honkdonker wrote:Please do try to be civil, would you?
I certainly do not see how Tye is not being civil. He is just asking a direct question that you keep not answering. If you do not feel comfortable stating what country you are from, that's fine, certainly, but you might as well just say so, rather than not answering.
-Mo
Alrighty, stickim up and hand over the Coates real nice and slow like....
JohnP wrote:Mo,
That's interesting. I must admit I've not been keeping up with what exactly the NRA is doing currently, I was a member a few years ago however. Just curious, what sets you against them? I'm very pro-private gun ownership, but refuse to toe any party line....and haven't quite kept up with them. Are they not doing what they advertise? something else? just curious.
John P.
Well, it's partly an inherited distaste. My father was a card carrying member much of his adult life, but switched over to the Sierra Club in the 70s, when the NRA strongly, even vehemently opposed the Alaska Lands Act. Carter and Udall prevailed, so I guess that is water under the bridge, to some extent, but that type of position from an organization that, if involved at all, I would expect to support conservation really rubs me the wrong way.
I guess is that. I feel instead of supporting gun safety, responsible gun ownership, and if necessary gun rights, I feel they are deeply tied in the the Republican Conservative position. For example, positions like the above I think are tied to strengthing connections with the conservative powers, at the expense of something of value to sportsmen, who should be a significant part of their constituency. I am a moderate liberal, and I simply don't like their involvement beyond the simple issues of gun rights.
I also feel the organization is extremely reactionary, and carries its position rather too far, beyond protecting the right to own guns, to maniacally opposing any measures related to guns at all.
My understanding is that until the 70s, the NRA was a very different organization. Primarily devoted to gun education and safety, without any real political involvement. I think there is a need now for an organization like that, without the NRA's massive political involvement, and that if it existed, it would lend greater legitimacy to gun ownership for moderates who are riding the fence. But I guarantee that for the fast majority of moderates, who do not own guns, and even some who do, the NRA does nothing but cast gun ownership in a negative light.
-Mo
Add to that their intellectual dishonesty. If oyu go to their legal section, they fairly accurate and agree that the 2nd amendment is not an absolute right, then they go public and contradict the wholw thing. I think everyone would be a lot better off if they did a lot more of what they used ti and left the politics too the politicians.
honkdonker wrote:Well Joe, it is laudable to want to screen out possible mentally unstable people from owning guns. However, the problem faced in America is not going to be prevented by more tests and beauracracy or psychologists. You think they can weed out bad apples just by meeting with them? My friend, that is naive at best, and at worst shows a shocking lack of understanding of how humans operate. Again, a one shot thing like what you propose is going to be meaningless. However, since it would be so unwieldy and costly, thankfully it will never see the light of day. Your sentiments are laudable, however.
No one seems to want to deal with the root problem here. With BILLIONS of guns readily available, I don't care how many tests/shrinks/do gooders there are to deal with the symptoms. The root cause is a gun free for all. With so many guns available, there are going to be murders/accidents/good people doing bad things/kids killing kids, etc.
Liberty has a cost. Americans want guns. They have guns. No one is going to change that fact. Therefore, people are going to be hurt and killed, accidentally and purposely.
Take a look at your culture. THAT is the problem, and it isn't going to be solved, or even dented, by any sort of means test. Glorify violence, and that is what you get. Remember, not everyone is as responsible as you are.
You want to stop gun killings? Get rid of the guns. Not willing or able to do that? Accept the killings and move on.
WHo's the niave one, or is it just intellectual dishonesty. There is no question that screening would have stopped the VA Tech shooter from getting legal weapons. Your social agenda is just a smoke screen for doing nothing. You know what the chances are of anything like that happening soon. And it's great to sit back and do nothing while criticizing society and urging it to change. You should work for the government.
The way you get things done is by taking effective steps. You start with what you can do most direectly first and work from there. Your chances of getting anything done through social change wrought with 1st amendment issues is ZERO.
honkdonker wrote:Not willing or able to do that? Accept the killings and move on.
That's about the most simplistic thing I've ever heard. It may be true that as long as there are guns, gun killings cannot be entirely prevented. I agree there. But to suggest it is all or nothing is either ridiculous, or a cheap rhetorical trick. Why does allowing ownership of guns mean we just have to accept killings, and move on, doing nothing about it. There may be flaws in Joe's plan, but that doesn't mean that some sort of measures will not help, and should not be taken, in a middle ground between no regulation or controls and no legal ownership.
-Mo
You put your finger on it SIMPLISTIC. Change everything or do nothing. It really means do nothing, because we know the chances of change everything.
BTW, I don't claim to have a plan, just a general approach that should be the first thing we do. A plan happens after you study it and figure out how to do it.
honkdonker wrote:Please do try to be civil, would you?
This response is as dishonest as the rest of your rhetoric. I still remember when you sent a PM literally cursing out a new member for disagreeing with you.
I guess you don't have a better response on the topic.
honkdonker wrote:Please do try to be civil, would you?
I certainly do not see how Tye is not being civil. He is just asking a direct question that you keep not answering. If you do not feel comfortable stating what country you are from, that's fine, certainly, but you might as well just say so, rather than not answering.
-Mo
As they said in law school: If the law is on your side argue that; If the facts are on your side argue them; If neither, pound the table.
Well, Mr. Lurch, I still see you are your same ignorant, rude, attacking self. As soon as someone disagrees with one of your ideas, personal attacks come forth. No biggie as far as I am concerned. Says more about your personal shortcomings and failures in life I suppose.
I guess my benign comments were SO threatening to you that you had to resort to half assed personal attacks. You make me smile.
You are the only "person" on here who I have ever seen resort to such personal attacks when someone disagrees with you. I guess you are so brilliant that you can understand my "social agenda" by making innudendo. So be it. You have proved once again your juvenile personality.
I'm not a hunter or even a gun owner, so I don't much care whether I can buy a gun or not.
That being said I think that both sides of this debate are unrealistic at the most extreme edges of it.
The only way that a total gun ban would reduce gun crime would be if said ban had been implemented before a significant amount of guns had been manufactured. The supply is so large that no amount of reduction of legal gun ownership/manufacture would even put a dent in the amount of available guns for several generations. Furthermore, if you want to live in a free society, there is a certain degree of risk/trust that comes with that (cars anyone?).
I also think that it is unrealistic for gun zealots to reject most or all regulation of the gun trade. Guns/explosives/certain chemicals are dangerous tools and the handling of those items is, I think, rightly regulated by the government for the good of the society.
As I have found as I have gotten a little older, sometimes the "right" is right, sometimes the "left" is right, but usually the truth falls somewhere in the middle.
Last edited by daveshaves on Mon May 14, 2007 9:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
daveshaves wrote:
The only way that a total gun ban would reduce gun crime would be if said ban had been implemented before a significant amount of guns had been manufactured. The supply is so large, that no amount of reduction of legal gun ownership/manufacture would even put a dent in the amount of available guns for several generations. Furthermore, if you want to live in a free society, there is a certain degree of risk/trust that comes with that (cars anyone?).
That is exactly the point I have been making. Well put.
honkdonker wrote:Well, Mr. Lurch, I still see you are your same ignorant, rude, attacking self. As soon as someone disagrees with one of your ideas, personal attacks come forth. No biggie as far as I am concerned. Says more about your personal shortcomings and failures in life I suppose.
I guess my benign comments were SO threatening to you that you had to resort to half assed personal attacks. You make me smile.
You are the only "person" on here who I have ever seen resort to such personal attacks when someone disagrees with you. I guess you are so brilliant that you can understand my "social agenda" by making innudendo. So be it. You have proved once again your juvenile personality.
Have a great day, Mr. Lurch.
Every once in a while you crawl out from under your rock and shoot off your ignorant mouth! THAT was personal. The only other thing I said that was even close to personal was about your treatment of a new member while appealing to civility. How hypocritical!
Pointing out to you that you were being naive was simply responding to your position in the same words you did. There was no personal attack until you did it in the post I'm responding to.
I don't have an axe to grind with respect to guns. I do with respect to imbalanced people to get them without control.
honkdonker wrote:Well, Mr. Lurch, I still see you are your same ignorant, rude, attacking self. As soon as someone disagrees with one of your ideas, personal attacks come forth. No biggie as far as I am concerned. Says more about your personal shortcomings and failures in life I suppose.
I guess my benign comments were SO threatening to you that you had to resort to half assed personal attacks. You make me smile.
You are the only "person" on here who I have ever seen resort to such personal attacks when someone disagrees with you. I guess you are so brilliant that you can understand my "social agenda" by making innudendo. So be it. You have proved once again your juvenile personality.
Have a great day, Mr. Lurch.
Every once in a while you crawl out from under your rock and shoot off your ignorant mouth! THAT was personal. The only other thing I said that was even close to personal was about your treatment of a new member while appealing to civility. How hypocritical!
Pointing out to you that you were being naive was simply responding to your position in the same words you did. There was no personal attack until you did it in the post I'm responding to.
I don't have an axe to grind with respect to guns. I do with respect to imbalanced people to get them without control.
