Senate Democrats plan to hold the floor to protest inaction on gun legislation

[iceberg]

Why do you think they don’t want gang members on red flag lists?

They just know if they pass a law, those gangbangers will hand in their guns all on their own. Like any good democrat would.
View attachment 279806

Sounds like you’re missing the point all together. If you think gun control advocates assume gang bangers will turn in their guns then you are a world away from understanding their position. Try listening more and talking less

then why do they keep saying they want them out of the hands of the criminals if "gang bangers" are not the intended "criminal"?

I don’t support confiscation but my understanding of their position is they see over the top dangerous weapons made for war being used in these mass shootings and they want to take them out of circulation. The criminal element is a separate problem that needs to be dealt with by law enforcement.

"over the top dangerous weapons made for war" is a classic definition of hyperbole.

kinda spreading fear, huh?

 

[CWayne]

They just know if they pass a law, those gangbangers will hand in their guns all on their own. Like any good democrat would.
View attachment 279806

Sounds like you’re missing the point all together. If you think gun control advocates assume gang bangers will turn in their guns then you are a world away from understanding their position. Try listening more and talking less

then why do they keep saying they want them out of the hands of the criminals if "gang bangers" are not the intended "criminal"?

I don’t support confiscation but my understanding of their position is they see over the top dangerous weapons made for war being used in these mass shootings and they want to take them out of circulation. The criminal element is a separate problem that needs to be dealt with by law enforcement.

"over the top dangerous weapons made for war" is a classic definition of hyperbole.

kinda spreading fear, huh?

Yes, and a not-so-opaque means of justifying an authoritarian desire.

 

[Slade3200]

I don’t think you are far off base. You seem to be an intelligent guy with an open mind towards ideas to make our world a safer place. You are like most gun supporting Americans that I’ve encountered, many of which are close friends of mine. I believe there are more people in the middle on this issue than the wings. Unfortunately the wings are hogging the spotlight.

I also grew up in a small town where many of my friends and family owned guns. I think it is a good idea for schools to do gun safety education. Some still do... a few years ago a local high school 20 minutes from my house was doing a gun safety assembly and the demonstrator accidentally fired the gun in the room full of students. Thank God nobody was hurt.

Unfortunately I think the NRA has disqualified themself’s from an objective and honest actor. I’ve seen their mailings and public messaging. They capitalize on fear mongering and demonizing hyperbolic talking points. Aside from that they do a great job with safety courses and education. That political element is polluting their mission IMO.

I think the NRA was forced into a political stance based on the constant attacks by the left. The Dems can't use the "deplorable" strategy as they seen how it worked for them the last time. So instead of insulting every gun owning American, they do so by proxy through the NRA.

The NRA didn't draw first blood. It was the Democrats that came after them. So now they're in bed with the Republican party because the Republicans will support their cause.

They weren’t forced into anything. Come on Ray wake up. They are using the most effective and aggressive marketing tactics to progress their agenda. Same as our politicians are doing with their campaigning. Unfortunately that no longer involves catering to the middle. It’s all about firing up the extreme base and demonizing the other side. It’s unfortunate

Except the NRA was never considered an EXTREME organization until it suited the agenda of the left.

The left demonizing someone doesn't make it valid or true. Besides they HITLER NAZI RACIST everything. Why give them credibility for their bullshit NOW?

I dont care about what the “left” says. I’m going off of what I’ve seen in their mailings and advertisements

and i asked specifically what those were. i've seen them ask for money and i've seen them say they're keeping people from taking guns. money needed to help stop them from taking guns. i have NEVER seen mean/dirty/underhanded tricks or lies from them so i want to know what you saw to make you feel this way.

looks like you answered under damndude and what i got from it is nothing really stood out to be "memorable" - just an impression.

i know of very few out there today "catering to the middle" as you say. media certainly doesn't do it. no politician on either side is doing it that i know of. social media certainly doesn't. the left demonizes everything that stands against their views or values. the right flings religion like answers. nike, gillette, dicks sporting goods, walmart - all cater to the extremes these days.

to get mad at one organization doing this in a manner you can't remember kinda befuddles me. i can tell you what each and every one of those above have done to "tilt my views" so to speak and i'll pull a zztop before i ever shave with gillette products. i gave my nikes away to goodwill.

in short, i know why i'm upset with a given party and what they did to do that to me.

https://www.nralegalfacts.org
that site is simply talking legal facts going around.

from home.nra.org these are their "talking points"

the main newsfeed banner talks of statements from the CEO, standing up for freedom, SF "terrorism" news, Wayne LaPierre saying stand tall, wal mart changes policy...

1 - our fights are under attack like never before. join today.
well, they are. the whole WE ARE NOT COMING FOR YOUR GUNS myth is blown and "red flag" laws are bypassing due process.

2 - NRA-ILA - tireless defenders of your 2nd amendment rights. click on "view more" and you get beto saying HELL YEA WE ARE GOING TO TAKE YOUR AR-15. given the NRA *does* defend the 2nd amendment, i can't see this as out of line.

3 - NRA Publications - Find the NRA Mags that match your interests.

4 - NRAStore.com - get decals, clothing, gear and more.

5 - NRA - Ring of Freedom - dedicated to securing the future of freedom (give money)

6 - NRA Women. showing many women also engage in shooting as a sport.

i also see general news feeds from RSS sources about various gun stories presenting another side of guns you rarely see in a media that uses "pulsing ar15's with grenade launchers" to scare people away from guns. nothing nefarious here, just positive gun stories to show they are in fact, out there.

keep digging you again see beto HELL YES (sorry beto, that will haunt you for the rest of your career) and then SAY NO TO SEMI-AUTO BAN!!! and I AM NOT A TERRORIST. since the BOS in SF declared this org a "Terrorist Org" (no, not engaging in fear at all) they are simply talking about how they filed suit against SF for violating the 1st amendment.

i then see where to register for gun safety classes. private sales and explanations of selling firearms.

oh, here's a killer. skeet vs. sporting clays.

and that's all i see on their site. i see NOTHING that at least *I* would consider YOU MUST GIVE US EVERYTHING OR WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE on their website. when i get their stuff in the mail, yes it does say "we need your help to defend people coming after guns!" and given i *never* got this mail until i did join the NRA, i don't believe they send these out at random to others who have not asked for it.

if you want this to stop, simply call 877-NRA-2000 and ask to be removed. if e-mail click "unsubscribe" at the bottom all spam must have.

so while yes, i do tire of the GIVE US MONEY OR THEY WILL TAKE YOUR GUNS (closest thing i can ever call a "fear tactic" - is it true? do they need money to stop people from bypassing due process and simply banning guns they obviously do not understand?

so please help me understand how the NRA is some big monster that is out there scaring people as i simply do not see it. i get those mails, i reviewed their site. the bullrush is annoying but it is from ANYONE asking me for money; but when you have people out there coming for guns and the NRA is about the only org standing against the mob mentality, what would you expect them to do? are they lying? i've NEVER seen them lie so please tell me if you have.

also - i only get NRA mail 2-3 times a year that i know of and i can toss it just as easily as get mad at it.

so please first understand i appreciate the civil conversation we all seem to be having so far. *this* is what drives me to keep coming here and having to work around trolling assholes only here to stir shit up. but when you make a statement that to me holds no credibility or water, i will want to question is NOT to say you shouldn't feel this way, but to understand WHY you feel this way, and analyze that in our overall climate / culture.

so in short, in a culture of HELL YES WE ARE COMING FOR YOUR GUNS, GIVE US MONEY TO STOP THEM is hardly scaring people but moreso addressing the idiocy out there. at least, to me. it is for certain gun control IS a political issue. given that the only choice you have is to fight it, politically. and politics these days does in fact, suck.

and like damndude, my condolences for your loss. i'm at the point in my life both my parents have passed on and not even many years gone by can stop me from tearing up when i miss them.

Ice, you make many fair points, I actually don’t disagree with your post. I don’t think the NRA is a monster. I think SF and those on the left that try and demonize them as a terror org are ridiculous and feeding the divisive fear mongering beast that I’m fully against. You said it well when you described how the many different groups like politicians, media, and businesses play to the extremes. I’m somebody who likes sitting in the middle. I try and find the validity and perspective of both sides in any situation. I often find that both sides make fair points and have valid concerns.

As far as our politics I respect a person who can acknowledge their opposition. It’s the only way to move forward. Work together, HEAR each other, consider and understand all perspectives and concerns and then make the best solution possible.... we are in an ugly state of jockeying for power at all costs and then doing as much as we can with that power before it swings to the other side. It is a horrible way to govern.

I know you and I have had our spats Ice but I always have and continue to respect you as a person. This board has many trolls and a lot of ugliness getting spewed out on a regular basis. It can bring out our inner demons at times and make us act in a way that is beneath us. I’m guilty of that for sure.

I’m glad to have real moments at times when we can connect on a human level.

Acknowledging love for family and the pain of loss is one of those human things that we all go through and can empathize with. To take a second to remember that, send some support/understanding, and see each other as like beings instead of the enemy is important. Cheers!

 

[Slade3200]

Why do you think they don’t want gang members on red flag lists?

They just know if they pass a law, those gangbangers will hand in their guns all on their own. Like any good democrat would.
View attachment 279806

Sounds like you’re missing the point all together. If you think gun control advocates assume gang bangers will turn in their guns then you are a world away from understanding their position. Try listening more and talking less

then why do they keep saying they want them out of the hands of the criminals if "gang bangers" are not the intended "criminal"?

I don’t support confiscation but my understanding of their position is they see over the top dangerous weapons made for war being used in these mass shootings and they want to take them out of circulation. The criminal element is a separate problem that needs to be dealt with by law enforcement.

"over the top dangerous weapons made for war" is a classic definition of hyperbole.

I actually think that phrase helps you. Define what a weapon of war specifically is. If an AR-15 has no different traits than a pistol then it won’t qualify as a weapon of war. It leaves room for a debate to define those terms. If you agree that weapons made for combat soldiers shouldn’t be easily sold to the public then there is common ground. If you think that Joe Citizen should be able to by any gun they want without regulation then you may be at an impass

 

[Hum Dinger]

The origins of the AR-15 (from Wikipedia):

"As a result, the Army was forced to reconsider a 1957 request by General Willard G. Wyman, commander of the U.S. Continental Army Command (CONARC) to develop a .223 caliber (5.56 mm) select-fire rifle weighing 6 lb (2.7 kg) when loaded with a 20-round magazine.[9] The 5.56mm round had to penetrate a standard U.S. M1 helmet at 500 yards (460 meters) and retain a velocity in excess of the speed of sound, while matching or exceeding the wounding ability of the .30 Carbine cartridge.[34] This request ultimately resulted in the development of a scaled-down version of the ArmaLite AR-10, called ArmaLite AR-15 rifle.[5][7][35]"

ArmaLite AR-15 - Wikipedia

Bottom line, the AR-15 is NOT an "assault weapon" from 1957. It is not selective fire either.

What is the difference between these two rifles?

I don't claim to know jack shit about firearms...I have absolutely no interest in the subject.

I'm just saying that according to Wikipedia, the AR-15 is the same as the Armalite-AR15 (aka M16), except that it's been modified to a semi-automatic.

Either way there's no valid reason for civilians to own a rifle that can penetrate a Helmet at 500 yards, have a projectile velocity greater than the speed of sound, and have a 'wounding ability' equal to a combat weapon.

I don't know if the modern day civilian version of the AR-15 still meets those criteria, but if it does...or anything close, it is not a valid civilian weapon.

Even if it's specs aren't close, recent mass murders committed with AR-15 are a testament that it has firepower far beyond anything that is reasonable for a civilian weapon.

If the other rifle you have pictured has similar firepower, then it should also be illegal for civilian ownership.

 

[iceberg]

I think the NRA was forced into a political stance based on the constant attacks by the left. The Dems can't use the "deplorable" strategy as they seen how it worked for them the last time. So instead of insulting every gun owning American, they do so by proxy through the NRA.

The NRA didn't draw first blood. It was the Democrats that came after them. So now they're in bed with the Republican party because the Republicans will support their cause.

They weren’t forced into anything. Come on Ray wake up. They are using the most effective and aggressive marketing tactics to progress their agenda. Same as our politicians are doing with their campaigning. Unfortunately that no longer involves catering to the middle. It’s all about firing up the extreme base and demonizing the other side. It’s unfortunate

Except the NRA was never considered an EXTREME organization until it suited the agenda of the left.

The left demonizing someone doesn't make it valid or true. Besides they HITLER NAZI RACIST everything. Why give them credibility for their bullshit NOW?

I dont care about what the “left” says. I’m going off of what I’ve seen in their mailings and advertisements

and i asked specifically what those were. i've seen them ask for money and i've seen them say they're keeping people from taking guns. money needed to help stop them from taking guns. i have NEVER seen mean/dirty/underhanded tricks or lies from them so i want to know what you saw to make you feel this way.

looks like you answered under damndude and what i got from it is nothing really stood out to be "memorable" - just an impression.

i know of very few out there today "catering to the middle" as you say. media certainly doesn't do it. no politician on either side is doing it that i know of. social media certainly doesn't. the left demonizes everything that stands against their views or values. the right flings religion like answers. nike, gillette, dicks sporting goods, walmart - all cater to the extremes these days.

to get mad at one organization doing this in a manner you can't remember kinda befuddles me. i can tell you what each and every one of those above have done to "tilt my views" so to speak and i'll pull a zztop before i ever shave with gillette products. i gave my nikes away to goodwill.

in short, i know why i'm upset with a given party and what they did to do that to me.

https://www.nralegalfacts.org
that site is simply talking legal facts going around.

from home.nra.org these are their "talking points"

the main newsfeed banner talks of statements from the CEO, standing up for freedom, SF "terrorism" news, Wayne LaPierre saying stand tall, wal mart changes policy...

1 - our fights are under attack like never before. join today.
well, they are. the whole WE ARE NOT COMING FOR YOUR GUNS myth is blown and "red flag" laws are bypassing due process.

2 - NRA-ILA - tireless defenders of your 2nd amendment rights. click on "view more" and you get beto saying HELL YEA WE ARE GOING TO TAKE YOUR AR-15. given the NRA *does* defend the 2nd amendment, i can't see this as out of line.

3 - NRA Publications - Find the NRA Mags that match your interests.

4 - NRAStore.com - get decals, clothing, gear and more.

5 - NRA - Ring of Freedom - dedicated to securing the future of freedom (give money)

6 - NRA Women. showing many women also engage in shooting as a sport.

i also see general news feeds from RSS sources about various gun stories presenting another side of guns you rarely see in a media that uses "pulsing ar15's with grenade launchers" to scare people away from guns. nothing nefarious here, just positive gun stories to show they are in fact, out there.

keep digging you again see beto HELL YES (sorry beto, that will haunt you for the rest of your career) and then SAY NO TO SEMI-AUTO BAN!!! and I AM NOT A TERRORIST. since the BOS in SF declared this org a "Terrorist Org" (no, not engaging in fear at all) they are simply talking about how they filed suit against SF for violating the 1st amendment.

i then see where to register for gun safety classes. private sales and explanations of selling firearms.

oh, here's a killer. skeet vs. sporting clays.

and that's all i see on their site. i see NOTHING that at least *I* would consider YOU MUST GIVE US EVERYTHING OR WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE on their website. when i get their stuff in the mail, yes it does say "we need your help to defend people coming after guns!" and given i *never* got this mail until i did join the NRA, i don't believe they send these out at random to others who have not asked for it.

if you want this to stop, simply call 877-NRA-2000 and ask to be removed. if e-mail click "unsubscribe" at the bottom all spam must have.

so while yes, i do tire of the GIVE US MONEY OR THEY WILL TAKE YOUR GUNS (closest thing i can ever call a "fear tactic" - is it true? do they need money to stop people from bypassing due process and simply banning guns they obviously do not understand?

so please help me understand how the NRA is some big monster that is out there scaring people as i simply do not see it. i get those mails, i reviewed their site. the bullrush is annoying but it is from ANYONE asking me for money; but when you have people out there coming for guns and the NRA is about the only org standing against the mob mentality, what would you expect them to do? are they lying? i've NEVER seen them lie so please tell me if you have.

also - i only get NRA mail 2-3 times a year that i know of and i can toss it just as easily as get mad at it.

so please first understand i appreciate the civil conversation we all seem to be having so far. *this* is what drives me to keep coming here and having to work around trolling assholes only here to stir shit up. but when you make a statement that to me holds no credibility or water, i will want to question is NOT to say you shouldn't feel this way, but to understand WHY you feel this way, and analyze that in our overall climate / culture.

so in short, in a culture of HELL YES WE ARE COMING FOR YOUR GUNS, GIVE US MONEY TO STOP THEM is hardly scaring people but moreso addressing the idiocy out there. at least, to me. it is for certain gun control IS a political issue. given that the only choice you have is to fight it, politically. and politics these days does in fact, suck.

and like damndude, my condolences for your loss. i'm at the point in my life both my parents have passed on and not even many years gone by can stop me from tearing up when i miss them.

Ice, you make many fair points, I actually don’t disagree with your post. I don’t think the NRA is a monster. I think SF and those on the left that try and demonize them as a terror org are ridiculous and feeding the divisive fear mongering beast that I’m fully against. You said it well when you described how the many different groups like politicians, media, and businesses play to the extremes. I’m somebody who likes sitting in the middle. I try and find the validity and perspective of both sides in any situation. I often find that both sides make fair points and have valid concerns.

As far as our politics I respect a person who can acknowledge their opposition. It’s the only way to move forward. Work together, HEAR each other, consider and understand all perspectives and concerns and then make the best solution possible.... we are in an ugly state of jockeying for power at all costs and then doing as much as we can with that power before it swings to the other side. It is a horrible way to govern.

I know you and I have had our spats Ice but I always have and continue to respect you as a person. This board has many trolls and a lot of ugliness getting spewed out on a regular basis. It can bring out our inner demons at times and make us act in a way that is beneath us. I’m guilty of that for sure.

I’m glad to have real moments at times when we can connect on a human level.

Acknowledging love for family and the pain of loss is one of those human things that we all go through and can empathize with. To take a second to remember that, send some support/understanding, and see each other as like beings instead of the enemy is important. Cheers!

Thank you. Could be some common ground out there still to be found.

 

[Hum Dinger]

When I grew up, the NRA was an organization that promoted gun safety and training.

If that were true today, the NRA would be leading the fight for reasonable gun regulation.

Instead, they only seem to care about maximizing gun sales.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

When I grew up, the NRA was an organization that promoted gun safety and training.

If that were true today, the NRA would be leading the fight for reasonable gun regulation.

Instead, they only seem to care about maximizing gun sales.

If that's where the NRA stood, they'd lose half of their members. Would that be a smart thing to do?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The origins of the AR-15 (from Wikipedia):

"As a result, the Army was forced to reconsider a 1957 request by General Willard G. Wyman, commander of the U.S. Continental Army Command (CONARC) to develop a .223 caliber (5.56 mm) select-fire rifle weighing 6 lb (2.7 kg) when loaded with a 20-round magazine.[9] The 5.56mm round had to penetrate a standard U.S. M1 helmet at 500 yards (460 meters) and retain a velocity in excess of the speed of sound, while matching or exceeding the wounding ability of the .30 Carbine cartridge.[34] This request ultimately resulted in the development of a scaled-down version of the ArmaLite AR-10, called ArmaLite AR-15 rifle.[5][7][35]"

ArmaLite AR-15 - Wikipedia

Bottom line, the AR-15 is NOT an "assault weapon" from 1957. It is not selective fire either.

What is the difference between these two rifles?

I don't claim to know jack shit about firearms...I have absolutely no interest in the subject.

I'm just saying that according to Wikipedia, the AR-15 is the same as the Armalite-AR15 (aka M16), except that it's been modified to a semi-automatic.

Either way there's no valid reason for civilians to own a rifle that can penetrate a Helmet at 500 yards, have a projectile velocity greater than the speed of sound, and have a 'wounding ability' equal to a combat weapon.

I don't know if the modern day civilian version of the AR-15 still meets those criteria, but if it does...or anything close, it is not a valid civilian weapon.

Even if it's specs aren't close, recent mass murders committed with AR-15 are a testament that it has firepower far beyond anything that is reasonable for a civilian weapon.

If the other rifle you have pictured has similar firepower, then it should also be illegal for civilian ownership.

So what does firepower have to do with it? Should we use nice firepower against our attackers now?

 

[whitehall]

Here's an idea, show you are sincere about gun violence by indicting Obama's A.G. and every federal officer who participated in Operation Fast and Furious. Under Obama and Holder's "leadership" the ATF sent over 3,000 illegal weapons to drug cartels in Mexico and lost track of them. When one of the weapons was used in the murder of a Border Patrol Officer it was reasonable evidence to indict the Attorney General for at the very least negligent homicide. Even when evidence was found that the weapons were used to murder hundreds of Mexican civilians nobody in the ATF or the Obama administration was fired much less indicted. The statute of limitations isn't up for negligent homicide so democrats (and republicans) could illustrate their determination by opening up an investigation into Operation Fast/ Furious

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I grew up as an army brat. The town I graduated high school from, when I graduated, wasn't the biggest, but by no means was it a little huckleberry town. Gun racks with rifles and shot guns were "normal" and nobody messed with them. We had classes on gun safety, if I'm not mistaken they were part of the health classes we had to take. Nothing dedicated to an entire year muchless a semester.... Just part of a class somewhere, every year from early on. What was frown upon is if someone decided to bring a pistol onto school grounds....and it happened and was handled at the appropriate level at the time.

My military training has little to do with my attitude towards firearms. My preference for me to be able to defend me and mine yes... I prefer a ar 15 with a collapsible stock to allow for use in confined spaces, chambered for .308 as I have used the .223/5.56 and should I have to shoot someone, I only want to do it once... Not multiple times. Unless its absolutely necessary.

I don't know when schools got away from teaching firearm safety... Like I said, it was something that was touched upon from an early age for many of us. The vast amount of ignorance about firearms could be abated from an early age if those classes were brought back and taught to our kids. Instead of letting the lack of knowledge (re ignorance) be the rule and saying kids don't need to know.
Kids get all sorts of shit pushed down their proverbial throats, in the guise of education, tolerance, and understanding. I can tell you there were things my children had to "learn" I had grave reservations about... And no, I will not express what they were as they are very off targert here, but I will say they were under that very guise of "tolerence."
Bring back firearm education... I would even suggest allowing the NRA to assist, if not provide instructors, for the necessary classes.... That will be a very unpopular idea for a bunch on the left.... But the NRA isn't a bad guy organization and actually push for education and training... If folks would actually read for themselves what they do.

I don’t think you are far off base. You seem to be an intelligent guy with an open mind towards ideas to make our world a safer place. You are like most gun supporting Americans that I’ve encountered, many of which are close friends of mine. I believe there are more people in the middle on this issue than the wings. Unfortunately the wings are hogging the spotlight.

I also grew up in a small town where many of my friends and family owned guns. I think it is a good idea for schools to do gun safety education. Some still do... a few years ago a local high school 20 minutes from my house was doing a gun safety assembly and the demonstrator accidentally fired the gun in the room full of students. Thank God nobody was hurt.

Unfortunately I think the NRA has disqualified themself’s from an objective and honest actor. I’ve seen their mailings and public messaging. They capitalize on fear mongering and demonizing hyperbolic talking points. Aside from that they do a great job with safety courses and education. That political element is polluting their mission IMO.

I think the NRA was forced into a political stance based on the constant attacks by the left. The Dems can't use the "deplorable" strategy as they seen how it worked for them the last time. So instead of insulting every gun owning American, they do so by proxy through the NRA.

The NRA didn't draw first blood. It was the Democrats that came after them. So now they're in bed with the Republican party because the Republicans will support their cause.

They weren’t forced into anything. Come on Ray wake up. They are using the most effective and aggressive marketing tactics to progress their agenda. Same as our politicians are doing with their campaigning. Unfortunately that no longer involves catering to the middle. It’s all about firing up the extreme base and demonizing the other side. It’s unfortunate

Their agenda? And what agenda do you speak of?

The NRA promotes what their supporters expect them to promote.......them.

Effective and aggressive marketing tactics? Do you object if the Girl Scouts of America promote selling their cookies? Do you object if Toyota has Camry signs on the highway?

After I obtained my CCW license, the NRA sent me solicitations several times. After a short period, they quit sending me flyers because I never responded. The AARP has been sending me crap in the mail for the last ten years. In spite of me telling them to stop, because they supported Commie Care and I find them to be an un-American organization, they continue to this day, and I'm not going to turn 65 for another six years.

I don't know what you consider aggressive and effective because I don't see any NRA signs on the highway. I don't see any NRA ads when I'm at the doctor and pickup a Time magazine or something. I don't see them running television ads during a comedy movie.

When organizations use hyperbole and fear tactics to push their messaging they define themselves to one side and one agenda. That’s fine but when talking about being responsible for the education of our youth, they are no longer credible in my eyes

You don't like their so-called fear and hyperbole, but it's okay when the Democrats use it.

As I stated earlier, the NRA never wanted to be a political movement, they were dragged into it by the Democrats. They seen the Republicans come to their side and now they have to be part of it. When you are repeatedly attacked, you have to defend yourself.

I never joined the NRA, but when Democrats attack them, I believe they are attacking me at the same time. Every crummy thing they say about the NRA they are saying about me because I support their positions. In a sense, the Democrats are now calling me a terrorist. That's the way I look at it.

 

[whitehall]

What about the other legislative branch of government? Pelosi's democrat majority in the House seems paralyzed by PTSD related to the last presidential election.

 

[Markle]

When I grew up, the NRA was an organization that promoted gun safety and training.

If that were true today, the NRA would be leading the fight for reasonable gun regulation.

Instead, they only seem to care about maximizing gun sales.

We have reasonable gun regulation.

How about we improve gun regulations that punish criminals rather than law-abiding citizens?

 

[DamnDude]

When I grew up, the NRA was an organization that promoted gun safety and training.

If that were true today, the NRA would be leading the fight for reasonable gun regulation.

Instead, they only seem to care about maximizing gun sales.

We have reasonable gun regulation.

How about we improve gun regulations that punish criminals rather than law-abiding citizens?

I agree with this so hard.

What we don't have is the proper implementation of the regulations... And it is across the board and for many various reasons. From second, third, 50th chances of "suppressed youth" to absolute laziness of individuals.... This is part and parcel why I am opposed to even more subjective so called common sense gun laws being implemented. So many think the laws are being implemented time now, yet the are not... The why as for them not to be implemented and followed escapes me. I wish they were. So many lives could have been saved.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

When I grew up, the NRA was an organization that promoted gun safety and training.

If that were true today, the NRA would be leading the fight for reasonable gun regulation.

Instead, they only seem to care about maximizing gun sales.

We have reasonable gun regulation.

How about we improve gun regulations that punish criminals rather than law-abiding citizens?

The Democrats have no desire to lock up more potential voters. You can't vote in prison....yet, so they can't afford to be having voters in jail for ten years just because they got caught with an illegal gun.

Police in Chicago are aggravated as all hell because they catch somebody with an illegal gun, and see them walking the streets a few weeks later. From what I've read, it's almost like a jaywalking ticket over there.

 

[Slade3200]

I don’t think you are far off base. You seem to be an intelligent guy with an open mind towards ideas to make our world a safer place. You are like most gun supporting Americans that I’ve encountered, many of which are close friends of mine. I believe there are more people in the middle on this issue than the wings. Unfortunately the wings are hogging the spotlight.

I also grew up in a small town where many of my friends and family owned guns. I think it is a good idea for schools to do gun safety education. Some still do... a few years ago a local high school 20 minutes from my house was doing a gun safety assembly and the demonstrator accidentally fired the gun in the room full of students. Thank God nobody was hurt.

Unfortunately I think the NRA has disqualified themself’s from an objective and honest actor. I’ve seen their mailings and public messaging. They capitalize on fear mongering and demonizing hyperbolic talking points. Aside from that they do a great job with safety courses and education. That political element is polluting their mission IMO.

I think the NRA was forced into a political stance based on the constant attacks by the left. The Dems can't use the "deplorable" strategy as they seen how it worked for them the last time. So instead of insulting every gun owning American, they do so by proxy through the NRA.

The NRA didn't draw first blood. It was the Democrats that came after them. So now they're in bed with the Republican party because the Republicans will support their cause.

They weren’t forced into anything. Come on Ray wake up. They are using the most effective and aggressive marketing tactics to progress their agenda. Same as our politicians are doing with their campaigning. Unfortunately that no longer involves catering to the middle. It’s all about firing up the extreme base and demonizing the other side. It’s unfortunate

Their agenda? And what agenda do you speak of?

The NRA promotes what their supporters expect them to promote.......them.

Effective and aggressive marketing tactics? Do you object if the Girl Scouts of America promote selling their cookies? Do you object if Toyota has Camry signs on the highway?

After I obtained my CCW license, the NRA sent me solicitations several times. After a short period, they quit sending me flyers because I never responded. The AARP has been sending me crap in the mail for the last ten years. In spite of me telling them to stop, because they supported Commie Care and I find them to be an un-American organization, they continue to this day, and I'm not going to turn 65 for another six years.

I don't know what you consider aggressive and effective because I don't see any NRA signs on the highway. I don't see any NRA ads when I'm at the doctor and pickup a Time magazine or something. I don't see them running television ads during a comedy movie.

When organizations use hyperbole and fear tactics to push their messaging they define themselves to one side and one agenda. That’s fine but when talking about being responsible for the education of our youth, they are no longer credible in my eyes

You don't like their so-called fear and hyperbole, but it's okay when the Democrats use it.

As I stated earlier, the NRA never wanted to be a political movement, they were dragged into it by the Democrats. They seen the Republicans come to their side and now they have to be part of it. When you are repeatedly attacked, you have to defend yourself.

I never joined the NRA, but when Democrats attack them, I believe they are attacking me at the same time. Every crummy thing they say about the NRA they are saying about me because I support their positions. In a sense, the Democrats are now calling me a terrorist. That's the way I look at it.

I didn’t say it was ok when the dems did it. Don’t put words in my mouth Ray. I called out things the left does that I find absurd. You’re trying too hard to pin me as a hypocritical lefty.

 

[2aguy]

The democrats won't put gang members on red flag lists and confiscate their guns. WTF?
Aren't they serious about reducing gun violence?
All they want is to collect rural law-abiding guns?
Gun control is dead without gang members on red flag lists.

Aren't they serious about reducing gun violence?

What made you think that? Democrat judges are the ones letting repeat gun offenders out on IBonds......where they don't even have to put any money down, and they are released....and they also give repeat gun offenders short prison sentences...then, democrat politicians keep making laws that let violent, repeat gun offenders get reduced sentences for gun crimes.....

Democrats don't care about the actual criminals using guns to kill each other.....once they are captured the democrats can get their guns......the guns they can't get? The 600 million in the hands of law abiding people who will never use them for crimes...that just pisses them off. So they have to create new laws and red tape that trap normal gun owners.....which then allows the democrats to get those guns...

 

[CWayne]

They just know if they pass a law, those gangbangers will hand in their guns all on their own. Like any good democrat would.
View attachment 279806

Sounds like you’re missing the point all together. If you think gun control advocates assume gang bangers will turn in their guns then you are a world away from understanding their position. Try listening more and talking less

then why do they keep saying they want them out of the hands of the criminals if "gang bangers" are not the intended "criminal"?

I don’t support confiscation but my understanding of their position is they see over the top dangerous weapons made for war being used in these mass shootings and they want to take them out of circulation. The criminal element is a separate problem that needs to be dealt with by law enforcement.

"over the top dangerous weapons made for war" is a classic definition of hyperbole.

I actually think that phrase helps you. Define what a weapon of war specifically is. If an AR-15 has no different traits than a pistol then it won’t qualify as a weapon of war. It leaves room for a debate to define those terms. If you agree that weapons made for combat soldiers shouldn’t be easily sold to the public then there is common ground. If you think that Joe Citizen should be able to by any gun they want without regulation then you may be at an impass

No. A person can if they are so inclined to limit the rights of people, use and redefine terms in order to frame the debate in their favor. Using your model, the hyperbole grows and grows until a slingshot becomes a weapon of war. Leaving your condescension aside that anyone needs a term defined for them, anyone with any common sense realizes that a semi-automatic rifle, regardless of its exterior design, is no more dangerous than any other semi-automatic weapon. In fact, a person who is trained and practices often can be just as deadly with a single bolt action rifle, like someone using a semi-automatic one.

 

[Slade3200]

Sounds like you’re missing the point all together. If you think gun control advocates assume gang bangers will turn in their guns then you are a world away from understanding their position. Try listening more and talking less

then why do they keep saying they want them out of the hands of the criminals if "gang bangers" are not the intended "criminal"?

I don’t support confiscation but my understanding of their position is they see over the top dangerous weapons made for war being used in these mass shootings and they want to take them out of circulation. The criminal element is a separate problem that needs to be dealt with by law enforcement.

"over the top dangerous weapons made for war" is a classic definition of hyperbole.

I actually think that phrase helps you. Define what a weapon of war specifically is. If an AR-15 has no different traits than a pistol then it won’t qualify as a weapon of war. It leaves room for a debate to define those terms. If you agree that weapons made for combat soldiers shouldn’t be easily sold to the public then there is common ground. If you think that Joe Citizen should be able to by any gun they want without regulation then you may be at an impass

No. A person can if they are so inclined to limit the rights of people, use and redefine terms in order to frame the debate in their favor. Using your model, the hyperbole grows and grows until a slingshot becomes a weapon of war. Leaving your condescension aside that anyone needs a term defined for them, anyone with any common sense realizes that a semi-automatic rifle, regardless of its exterior design, is no more dangerous than any other semi-automatic weapon. In fact, a person who is trained and practices often can be just as deadly with a single bolt action rifle, like someone using a semi-automatic one.

So I’m guessing your against the regulations on machine guns then is that right? Do you think anybody should be able to walk into a 711 and buy an uzi with their slurpy no questions asked?.

 

[iceberg]

then why do they keep saying they want them out of the hands of the criminals if "gang bangers" are not the intended "criminal"?

I don’t support confiscation but my understanding of their position is they see over the top dangerous weapons made for war being used in these mass shootings and they want to take them out of circulation. The criminal element is a separate problem that needs to be dealt with by law enforcement.

"over the top dangerous weapons made for war" is a classic definition of hyperbole.

I actually think that phrase helps you. Define what a weapon of war specifically is. If an AR-15 has no different traits than a pistol then it won’t qualify as a weapon of war. It leaves room for a debate to define those terms. If you agree that weapons made for combat soldiers shouldn’t be easily sold to the public then there is common ground. If you think that Joe Citizen should be able to by any gun they want without regulation then you may be at an impass

No. A person can if they are so inclined to limit the rights of people, use and redefine terms in order to frame the debate in their favor. Using your model, the hyperbole grows and grows until a slingshot becomes a weapon of war. Leaving your condescension aside that anyone needs a term defined for them, anyone with any common sense realizes that a semi-automatic rifle, regardless of its exterior design, is no more dangerous than any other semi-automatic weapon. In fact, a person who is trained and practices often can be just as deadly with a single bolt action rifle, like someone using a semi-automatic one.

So I’m guessing your against the regulations on machine guns then is that right? Do you think anybody should be able to walk into a 711 and buy an uzi with their slurpy no questions asked?.

Except with a machine gun we have the characteristic of it being automatic.

While spray and pray is never really effective, it has been regulated. To date I've heard NO ONE characterize an AR15 that doesn't include almost every gun out there.

So, can you? Invariably when pressed those coming after the AR simply fall to banning all semi automatic guns because they CAN'T define just the AR. Their frustration does this.

please define what about the AR must be banned / more regulated that won't also impact the entry level rugar 10/22.