The NRA Finally Responds With Its "Meaningful Contributions"

[Formaldehyde]

So you've answered it before, but decide to throw a fit here just because and not clarify your ownership?

Typical.

You are the one who is "throwing a fit" here by continuing to try to discuss me instead of the topic, especially after it was noted by others that it is a quite obvious straw man.

How completely disingenuous and intentionally "bearing false witness" your posts continue to be.

And you have now even brought it to another thread where you are still not discussing the topic instead of me.

"Typical".

 

[GhostWriter16]

@Useless-No I don't, I prefer the Jeffersonain foreign policy of trading with all and being entangled with none. Remember Washington's farewell address?

And if you don't think the United States is a tyrannical country you really need to read this thread:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone

@Oruc- He doesn't realize that interventionism just gets more people killed and is a form of acting as god.

 

[useless]

Would you have intervened in WW2?

Or the Rwandan genocide?

Or the Balkan ethnic conflict?

 

[Kennigit]

South Korea is stronger than North Korea anyways, but regardless its not our job to protect them or any other country.

@Oruc- He should if he wants them there

north korea has the firepower to easily destroy seoul; I mean, its <50 miles (<80 km) away from the border. WWII technology easily has those capabilities. That's 10 million people immediately at risk.

the reason north korea doesn't just destroy seoul in one massive launch of missiles is the entire world would instantly destroy north korea and china holds north korea back on their leash.

the leadership of north korea is crazy and dangerous enough to do that.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Would you have intervened in WW2?

After Pearl Harbor, absolutely.

If it could have been avoided? Heck no. I mean, even the "Humanitarian war" argument fails because of Stalin.

Or the Rwandan genocide?

Or the Balkan ethnic conflict?

No. There is no reason for our soldiers to get killed in Civil Wars.

Seriously you aren't even a "Left-winger." Left-wingers oppose interventionism. You're just a straight up statist.

 

[GoodGame]

I believe the NRA blamed violent video games too. Not sure why. Don't blame some inanimate objects, but blame other inanimate objects? It's like denying guns are problem but affirming cars are in need of regulation, or vending machines...

My take:

It's pretty clear that mass murders are caused by mentally challenged or mentally ill people (more often the mentally ill), generally with known track records and even government files describing/warning about their behavior, who then reach for the same privileges of responsible citizens, and fail miserably to handle themselves responsibly. It's a sociological, perhaps biological, phenomenon. Man is the problem.

Armed security is a good check on the above from happening at public locations. Problem is that even trusted security professionals occasionally flip-out and perpetrate a mass murder themselves (it's proven). And quality isn't cheap.

You can try to take society technologically back to cave-men tech by banning everything, except when in government hands, but then you'd still have Judo and scissors.

Overall, there's no perfect solution to the problem of mass murder. Fund research into humane solutions?

 

[Phrossack]

Remember, there's a thread for your Civil War debates with brick walls. I'm a bit pissed at how every other thread gets derailed by this.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I wasn't talking about the American one there, but you're right, this thread is about the National Rifle "Blame Mortal Combat rather than actually defending gun rights" Association.

 

[MobBoss]

You are the one who is "throwing a fit" here by continuing to try to discuss me instead of the topic, especially after it was noted by others that it is a quite obvious straw man.

How completely disingenuous and intentionally "bearing false witness" your posts continue to be.

And you have now even brought it to another thread where you are still not discussing the topic instead of me.

"Typical".

You know what? I dont care if you think its a strawman. You've made some sweeping generalizations about gun ownships over several threads, and I for one am calling you out on it by pointing out your own gun ownership.

I mean really, its been massively enjoyable to watch you throw a hissy when asked about your own weapon ownship so that all can see. I dont have to bear any false witness - how you act, and continue to act, is plain for all to see.

Now then....will you state for the record what kind of weapons you own? Or will you continue to throw your tantrum all the while complaining about gun owners and the NRA in general?

I bet I know which you choose....

 

[Agent327]

Would that help any meaningdul discussion?

After Pearl Harbor, absolutely.

What exactly would be left to "intervene" after Pearl Harbor? It was war already...

 

[MobBoss]

Would that help any meaningdul discussion?

Probably more than your question here does.

As its about firearm ownership, so its at least germane to the issue at hand. Your continuous whining about such questions? Not so much.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

After Pearl Harbor, absolutely.

Would you have supported FDR's lend-lease program? (which would have cost $647 billion of today's money)

 

[useless]

Dude calls me a statist despite wanting the government to ban abortion for him

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

It's his binary universe.

There are 2 types of people:
Me and all the others who swallow Rockwell without question, and there are statists.

 

[peter grimes]

South Korea is stronger than North Korea anyways, but regardless its not our job to protect them or any other country.

Again, you're talking about things you really don't know anything at all about. Spend some time on GlobalSecurity.org reading up on DPRK and ROK. There's a very good reason we have trip-wire troops there, as Kennegit points out below.

north korea has the firepower to easily destroy seoul; I mean, its <50 miles (<80 km) away from the border. WWII technology easily has those capabilities. That's 10 million people immediately at risk.

the reason north korea doesn't just destroy seoul in one massive launch of missiles is the entire world would instantly destroy north korea and china holds north korea back on their leash.

the leadership of north korea is crazy and dangerous enough to do that.

I think you forgot a "not". Kind of changes the meaning!

You know what? I dont care if you think its a strawman. You've made some sweeping generalizations about gun ownships over several threads, and I for one am calling you out on it by pointing out your own gun ownership.

I mean really, its been massively enjoyable to watch you throw a hissy when asked about your own weapon ownship so that all can see. I dont have to bear any false witness - how you act, and continue to act, is plain for all to see.

Now then....will you state for the record what kind of weapons you own? Or will you continue to throw your tantrum all the while complaining about gun owners and the NRA in general?

I bet I know which you choose....

I'm not sure how relevant this is - it's sort of like someone asking Warren Buffett to pay more to the Feds if he thinks his tax rate it too low. You can be against unrestricted gun ownership while legally owning guns. It's not something I do, myself, but I can at least see how it doesn't invalidate someone's arguments.

I believe the NRA blamed violent video games too. Not sure why. Don't blame some inanimate objects, but blame other inanimate objects? It's like denying guns are problem but affirming cars are in need of regulation, or vending machines...

My take:

It's pretty clear that mass murders are caused by mentally challenged or mentally ill people (more often the mentally ill), generally with known track records and even government files describing/warning about their behavior, who then reach for the same privileges of responsible citizens, and fail miserably to handle themselves responsibly. It's a sociological, perhaps biological, phenomenon. Man is the problem.

Armed security is a good check on the above from happening at public locations. Problem is that even trusted security professionals occasionally flip-out and perpetrate a mass murder themselves (it's proven). And quality isn't cheap.

You can try to take society technologically back to cave-men tech by banning everything, except when in government hands, but then you'd still have Judo and scissors.

Overall, there's no perfect solution to the problem of mass murder. Fund research into humane solutions?

I think this is one of those cases where we can learn some good practices from the military. Here's a comment from a thread on reddit:

Soldiers living off base are not permitted to bring their personal weapons onto base, and Soldiers living on base are expected to turn their personal weapons into the unit armory, where they will be secured. Nobody totes around an M-16 with loaded magazines; the weapons and ammunition are generally transported separately to and from ranges, and if you're being deployed, you won't be issued ammunition until you're out of the country.

Assuming this is accurate, what does that say about how the military regards responsible gun safety procedures? Why doesn't the NRA advocate to the JCS and other military policy makers about how they should relax their rules, because *freedom*?

 

[aelf]

The obvious solution:

That picture is ********. No one blames the particular gun(s) that was/were used during the incident for any massacre. People blame the proliferation of guns for facilitating massacres by gunmen.

So yeah, an unsurprisingly stupid post.

 

[lovett]

No. There is no reason for our soldiers to get killed in Civil Wars.

I think there is plenty of reason to intervene in a case like Rwanda.

The reason is the same reason I have to intervene if I were to see someone assaulting someone else. We are obligated not to allow great harm to happen to others when we can stop it, even if that puts us at a certain level of risk. The reason in the Rwandan case is that intervention could have stopped the death of hundreds of thousands of Tutsi Rwandans. If the saving of hundreds of thousands of lives isn't a good reason to do something, I don't know what is.

 

[useless]

No you see it's okay for him to say disgusting, horrible things like this, because anything more than a total lassiez-faire position makes you a statist.

Just to let you know dommy, just because you state your positions in a relatively "calm" manner doesn't make them any less reprehensible.

See:

 

[kramerfan86]

The NRA and gun advocates are doing such a poor job of arguing their positions that its honestly damaging my original pro-gun views

 

[Agent327]

Probably more than your question here does.

As its about firearm ownership, so its at least germane to the issue at hand. Your continuous whining about such questions? Not so much.

I really love your arguments here... Oh, wait, there aren't any.

And no, "it" is not about firearm ownership. It's about gun control. So your personal enquiry as to a poster's guns is hardly relevant. But your quesyion was answered regardless. Did you follow up on that? Hardly. Very constructive indeed.