them, actually.

[hack89]

164. That particular post I was replying to was spectacularly stupid.

it was another stream of consciousness post about how evil guns were without a clue to how American justice system works.

It was fucking stupid.

[Robb]

170. Why should we suffer for your inability to conduct yourself civilly?

You don't support the group's SOP. Why post there, except to bait and taunt those who do?

[hack89]

179. We "suffer" from your incivility in RKBA all the time

we don't whine about it. With one notable exception, we don't ban people for it. Remind me who the delicate flowers are here?

[Robb]

182. Do you hate all safe haven groups?

Or just ones that tired of trolls?

[hack89]

186. No - just bemused at the hypocrisy. That's all.

This is a discussion board - when I do decide to hate, it is for serious real word things. Not anonymous internet posters saying mean things.

[premium]

165. A little hypocritical, aren't you?

Aren't gun owners called fucking idiots or worse all the time? And aren't certain members always accusing gun owners of having blood on their hands for just owning firearms.

All anyone has to do is read your excluded list and read the the threads to prove that what you say about dissent is simply not true.

I was excluded just for correcting one member who posted a lie about me, other than that comment, I was pretty supportive of most of the threads in your group.

I actually enjoyed reading and posting there, but, I can't anymore because of the zealousness of one host in particular.

[Robb]

167. "Pretty supportive." You don't support the SOP of the group.

Why on earth, other than to poke and be disruptive, would you post in a protected group where you do not agree with the SOP? Childishness.

[premium]

168. Really?

Show me one post in your group, other than the one where I called out the poster for lying about me, where I wasn't generally supportive.

All you have there now is an echo chamber whereas, in the other group, dissent is allowed. Just check out the blocked list of both groups and I think it becomes pretty obvious who is more tolerant of dissent.
But like I told ellisonz, if that's what you all want, an echo chamber, then that's your group and I'll respect that, although it doesn't make for very good debate.

[Robb]

169. Oh, good grief.

You don't support the SOP of the group. That you're cutesy about it doesn't matter; you were only there to disrupt.

Why on earth would we tolerate that? Go troll other protected groups you disagree with, see how it goes for you.

[premium]

172. I'll ask you again,

show one post of mine, other than correcting the lie about me, where I was disrupting your group.

Show one post where I disagreed with the SOP of the group.
I was generally supportive of the goals of your group with the exception of a new AWB, and I don't believe I ever stated that in the group.

There are plenty of disruptor's in the other gun group, you don't see them getting blocked.

[Robb]

173. You admit you don't support the SOP.

You don't support progressive gun control groups; you actively disparage them. That position permeated your posting history in the Group. Sorry, but taking off a klan robe for a few days doesn't get you invited to NAACP fundraisers.

And the "Gun Control & RKBA" group has a far wider SOP; if you think it's being administered poorly, you should discuss that with the host there.

[premium]

174. Wow, you just compared me to a Klansman.

You should be ashamed of yourself and delete the reference or edit it.

I support the free ranging flow of ideas, something your group seems to abhor.
I would never tell krispo42 to block anyone on the other group, that's where we differ.

Well, it is your group and if all you all want is an echo chamber where you all can pat yourselves on the back thinking that your making a difference, have at it.

BTW, you still haven't shown one post on that group where I was being disruptive, kind of telling.

[Robb]

175. Again, if you think you've been treated unfairly

...You can petition any of the hosts to be reinstated, or post in Ask the Admins.

[premium]

177. No thanks,

like I told ellisonz, I'll respect the wishes of the host and hopefully in the future, I can be unblocked and contribute again positively.

Beautiful day today, going to get to 94 degees, going to go work in our garden in a while, you have a wonderful day.

[aikoaiko]

7. Except the point about defeating Obama.

[Kingofalldems]

9. Here's one I've seen many times:

There is no gun show loophole.

[hack89]

16. The funny thing is

many people actually believe that background checks are not required at gun shows - even for sales by licensed dealer.

There is a loophole - it just extends well beyond gun shows. Universal background checks will help close it.

[Stretch714]

17. The gun show loophole....

Pro gun people say that because it is true. The "the gun show loophole" is a term made up to make people think that laws are being broken. If a state has a law that says private sales do not need back ground checks then no law is being broken or no "loophole" is being used.

If you go to a gun show and buy a gun from a dealer with a federal firearms license you will go through a back ground check. if not the dealer is braking the law. I don't know the numbers but I would bet that the vast majority of gun owners do not sell to strangers, even at gun shows. Does it happen, sure it dose. But that brings us back to the LAW. Private sales are 100% legal, at least here in Ohio where I live now. Calling it a "loophole" is just putting out false information and misleading people.


This is the same for guns bought online. If you buy a gun from a guy in Florida and you live in Indiana. If the guy in Fla ships the gun right to you he is braking the law. The law says he has to ship it to a dealer with an FFL. When you go to pick up the gun, you will go through a background check. That is the law. No "loopholes" involved.

[Kingofalldems]

18. So why are laws being proposed to close the

gun show loophole? Are you saying that anti gun Democrats are lying?

[Stretch714]

19. What I am saying is that it is not a loophole...

The term "loophole" is made up by anti gun people, dems,repubs and who ever. Mostly by the media to lead people in a certain direction which is all the media does on any issue. Calling it a loophole is misleading and it makes it sound like people are skirting the law when they are not.

Like I said the law is what it is. It is not a "loophole". The law here in Ohio says I can sell you a gun with no background check, it is the law, not a loophole. If they pass a law that says all gun sales by private sellers have to have a back ground and you find away around that than there is a loophole in the law. The way the law is written here it is not a loophole.


I wish I were a better writer and then maybe I could explain it better with this keyboard.

[Kingofalldems]

20. Looks like semantics to me.

It's a loophole.

[pipoman]

22. Yep..

big gun control has been lying about it for years. It is perplexing to me why they would choose to so cloud the issue they claim so important to them.."closing the gun show loophole". It has nothing to do with gun shows and it isn't a loophole..at best a illusion at worst a complete lie..

The Brady Act of 1994 specifically exempted one type of firearm sale from the background check system, and only one type..private intrastate transactions between two people who are residents of the same state and the seller is not in the business of selling firearms. It don't matter if it is at a gun show, a garage sale, in a classified ad, in the wal-mart parking lot , etc..At gun shows ffl dealers have to be in the 90% of gun sellers, and every sale they make goes through NICS. Some gun shows allow people with an accumulation of firearms sell at the show, they do not require a ffl unless their state requires it or if they are selling to an out of state buyer, then it must have a nics check.

The result of the lie is that people who don't follow the issue overwhelmingly believe, not that private intrastate sales are exempt, but that there is a loophole allowing all guns sold at gun shows to not require background checks..I have no idea how this nonsense helps the cause.

[Robb]

32. "Big gun control"?

[pipoman]

34. Yep..

[truebluegreen]

46. Oh puhleeese.

"big gun control"?

Oh well, I needed a new keyboard.

[pipoman]

75. Hmm..

Last edited Sun Apr 28, 2013, 02:08 PM - Edit history (1)

who coined the ridiculously inaccurate, deceptive moniker "gun show loophole"? And who continues to deceive through use the moniker?

Oh, and I can't understand how anyone might consider Michael Bloomberg, the Brady Campaign, etal. (I will go on if you insist) wouldn't be considered "big gun control'..especially considering Bloomburg alone nearly doubled the NRA for campaign contributions and lobbying dollars spent...you do consider the NRA a "big gun lobby", no?

[truebluegreen]

82. Oh yeah, all y'all are SO terribly persecuted and misunderstood

while Big Gun Control has been electing congresscritters, writing legislation and raising $$$ left and right to oppress all the poor, poor gun owners.

Gotta a bridge you want to sell me too?

Fuck the NRA.

[pipoman]

88. See the addition

to my last post..

[truebluegreen]

94. Whatever.

The Brady bunch has been around since the 80s, out-manned and out-gunned (so to speak) yet despite what laws exist, almost anyone can buy a gun at a gun show, and everyone can buy a gun from a private owner. Bloomberg is new; may there be many, many more.

Your lips to Dog's ears: "Big Gun Control" is comin'.

[Skittles]

124. that one is a lost cause

probably has NRA magazines as reading material in his bathroom

[truebluegreen]

171. I gathered that...

but so reasonable...

Thanks.

[DanTex]

42. LOL. And they wonder why we call them "NRA talking points".

[pipoman]

89. I notice there is no link to a "talking point" amid the snark..hmm

[Ikonoklast]

153. See above. Mike Bloomberg and his billions are the latest talking point.

Repeated here ad nauseum.

[Skittles]

105. aw, so perplexing is it?

what perplexes me is gun humpers

[eqfan592]

108. Such an adult, rational response.

Truly underscores the value both of your opinion and your position.

[Skittles]

116. it's a waste of time

there have been scores of adult, rational responses but these gun nuts persist in their fantasies, telling us they are perplexed - well I am telling them they can FUCK THEMSELVES

[pipoman]

122. Because EVERY word of post #22 is true..

your responses are amusing..telling..

Maybe you can answer the question of why would gun control lie instead of just telling the truth...for decades..and they wonder why they can't get anything done..

[Skittles]

127. why do you sound EXACTLY like eqfan592?

I mean EXACTLY.....gee, how "telling" is that???

[pipoman]

128. LOL...That's what I thought..~snick~

I don't know this "eqfan592" character, but he/she sounds like an honest person..

[Skittles]

131. HONEST?

OK, done wasting my time here PIPEMAN

[pipoman]

133. See ya..

LOL, youse guys..why can't you ever address the lies for what they are? The truth will set you free! Nope, just ad hominem after ad hominem then run off to the gungeon II and pout..of course rational people know that those who answer questions with ad hominem are losers..

[Eleanors38]

135. Your anger & your hatred is probably turning off those "scores of rational" folks.

You should be glad to have GD turned into a meta-type forum where you can use your unseemly descriptions and intolerance to win veritable Legions of new supporters.

[G_j]

139. what part of, anger is entirely warranted

don't you understand ? It pisses me off too.
We watched a lot of slaughter this year.

[Eleanors38]

140. Re-read the comment. No excuse for the kind of

language posted here.

Please note the language in this thread and ask yourself if there is not a concerted effort to associate an "Evil" organization with Progressive DU members, then confusing the two so character smear becomes the order of the day. And ask yourself if at least some of the controller/banners here wish to eliminate pro-2A members and the gun group which has an Open policy of discussion.

How do you feel about this? Do you want to eliminate the Open gun group, and if the topic of guns is once again eliminated from GD, leave talk about guns within the strictures of "activist" doctrine?

[G_j]

142. ok

then I will just speak of my own
anger. Im just fed up. I have never even been in the gun forum. I have known about the gundgeon
forever, but I'm not interested in guns or even talking much about guns.

If I had it my way, I'd allow discussion of third partys here at DU. So it really doesn't matter what I think so much as I want to call attention to how the NRA works against democrats and played a major role in recent background-check debacle in DC.

[Eleanors38]

159. What do you mean by "third partys?" We have three (3) groups/fora where...

guns can be discussed, depending in your beliefs. Do you want those who support 2A strongly to continue in the existing format, but be somehow labeled with different DU rules which allow any DU member to dump smear & stigmatization into the group without any fear of "alerts" or being kicked off DU? (The tone of the attacks seems to indicate that condition is in effect already.)

Thank you for your response.

[Electric Monk]

143. Steve, with all due respect, please return to AR-15.com where your views fit in quite nicely

and stop pretending to be in any way shape or form some sort of progressive humanist. You clearly aren't. It's obvious that the only issue you care about is gunz rights, not human rights.

[Eleanors38]

156. You have affixed the Scarket Letter "N." Therefore, have me purged.

BTW, why use the words "due respect?" Don't you truly believe what you are saying? After this latest demonization & smear fest, the two words have a peculiarly hollow ring.

[DanTex]

29. And right on cue, Team NRA is here to argue that there actually is no loophole.

That was too easy.

[morningfog]

87. I open this thread for the next most commonly heard

NRA talking point, arguing the nuance of what actually is an assault weapon.

Then, I look for the usual, cars kill more people line of feeble bullshit.

It devolves from there. It is bad enough the NRA pollutes our congress. It is worse when they pollute our party. It should be unacceptable that they pollute DU.

[G_j]

99. Right On!

I posted the op because I truly feel that the echoing of NRA themes does not belong here.

Hello? It's a freakin' RW organization...

[Eleanors38]

136. So that is your "purge" strategy? What do the Mods & Administrators think?

Have you talked to them? How do they feel about purging DU members with whom you disagree? Are you privy to the discussions? Who is taking the lead? Is there a fallback position, say allowing gun politics to become a fixture in GD? Help us out, if you can. Thanx.

[morningfog]

146. There is no secret strategy.

I openly call for a changes that would not allow right wing NRA bullshit on this site. Those who get defensive and paranoid about that are usually the regular NRA defenders.

[Eleanors38]

161. How would this "change" look? Who would decide censorship? What are the criteria?

[morningfog]

166. Lol, the censorship. It would look like enforcement

precluding all the other right wing bullshit on this site. Try posting you are anti marriage equality or anti reproductive choice or that you intend to vote repub. Those are enforced regularly. Right wing gun stroking bullshit should be too.

[Eleanors38]

185. So let's see some specific criteria (your other examples were adequate).

List a few so they can be hard-wired into TOS, either for the open gungeon, or for DU in general.
Thanks

[Eleanors38]

191. I still see no specifics. Proposed your doctrines to the Administrators. nt

[morningfog]

192. Easy. NRA pimps and whores get hidden and/or banned.

If you need more clarification than that, log out.

[aikoaiko]

43. When it is by design it is not a loophole.

[Captain Stern]

180. Exactly

Part of the problem here is that people can't even agree on what a legal 'loophole' is.

I've always thought that a legal loophole was a situation where someone could do something perfectly legal, while skirting the spirit of the law.

The "gun show loophole" has nothing to do with gun shows, and it's not a loophole. The law was crafted with the specific intent of allowing in-state private sales from non-dealers without background checks.

I think this law should be changed. I think all transfers of firearms should require a mandatory background check.

[oldhippie]

181. It's as much of a loophole as ....

.... the mortgage deduction loophole. Or the Medical Expense Loophole.

[Captain Stern]

183. I think we agree. (nt)

Both of those things are perfectly legal, and not by oversight.

We can shelter some of our income from taxes by buying a home and paying interest on a mortgage. Whereas a person paying the exact same amount in rent for their home has to pay taxes on that very same income.

The law was written that way to encourage home ownership. In my opinion, it's not a loophole because people are following the spirit of the law.....they aren't getting around it on a technicality.

[Captain Stern]

184. there shouldn't be a (nt) up there. I couldn't get rid of it (nt for real this time)

[davidn3600]

10. 1/4th of registered Democrats own guns

There are people here on DU that own guns.

I know a former Marine who has a gun collection, and voted for Obama.

This isn't strictly a right-left issue.

[Skip Intro]

24. A few are pissed they can't tell everybody else what to do.

Pissed everyone doesn't just cooperate with them, no questions asked.

That's too blunt, isn't it?

[DanTex]

39. Gun owners and gun nuts are different categories.

It sounds like your Marine friend understands that universal background checks aren't the first step in a slippery slope to Stalinism.

[hrmjustin]

26. Well said!

The NRA is evil and must always be opposed here on DU!

[eqfan592]

35. Huh??

It's "evil", eh? So I guess that means that, by default, anything the NRA ever says or does is also "evil?"

Nothing like a little rational thought on the subject, right?

[truebluegreen]

47. Certainly everything they've said or done since the gun manufacturers took over.

Yup.

Fuck the NRA.

[eqfan592]

49. That is an equally irrational position to hold.

I'm no fan of the NRA, but taking the position that anything they have ever said and done is "evil?" Yeah, that's simply pure bullshit.

[truebluegreen]

50. Have you got a reading comprehension problem?

Didn't say "evah." Said since the gun manufacturers took over.

They used to advocate sensible gun regulations and safety. Not any more. Everything they do is designed to sell more weapons to a population scared of Tyranny! and brown people, black people, muslins and libruls. Oh, and Big Gun Control.

Human sacrifices to the 2nd Amendment? Not so much.

Fuck the NRA.

[eqfan592]

53. No reading comprehension problem here.

I simply viewed your qualifier as completely irrelevant. Such absolutism is idiotic, pure and simple. Qualifiers or no.

[G_j]

56. can't think of a better word

They have massive blood on their hands. Why mince words?

[truebluegreen]

62. Thank you.

[eqfan592]

64. Oh, they have massive blood on their hands?

THEY are the root cause of violent crime in this country? THEY are the ones who, when faced with a violent crime problem, decided to focus almost all of their efforts on attacking a single implement instead of the root causes?

If the so-called progressives that lash out against guns put half as much energy into fighting poverty, improving our education system, reforming our criminal justice system by doing away with the War on Drugs and the practice of locking up non-violent criminals with violent ones, and improving access to mental healthcare in this country, we'd be well on the road to not only a massive reduction in violent crime, but a massive improvement in quality of life for everybody in our country. But no, instead these issues get lip service at best from most, while massive campaigns to implement a background check system that, while perhaps logical, will do next to NOTHING to reduce actual violent crime, but because they give the appearance of a "quick fix," they make you feel good.

No, the NRA is not blameless, as they regularly support politicians and policies that stand in direct opposition to these objectives, but there are plenty of hands that have blood on them, and they are not all the NRAs.

[sigmasix]

93. NRA guns for violent felons

The NRA spent the last 30 years lobbying for the return of gun rights to violent felons. The NRA's guns for felons program is responsible for re-arming child rapists, wife beaters and murderers. The violent felons that have been re-armed by the NRA have a recidivist rate of over 60%- that's 60% of all "responsible gun owners with a past felony conviction" that use thier NRA-given gun rights to commit more gun crimes. The NRA continues to employ the pedophile Ted Nugent as thier spokesperson and board member. What kind of law-abiding gun organization would use violent misanthropes and child molesters for thier board of directors? What the NRA does to keep violent misanthropes armed is destroying our society and our future.
The NRA has become little more than a collection of extremist conspiracy theory mongers and Anti-American right wing teabaggers. This mixture of well armed violent felons and partisan extremism defines what it means to be a domestic terror organization.
What kind of person would defend the actions of child molestors and rabid racists?
How deeply must someone hate thier fellow man to join an organization that supports so many gun crimes and the criminals that commit them?

[eqfan592]

100. Here is the point of my post....

....and here is you missing it completely. Goodbye.

[G_j]

104. I never said they are the root cause of violence

I don't think there is a quick fix for violence. Your whole post is completely unrelated to my point.
Typical.

[eqfan592]

106. "Typical" indeed.

"No, the NRA is not blameless, as they regularly support politicians and policies that stand in direct opposition to these objectives, but there are plenty of hands that have blood on them, and they are not all the NRAs."

From my post. I think it sums up the point clearly (the point you missed) and is completely related to your point. But hey, just ignore it. THAT is what is typical. Just continue to blame the NRA and guns while the real root causes get paid little more than lip service. It's really what so many folks around here are best at.

[G_j]

114. I apologize

Last edited Mon Apr 29, 2013, 10:39 AM - Edit history (1)

you address my comment in that paragraph. However, you seem to veer off into causes of violence, poverty etc. which are crucial issues, but have absolutely nothing to do with the role of the NRA and its policies.
A fire is a fire, pour gasoline on it and its a worse fire.

[hrmjustin]

84. The NRA has done too many things to stop meaningful gun control. The NRA is evil.

[Eleanors38]

138. Find an enemy. Associate others with the enemy. Attack the Others.

You are advocating the same kind of strategy used by so many failed and counter-productive "movements."

[Skittles]

117. eqfan lets us know who is is rational and who isn't

PLEASE

[spanone]

27. and the gunners will actively work to defeat this thread too....just read upstream

[eqfan592]

36. Yep, those "gunners" are just so horrible here.

Trying to actually highlight that this issue isn't nearly as black and white as so many folks here like to try and pretend it is.

Thank you for demonstrating such a strong, teabagger-like mentality.

[Sunlei]

55. they pay people to post this crap, NRA, Tea Party they have minions paid by the post to disrupt.

They're 'job creators' don't-ya know it

[NutmegYankee]

58. Are you accusing DUers who disagree with you of being paid disrupters?

When in reality it is just an Urban vs. Rural divide within the Democratic Party and on DU.

No offense, but with men like Bloomberg (daily pat downs of black youth) and Christie (wholesale slaughter of unions) out front opposing guns, the anti-gun side has its own problem children. Most people are in the middle on the issue.

[Sunlei]

61. People are free to disagree and have different opinions. There are plenty of people in paid media

who post at all online websites, especially the very few political messageboards left in America.

[NutmegYankee]

69. So that's a Yes?

[Sunlei]

81. what now? yes about what exactly?

[NutmegYankee]

91. That you are accusing DUers with an opposing position as paid disrupters.

Rather than just fellow Democrats with a disagreeing position.

[premium]

63. You're stating this as a fact,

do you have any proof of this?
That's a pretty serious accusation.

[Sunlei]

65. oh come on you know it as well as I do that NRA, Tea party all them use paid media.

No NRA gunrunner corp-conservative works for free out of the goodness of their hearts.

[premium]

68. What you say may very well be true,

but then again, there are some here who are passionate about gun rights who have nothing to do with being paid shills.
I'm just asking if you have any proof of anyone on this board being a paid shill for the gun lobby?

[Sunlei]

70. one I recognized from way back last year but he got banned. And I have a carry permit.

I'm all for my right to personal protection. I'm also for criminal background checks for every single gun sale, new and used. <---period.

These low paid minions are easy to replace. plenty of people lined up at paid media for their penny a word online shill 'job'.

[premium]

73. I'll haven't been here that long, so I don't know about the person last year,

but I'll take your word for it.
I don't have a carry permit, never really saw the need for it, but I fully support anyone who is qualified to get one.
I'm also for all firearms transactions to have to go through an FFL dealer for a background check.

[Sunlei]

74. With a carry permit you can carry your gun legal to most places. You also get some basic

training, that can really help in some situtations.

My first line of defense though are a couple of good dogs. Never had my house broken in to sucessfully with a couple of good brave dogs. And my dogs have 'won' a few tennis shoes out of the deal over the years

[premium]

76. I do own a couple of firearms,

A Colt Python .357, and a 12 ga. shotgun which I haven't shot in about 10 years, never had any problem with crime either.
My first line of defense is also a big shepard.

[Sunlei]

80. love a good shepard!! keep your guns clean, so they will fire if you need them :)

do lock those guns away too, because if you ever get broken in to..the guns and jewelry- they will steal first. There is an easy outlet market for those stolen items.

[premium]

83. Oh, I do keep them clean

I take them out of the gun safe every 2 months or so and give them a good cleaning and we keep our valuables in the safe.
Nice talking to you and stay safe.

Here's a pic of her.

[Inkfreak]

158. That is a beautiful dog!

We have a Shepard also. He's a light tan color. 110lbs of home security. My wife has said she would love to get another. Just like yours. She loves the all white ones. I could go on forever about how wonderful they are. Yours made us smile.

[premium]

162. Thank you,

this is my wife's dog, my dog is a, ready for this, black toy poodle.
Funny story, I let my poodle out one day in the front yard and next thing I know, I hear him yelling bloody murder, go out front and a big jack rabbit is kicking the crap out of him, now the poor dog is scared to death of rabbits, jacks and cottontails.

My wife's shepard is a great guard dog, anyone gets close to our house, she will alert and let us know, much better than a gun.

[eqfan592]

66. Oh how easy it must make it for you to dismiss those you disagree with.

They are just "paid shills." Nobody here ACTUALLY believes any of that.

[Sunlei]

77. I don't 'dismiss' people I disagree with.

[eqfan592]

78. To the contrary, it would appear you just did (nt)

[Skittles]

118. OH - and then call us out for not being RATIONAL

I AM SO FUCKING SICK OF THEM

[DanTex]

38. A lot of the NRA defenders are trolls who won't be here in a few more months.

And then there are Max Baucus style "centrists", who don't overtly want Obama to be defeated, but just coincidentally oppose most of his policies.

[graham4anything]

51. Too bad election season isn't 24/7/365 like it is now in the real world when this couldn't happen.

imho.

[Turbineguy]

57. So maybe they want all their gun huggers

to shoot the rest of us.

[baldguy]

71. It's fun to see Wayne LaPeirre spout some nonsense one day & see the same shit pop up on DU the next

[eqfan592]

79. Wayne LaPeirre is wrong about a lot of things.

But not everything he says is "nonsense."

[baldguy]

96. Yes, everything he says is nonsense.

Everything.

[eqfan592]

101. Ahhh, the idiocy of absolutism.

That you clearly think it is somehow a virtuous trait is sad. Very sad.

[baldguy]

107. And yet you defend & support the absolutist Wayne LaPierre.

There's no virtue in hypocrisy.

[eqfan592]

109. Please point to where I say I support Wayne LaPierre?

Also please point to where I defended him in any context beyond the absolutist crap you and others have been spouting? "Hypocrisy" my ass. Just more projection on your part.

[baldguy]

149. And now you claim ignorance.

Seems LaPierre isn't the only one spouting nonsense.

[Skittles]

119. sure, Wayne; whatever

[The Straight Story]

85. Wow, I don't often say this - but that is dumb as hell

TSS: Hey Wayne, what time is it?
Wayne: "5:05pm"
poster: Hey TSS, what time is it?
TSS: 5:05
Poster: Why are using talking points? The NRA said the same thing!

The idea that something is a talking point basically accuses people of reading those points from that source.

It drives you and others simply nuts that some of us can think for ourselves and come to the same conclusions, it just boggles the mind that you can't use 'well the nra says it, therefore I don't have to believe it' to ignore things you don't want to argue/discuss...so people yell out talking points and don't counter the issues as though somehow that magically makes the argument won.

Yeah. Dumb as hell.

[Robb]

92. The best bit was when you said you think for yourself and don't use talking points.

[baldguy]

97. If that were so, there wouldn't be a problem.

Unfortunately you start with the conclusions & work back from there, then you pat yourself on the back for being consistent. That's why you'll never be convinced of the truth. Conservatives view this as a virtue.

Liberals and progressives, OTOH...

[eqfan592]

102. Projection, gotta love it.

And you're projecting about as hard as anybody can right here.

[baldguy]

152. You can't defend the NRA anymore, so you're left with personal attacks.

You keep that up. It really helps your cause.

[morningfog]

86. There are some here so brazen to proudly announce

their membership and support of the NRA.

[DrDan]

90. not just Obama - all Democrats in general were targets of the NRA

[mwrguy]

95. Every time someone buys a gun or bullets, the NRA gets their cut

So gun owners on this site fund the people trying to take down Obama.

[laundry_queen]

157. +1 nt

[morningfog]

98. The greatest thing about this thread is all of the defensive NRA posters!

This is hilarious. A classic. Like clockwork the NRA defenders came to defend the NRA posts. So rich.

[eqfan592]

103. I just love how anybody that says the NRA isn't the root of all evil...

...is somehow "defending" the NRA. Defending it from absolutist bullshit? Yes. Defending it as a sound and reasonable organization? Absolutely not. But then again, that takes a deeper level of understanding than some so-called progressives here seem capable of on this issue.

[G_j]

110. so why not advocate Republican positions here?

they are not all bad people after all.
Why? Because its against the rules.
And seeing as how the NRA worked hard to defeat Obama...

[eqfan592]

111. This is hardly a "republican vs democrat" only issue.

Trying to frame it as such is disingenuous, pure and simple. If you honestly can't handle people in the party holding different views from yours on some issues, then I suggest you have some things you need to work out.

[BainsBane]

125. It certainly is

The Democratic Party has a clear position on gun control, which the GOP opposes. The recent Senate vote made clear this is a partisan issue.

[morningfog]

145. Are you an NRA member?

[BainsBane]

112. They support Republicans

and work to defeat Democrats. That tells me what I need to know about those who defend the NRA and repeat their talking points on this site.

[eqfan592]

115. Except, of course, for when they've supported democrats.

But something tells me, from the tone if you're post perhaps, that facts don't interest you here.

The sad thing is that I don't even like the NRA. But I dislike some if the things I see coming from folks here almost as much.

[G_j]

120. Then why defend them?

http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/08/nra-president-worried-about-second-term-obama-agenda-133682.html


NRA president worried about second-term Obama agenda
19

Comments () By BYRON TAU | 8/29/12 2:25 PM EDT
The National Rifle Association president David Keene says his organization is deeply distrustful of President Obama and fears giving him a second term.

"We see him as the most anti-gun president in modern times," Keene said Wednesday in an interview with the Washington Examiner's Paul Bedard.

"We're fearful of a second Obama administration. That's why for the last year we've been saying that the prime political goal of the National Rifle Association, this year, is to replace Barack Obama in the White House," Keene said.

--//

http://m.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2506344

TAMPA, Fla. - They've been able to temper even the small efforts by the administration to target guns, but the National Rifle Association is rallying its members and political officials at the Republican National Convention around worries that President Obama will use a second term to unleash a rash of gun control laws.
"We see him as the most anti-gun president in modern times," NRA President David Keene told Secrets.

Keene said that Obama hasn't been successful on gun issues because of Republican opposition. But he cited reports that Obama has told Russia's president and an anti-gun lobby that he plans to push still secret initiatives in a second term. "We're fearful of a second administration," Keene said.

[BainsBane]

121. the facts are they support very few Democrats

You don't seem to have bothered to familiarize yourself with facts at all, unless of course you simply don't care. LaPierre got up at CPAC and called the president all kinds of vile names. Non-partisan organizations do not attend CPAC. Their support of Republicans, however, is the least of the damage they do to this nation. They work to ensure criminals have ready access to weapons because that ensures a steady profit stream for the gun companies, which is who the NRA represents. They block every policy that save lives if it risks costing the gun companies a single penny. Human life is inconsequential to them. In fact, they profit tremendously after every mass shooting. The gun lobby is the greatest source of evil in this nation. They are responsible for more deaths of Americans than all the wars combined I have nothing but contempt for such merchants of death.

There is no equivalence between human life and death for profit. The NRA promotes evil. They deserve to be held up to public scorn.

[BainsBane]

123. Here are your facts

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/nra-congress/

of Republican vs Democratic support.

[G_j]

126. It would be funny if it wasn't sad

we all know this, but that little graphic
makes the assertion that the NRA is 'bipartisan' really look silly. And how can people who also seem to have "facts" on their side, not know this? This is the problem, they do know!

[BainsBane]

132. Yep, they know

And I love their little game that people on a Democratic website are being prejudiced toward them, as though we should see their views as equally valid. The most cynical move, however, is attributing the defeat of background checks to people on DU who support an assault weapons ban. They are shameless in their efforts to manipulate people. No one believes them of course, but they take up energy that could be spent working toward gun control.

[G_j]

137. in the past it was hardly worth debating

as the NRA stranglehold seemed unbreakable. But we finally have had the opportunity to regain some sanity
through the insanity of outrageous violence. The idea that there is some kind of grand debate is ludicrous. We all have been made aware of how deadly weapons can be and the absolute horror they are capable of creating. We all saw how they were able to influence our elected leaders to defeat simple background checks against the will of the people. Their themes are all over the discussions we hear in the media. And they are here. The NRA is the political enemy of all progressives, liberals and decent people in general. EOS

[Skittles]

134. THEY KNOW IT

THEY ARE NRA SHILLS

[morningfog]

147. Yeah because calling out a right wing org on

A democratic site is just like facilitating senseless murders through radicalist policies. The most pathetic thing is when the NRA acts like whiney little victims. What a sad, sick and twisted bunch they are. So paranoid, so stuck in an alternate reality. Fuck them.

[Pholus]

148. Of course, the ELEPHANT in the room is elections.

I love this NRA talking point, especially when combined with the "you're gonna lose elections meme" here that comes up, coincidentally, each election season.

http://www.nrapublications.org/index.php/14512/heres-what-could-happen-if-you-dont-defeat-obama/

And consider THIS thread where a couple prominent RKBA denizens decry the "NRA doesn't speak for me" ad as a MOVEON stunt just like ar15.com did on the very same day.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172110144

And just remember, that the ar15.com trolls are proud of what they do. Do you really think it's unfair that most of us assume gunners are trolls when you NEVER post in any other forums than RKBA and start spouting off that baseball bats kill more people than guns so let's ban them?

http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1135093_Got_banned_outed_from_Democratic_Underground.html

So does the NRA speak for you? Between actual progressive policies and keeping your man card, which comes first? I think that is the main point you need to consider.

[Paladin]

150. Well said. (nt)

[NCTraveler]

160. Members of DU actively worked to defeat McCain and Romney.

Yet I have seen their talking points used to support Chained CPI, Obamacare, drones, ect. Politics is a very messy business.

[gopiscrap]

176. Fuck the NRA

they should be labeled a terrorist organization.....anyone who is a member is nothing better than an enabler for the republican party!!!

[Trajan]

178. we call it the Gungeon

It is a giant breach in the hull of the DU mothership that allows right wing gun aficionados to join and hang out here, as long as they don't speak too loudly of their other right wing philosophies ... they can lay low for years here ...

[pipoman]

189. And of coarse fools who wish this

was an issue divided on party lines and can't figure out it isn't...but spend their time trying to convince people it is or should be..For instance, name any of the other enumerated civil liberties which Democrats/liberals believe should be more conservatively defined?

[Progressive dog]

187. It is strange to me too

The NRA's defense of all gun ownership uses paranoid RW propaganda. They put people like Wayne in top position and Ted Nugent on their board.

When you continuously whine about talking about gun regulation after any gun massacre, because emotions are too high, you are a bat crap crazy gun worshiper.
When you cleverly tell us how harmful it will be to Democratic candidates for them to support gun regulations that are supported by a majority of voters, you are a bat crap crazy gun worshiper.
When your spokesmen attack the surviving victims, family members, and supporters, over any mention of stricter gun regulations, you are a bat crap crazy gun worshiper.
When you ignore most of the Constitution in favor of one Amendment that the NRA claims protects gun ownership by every bat crap crazy gun worshiper and ignore the right to life and security of your fellow citizens, you are a bat crap crazy gun worshiper.
When you deny that our government should be democratic on Democratic Underground, you have much bigger issues with our form of government than just your bat crap crazy gun worship.

You know who you are and so do we.