The NRA wants another Cold War (not kidding)

[DetlefK]

What was the Cold War?
The US had nuclear weapons, the Soviet Union had nuclear weapons, but nobody dared to use them, because the result would have been mutual destruction.

What's the NRA's solution to gun-violence?
We give everybody a gun, so nobody will dare to use them, because it would lead to mutual destruction.

Hey, if it worked for decades for the whole world, it will surely work on your bus, at the gas-station, in your bar, at your work-place, while you are standing in line at the city-council, while you are trying to focus on the sermon in church...
A dozen little Cold Wars.
"I won't kill you, if you promise, you won't kill me."
Every time you take a step outside your home.
Every. Single. Day.

And don't worry: It's not like Cold Wars could lead to death and destruction by accident.
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20111112040140AAa7AkT
http://www.cracked.com/article_19790_6-tiny-mistakes-that-almost-ended-world.html
http://www.cracked.com/article_19546_7-nuclear-weapon-screw-ups-you-wont-believe-we-survived.html

[Indydem]

1. And too many on the DU want unilateral disarmament.

How would that work?

[DetlefK]

2. How about doing it step by step?

How come North Korea, Mali and Yemen don't have nuclear weapons?
Because everybody knows they are crazy and shouldn't own them.
-> First step: More gun-control in terms of sale.

What if such a country tries to get a nuclear bomb anyway? Sanctions.
-> Second step: Increase the penalties for gun-related crimes so, for example, a robber knows, his sentence will be automatically much harsher it he gets caught with a gun.

Do we need nuclear bombs that can wipe out a whole country? (Not city. Country.)
-> Third: No more military-style weapons as private property, except under very tense restrictions (museums, shooting-ranges...).

[Indydem]

3. Pray tell, what is a "military-style weapon"??

This term is being tossed around, and I'm pretty sure none of the users of said term know what they are talking about.

[DetlefK]

4. How about cadence, caliber and magazine-size?

To be blunt, I am one of those people. However, I regard "military-style" weapons as those which have
a) either a particular high cadence (rate of fire) that doesn't result in a net benefit while e.g. fending off a mugger
b) or either a caliber so big it can cause substantial damage to vehicles or buildings
c) or either a magazine-size so large that you can kill many people during a short period of time


Somebody who wants a gun for protection, hunting or sport won't need an assault-rifle, a gun-powder cannon (yeah, shitty example) or an extended magazine for his semi-automatic.

[morningfog]

5. ^^^Poster is an NRA member, has no credibility on this issue^^^

[Indydem]

6. Since when does being an NRA member exclude you from posting about guns?

Since when does being an NRA member exclude you from being a member of the DU?

[morningfog]

8. Doesn't exclude, but does go to your credibility.

Should exclude, though.

[Indydem]

7. Further, are you going to follow me to every post I ever make and point out that I am NRA and proud?

Because that, sir, is the definition of a troll.

[morningfog]

9. I don't plan on it.

But, when I see you putting forth NRA talking points in gun threads in DU, I won't hesitate to let other posters know who they are dealing with.

Why would you take offense to that? I thought you are proud of it and welcome our hate?