What is the worst NRA lie? [W:33]

[TurtleDude]

Hmmmm

Does not address the question at all.

But it is a fine example of non-sequitur.

look at the hate contained in mmi's post. Its not directed at criminals using weapons illegally but honest gun owners who don't buy into the Bannerrhoid "solutions" to gun violence

 

[MAGAnificent]

So many lies. The National Guard has been around since 1636.

More guns equals more gun violence. John Lott has been debunked numerous times.

I am an Army veteran. I know what an assault rifle is, and what it is designed for. Stop trying to twist the definition to your advantage.

If you are really an Army veteran, then I would like to assume that you know the difference between an assault rifle and an assault style rifle. So far, I see know evidence that you know the difference.

 

[MickeyW]

The NRA is known for it's outrageous claims and misguidance, but there are some lies so bad they stand above the rest. Which one do you think is the worst of the worst?

For me, it's the NRA's claim that the best thing to do after a mass tragedy such as Sandy Hook or Orlando is to sit on our butts and do nothing but pray. No, we can stop the problem of gun violence in this country with sensible legislation, but the NRA is so afraid of losing profit from declining gun sales that they'd rather see 30 kindergarteners killed verses a law passed.

Can't vote on your poll, there is nothing listed that is a lie.

 

[TurtleDude]

Can't vote on your poll, there is nothing listed that is a lie.

and some of the things the banned one attributed to the NRA, was something he made up. The NRA has never said some of that stuff.

 

[DA60]

On that note.... Battle Bots is back

I much preferred Robot Wars when Craig Charles hosted...mega.

 

[DA60]

I voted for "assault rifles are good for hunting." They're good for hunting human beings.



Why is it that everyone who doesn't want the CDC or any other federal agency to collect data on gun violence is invariably a gun nut? Are they afraid of the findings? Could there be any other reason? None I can think of.

As a rule, I no longer debate the need for common sense firearms regulations on DP. There are way too many loathsome, arrogant, childish gun nuts who drown the threads with their BS.

The good news for everyone else is that it won't be long before a lot of these worthless characters die off and we'll then be able to treat this like any other public safety issue without gun-stroking lunatics blocking reasonable restrictions on people who insist that the Constitution explicitly guarantees their right to turn their residence into an armory and then walk around public meetings with automatic rifles. A lot of other absurd and destructive social conventions have been left behind, and gun nuttery will soon follow.



By that logic, I should be able to keep a warehouse of RPGs and mortar rounds on my property.

I agree with you almost completely on this.

I do not even begin to try and reason with gun nuts (not saying everyone that is for them is a gun nut, however)...it is TOTALLY pointless, imo.

 

[Fledermaus]

I much preferred Robot Wars when Craig Charles hosted...mega.

Both were good....

Did you see last night's show.

Awesome kills.

Son of Whyachi got wasted. After he flew like a helicopter.

 

[Logicman]

No, we can stop the problem of gun violence in this country with sensible legislation, but the NRA is so afraid of losing profit from declining gun sales that they'd rather see 30 kindergarteners killed verses a law passed.

Speaking of outrageous lies, that's a load of horse manure.

Forget this thread. It sucks.

 

[TurtleDude]

Speaking of outrageous lies, that's a load of horse manure.

Forget this thread. It sucks.

ganapathy is "sleeping with the fishes" now-probably suckers. but yeah the thread is a massive fail

 

[SMTA]

The NRA is known for it's outrageous claims and misguidance, but there are some lies so bad they stand above the rest. Which one do you think is the worst of the worst?

For me, it's the NRA's claim that the best thing to do after a mass tragedy such as Sandy Hook or Orlando is to sit on our butts and do nothing but pray. No, we can stop the problem of gun violence in this country with sensible legislation, but the NRA is so afraid of losing profit from declining gun sales that they'd rather see 30 kindergarteners killed verses a law passed.

My, what a colossally ignorant poll.

 

[mmi]

you apparently swallowed, hook line and sinker, the OP lie that the NRA has actually said that.

Fwiw, I don't care what the NRA says. I think it should be rather difficult to purchase an AR-15. I don't see why most people would need one.

>>Assault rifles are fully automatic weapons that the Bannerrhoids banned from future sale purely out of spite.

I'm not interested in the technical definition of "assault rifle." An AR-15 looks to me like way too much gun for most purposes.

As far as "Bannerrhoids" goes, I don't seek a ban on firearms possession. And if someone can show reason to own an AR-15, well then I suppose that can be allowed. Yer using strawman rhetoric with yer "ban" claim.

>>what do you … expect to find in a CDC study?

Why do you oppose the data collection?

>>you all want some study that you can use to advance …

To advance public safety, if the findings happen to include such material.

>>nothing you have supported is based on common sense.

I'd say that's a matter of opinion.

>>common sense gun laws are ones that actually punish criminals

I figure they include ones that promote safety.

>>harass honest gun owners

This is just more rhetoric. Believe what you want, but I know I have no interest in harassing gun owners. I have no interest in gun owners in general. I'm interested in public safety.

>>Nothing you call "common sense" restrictions is designed to actually impact criminals.

Making it more difficult to obtain AR-15s would, imo, impact some criminals. Making it more difficult for people with a history of violent behaviour and people with a history of mental illness to purchase firearms would arguably contribute to public safety.

>>the goal of the BM is to harass gun owners-becuase that is the real target of the left wing BM.

None of that has anything to do with me. You'll no doubt insist that I'm a "gun banner." I don't care.

>>Look at your posts-it insults gun owners not criminals

My post definitely included some insults, but they weren't directed at gun owners. They're directed at people who oppose data collection and reasonable gun control legislation. In my view, yer an extremist, and I'd say that explains why you see my position as extreme.

>>it shows who you want to harass with your proposed laws

It doesn't matter to you that I have no interest in harassing reasonable people. You'll simply continue to say that I do. I therefore don't much care what you say.

look at the hate contained in mmi's post.

Oh, there's hate alright. You know how I feel — I hate guns. They make it very easy to kill people. But you refuse to recognise that I can separate my personal feelings from my policy preferences. It will be a very long time before human beings stop wanting to kill and rob and rape and do all the other horrible things guns can be used for. In the meantime, I realise that it's not entirely unreasonable for some people to want to possess a firearm for self-protection. I just want to see it properly regulated so that public safety is protected as much as is reasonably possible.

You hear people all the time say that driving a car is a privilege, not a right. I'm basically willing to say that it is a right, as long as it's done reasonably. I feel the same way about guns. I don't see why a special space should be carved put for gun rights. I'm confident that's not what the Second Amendment was designed for.

Because I hate guns, I don't think about them. And I don't think about gun owners. But then I see more people being gunned down, and I'd like to see us do whatever we can to try to find ways to expand public safety with regard to firearms. I'm confident that my views are reasonable, and I'm hopeful that progress can be made in this area.

>>Its not directed at criminals using weapons illegally

Sure it is. I want to make it more difficult for them to obtain firearms.

>>but honest gun owners

Again, I have no interest in people who want to have a gun in the house for self-defence, and I can even see where some people could earn the right to carry them around. Not any "heavy" requirements, just reasonable ones. To me, guns are just one more potential threat to public safety, like unsafe drugs, food, appliances, cars, planes, trains, toys, structures, etc.

 

[TurtleDude]

Not going to repost that long litany of fail. I couldn't give a damn if you think someone else doesn't NEED an AR 15.

You're a Bannerrhoid Movement member. your views are only reasonable to those who want to harass lawful gun owners.

when you claim you "hate guns" you pretty much brand yourself incapable of a reasonable discussion on this issue. you certainly cannot be expected to proffer "reasonable" restrictions on something you admit you HATE

 

[mmi]

Not going to repost that long litany of fail.

What difference does it make if you quote from my post?

>I couldn't give a damn if you think someone else doesn't NEED an AR 15.

And you can no doubt believe that I don't give a damn what you think about it either. In another generation, my view will prevail.

>>You're a Bannerrhoid Movement member.

Yer a stinking liar. I explicitly said I don't want firearms banned. The only way you can defend yer extreme and completely unreasonable position is to lie and misrepresent my position. Yer a gun nut.

>>your views are only reasonable to those who want to harass lawful gun owners.

Mindless rhetoric. This whole "harassment" narrative is a figment of yer twisted gun-nut imagination.

>>when you claim you "hate guns" you pretty much brand yourself incapable of a reasonable discussion on this issue.

I hate bigotry too. Am I incapable of a reasonable discussion on that issue?

I hate violence. I hate greed and indifference to the suffering of others. In yer mind, guns are special and must be considered in ways that are different from just about everything else. It's yer views that are extreme, not mine. And they will pass from society just like other destructive attitudes such as religious intolerance and racial and gender discrimination and eventually, the dismal assortment of other human failings that create so much misery in this world.

Because yer a gun nut, you want to shut down any discussion of gun control. You have a bag of tricks you confidently try to shove down people's throats when anyone questions yer right to possess and carry around firearms without restriction.

>>you certainly cannot be expected to proffer "reasonable" restrictions on something you admit you HATE

Making it more difficult to purchase automatic rifles is arguably reasonable. My hatred of guns is irrelevant. Years ago, I hated the New York Yankees, but recognised their talent. If they'd been lousy ballplayers, I would have welcomed their presence in the league. I'm not controlled by my personal feelings. Are you?

 

[TurtleDude]

What difference does it make if you quote from my post?

>I couldn't give a damn if you think someone else doesn't NEED an AR 15.

And you can no doubt believe that I don't give a damn what you think about it either.

>>You're a Bannerrhoid Movement member.

Yer a stinking liar. I explicitly said I don't want firearms banned. The only way you can defend yer extreme and completely unreasonable position is to lie and misrepresent my position. Yer a gun nut.

>>your views are only reasonable to those who want to harass lawful gun owners.

Mindless rhetoric. This whole "harassment" narrative is a figment of yer twisted gun-nut imagination.

>>when you claim you "hate guns" you pretty much brand yourself incapable of a reasonable discussion on this issue.

I hate bigotry too. Am I incapable of a reasonable discussion on that issue? I hate violence. I hate greed and indifference to the suffering of others. In yer mind, guns are special and must be considered in ways that are different from just about everything else. It's yer views that are extreme, not mine. And they will pass from society just like other destructive attitudes such as religious intolerance and racial and gender discrimination and eventually, the cruel assortment of other human failings that create so much misery in this world.

Because yer a gun nut, you want to shut down any discussion of gun control. You have a bag of tricks you confidently try to shove down people's throats when anyone questions yer right to possess and carry around firearms

>>you certainly cannot be expected to proffer "reasonable" restrictions on something you admit you HATE

Making it more difficult to purchase automatic rifles is arguably reasonable. My hatred of guns is irrelevant. Year ago, I hated the New York Yankees, but recognised their talent. If they'd been lousy ballplayers, I would have welcomed their presence in the league. I'm not controlled by my personal feelings. Are you?

LOL, you admitted you wanted to make it much tougher for honest people to be able to obtain firearms in the pie in the sky hope it would deter perhaps a criminal or two from getting one. SO how can you claim I am a liar when it is you who has admitted that you agree that you want to harass honest citizens. As i have edified many ignorant on this board, the bannerrhoid movement members almost never come out and admit they want a complete ban on firearms at this point. Rather they want to harass gun owners, and make gun ownership more difficult in their quest to get the next "reasonable" restriction. after that is obtained, they then claim that step is not sufficient to stop crime so another "reasonable step" is needed.

do you even have a clue about the laws concerning automatic rifles? none have been used in a murder by private citizens in the USA in at least 70 years and you cannot even buy one-no matter how many licenses you have if it was made after May 19, 1986

 

[mmi]

LOL, you admitted you wanted to make it much tougher for honest people to be able to obtain firearms

No I didn't. When did I say that? Anytime RW jerks say their political opponents have "admitted" something, you can be almost certain that they're lying.

>>the pie in the sky hope it would deter perhaps a criminal or two from getting one.

More mindless rhetoric.

>>SO how can you claim I am a liar when it is you who has admitted that you agree that you want to harass honest citizens.

It's quite simple — yer lying. I have not "admitted" that I "want to harass honest citizens." I don't want to do that. Yer full of RW, gun-nut ****.

>>i have edified many ignorant on this board

You repeatedly make a fool of yerself with yer bizzare gun nuttery.

>>the bannerrhoid movement members almost never come out and admit they want a complete ban on firearms at this point.

You should consult a psychiatrist. There are treatments for paranoia.

>>they want to harass gun owners, and make gun ownership more difficult in their quest to get the next "reasonable" restriction. after that is obtained, they then claim that step is not sufficient to stop crime so another "reasonable step" is needed.

You try to hide behind this BS. It's ineffective, and you will lose in the realm of public policy once enough aging gun nuts croak.

>>do you even have a clue about the laws concerning automatic rifles? none have been used in a murder by private citizens in the USA in at least 70 years

I don't give a flying eff and I will never listen to any of yer arrogant lectures. I don't care about yer stupid definitions and I spit at the conceited attitude you have about all yer useless knowledge regarding killing machines. My contempt for you is off the scale. LOL that.

RW hate media is filled with garbage about how the fact that there are different variants of these weapons is somehow relevant. Only to gun nuts, which are thankfully a dying breed.

Here's an excerpt from an editorial written by the Massachusetts Attorney General.

It's no surprise the Orlando killer chose an AR-15 style assault rifle. It's a weapon of war, originally created for combat, and designed to kill many people in a short amount of time with incredible accuracy. It's in the same category as weapons chosen by killers in Newtown, Aurora, and San Bernardino. These are not weapons of self-defense. They are weapons used to commit mass murder. And they have no business being in civilian hands. — "The loophole in the Mass. assault weapons ban," Boston Globe, July 20, 2016​

 

[Fledermaus]

No I didn't. When did I say that? Anytime RW jerks say their political opponents have "admitted" something, you can be almost certain that they're lying.

>>the pie in the sky hope it would deter perhaps a criminal or two from getting one.

More mindless rhetoric.

>>SO how can you claim I am a liar when it is you who has admitted that you agree that you want to harass honest citizens.

It's quite simple — yer lying. I have not "admitted" that I "want to harass honest citizens." I don't want to do that. Yer full of RW, gun-nut ****.

>>i have edified many ignorant on this board

You repeatedly make a fool of yerself with yer bizzare gun nuttery.

>>the bannerrhoid movement members almost never come out and admit they want a complete ban on firearms at this point.

You should consult a psychiatrist. There are treatments for paranoia.

>>they want to harass gun owners, and make gun ownership more difficult in their quest to get the next "reasonable" restriction. after that is obtained, they then claim that step is not sufficient to stop crime so another "reasonable step" is needed.

You try to hide behind this BS. It's ineffective, and you will lose in the realm of public policy once enough aging gun nuts croak.

>>do you even have a clue about the laws concerning automatic rifles? none have been used in a murder by private citizens in the USA in at least 70 years

I don't give a flying eff and I will never listen to any of yer arrogant lectures. I don't care about yer stupid definitions and I spit at the conceited attitude you have about all yer useless knowledge regarding killing machines. My contempt for you is off the scale. LOL that.

RW hate media is filled with garbage about how the fact that there are different variants of these weapons is somehow relevant. Only to gun nuts, which are thankfully a dying breed.

Here's an excerpt from an editorial written by the Massachusetts Attorney General.

It's no surprise the Orlando killer chose an AR-15 style assault rifle. It's a weapon of war, originally created for combat, and designed to kill many people in a short amount of time with incredible accuracy. It's in the same category as weapons chosen by killers in Newtown, Aurora, and San Bernardino. These are not weapons of self-defense. They are weapons used to commit mass murder. And they have no business being in civilian hands. — "The loophole in the Mass. assault weapons ban," Boston Globe, July 20, 2016​

Intentional ignorance is an ugly thing....

If you are looking to ban things it might help to understand that which intend to ban.

 

[mmi]

Intentional ignorance is an ugly thing

I'm not much interested in the issue of gun control. It's too depressing to me. Remember, I hate guns. I leave it to people who know about this stuff and I support them politically.

>>If you are looking to ban things it might help to understand that which intend to ban.

Notice that I have never used the word "ban." I just want reasonable restrictions.

 

[Fledermaus]

I'm not much interested in the issue of gun control. It's too depressing to me. Remember, I hate guns. I leave it to people who know about this stuff and I support them politically.

>>If you are looking to ban things it might help to understand that which intend to ban.

Notice that I have never used the word "ban." I just want reasonable restrictions.

The problem is that many politicians share both your attitude and your ignorance about firearms. Please understand I use ignorance not as a derogatory term but as an accurate descriptor. This ignorance has given us "ugly gun" bans that have no real effect in real life.

You don't know the differences Turtle spoke to and you show no desire to learn. I think I understand where you are coming from but I disagree with your mindset.

And, while you did not state ban, onerous regulation has the same affect as a ban.

 

[mmi]

The problem is that many politicians share both your attitude and your ignorance about firearms.

That may well be. I'd say the problem is the gun lobby and the fear politicians have regarding single-issue gun-nut voters. The fact that this nonsense goes on doesn't reflect well on our elected representatives.

>>Please understand I use ignorance not as a derogatory term but as an accurate descriptor.

Of course. We are all ignorant of many things.

>>This ignorance has given us "ugly gun" bans that have no real effect in real life.

Perhaps.

>>I think I understand where you are coming from but I disagree with your mindset.

I appreciate yer tolerance and generosity. I just don't involve myself in this issue. I have suffered some very serious, more or less debilitating, psychological and emotional injuries from the use of firearms in political assassinations. It's not a policy area I can become involved in.

>>while you did not state ban, onerous regulation has the same affect as a ban.

Fair enough — I oppose onerous regulations.

 

[Fledermaus]

That may well be. I'd say the problem is the gun lobby and the fear politicians have regarding single-issue gun-nut voters. The fact that this nonsense goes on doesn't reflect well on our elected representatives.

>>Please understand I use ignorance not as a derogatory term but as an accurate descriptor.

Of course. We are all ignorant of many things.

>>This ignorance has given us "ugly gun" bans that have no real effect in real life.

Perhaps.

>>I think I understand where you are coming from but I disagree with your mindset.

I appreciate yer tolerance and generosity. I just don't involve myself in this issue. I have suffered some very serious, more or less debilitating, psychological and emotional injuries from the use of firearms in political assassinations. It's not a policy area I can become involved in.

>>while you did not state ban, onerous regulation has the same affect as a ban.

Fair enough — I oppose onerous regulations.

Thank you for your thoughtful reply.

I agree to some regulation and I think I understand where you are coming from (which at times gets me Turtle Blasted).

Have a wonderful day/night.

 

[mmi]

I agree to some regulation and I think I understand where you are coming from (which at times gets me Turtle Blasted).

I try to at least tolerate TurtleDude. He is an intelligent man who cares about others and had a career in public service. But I cannot accept his views on this issue.

I can see that my reaction to his attitude about guns is … impassioned. I'm confident that we can do better on firearms regulations. I can't deal with the details, but I think I have a good sense of whose judgement to trust.

>>Have a wonderful day/night.

You as well.

 

[TurtleDude]

The problem is that many politicians share both your attitude and your ignorance about firearms. Please understand I use ignorance not as a derogatory term but as an accurate descriptor. This ignorance has given us "ugly gun" bans that have no real effect in real life.

You don't know the differences Turtle spoke to and you show no desire to learn. I think I understand where you are coming from but I disagree with your mindset.

And, while you did not state ban, onerous regulation has the same affect as a ban.

when the desire to ban comes from the banner's attitude towards the politics of many of the owners, rather than any understanding of the issues, I doubt anything is going to change their minds when it comes to actual facts about crime

 

[TurtleDude]

No I didn't. When did I say that? Anytime RW jerks say their political opponents have "admitted" something, you can be almost certain that they're lying.

>>the pie in the sky hope it would deter perhaps a criminal or two from getting one.

More mindless rhetoric.

>>SO how can you claim I am a liar when it is you who has admitted that you agree that you want to harass honest citizens.

It's quite simple — yer lying. I have not "admitted" that I "want to harass honest citizens." I don't want to do that. Yer full of RW, gun-nut ****.

>>i have edified many ignorant on this board

You repeatedly make a fool of yerself with yer bizzare gun nuttery.

>>the bannerrhoid movement members almost never come out and admit they want a complete ban on firearms at this point.

You should consult a psychiatrist. There are treatments for paranoia.

>>they want to harass gun owners, and make gun ownership more difficult in their quest to get the next "reasonable" restriction. after that is obtained, they then claim that step is not sufficient to stop crime so another "reasonable step" is needed.

You try to hide behind this BS. It's ineffective, and you will lose in the realm of public policy once enough aging gun nuts croak.

>>do you even have a clue about the laws concerning automatic rifles? none have been used in a murder by private citizens in the USA in at least 70 years

I don't give a flying eff and I will never listen to any of yer arrogant lectures. I don't care about yer stupid definitions and I spit at the conceited attitude you have about all yer useless knowledge regarding killing machines. My contempt for you is off the scale. LOL that.

RW hate media is filled with garbage about how the fact that there are different variants of these weapons is somehow relevant. Only to gun nuts, which are thankfully a dying breed.

Here's an excerpt from an editorial written by the Massachusetts Attorney General.

It's no surprise the Orlando killer chose an AR-15 style assault rifle. It's a weapon of war, originally created for combat, and designed to kill many people in a short amount of time with incredible accuracy. It's in the same category as weapons chosen by killers in Newtown, Aurora, and San Bernardino. These are not weapons of self-defense. They are weapons used to commit mass murder. And they have no business being in civilian hands. — "The loophole in the Mass. assault weapons ban," Boston Globe, July 20, 2016​

a bannerrhoid extremist whining about guns? BFD. less than .001% of such rifles have ever been used to commit mass murder. Facts tend to bitch slap the bannerrhoid movement which is the most dishonest political cause in the country. and its assholes like that AG who actually cause more and more killers to choose that weapon.

 

[TurtleDude]

I'm not much interested in the issue of gun control. It's too depressing to me. Remember, I hate guns. I leave it to people who know about this stuff and I support them politically.

>>If you are looking to ban things it might help to understand that which intend to ban.

Notice that I have never used the word "ban." I just want reasonable restrictions.

there are more than enough "reasonable regulations" You quote the Mass. AG who wants to ban those rifles even though ALL RIFLES are used in murders less than hammers, clubs, knives and fists. So when you claim you want "REASONABLE" regulations but you quote far left nutcase extremists on the gun issue, its hard to find your claim of merely wanting "reasonable" regulation truthful


If you want to restrict a firearm that is rarely used in crime that is not reasonable.

 

[Russell797]

there are more than enough "reasonable regulations" You quote the Mass. AG who wants to ban those rifles even though ALL RIFLES are used in murders less than hammers, clubs, knives and fists. So when you claim you want "REASONABLE" regulations but you quote far left nutcase extremists on the gun issue, its hard to find your claim of merely wanting "reasonable" regulation truthful


If you want to restrict a firearm that is rarely used in crime that is not reasonable.

You are essentially saying that there is no problem worth fixing. You are saying that because people use all means available to kill themselves and others that there is no reason to try to limit or reduce any one particular method. That's just sick.