Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forum$1000 reward for a gun quote no one can seem to find
I've heard time, after time, after time, after time the NRA advocates for "Guns anywhere, anytime for anyone". Prove it and get $1000.
The reward is based on someone, somewhere, finding on the NRA website, their statement that supports "Guns anywhere, anytime for anyone".
The link MUST come from the NRA site. Blogs or personal opinions don't count. Someones "interpretation" doesn't count. "Feelings" don't count. "You know what they mean" doesn't count. Show me the quote WITH a link.
I've heard that statement more times than I have appendages to count.
It's time to prove it.
The flip side? Everyone that looks and can't find it owes me $1. (I'll make a bunch).
Meiko
(1,076 posts)to be on the NRA site? That means I would actually have to go there. No thanks.
Glaug-Eldare
(1,089 posts)Hard to find anything you do want to find on that thing.
shadowrider
(4,941 posts)All I want is proof.
Nothing more, nothing less.
Glaug-Eldare
(1,089 posts)I hate the NRA and I'm loath to defend them, but I'll translate the real meaning:
"Guns anywhere, anytime for anyone"
They believe NRA is pushing for "guns anywhere" because they believe your home should be a mandated "gun-free zone." Anything else is unreasonable to them.
The believe NRA is pushing for guns "anytime for anyone" because they believe that ownership of firearms is purely the right of the government, to be delegated only to on-duty military and police. Anything else is unreasonable to them.
Anything less than a total prohibition is "returning to the Wild West!!! Blood on the streets!!!"
pscot
(21,024 posts)that as a result of the NRA's efforts we have guns everywhere, all the time for anyone who wants one. PM me and I'll tell you where to send the check.
Glaug-Eldare
(1,089 posts)[IMG][/IMG]
Everywhere except the handful of holdout states and counties, most school zones, public buildings, hospitals, shopping malls, and many other "civil-right-free zones," and everyone except felons and those adjudicated mentally unfit (excepting those who carry illegally) and residents of the red zones above.
shadowrider
(4,941 posts)website.
that as a result of the NRA's efforts we have guns everywhere, all the time for anyone who wants one. PM me and I'll tell you where to send the check.
Do tell. Why then do I have to undergo a background check every time I buy a firearm? Might that be an indicator that guns are not legally available "for anyone who wants them"? Why can't I carry a gun into an educational institution or a post office? Why can't the residents of many states carry a gun into an establishment where alcohol is served, even if it's a restaurant and the person isn't drinking? Why can't I travel outside of my state with a handgun, despite being able to legally carry one in my state? We have "guns everywhere," according to you. What's up?
There are plenty of laws restricting firearms. Now if we could only get criminals to abide by them.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)or ignorant of the current laws.
SATIRical
(261 posts)Really?
How about prisoners?
shadowrider
(4,941 posts)So I guess that means felons, prisoners, children still in the crib, etc. can and should have guns.
Oh well, guess I'll tear up this check.
Permanut
(5,628 posts)Romney says that President Obama will "erode the rights of gun owners. Given that President Obama has signed one piece of legislation relating to gun rights, which allows visitors to carry guns in national parks, and that he has earned an "F" grade from the Brady group, where is the evidence that President Obama will "erode" the rights of gun owners"?
shadowrider
(4,941 posts)Permanut
(5,628 posts)When a person says they have heard something "time, after time, after time, after time", without giving even one example, and then challenging us to refute those mysterious claims, or to substantiate them, that's a classic example of a straw man argument. You should be able to cite at least four examples. I'm not saying that you can't do that, just that you didn't.
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)Stick around. You well eventually see lots of anti-gun folks claim "guns for everyone, everywhere".
Or you can try the the search feature, if you don't want to wait.
Permanut
(5,628 posts)I get what you're saying. I've seen the "guns for everyone, everywhere", meme, and you're right, a search brings up several examples. OP has a valid point in that those who make that claim should be able to back it up
Straw Man
(6,625 posts)I salute you.
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)GUN CONTROL
In 1994 Senate race, Romney backed Brady bill and assault weapons ban, saying I dont line up with the NRA and thats not going to make me the hero of the NRA.
Romney called Clinton crime bill a big step forward.
As governor, Romney quadrupled gun licensing fees and vowed not to chip away at tough gun laws
In 2004, Romney signed permanent state-level ban on assault weapons that was mirrored after federal assault weapons ban.
In January 2006, Romney said he owned a gun then two days later admitted he did not and the gun belonged to his son.
Romney bragged about being member of the NRA but later revealed he didnt join until August 2006, just before launching his presidential campaign.
Romney recently said hes been a hunter pretty much all my life but later admitted he hunted only twice in his life, later clarifying remarks by claiming he has hunted small varmints more than two times.
In 2006 press conference, Romney claimed he had been hunting many times after returning from quail hunt in Georgia.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)over Obama because of 2nd Amendment issues based on statements and voting records is simply a freeper who would vote rethug no matter what.
Cirque du So-What
(25,970 posts)www.newamericancentury.org
and I couldn't find anything there either about 'sexing-up' the intelligence to show that Saddam Hussein was busily making WMDs for propagandizing purposes - justifying the invasion & occupation of Iraq - but we all know how that turned out.
Why would we expect anything different from another organization just as sleazy in its own way as the neocons are in theirs?
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Cirque du So-What
(25,970 posts)Yours is a dodge alright, but there's nothing 'artful' about your own attempt to deflect my observation that strikes at the root of the specious argument contained in the OP. Are you 'Me-Too' to shadowrider's 'Big Dog?'
Woof!
Big Dog is a bully who doesn't hesitate to use his superior strength to intimidate other combatants. Big Dog may be smart, articulate or just plain mean, but in any case he is a remorseless fighter, brutally ripping into even the weakest of combatants. Once Big Dog securely fastens his powerful jaws on a hapless victim, Me-Too will join the attack. Me-Too is far too weak and insecure to engage in single combat, and must ally himself with Big Dog or a pack of other Warriors to bring down his quarry.
Perhaps you're just smaller fry 'round here - part of the nebulous 'Swarm.'
BZZZ!
A Swarm hive is almost impossible to detect. When a hapless victim stumbles on a forum that houses a Swarm and disturbs it with an offending message, the Swarm will erupt and fly at their victim from all directions. Taken one at a time the irrelevant, often mindless individual attacks can be easily brushed aside, but because of the sheer volume of the assault even the strongest Warriors must eventually yield. WARNING: Only those who are highly skilled in Swarm management techniques should attempt to wade into a Swarm hive. but even with protective clothing opposing Warriors should expect to suffer a few stings.
...although, instead of a Swarm, I see most discussions 'round here more like this:
Howlers generally populate academic, technical or special interest forums. Newbies to such forums often wander in thinking they have found some devastating new argument or special insight on the forum topic on interest, but unless the forum has been recently formed an active discussion group will probably have heard and debated the argument at length. So instead of being welcomed into the bosom of the group the newcomer is forced to flee under a shower of invective.
riverbendviewgal
(4,253 posts)for a long gun...I could get a M-16 but nothing automatic or a hand gun.
A couple decades ago I knew someone who had a friend who owned a baretta....That is quite a gun...The weird thing was I never held a gun before that day and I have to admit I felt so powerful holding that gun.
My boyfriend says I could not get a hand gun firearms license here in Ontario...They are given for specific reasons , not just for wanting one.
I am getting my boyfriend to take me out to a shooting range to shoot a long gun....I never actually had shot a gun even though I have a firearms licence...
I just watched a documentary on the guns in America...It is hard to believe that there are 250 MILLION guns in America...!!!!!1
The documentary filmed NRA meetings and gun shows and all I saw were White faces, mostly old ones. Very sad.
I am feeling that I need a gun and it is not for protection from blacks but from these crazy Americans who advocate owning guns.
beevul
(12,194 posts)"I could get a M-16 but nothing automatic or a hand gun."
An M-16 IS fully automatic.
They fire either three round burst, or full auto, depending on which variant.
Were you thinking an AR-15 perhaps?
rl6214
(8,142 posts)You can't tell one thought from the next in that rambling rant.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)like a pistol. The RCMP has a complete list. From what I understand, you have to be a member of a shooting club to get a restricted PAL.
rfranklin
(13,200 posts)The leadership of the early NRA often supported gun control. In the 1920s and 1930s, as the legal movement for uniformity of state laws blossomed, Karl T. Frederick, a former Olympic gold medalist and the NRA's president, helped write model gun control legislation for states to adopt. The Uniform Firearms Act required anyone wanting to carry a concealed weapon to first obtain a permit, which would only be available to "suitable" people with "proper reason for carrying;" imposed a waiting period on the delivery of handguns; and required gun dealers to disclose to police records of handgun sales. The modern NRA is strongly opposed to every single one of those measures....
....Opponents of gun control became an important part of the emerging New Right coalition, which would eventually propel Ronald Reagan to the White House. Not only would Reagan be the first presidential candidate endorsed by the NRA in over a century, he would frequently proclaim proudly his membership in the organization.
The marriage was, however, really only one of convenience. As governor of California, Reagan had strongly supported restrictive new gun laws and, after leaving office, would endorse more. Yet, as president, Reagan understood the political potency of the gun issue and the NRA was willing to align itself with the popular president so long as he didn't promote gun control during his time in the Oval Office.
http://hnn.us/articles/what-nra-didnt-always-oppose-gun-control
Logical
(22,457 posts)Glaug-Eldare
(1,089 posts)Oneka
(653 posts)That early gun control, laws were racialy motivated?
Glaug-Eldare
(1,089 posts)Absolutely, without a doubt. From the beginning of English settlement to the 70s and beyond, gun control was almost entirely a means of preventing despised minorities from exercising the right of self-defense against the majority. It's been used against quite a few minorities, but it is historically a solution to the fear whites had of free blacks. Even after the 14th was ratified, a lot of clever schemes were thought up to restrict gun rights for blacks without actually saying so in the law.
[URL]http://marylandshallissue.org/get-informed/historical-information/racism-maryland-gun-laws/[/URL]
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Anyone looked at photos at convention. Looks like same folks behind Gingrich and Ricky.
shadowrider
(4,941 posts)rl6214
(8,142 posts)Is that what you are saying?
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)ileus
(15,396 posts)shadowrider
(4,941 posts)but the problem is, no one can seem to prove it. I wonder how long I'll have to wait.