Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

beevul

(12,194 posts)
91. Were they...?
Tue Apr 2, 2013, 11:08 AM
Apr 2013

Were they simply said by them, or did they originate from them?

The implication of "nra talking point" is pretty clear. Do those statements mesh with the implication?

"nra talking point" is thrown about far too easily and loosely these days, and is generally used as a convenient way to dismiss and not have to address something, that someone else says, that the dismisser doesn't like or want to address. A cheap debate tactic, in other words.


"But laws that might offer a little inconvenience or infringement to/on selfish wants & needs, or that COULD be ignored just because the risk is low? Certainly will do my best to willingly abide."

Laws that might offer a little "inconvenience"...Who decides what level of inconvenience is ok?

Laws that might offer a little "infringement" seem to me, to be venturing into the area of "shall not be infringed"...


And as to "selfish wants and needs", we've covered this ground before. Its not selfish to say "no more new gun laws" until you do a bunch to make it far more difficult for the person who does have the gun illegally with bad intent, to pull off whatever he/she intends to do. As I have said, everyone seems to be looking to ignore that area, and concentrate directly on the guns, which makes the motives of those doing that very suspect. Now, you can call those who hold such sentiments paranoid, however, you'd have to ignore a whole lot of statements of intent from the people ignoring the aforementioned areas, such as "I'm not interested in crime, I just want to get the guns", and "its just the beginning", and the like. A "little inconvenience or infringement" in the face skipping over that area, combined with those statements that spell out the intentions of those making them, I think, becomes "a lot". I doubt very much that I'm alone in that thinking, and I don't see it as selfish at all.

In fact, I'd call it prudent.

Are you a lawyer, VA mountainman? rdharma Apr 2013 #1
Do you find anything faulty with his assessment of the proposed law? friendly_iconoclast Apr 2013 #2
What do YOU find wrong in the law? rdharma Apr 2013 #3
I don't know- I'm not a lawyer. Are you? friendly_iconoclast Apr 2013 #4
LOL! Da gun-controller's hermetically-sealed logic. Eleanors38 Apr 2013 #35
I did not read the proposed legislation. Jenoch Apr 2013 #5
To evaluate laws, ALL citizens must be lawyers. Another provision of the law. Eleanors38 Apr 2013 #34
Yup, a very stupid and poorly written law. Clames Apr 2013 #6
Only someone who is vehemently opposed to any form of gun control could like that asinine bill tularetom Apr 2013 #7
What precise wording would you propose for background checks? JDPriestly Apr 2013 #10
I'm guessing it is written by the same gejohnston Apr 2013 #8
You do have to report a loss, but I think you are misreading some of the JDPriestly Apr 2013 #9
Ok.. virginia mountainman Apr 2013 #11
I utterly agree with the proposed law on this: JDPriestly Apr 2013 #47
Ok, you've alerted the police... Bay Boy Apr 2013 #53
The police watch for that firearm. If they stop someone who has it JDPriestly Apr 2013 #82
lending isn't the problem gejohnston Apr 2013 #88
And this new law puts some of the responsibility for knowing JDPriestly Apr 2013 #94
OK... Bay Boy Apr 2013 #93
OK. JDPriestly Apr 2013 #95
ok...So what changes would you make to revise this? Blue_Tires Apr 2013 #96
Worded to fail...typical emotion based bill. ileus Apr 2013 #12
Really? Why do you own a gun? nt Walk away Apr 2013 #85
They are over reaching. JohnnyBoots Apr 2013 #13
Great - but what about non-sales? Say I just want to "give" my gun to some perp, jmg257 Apr 2013 #16
Gun owners won't be inconvenienced by laws that don't work. Clames Apr 2013 #18
How about not going to federal prison? A procedure to enforce federal firearm laws jmg257 Apr 2013 #22
How about "prove it". Clames Apr 2013 #23
I understand the hardship of proving 2 people committed an illegal transfer. jmg257 Apr 2013 #24
Buyer isn't going to implicate anyone.... Clames Apr 2013 #26
Universal Background Checks are a good example, along with registration of course. jmg257 Apr 2013 #27
Plenty of good reasons not to press them as they are currently written. Clames Apr 2013 #28
I understand about gun owners ignoring the spirit of the law. AWB was a great example, jmg257 Apr 2013 #29
how is that worse than gejohnston Apr 2013 #30
Good thing I don't have a stash then isn't it? jmg257 Apr 2013 #31
Funny, when presented an idea on how to make the law a bit more reasonable.... Clames Apr 2013 #32
You mean offering tax breaks to get people to follow the law? jmg257 Apr 2013 #33
Not worth the money? LOL Clames Apr 2013 #36
Yep-let us compromise..by bribing "law-abiding" gun owners as the means to get them to... jmg257 Apr 2013 #37
I'm not whining one bit. Clames Apr 2013 #40
I know...I said I get it - if one is willing to break the law, then they don't worry about the law. jmg257 Apr 2013 #41
You still don't get it. Clames Apr 2013 #43
Ahh - I see. You were grandstanding about your specific present state, and NOT jmg257 Apr 2013 #45
Tissues are yours... Clames Apr 2013 #48
Not now, maybe after the next massacre. I do get emotional when people get blasted by the dozens, jmg257 Apr 2013 #52
No change of heart. Clames Apr 2013 #57
Simply going by your evolving Statements, 1st you stated gun owners jmg257 Apr 2013 #59
You must be confused or projecting. Clames Apr 2013 #60
Uh huh, which you did, all the while you were spouting the how and why you and millions others jmg257 Apr 2013 #61
Still confused it seems. Clames Apr 2013 #62
Yep..confused by your contrasting statements...admittedly. jmg257 Apr 2013 #63
I'm not worried about violating any laws. Clames Apr 2013 #64
I don't assume anything...lesson learned...going by what you have said. jmg257 Apr 2013 #65
I found your cat. Clames Apr 2013 #66
Now that's funny! So anway, still waiting for you to own up. jmg257 Apr 2013 #67
Own up to what? Clames Apr 2013 #68
Your conflicting statements of course. You are law abiding or you aren't. jmg257 Apr 2013 #69
My my....what a Puritan you are. Clames Apr 2013 #70
Awww..so cute! I know, this is all rather tedious, and I did mention boring too. jmg257 Apr 2013 #71
Here take this. Clames Apr 2013 #72
Wow..big eyes! Its Ok, I have several semi-autos sitting in a safe! jmg257 Apr 2013 #73
Not as effective as kittens. Clames Apr 2013 #74
That one cracks me up! Careful, you'll scratch your eye out! jmg257 Apr 2013 #75
Nah only one of mine takes mags. Clames Apr 2013 #76
Are all those cats yours? jmg257 Apr 2013 #78
I wish. Clames Apr 2013 #79
Cats are cool, I'm more a dog person...used to be anyway. jmg257 Apr 2013 #80
Bingo. Clames Apr 2013 #81
True...Talk about poorly writtten laws, try deciding if an M1 jmg257 Apr 2013 #84
To be absolutely safe you could buy 5 round en bloc clips. Clames Apr 2013 #86
The Carbine is another winner...the SAFE Act USC Appendix A exception list jmg257 Apr 2013 #87
Or Charlton Heston! jmg257 Apr 2013 #77
Probably 80% of the laws on the books ... brett_jv Apr 2013 #38
Problem with your drug analogy.... Clames Apr 2013 #39
It's really irrelevant what particular class of law I use for the analogy ... brett_jv Apr 2013 #42
You are right alt one thing, there are thousands of of poorly written laws. Clames Apr 2013 #44
Hey - some pro-gun senator was just on with Wolf Blitzer. jmg257 Apr 2013 #46
I'll call Best Buy and have them send you a new TV. Clames Apr 2013 #49
Ha - now I don't care who you are - THAT is funny! :) jmg257 Apr 2013 #50
Thats an nra talking point? beevul Apr 2013 #55
Yep..you know those old 'criminals, by definition, break laws', 'if you outlaw guns...' jmg257 Apr 2013 #56
Everyone has a line in the sand. beevul Apr 2013 #89
Yes - they were all from NRA speakers. Wayne, Keene, lawsuit in NY. jmg257 Apr 2013 #90
Were they...? beevul Apr 2013 #91
You can figure out the nuances. I qouted NRA reps. Not sure how the points jmg257 Apr 2013 #92
Well, I don't know that 'difficult to enforce' necessarily equates to 'badly written' ... brett_jv Apr 2013 #54
Careful. That kind of rational thought earns labels from a few more vocal advocates. Clames Apr 2013 #58
I once built a bridge ... holdencaufield Apr 2013 #83
Really? LiberalFighter Apr 2013 #14
Tell me again how this is regulating interstate commerce kudzu22 Apr 2013 #15
Nothing in the OP says anything about interstate commerce. Clames Apr 2013 #17
Correct. My comment was directed at Congress, no the OP. kudzu22 Apr 2013 #19
Got ya now. Clames Apr 2013 #20
I think it would be much better if the definitions of 'transfer' simply excluded petronius Apr 2013 #21
What about CCW exclusion? Clames Apr 2013 #25
You read this law, interpreted it for yourself and upaloopa Apr 2013 #51
Exactly mwrguy Apr 2013 #97
But is it accurate? nt Skip Intro Apr 2013 #98
What do you mean by asking a question? upaloopa Apr 2013 #99
sarcasm? Skip Intro Apr 2013 #100
A prime example of failing the knowledge test. ManiacJoe Apr 2013 #102
I think the bill that actually gets passed madville Apr 2013 #101
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»LOL, has anyone actually ...»Reply #91