(DC) Mayor Gray protests a billboard advertising gun-safety classes

[TPaine7]

Washington politicians are so anti-gun that they oppose a mere photo of a paper target. With D.C.’s gun-grabber laws under fire and pressure rising to allow concealed carry, the city’s liberal political establishment is panicking.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) put up a billboard in July at 13th and L Streets, N.W., that says, “Hey D.C. — It’s time for your first shot,” with the organization’s website and a photo of a woman holding a red, shot-out bulls-eye. The advertisement is for the NSSF First Shots, which are free safety-and-training seminars.

Mayor Vincent Gray fired off an attack on the sign, calling it “offensive” and “irresponsible.” According to NBC4, the Democrat complained, “To promote the use of guns in the city I think really is just anti-safety.”

...

Phil Mendelson, chairman of the city council, thinks the course is on target. “I see nothing wrong with promoting gun safety,” the at-large Democrat — who wrote the city’s gun laws — told The Washington Times. “If this is a program which helps people use a firearm responsibly then that’s a good thing.”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/8/shooting-up-dc/

Fortunately, despite the story's attempt to tie the rabid anti-Second Amendment hysteria to liberals (first paragraph), not all the city's Democrats oppose free safety seminars for DC residents.

Phil Mendelson, chairman of the city council and author of the city's gun laws is not foaming at the mouth. He thinks that residents learning to use firearms responsibly is good.

I never have understood the mentality of some antis. Let's say you want to keep people from having and using guns, but you find that impossible after being defeated in court. At that point, the logical position is to encourage SAFE gun ownership and use.

What type of person, finding that they cannot prevent people from having guns, opposes FREE classes teaching gun SAFETY and RESPONSIBILITY? This is just a wild guess, but it seems that Mayor Gray's opposition to guns has nothing to do with safety or responsibility.

It's a good thing that local governments have no more legitimate authority to override the First Amendment than they do to override the Second.

[slackmaster]

1. Most gun prohibitionists are hypocrites

They give lip service to the need for gun safety, but what they really want to do is take guns away from everyone who doesn't work for government.

[ileus]

2. Well today a paper target, tomorrow a human...all target shooting is death spewer practice.

[TPaine7]

15. Ah, yes. And the societal pollution of gun porn. "Think of the children." n/t

[rl6214]

32. You know eventually they will look upon it as they do swaztikas and smoking in public

[Lurks Often]

3. I wonder how many tax payer funded police officers

protect him in DC.

[xxenderwigginxx]

33. That's different

Police officers are trained in the Force & therefore have a special Jedi mastery over handguns that private citizens can never hope to obtain.
It is also worth noting that police operate with backup within groups, which is why they need larger capacity magazines than do "civilians" who must face criminals alone and therefore need less ammunition.

[HALO141]

4. Sounds reminiscent of those who object to health classes in school.

[rDigital]

7. The same types

that gave me an my fellow union members an earful of BS at our labor notes convention. Don't like unions? Don't join one. Don't like guns? Don't buy one.

[Hoyt]

5. I understand how ads from gun lobbying associations that represents manufacturers and others who

profit from our domestic arms industry might tick off a mayor or two (hopefully more).

So-called "gun safety classes" are just a smokescreen for such groups to hide behind as the buy legislators to help promote the business of more guns in more places.

[shadowrider]

8. Do you agree safety classes are beneficial? n/t

[Hoyt]

9. Of course safety is beneficial especially if they emphasize results of poor handling, toting,

hoarding behaviors.

But, the NRA -- and the front organization in the OP -- giving safety classes is like the KKK holding a "Civil Rights" Forum because they are involved in "civil rights" in a perverted sense.

Empty your mouth of all liquids warning: I think we would be better off having the training by an existing or new government agency, not someone committed to spreading guns throughout society.

[4th law of robotics]

12. The government agency in this case is staunchly against training

as the mayor made obvious.

So people who think training is a bad idea should be running that training?

Brilliant!

[Travis_0004]

14. I'm assuming you have never been to a NRA gun safety class, so how do you know what they are like?

I've been to one, my CCW class was from the NRA. It was a good class, informative, with a qualified instructor, who was very knowledgeable.

[Hoyt]

17. The one's I've seen regarding toting were aimed at folks like Zimmerman.

Have you reviewed the list of NRA board members and do you support their attempts to defeat Obama and most local Democrats?

[Travis_0004]

19. The class I took was required to get my CCW

Even so, any money the NRA gets from training does not go towards the NRA political victory fund. They are sperate entities. Money from my class could only be used for training and education, causes I support.

[Hoyt]

21. Ask someone who has worked with an organization with a PAC. They are separate on paper only.

The mother organization controls the PAC.

[Travis_0004]

22. They share control, they do not share finances

As a matter of law, the finances are separate.

Either way, its a required class for a CCW license in my state, so there really is no point in debating it.

[Hoyt]

23. The Bank account is separate, but leadership is inbred.

Heck, in some cases the offices are right together and the mother organization appoints leadership of PAC if it gets "out if line. " It's a scam that NRA plays well.

[Missycim]

37. Can you ever agree with anyone who not a

gun grabber?

[Hoyt]

40. Not on this issue. I've worked with enough PACs to know the scam.

Now you know, but don't care what crud the right wingers at NRA do as long as they protect your access to guns and promote more and more guns in our society.

[Glaug-Eldare]

43. When you say "worked with"

do you mean you locked the doors and robbed them, or did you hold them at beanpoint until they showed you their IRS paperwork?

[Kaleva]

27. When my stepson and nephew attended a hunter safety course, the instructor was a NRA member

He was from the Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources but when talking to him, I found out he was also a lifetime member of the NRA.

[Jenoch]

31. My brother has taught gun safety

classes in Minnesota for more than 20 years and he has never been a member of the NRA.

[Glaug-Eldare]

36. There you go again...

First off, I believe you're a liar and that you've never attended or seen any formal firearm training event whatsoever. Your ignorance of what is and is not taught is obvious.

Second, "toting" is already illegal in DC, and carry permits are not issued. The advertisement is not about carry, nor training to carry. Once again, you are dragging your frothy hatred of carry into an unrelated thread in hopes of successfully conflating the two. While I'm on the topic, let me mention that it is virtually impossible to legally purchase a handgun in DC anyway, due to the number of FFLs in DC (one, transfer-only) and the Jim Crow-style hoops and fees required to register one.

[oneshooter]

38. Acually "toting" AKA concealed carry is legal in DC

There is a permit for concealed carry in DC. However non have ever been issued.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Straw Man]

49. The ones you've seeen?

The one's I've seen regarding toting were aimed at folks like Zimmerman.

And what ones were those? Under whose auspices were they held? What was the focus? What were you doing there?

[4th law of robotics]

11. Advertisements for people who want to make money?

When did this start?!??!?


Every ad I've ever seen has been for a non-profit.

So-called "gun safety classes" are just a smokescreen for such groups to hide behind as the buy legislators to help promote the business of more guns in more places.

Just like traffic school is a front for the AAA.

[Hoyt]

18. Fine, quit acting like right wing gun groups are altruistic. They aren't.

[4th law of robotics]

24. Most special interest groups exist for said special interest

and their members. Not for what you believe they should stand for.

In this case the NRA supports gun ownership and the 2nd amendment. Not banning guns and sending legal gun owners to jail as you wish they were.

[Hoyt]

25. And they are working to defeat Obama and many local Dems.

[4th law of robotics]

26. Perhaps gun owners would be less anti-democrat if gun bans weren't mostly proposed by democrats

such as yourself.

Consider: why do pro-choice groups generally not support republicans? Is it because they hate republicans for no reason. Or is it because it's mostly republicans proposing anti-choice legislature?

[Hoyt]

28. Perhaps gun owners need to reconsider their priorities, then.

[4th law of robotics]

30. As should other single issue voters

like people who consider gay-marriage to be a good thing. That shouldn't influence their voting at all.

Or people who are fans of eliminating the patriot act. Civil rights shouldn't be that big of a deal to them.

Or people who think abortions should be legal. Why is it such a big deal to them?

See where I'm going with this?

[Missycim]

41. Dont confuse him 4th with logic and sense.

nt

[4th law of robotics]

45. But it's so easy

and his responses are hilarious.

[Hoyt]

42. Guns aren't on the same level as human rights like that. If they are,

one needs to reconsider their priorities, don't you think?

[4th law of robotics]

44. Oh but they are

Look up the bill of rights.

It doesn't say "all these rights are sacrosanct except the 2nd which really doesn't count, we put it there on a goof".

All our rights are equally valid.

So gun rights are a part of civil rights.

[Hoyt]

46. No guns aren't on same level as real, human Civil Rights.

[4th law of robotics]

47. Yes, they are

you may feel they don't count.

Just like some people feel gays don't have rights. Or blacks. Or that muslims shouldn't be given their 4th amendment rights if accused of terrorism.

A person could feel all that is true.

But they would be wrong (on several levels, but in this case legally being the most significant).

[Glaug-Eldare]

6. Think about it from Gray's POV!

If his subjects learn gun safety, there might be fewer accidental gun deaths.

If there are fewer accidental gun deaths, he can't point at dead children and say "I told you so!"

If he can't point at dead children and say "I told you so!" his argument for restricting gun ownership gets weaker.

Because if you restrict gun ownership, there will be fewer dead children.

But only if we have enough dead children.

[4th law of robotics]

10. The NRA should be sensitive to the massive carnage that DC

as a strictly anti-gun city, is subject to constantly.

Oh wait . . .

[TPaine7]

13. Exactly.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x278888

[4th law of robotics]

16. If an uber-religious town bans sex-ed, planned parenthood, all forms of contraception and the like,

suffers a massive spike in unwanted pregnancies then becomes outraged when an ad goes up offering to teach (for free) basic sex-ed tips because "they aren't being sensitive to the recent upswing in unwanted pregnancies in our town" the collective head slamming on to table in frustration and disbelief would be enough to move the earth out of orbit slightly.

When you view attempts to educate people on a subject with hostility chances are your opinion on that subject is based on ignorance and faith and little more.

I don't mind if people learn about creationism (although not in schools). Creationists do consider it an affront to teach people evolution.

I don't mind teaching people abstinence-only in addition to real sex-ed. That doesn't hold true in reverse.

I don't mind teaching people that guns are evil but also allowing people to learn the basics and make up their own minds. That . . . well just look at this story for how the other side responds to that notion.


/1.23 nano-meters. I've done the math.

[petronius]

20. It's no surprise to see a DC mayor reacting negatively to something that might

cast gun ownership in a positive light, but it's telling. Gun control advocates might say things like "we don't want to eradicate private gun ownership, we just want reasonable restrictions" but knee-jerk reactions like this - to an innocuous advertisement - certainly suggest such protestations should be treated skeptically...

[Jenoch]

29. It seems like

several times a year I read a news story about some young person accidently shooting their best friend because they did not know anything about guns and gun safety. I'm talking about someone who thinks a semi-auto gun is unloaded because they removed the magazine but don't know enough about guns to realize there is still a live round in the chamber. (Not to mention that a gun should never be pointed at your best friend). A free gun safety class could stop these types of incidents.

[rDigital]

35. These mayors need to quit putting their feet in their mouths on

on 1st Amendment issues.

[aikoaiko]

39. Mayor Vincent Gray hates guns so much he'd rather not support gun safety classes.

That is yet another example of why anti-gun freaks are failing so badly.

[friendly_iconoclast]

48. Funny how "Abstinence-only" gets supported when guns are involved...