Why isn't the NRA talking about the the average shooting which is the real problem?
- Thread starter usmarine0352_2005
- Start date
- Status
Danrutenberg
Member
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2013
- Messages
- 6
It doesn't need to represent the people. It needs to represent the 2nd amendment and the people who pay the membership fees. Asking the NRA to not defend the 2nd amendment is like asking planned parenthood to stop giving out condoms.... It's what they do and that's why people join. The NRA is not some evil empire it's made out to be. The NRA is we the people paying our money to support our god given bill of rights. It bugs me when the media talks about the NRA like its one person with billions of dollars swaying our politicians to vote accordingly. Can we say Bloomberg and Brady ? It is a collective of people who make the NRA. So obviously if enough people are paying membership fees to support such a powerful organization maybe the will of the people is not what you think? Not that it matters anyway. The bill of rights is there to protect the majority and the minority. Even if there was only 1 person left in the whole country who wanted to keep his arms but the other 300 million disagreed it would not matter, that mans right is protected under our constitution. If people don't understand or agree with that then I am sorry to say but you are not a proud American and should consider moving elsewhere because I'm pretty sure my forefathers and current family fought for and currently fight to keep these rights as they are written. There is no such thing as common sense infringement.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
JohnsXDM
Member
The Libs are saving all the gang shootings for their next round of their gun bans!
Danrutenberg
Member
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2013
- Messages
- 6
Why did you delete it after I spent time typing up a response lol.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
BHP FAN
Member
''Don't get me wrong, I am an avid hunter...''
so was Jim Zumbo.
so was Jim Zumbo.
And Elmer Fudd.
How exactly would these measures reduce violence and save lives? If you could prove that, it would take the wind right out of the sails of the conspiracy theories.
The NRA simply defends our rights. We see no valid reason for the government to ban certain weapons based purely on cosmetic features, so naturally we wonder why certain politicians are so determined to do so.
What exactly is unethical about it?
It represents its members, who are of course people, numbering in the millions, as well as the fundamental right of all the American People to keep and bear arms (if they so choose, individually).
FBI UCR data show only half the murder victims are black, half were white.
The age range from 17-35 is where most murder victims fall, with the highest number in the 20-25 year old range. These are not "young" people in the sense that people think of people below the age of 20.
The South had a greatest percentage of murders (40%) than the urban NE which had the lowest.
School shootings in 2011 made up only 0.05% of the 12,644 murders, not 1%. In 2012 the 30 school murders were 0.2%, far less than 1%. They get a lot of attention, but they are an even smaller fraction than most people think by an order of magnitude.
We perpetuate myths and formulate stances based on those same myths we repeat to each other, not unlike Antis. It behooves all of us to look at the cold hard data and base our opinions and actions on that instead of perpetuating easily debunked myths.
The facts from the FBI's UCR shows us where we're being lied to by Antis and where's we're lying to ourselves. Those facts show us that the nature of violent crime isn't what people think it is and that the solutions are not as simple as we think AND that the simpleminded solutions being volleyed back and forth are not going to be effective.
Look at the data out there, stop deceiving yourself with myths, and fight to stop others from making policy and legislation based on the myths instead of the facts.
The age range from 17-35 is where most murder victims fall, with the highest number in the 20-25 year old range. These are not "young" people in the sense that people think of people below the age of 20.
The South had a greatest percentage of murders (40%) than the urban NE which had the lowest.
School shootings in 2011 made up only 0.05% of the 12,644 murders, not 1%. In 2012 the 30 school murders were 0.2%, far less than 1%. They get a lot of attention, but they are an even smaller fraction than most people think by an order of magnitude.
We perpetuate myths and formulate stances based on those same myths we repeat to each other, not unlike Antis. It behooves all of us to look at the cold hard data and base our opinions and actions on that instead of perpetuating easily debunked myths.
The facts from the FBI's UCR shows us where we're being lied to by Antis and where's we're lying to ourselves. Those facts show us that the nature of violent crime isn't what people think it is and that the solutions are not as simple as we think AND that the simpleminded solutions being volleyed back and forth are not going to be effective.
Look at the data out there, stop deceiving yourself with myths, and fight to stop others from making policy and legislation based on the myths instead of the facts.
Last edited:
NRA represents aproximatley 4.4 million citizens, or about 1.3% of the population of the US by membership. Corporate lobbies represent the aformentioned corporations, which are not people.dh55 said:
But, don't worry about conspiracy theories, lets hear it from the horse's mouth:
Youtube of above statementSen. D. Feinstein said:
But, you don't need to worry, there's no chance that after they ban "assault weapons" that they will come after your high-powered sniper rifle that's exactly the same model as used by the Military in Afghanistan and can easily kill someone from a mile away. Oh wait.... (Remington Model 700 or any other bolt-action hunting rifle, in case the reference falls wide)
They already do this...way too much. If anything it has worsened the problem.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
We welcome you to debate these topics here. It is good to have an opportunity to clearly and honestly air out the facts, logic, and sound theory behind political and legislative actions and proposals.
However, if you're going to repeat over-heated and suspect phrases rather than answer questions thoughtfully, we won't entertain your presence for long. Debating requires thoughtful responses. Base repetition of contentious soundbites equates to "trolling" and that's not acceptable here.
So, dh55, the ball's in your court.
So 93% of the shootings are black on black crime, someone says it is liberal on liberal crime, and you say doubt this is true? He got 95% of the black vote in 2008 and 93% in 2012.
I don't care what they "consider themselves"...they vote D every time.
Source: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/07/fox-news-exit-poll-summary/
Well if you have exit polls showing how many "gansters" vote and also have data conclusively showing how many "gangsters" there are then we can discuss facts and not your baseless claims.
DammitBoy
Member
What common sense measures would you be referring to that would save lives? A ban on the shoulder thing that goes up?
Whether or not you believe that the NRA represents the people, as a gun owner you directly benefit from much of their work on the RKBA. I also think we would be much more open to a debate on the facts and merits of "assault weapons" rather than you just calling their manufacturers unethical. What makes an AR15 style rifle more unethical than your hunting rifle?
As far as "being on the winning side", in the unlikely event that most/all of the current proposed legislation passes, don't be surprised if your firearms of choice are threatened next.
Last edited:
This is not a gun issue. It is a societal issue that no one wants to tackle since it was created by the Great Society of Johnson. One half our nation are wagon riders and less than half are trying to pull the wagon. Our society has become so government dependent that it can not operated on its own initiative or resources.
What would happen if tomorrow the government said no more welfare? There would be a chaos of major proportions. A civil unrest of awesome magnitude with many thousands being killed.
So what happens if we continue down this same road as today until the nation is broke and cannot continue this dependency any longer? The result will be the same.
It is inevitable as we now stand and it is going to be a very serious and difficult condition to overcome. No matter what is tried will cause chaos and strife. This is why they want to blame the guns, because they know what will happen when this happens and the same number of guns, 300 million, are still in the hands of the citizens.
It is not a gun issue, it is a society issue, but it is easier to blame the inert tool than face the irate citizenry. Cowards!
What would happen if tomorrow the government said no more welfare? There would be a chaos of major proportions. A civil unrest of awesome magnitude with many thousands being killed.
So what happens if we continue down this same road as today until the nation is broke and cannot continue this dependency any longer? The result will be the same.
It is inevitable as we now stand and it is going to be a very serious and difficult condition to overcome. No matter what is tried will cause chaos and strife. This is why they want to blame the guns, because they know what will happen when this happens and the same number of guns, 300 million, are still in the hands of the citizens.
It is not a gun issue, it is a society issue, but it is easier to blame the inert tool than face the irate citizenry. Cowards!
The right to keep and bear arms (RKBA) is the means by which all of our other rights are protected, and the NRA defends the RKBA for all of the people, whether they individually realize the necessity or not.
Explain why you consider them unethical. Then explain what a so-called "assault weapon" is and why it is different from other weapons not so labeled. Using loaded terms in this manner does nothing for your arguments against an educated audience like the one you are addressing.
Bravado and presumption likewise do nothing for your arguments--frankly, you are this far from being considered a troll who cannot back up his loaded, contentious arguments, and therefore really has nothing meaningful to say.
slamfirev10
Member
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2009
- Messages
- 210
this thread was well worth the read, thanks gents
If no one had access to high capacity assault weapons, less shots could be fired on shooting sprees before the police arrive, therefore less deaths would occur. This is a basic logical argument.
If by giving up assault weapons you could bring back just one of the children who died at Newtown, you like any other decent american would do it, so why is giving up high capacity weapons now, to save lives in the future such a difficult thing? Do assault weapon proponents realize they are putting their property before lives? Before you say your guns will never be used to commit such a crime I'm sure Adam Lanza's mom would have said the same thing, before she along with an entire classroom full of children were killed with her own guns.
Neither the President nor anyone in the Administration wants to take your legitimate sporting and defense firearms, that is another basic point that gets missed. The debate is only about the most deadly guns which are loved by the fringes of the far right.
If an "assault weapon" could save "one child's life", you like any other decent American would support people owning "assault weapons" right?
http://www.humanevents.com/2013/01/10/assault-rifle-saves-teenagers-from-home-invasion-burglars/
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked