NRA's LaPierre: "This Is The Most Dangerous Election Of Our Lifetimes"

[Harshaw]

I knew you couldn't provide the statistical data to support your position. Your claim that there's vast, vast ,vast, more to support one side is no more valid than my claim to the contrary. I'd suggest you do some more research yourself. You provided one reference, period.

I could probably provide 100 references to support my argument and you could probably do likewise.

We'd both be wasting our time and neither could prove the argument one way or the other. You can stick to what you stubbornly prefer to believe and I can do likewise...

Here you go:

law review articles second amendment - Google Scholar

Unlike you, I have read nearly everything on this list. The vast, vast, VAST majority of it supports the rights interpretations of the majority opinions in Heller and McDonald. (Even the one titled "The Embarrassing Second Amendment.")

Go read it all.

 

[TurtleDude]

Here you go:

law review articles second amendment - Google Scholar

Unlike you, I have read nearly everything on this list. The vast, vast, VAST majority of it supports the rights interpretations of the majority opinions in Heller and McDonald. (Even the one titled "The Embarrassing Second Amendment.")

Go read it all.

two in that list are pimps-one is Denis Henigan who works for Handgun control and publishes only in third rate law reviews

the other is Carl Bogus (his name is fitting) who is an adjunct professor at a third rate law school who went to syracuse law school-hardly the breeding ground of first rate legal scholars-bogus bases some of his arguments on Michael Bellesiles "works" -Bellesiles is the clown who had his book award rescinded when it was proven his claims that few colonists owned guns was debunked as fraudulent

Michael A. Bellesiles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

bottom line-the anti gun authors are third raters

 

[Harshaw]

Yeah, but the Henigan article is from '81, which is before there was any serious scholarship in the field (as you know). It's been savaged and discredited in several subsequent works.

And Bellesile was a fraud, definitely. A big thanks to Melissa Seckora for ferreting that one out.

But you raise a good point:

bottom line-the anti gun authors are third raters

Not only is the vast majority of the scholarship pro-individual right, the quality of it is superior, too.

 

[UtahBill]

Really . . .

Where does one find "data" and "statistics" on how much scholarship supports one position over another, and what form does it take?

you are a grown man who knows how to use the internet, do your own research to support YOUR claims....

you might be thinking I am anti-gun, I am not. I own several, only one purchased from a store...

While I am not anti-gun, I am anti-propaganda, and know it when I see it. Had to do a paper on it a long time ago. Propaganda is the same genre as marketing and advertising, where LIES are smoothly slipped up the public's mental anus...

 

[Harshaw]

you are a grown man who knows how to use the internet, do your own research to support YOUR claims....

you might be thinking I am anti-gun, I am not. I own several, only one purchased from a store...

While I am not anti-gun, I am anti-propaganda, and know it when I see it. Had to do a paper on it a long time ago. Propaganda is the same genre as marketing and advertising, where LIES are smoothly slipped up the public's mental anus...

I had no thought whatsoever as to your position on guns one way or the other.

Which propaganda are you referring to? The part where I linked to a list of all of the scholarship so anyone can read it for themselves?

 

[molten_dragon]

I look at the NRA kind of the same way that I look at PETA. They do good things, and I think that for the most part the members of the group have good intentions, but it's hard to focus on that because of the minority of nuts in both groups shouting "LOOK AT ME" at the top of their lungs.

I think the statements in the OP are extremely exaggerated. So far, Obama hasn't shown any interest in regulating guns more heavily, and with a republican house, he probably couldn't do anything about it even if he wanted to. And while some conservatives probably don't want to admit it, Obama is smart enough to realize that he's got much bigger fish to fry than gun control.

 

[Billy]

Here you go:

law review articles second amendment - Google Scholar

Unlike you, I have read nearly everything on this list. The vast, vast, VAST majority of it supports the rights interpretations of the majority opinions in Heller and McDonald. (Even the one titled "The Embarrassing Second Amendment.")

Go read it all.

I have to work for a living. Can't find time to visit this forum every evening. Regarding your Google search, there is a never-ending list of opinions on this issue, pro and con. I'm not going to waste my time and I'm sure you're not going to waste your time to try to comb through all the various opinions to try to compile the data. Maybe you should attempt it and report back to this forum the data you come up with. It might be fun...

Maybe you've read a lot of propaganda on the issue and I have read a lot of it also, pro and con. I'm sure a lot of the $500 lifetime NRA membership dollars have financed a lot of propaganda "opinion" pieces on the issue.

I'll grant you one thing, you're passionate about this issue, much more so that I am. I will assume you've been brain-washed by the NRA into believing your second amendment rights were under attack. You may even believe they're still under attack despite the Supreme Court decisions on the issue. You probably worship guns.

I don't worship guns and I've never felt my right to own firearms was under any sort of credible attack. Regardless of whether the Supreme Court correctly interpreted the second amendment, I'm OK with their decision because I believe law abiding citizens in this country should always have the right to keep and to bear arms within reason (wouldn't want to see kids taking them to school/wouldn't want to see folks packing in church pews, etc.). As the issue has been decided, I'm OK with that decision. I am more concerned with current issues and I have no interest in re-reading propaganda I read years ago.

 

[Harshaw]

I have to work for a living. Can't find time to visit this forum every evening. Regarding your Google search, there is a never-ending list of opinions on this issue, pro and con. I'm not going to waste my time and I'm sure you're not going to waste your time to try to comb through all the various opinions to try to compile the data. Maybe you should attempt it and report back to this forum the data you come up with. It might be fun...

Maybe you've read a lot of propaganda on the issue and I have read a lot of it also, pro and con. I'm sure a lot of the $500 lifetime NRA membership dollars have financed a lot of propaganda "opinion" pieces on the issue.

I'll grant you one thing, you're passionate about this issue, much more so that I am. I will assume you've been brain-washed by the NRA into believing your second amendment rights were under attack. You may even believe they're still under attack despite the Supreme Court decisions on the issue. You probably worship guns.

I don't worship guns and I've never felt my right to own firearms was under any sort of credible attack. Regardless of whether the Supreme Court correctly interpreted the second amendment, I'm OK with their decision because I believe law abiding citizens in this country should always have the right to keep and to bear arms within reason (wouldn't want to see kids taking them to school/wouldn't want to see folks packing in church pews, etc.). As the issue has been decided, I'm OK with that decision. I am more concerned with current issues and I have no interest in re-reading propaganda I read years ago.

:roll:

I didn't give you a list of "propaganda"; I gave you a comprehensive list of law review articles. You know, legal scholarship.

It doesn't surprise me in the slightest that you have no intention of reading it, and are perfectly happy to continue on in blissful ignorance instead of challenging your views. It also doesn't surprise me that rather than find out what the scholarship really says, you choose to call me "brainwashed."

As for "wasting my time" to "comb through" all of it -- the scholarship, the opinions, etc. -- I've already done so. I've read it, and understood it. Have spent years doing it. You have not. What are you afraid of? That you might be wrong?

 

[jambalaya]

NRA's LaPierre: "This Is The Most Dangerous Election Of Our Lifetimes"




Gabrielle Giffords, an American inspiration, gets shot in the head, and this vile worthless waste of space LaPierre gets to go around vomiting pure fecal matter from his mouth. Where's the justice?

The NRA which started out as a sporting club to improve marksmanship and training of skills. Somewhere along the way a good idea was co-opted by fringe paranoia and hate of the KKK and other extremist groups and we have todays 'cold dead hands' crowd. Proof? LaPierre is a sick, unstable individual and yet he's the voice, the brain, of the NRA.

Listen up morons, because I'm only going to say this once. Obama has done nothing to your guns. He's not coming after your guns or your precious ammo.

But, get this, Lapierre says that's all part of the Obama master plan:



Ah-ha, the super double-secret probation agenda.

Here's what it is folks, the Guns and Ammo industry wants you crapping-your-pants scared, so you'll spend every last dollar to build up your Armageddon stockpile. This is a marketing ploy. A sales pressure technique. When Obama wins a second term, just watch, they'll be saying buy, buy, buy....

The industry had played the gun-nut rubes for fools. And LaPierre is the head cheerleader of thinly veiled racism, race-baiting, and b.s. propaganda filled with fear and paranoia.

Buy, buy, buy... before it's too late!!

A diatribe like yours is pretty much the reason activist groups feel the need to be super diligent about the issues they represent. Did Giffords get shot the day you made this post? Nobody is allowed to talk about gun rights after that day? Looking at LaPierre for you must be like looking in the mirror.

 

[rocket88]

his reiterated claim that the White House has not pushed for gun violence prevention measures because it is engaged in a "massive Obama conspiracy" to get re-elected,

Wait, there's a group of people who want to re-elect Obama? Who knew?

Next thing you know, there'll be some large group of people trying to get someone else elected!

I'm horrified!

Doesn't the NRA say this every 4 years?

 

[Tigger]

I think there's a significant misconception going on here.....

The NRA is definitely a political organization, but it does not push people to purchase firearms or ammunition. At least I have never seen that, and I've been a member for more than a decade. The main goal of the NRA is the preservation of the Second Amendment and the rights of American gunowners. The law-abiding and responsible ones. You know, the ones who make up about 98% of gun owners in America.

If the politicians of this country want to minimize the impact of the NRA on elections, it's very simple..... Stop infringing on the rights of law abiding American gunowners in order to placate a bunch of loud, angry, non-gunowners who probably couldn't even tell you which end of the gun the bullets come out of. Especially when the same could be said about the politicians passing the laws. Do your homework, politicians. Or at least get the FACTS from someone who has, rather than either the NRA or people like the Brady Center.

Gun ownership should not be a political matter, but the Democratic party has made it one in the last half century, and especially in the last thirty years. The NRA seems to be a Republican Party shill because it's so ridiculously difficult to find a Democrat who is willing to even listen to the truth about guns in this country. This is doubly so here in New England and other more Liberal areas.

Mr. Obama has learned from one of his predecessors, Mr. Clinton. I have no question in my mind that Obama would LIKE to enact much more extensive and comprehensive gun control measures here in the United States. However, he has seen what happened to the Democrats in Congress after the 1994 AWB was passed. Therefore, I do believe that you will see more attempts at it after the 2012 elections, so long as Obama wins and the Democrats retain at least one House of Congress.

 

[MKULTRABOY]

I think there's a significant misconception going on here.....

The NRA is definitely a political organization, but it does not push people to purchase firearms or ammunition. At least I have never seen that, and I've been a member for more than a decade/

It stops short of a catalogue, it is no gun salesman, however.

The main goal of the NRA is the preservation of the Second Amendment and the rights of American gunowners. The law-abiding and responsible ones. You know, the ones who make up about 98% of gun owners in America.

Figures are cool, do you have a link.

If the politicians of this country want to minimize the impact of the NRA on elections, it's very simple..... Stop infringing on the rights of law abiding American gunowners in order to placate a bunch of loud, angry, non-gunowners who probably couldn't even tell you which end of the gun the bullets come out of.

Why would a non-gun owner care how a gun works?

Especially when the same could be said about the politicians passing the laws. Do your homework, politicians. Or at least get the FACTS from someone who has, rather than either the NRA or people like the Brady Center.

Gun ownership should not be a political matter, but the Democratic party has made it one in the last half century, and especially in the last thirty years. The NRA seems to be a Republican Party shill because it's so ridiculously difficult to find a Democrat who is willing to even listen to the truth about guns in this country. This is doubly so here in New England and other more Liberal areas.

DC had a gun ban for quite some time, when it was lifted via lawsuit by the NRA gun violence has gone up coincidentally or not in the time since.[/QUOTE]

 

[TurtleDude]

I look at the NRA kind of the same way that I look at PETA. They do good things, and I think that for the most part the members of the group have good intentions, but it's hard to focus on that because of the minority of nuts in both groups shouting "LOOK AT ME" at the top of their lungs.

I think the statements in the OP are extremely exaggerated. So far, Obama hasn't shown any interest in regulating guns more heavily, and with a republican house, he probably couldn't do anything about it even if he wanted to. And while some conservatives probably don't want to admit it, Obama is smart enough to realize that he's got much bigger fish to fry than gun control.

PETA is an extremist organization that tries to limit the rights of humans

The NRA is neither

 

[TurtleDude]

crime went up after DC banned guns

 

[MKULTRABOY]

crime went up after DC banned guns

I dont even know if I was alive when they were legal...

guns are back and gun crime is up annually since their legality was reinstated.

 

[TurtleDude]

I dont even know if I was alive when they were legal...

guns are back and gun crime is up annually since their legality was reinstated.

there has been no evidence that those who can get guns legally (there are still tons of red tape) are doing that
Most of it is from the same mopes who were causing crime before.

what we do know is that there is a paucity of evidence that the anti gun nuts are able to find in the USA that demonstrate that gun bans or restrictions decrease crime. that's why those turds mainly try to apply other countries' statistics to the USA which never have any useful information

 

[MKULTRABOY]

there has been no evidence that those who can get guns legally (there are still tons of red tape) are doing that

Most of it is from the same mopes who were causing crime before.

I thought they were in jail.

what we do know is that there is a paucity of evidence that the anti gun nuts are able to find in the USA that demonstrate that gun bans or restrictions decrease crime. that's why those turds mainly try to apply other countries' statistics to the USA which never have any useful information

Come now they are only as mislead as people who think they need to outgun the police.

 

[TurtleDude]

I thought they were in jail.



Come now they are only as mislead as people who think they need to outgun the police.

that's stupid. and honest citizens should have easy access to any weapon civilian law enforcement officers use. If a city determines that a fully automatic rifle is legitimate for a civilian police officer to use for self defense in an urban area that same city should be estopped and prevented from telling any other citizen that there is no legitimate reason for him to own the same weapon. If the federal government doesn't want to allow people like me to own any machine gun made after may 19, 1986, then none of its employees should be able to use such weapons either in a civilian law enforcement capacity

 

[MKULTRABOY]

that's stupid. and honest citizens should have easy access to any weapon civilian law enforcement officers use. If a city determines that a fully automatic rifle is legitimate for a civilian police officer to use for self defense in an urban area that same city should be estopped and prevented from telling any other citizen that there is no legitimate reason for him to own the same weapon. If the federal government doesn't want to allow people like me to own any machine gun made after may 19, 1986, then none of its employees should be able to use such weapons either in a civilian law enforcement capacity

Can you construe an argument support such a position other than that of.... warring on the police?

 

[TurtleDude]

Can you construe an argument support such a position other than that of.... warring on the police?

Yeah its called the second amendment

and if a city's experts have determined that some weapon is ideal for a cop to use for self defense in an urban environment, its obvious the weapon has equal utility when owned by other civilians

 

[MKULTRABOY]

Yeah its called the second amendment

\Awwwwwww ya dodged there

and if a city's experts have determined that some weapon is ideal for a cop to use for self defense in an urban environment, its obvious the weapon has equal utility when owned by other civilians

Urban warfare... I see now.

 

[TurtleDude]

\Awwwwwww ya dodged there



Urban warfare... I see now.

self defense is what rational people call it

I don't believe a cop's life is worth more than a pharmacist's a doctor's a plumber's a small shopkeeper's a bricklayers etc

all are worth the same and all should have access to the same tools to protect their lives

 

[Paschendale]

This entire controversy is made up in the imaginations of gun proponents. There is no widespread movement to disarm. Sure, there's a few fringe elements, but most left wingers want gun control, not gun removal, not gun bans. For the purpose of reducing violent crime. That's all they want. For fewer people to be murdered.

Now, let's talk facts for a moment. President Barack Obama has not championed or proffered any major gun control legislation. The main democrat platforms do not include anything that would prohibit lawful private citizens from owning weapons. The NRA has cultivated this idea of a massive battle for gun rights. It does not exist. They thump their chests and scream that the terrible liberals want to take away everyone's guns, so you must vote for the conservative candidates. The NRA has become nothing more than a sounding board to promote republican candidates. No one is coming for your guns. There is no reason to think otherwise.

It's fine if we have rational debates about the proliferation of weapons, and I would think that responsible gun owners could recognize that we truly might be better off with fewer weapons in society. We might not, though. The position of the NRA and gun advocates is not to have the conversation at all. That's not the right path to be taking. Reason can win the day over passion, and put us on the right path, and take the United States away from the top of the list of countries with the most gun murders (per capita, of course) in the world.

 

[TurtleDude]

This entire controversy is made up in the imaginations of gun proponents. There is no widespread movement to disarm. Sure, there's a few fringe elements, but most left wingers want gun control, not gun removal, not gun bans. For the purpose of reducing violent crime. That's all they want. For fewer people to be murdered.

Now, let's talk facts for a moment. President Barack Obama has not championed or proffered any major gun control legislation. The main democrat platforms do not include anything that would prohibit lawful private citizens from owning weapons. The NRA has cultivated this idea of a massive battle for gun rights. It does not exist. They thump their chests and scream that the terrible liberals want to take away everyone's guns, so you must vote for the conservative candidates. The NRA has become nothing more than a sounding board to promote republican candidates. No one is coming for your guns. There is no reason to think otherwise.

It's fine if we have rational debates about the proliferation of weapons, and I would think that responsible gun owners could recognize that we truly might be better off with fewer weapons in society. We might not, though. The position of the NRA and gun advocates is not to have the conversation at all. That's not the right path to be taking. Reason can win the day over passion, and put us on the right path, and take the United States away from the top of the list of countries with the most gun murders (per capita, of course) in the world.

One of the main strategies of the ARC is to incrementally ban guns. Part of that strategy involves lots of useful fools pretending that there is no effort to disarm Americans. We heard your comments for years. We heard it in NYC when they registered guns-when those guns were ruled illegal and seized you all scurried away. We heard those assurances in California, NJ, CT, and other places where common firearms are now banned. and we heard it in England and Australia.


and I will give you a clue since I have been dealing with the gun banning tards for years. When you start a rant claiming that the NRA is paranoid, finishing your rant with the idiotic reference to the false claim that the USA leads the world in gun murders is just plaint stupid

 

[Paschendale]

I didn't say lead. I said we need to move away from the top. We're not at it, but we're damn close. But seriously, doesn't this kind of nonsense belong in the conspiracy forum with the aliens and birthers?