Al queda, the NRA, chicken Senators versus 90% of Americans

On the race issue, Rob:


A while ago you posted a video here on the financial crisis. It was professionally done, very slick, oriented toward the GOP base, (made claims that were entirely untrue, as it turns out)

It was also pretty dramatic choreographed with a musical score. As part of the video it made fun of a bunch of members of congress who clearly represented the left. It ridiculed those members of congress.

Every one of those members of Congress was black!!! Startling. Nothing was said in the video about blacks, no mention of direct overt racism at all.

But it pictured a bunch of members of congress and totally ridiculed and attacked them. And each member of congress it made fun of was black.

It stunned me. I referenced that aspect of the video besides calling it out for being entirely untrue.

You think I'm playing the race card by referencing those ignoramuses that made those disgusting comments following the President's speech in Newtown????

Give me a break. It appears that the right wing media and political pros play to it on a consistent basis. Its grotesque. They don't even have to be overt. They just create cr@p like that video I'm referencing that you presented here. It fuels ignorance and hate. Unfortunately for thinking Americans those folks its targeting make up a part of the right wing base. How much I don't know.

Meanwhile the moron who made the first tweet might be very lucky. He was a walk-on at the University of Alabama football team. After the tweet he got kicked off the team.

Well he might not get his @ss kicked on the field or in the locker room...but if I were him I'd watch my back all the time I was at U Alabama. What a dummy.

 

@Earlpearl: I watch MSNBC quite a bit, and they consistently target white congressmen with lies. Setting aside the hateful nature of their lies and slurs, you think it is an accident that they focus on these white people? I think not. Clearly racism at work.

/sigh. So sick of identity politics. It is just an excuse to avoid talking about the issues or defending an indefensible argument.

+4,000 reps for this statement, if I could.

 

Up to 90% of Americans want increased checks on who buys guns. Lots of different polls came up with remarkably similar information. Nothing indefensible about that.

Those same polls show that on a wide variety of other perspectives on gun legislation, gun control, getting a grip on gun violence, Americans had no where's near the unanimity on simply increasing the volume of checks on who buys guns and limiting gun access to those who clearly shouldn't have access.

By far the most common sense way to address the issue. On top of that the Manchin Toomey legislation specifically made it a serious crime to amass or utilize the information on gun ownership in a way that would threaten the freedoms of Americans.

Meanwhile you, the NRA, the others who oppose this legislation are all on the same side as Al Queda.

 

You keep trying to draw a comparison between us and Al Qaida when you're the one supporting a president that pretends islamic terrorism vanished on his watch... even as 30 of the top 31 terrorists on the FBI's list apparently just happen to be Muslims. http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/wanted_terrorists/@@wanted-group-listing

Yet our Boy King's response to islamic terrorists attacking and killing an ambassador and his cohorts (well, after he jetted off to a party in Vegas) was to blame it on movie critics and solemnly tell the UN "the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet".


As you're aware, I don't give a fuck who slanders his pedophile prophet, so while the left stands as apologists for islamic terrorism... comparing the right to Al Qaida just comes off as delirium. It's those on the left that need to examine their cozy relationship with islamic terrorists.

 

http://www.salon.com/2013/04/16/lets_hope_the_boston_marathon_bomber_is_a_white_american/

 

Rob: Maybe you missed it. Osama bin Laden was found and killed while Obama has been president, not Bush. Obama made the call. It worked. Obama dramatically increased the number of drones that are killing off Islamic terrorists hiding out in Pakistan and elsewhere.

A couple of groups don't like the drones; the aclu types, various groups that always against anything war like...and those who hate obama. I like them. They kill off terrorists.

Obama is not Bush or Cheney. Did their approaches stop terrorism, stop islamic fundamentalism, change the entire pattern of the middle east so its a peaceful part of the world?? I'd argue they left it worse.

But who the hell is going to end islamic terrorism?

While the GOP has been trying to crush Obama for the death of the ambassador and associates in Libya its the CIA who gave the word first as to the cause of the deaths.

It well could be that they deliberately gave misinformation. They do that. They don't want the other side to know where and how they get information.

It was a tragedy. Obama didn't cause it.

The point on gun control is the following:

After about 20 years of ever increasing weakening of any kind of limits on guns...mass shooting tragedy after mass shooting tragedy has occurred in the US and every day people die from guns in every way possible. Since NewTown over 3700 Americans have died by gun shot. Its been a few months. The total is going to surpass the number of dead Americans in Iraq from that 8 year war pretty shortly.

Of all the proposals about trying to stem the violence with guns the single proposal by Manchin/Toomey was the one that up to 90% of Americans agree with. Its the one that meets the objections of those that have been on the side of the NRA that say..."guns don't kill people....people kill people."

It addresses that issue in a very common sense way that has overwhelming support. The legislation was written to dramatically address supporters of guns: Its a crime to use the info from collecting data on gun buyers in a way that would trample on personal rights. Its a big crime!! Its a felony.

People that sell guns among friends and family would not have to submit to the law. There is a loophole...but so be it.

It worked very hard to meet objections while trying to put some limitation on gun shootings, murders, injuries, etc. where there have been none for years. Above all it doesn't threaten your guns or anyone elses.

Meanwhile some friggin al queda big mouth put out a video for current and future terrorists that said: go to America. Buy Guns. Its easy. Kill Americans.

He didn't put out a video with that message for nations that have very tight gun control laws. He made it about America.

After 20 years of not dealing with gun laws and seeing the industry take a status and level that makes it immune to all criticism...to the extent that its most ardent supporters are offering laws to make it a crime for doctors to even ask if you have guns in the household...there are efforts to reverse the trends in America about guns.

The Toomey/Manchin legislation was the one that poll after poll showed that up to 90% of Americans agree with the approach.

In your characterization that would suggest that 90% of Americans are LIBERAL. ha ha. that is rich.

Actually 90% of Americans have common sense. Meanwhile the 10% violently opposed to the idea are simply supporting a status quo that al queda terrorists see as an opportunity to kill Americans.

Think about it.

 

Gun violence is and has been on a downward trend for quite some time. The efforts to curb gun violence are not and have not been effective in that regard. Example: 1994 Assault Weapons Ban. According to the FBI, this law failed to do it's primary function, which was to reduce the number of gunshot wound victims per shooting. The problem with gun violence is not murders, it's suicide. As I have mentioned countless times, and you have never responded to, 2/3 of gun deaths each year are suicides. Increased background checks won't help in that area. The rest are mostly gang related shootings, robberies, etc. These criminals steal and get their guns off the black market. Background checks won't do a thing in that area. The right and NRA are so opposed to these "common sense" laws because they do not offer any real solutions, only feel-good language that bans "dangerous" looking guns or has nice sounding names that will appeal to people who know nothing about guns or background checks.

You must have no interest WHY the right opposes the laws. I have mentioned it several times and yet you never directly respond to my statements. The NRA and right already feel gun control is an overreach of government. For example, colleges and pubic buildings setting up "gun-free" zones. These areas attract mass shooters. Supposedly, not allowing good citizens to conceal carry is safer, yet as we have seen it's the complete oppose. The number 1 goal of the left is to get rid of guns completely. Their laws don't focus on reducing gun violence, and they are far from common sense. What they do is give you "feel good" language and names and pass it for meaningful solutions. None of the proposed laws would do anything about the current problems.

The public at large is generally ignorant and uninformed. There was a poll yesterday that surveyed people about ObamaCare/Affordable Care Act: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...f-americans-unsure-if-obamacare-is-still-law/

23% didn't know it existed
19% believed it was repealed by congress or the supreme court

America is generally stupid. Polls reflect that. Polls about gun laws are very similar to this Obamacare poll. Many are just uninformed. They don't know the difference between semi-auto and machine guns. They believe assault rifles are actually machine guns that can fire full auto. They believe gun murders are a major issue (it's not compared to gun suicides, drug deaths, automobile deaths, etc.).

One poll you are forgetting is the one that says gun control is not popular anymore. Right after newtown there was a public buzz about increasing gun control, yet it has died off since emotions are back to normal and people can think about the laws instead of act out of a knee jerk reaction to the mass shootings.

If that were true (it's far from it) why would even democratic senators be afraid to vote for gun control? If 90% of people support universal background checks, democratic senators should be able to vote for them without the fear of their constituents voting them out of office.

 

Earlpearl - Arguments are graded on validity, not the weight of the type.

So answer this: Would the bill you're lamenting have stopped the shooting at Newtown?

If not, why the fuck do you keep parading dead children around like there's a logical nexus?

 

You are the one who needs to think about it. Most of what you said is just 100% false. Go do some more research from credible sources.

Gun violence is on a downward trend in recent decades. You forget that 2/3 of those 3700 americans took their own lives with a gun. Not murders.

As for universal background checks, the law as it was written would never ever work. It exempts sales to family members. The problem is that this new law would require a national gun database and registry. Every time you get a weapon you need to register it with the government. Every time you sell it the government knows about it. This would never be enforceable or work to reduce crimes. Why? Well all the current weapons in circulation are not in a registry. They are untraceable. People could sell them to anyone without a background check and the police would have no evidence that anyone even owned the gun. Not only is the system not effective at regulating legal transactions, criminals will continue to avoid the legal system as they do now. Guns will still be stolen and sold on the black market to thugs. Nothing will change in that area.

All this law does is create more of a burden to legal gun owners and potential legal gun owners. That is what every law proposed does, and is why gun rights people will never support them.

 

R2D2: There is one major reason why over 40 senators voted against the legislation, especially the Democrats. They fear the effect the NRA will have on voters. Ever since the 1990's gun legislation of any type has been stymied by this political block.

Gabby Giffords who was a member of Congress before her life was ripped by a gun shot wrote eloquently about what goes on in Congress here: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/18/opinion/a-senate-in-the-gun-lobbys-grip.html

Currently you have similarly financially endowed groups and groups with significant sway who are directly addressing the power and the fear that the NRA has had over legislators. We will see how this plays out in the future.

Rob: Families of those who died in Newtown and families of others who have died in other shootings have joined with other groups to try and reverse the trends of the last 20 years.

These people who were most affected by the shootings want a change. Nothing is going to bring their family members back. They still want a change. They want it for the rest of the population.

 

Exactly. The NRA represents a huge portion of the population. At least 5 million are paying members. 10's maybe even 100's of millions of other people support their position on guns. That kind of national public support is the reason senators are afraid to vote against them. They are representing the views of their states and voters. If they don't, then might not get re-elected. It's simple democracy. Vote the way your voters want you to vote or get out of office.

In that sense, nothing is wrong with the NRA and it's influence on gun politics. If such a large group of americans can organize and raise money to fight gun control, why can't the left? It is because the support isn't as big. Not as many people side with the un-american goal of disarming the population.

 

The NRA may have 4.5 million members. They may have less: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...6047c10-7164-11e2-ac36-3d8d9dcaa2e2_blog.html

There aren't an additional 10's or 100's of millions super psyched up pro NRA supporters. Its an example how a small focused narrow interest group with a strong focus on a single issue can get its way when most people are not that focused on an issue. The small focused group gets its supporters super active. The rest of the populous doesn't pay attention.

The difference now is that after 20 years or so of avoiding the topic those focused on reversing the trends of the NRA are now very focused.

 

You didn't answer the question. Let's try again.

Would the bill you're lamenting have stopped the shooting at Newtown?

 

Are you kidding me? Gun control was THE issue for the last 4 months. Everyone is focused on the issue. If there were a time that anti-gun folks could have rose to the occasion, now would be it. How can you say 90% of people are anti-NRA views, yet they are not focused on the issues? And you keep throwing around that 90% number, but you just said most don't even know what is going on? I am still waiting for an answer on how any of the lefts proposed gun laws would reduce gun violence. It seems the left would rather talk about the big bad NRA than try and gain their support for legitimate gun violence policies.

I think the left should focus on gun violence instead of the NRA. Taking shots at the NRA such as the assault weapons ban, magazine limits, etc. are laws that punish guns and the law abiding citizens that own them. They have no effect on the actual problem, gun violence. That is a fact supported by a statistic I have mentioned repeatedly, < 3% of gun deaths are caused by any kind of rifle. No one can get behind a legitimate gun law because they are always aimed at the guns themselves, which most Americans agree isn't the problem.


What doesn't help the left is the multiple slip ups and ignorance that has come from the president all the way down. The clip of the woman trying to explain that high capacity magazines can only be used once is a shining example. When people hear the stupidity some on the left have about guns how could anyone get behind them? You have CNN showing fully automatic M16's in the background of a story while talking about AR-15's, trying to trick the public into thinking assault rifle means military rifle. I have heard one of the sandy hook victim's mother trying to explain that assault rifle bullets are so deadly they blow a huge hole in people. In reality, the most common round in those files, the .223/5.56, is smaller than most of the common rifle hunting rounds. You have joe biden, the vice president of the US, and the leader of the gun control policy coming from the white house, telling americans to buy a shotgun and shoot through the door without looking at who is outside. It would appear that the left is completely in a fantasy world when it comes to guns. They don't know enough about the hardware, their uses, and their owners to make intelligent policy decisions.

Another example is New York state. The governor there signs a bill that limits magazine rounds to 7. They have to now change that because 7 sound magazines don't really exist. It is just the level of stupidity that most anti-gun people display. How can you use your power in a state to enact a law that doesn't even make sense? It is nothing but a show. No legitimate attempts to curb gun violence, simply a show.

Even you, our supreme liberal on the forum, have not actually tried to debate how any of the laws will reduce gun violence. You have repeatedly stated that the NRA is bad, the right is bad, and that guns are bad. But you have no arguments when it comes to how the proposed policies will effect gun violence.

 

Rob: If this law had been in effect for a while it might have prevented the Newtown massacre.

It could have prevented the mass killiings in Aurora or in Arizona that killed 6 and injured many.

If the law had been in effect for a period it could have had an impact such that the Newtown's murderer's mother would have locked her guns in a way that her sick son couldn't have accessed them, killed her and killed the students and teachers in Newtown.

If the word gets out that guns are so dangerous maybe the little 5 year old that just shot his little 2 year old sister wouldn't have occurred. Maybe people will be dramatically more careful about guns than they are now.

Consistent claims about the danger of cigarettes have cut use of cigarettes around the nation. And you and your colleages that criticize the laws have brought up deaths caused by drunk drivers. Long term rulings and regulations, education, and enhanced warnings and care about driiving while drinking have roughly cut the number of traffic deaths by drunk drivers by about 1/2 over a 20 year period; data I've presented to both you and others that have brought up these critiques.

The values in hindsight are to do better. They don't undo tragedies of the past. Hindsight after 9/11 created far better processes and procedures that have eliminated a lot of deaths going forward.

The potential underwear bomber on a plane was stopped by people who were more aware following 9/11. The two murderers in Boston were captured in a few days because of huge improvements in surveillance and organized law enforcement activity.

The bomber at the Atlanta Olympics, who set off many bombs and killed several people...set off those bombs at the Olympics in 1996 and was captured in 2002 or 2003. The Boston bombers were caught in a few days.

We are looking for improvement.

The family members of the dead children and dead teachers are actively engaged in trying to change the laws about shootings. Gabby Griffiths in actively involved in trying to prevent shootings. Jim Brady has been actively engaged in trying to prevent gun violence for decades.

Nobody parades these people around. They do it because they want to see changes. They want to see fewer people suffer from what they suffered. They want improvement.

If you are so insistent to establish laws that will prevent all shootings...and without that certainty you and your colleagues will attack any effort at all as being ineffective...it appears you and your colleagues are calling for a complete ban on guns.

No guns...no shooting deaths. Is that what you want???

There is a fascinating writer on the subject; Dan Baum, a self claimed liberal who has loved and owned guns all his life. He is an acknowledged "gun guy". He loves guns, takes people shooting for the first time, loves his guns...and yet he feels he is a duck out of water...not accepted in either culture. He wrote about guns in society and spent 18 months traveling the country interviewing gun guys...And he is a 100% self proclaimed liberal. He spent considerable time wearing his guns. He wore them openly for a long period and he wore them concealed for a long period while doing his book research interviewing people across the nation.

While much of the press about his story has been about how "liberals" get this wrong in the aftermath of all the shootings he also speaks to how "gun guys" close their hearts every time a mass shooting occurs. They close their hearts to the violence. Of course he also said that Gabby Griffiths got it wrong by coming out and addressing this issue after Newtown. I guess he believes that everyone gets too wrapped up emotionally.

But the Toomey/Manchkin piece of legislation tried to address many many concerns. It was the case of two gun guys who want to take responsibility for the massive mass murders....as gun guys. They want to make an effort to cut down the violence. They allowed their hearts to be touched and tried to create a partial solution.

Their offer respected many concerns. As written veterans are immune from needing to have their purchases of guns checked for mental health concerns. In other words a vet with PTSD could buy guns. (I'm sure ultra libs hate that). They made it a crime for any use of a national registry on gun ownership that would restrict rights in any way. A big crime. A felony.

How the hell would you and other gun owners take responsibility for the large volumes of people getting shot by guns??? People with guns are doing the shooting or its being done on their watch.

A five year old boy just shot his two year old sister dead with a gun he received as a gift: http://www.click2houston.com/news/questions-raised-after-5yearold-shoots-his-sister/-/1735978/19979874/-/14jppihz/-/index.html

As a gun guy who believes everyone should have unrestricted access to as many guns as possible and as a guy against any kind of law that would try and stem any kind of restrictions ...

How do you take responsibility for this death??? Right after Newtown some little 3,4, 5 year old in Oklahoma killed himself while visiting his uncle, a cop, with his parents. He got into a room with a gun that wasn't secured, got it and killed himself. You are a gun guy who thinks everyone should have complete access to guns. How would you take responsibility for this death??

Suggesting that if every citizen walks around with a gun...every bad guy with a gun will be scared shitless is not realistic. Some shootouts would occur and some innocent people would get shot in the process with bullets flying around.

The efforts to cut down on gun violence are not the "this law has to make sure that Newtown never occurs" laws, they are efforts to cut down on gun violence.

 

Is this where we collectively laugh, or would that be rude? I'm not even going to ask you to explain your logic here. Instead, I am going to share with you one of my favorite youtube videos.

 

In other words because you are against any type of regulation, oversight, etc. you deny the facts that over a long period of time cigarette smoking has been reduced and driving deaths by drunk drivers have been reduced...both by significant amounts. Neither cigarettes or alcohol or cars have been forcibly taken from people....but people with dui's lose their licenses over a period of time.

Your reaction emphasizes how extreme and radical and similar the mind set is of the tiny minority (about 10%) to extremist fundamental terrorists. You won't take responsibility, you won't blink an eye to those that die from gun violence and you won't give negotiate on anything. The mind set is exactly like extremist terrorists.

 

You see, this kind of statement in justification of the words "Rob: If this law had been in effect for a while it might have prevented the Newtown massacre." is exactly why I didn't ask you to explain your logic here. There is none.

 

Excuse me, but regulations, fines, etc ARE force. Education and persuasion have led to the changes in behavior, not more laws and centralized policies. The 90% figure the OP keeps mentioning (a disputed number, derived from massaged polling) hardly gives the mob license to trample over or (by stealth) abridge rights recognized by the Constitution, or hundreds of years of common law tradition and case law.

The fact is, over 90% of the states have elected to have few regulations and laws on guns, and a few people in DC and large cities want to impose their will on all of the states in the direction of total gun control, using background checks as a gateway. Despite your appeal to being "reasonable" would you accept ENDING background checks and other gun control, if 90% were behind it?

There are over 2,000 federal gun control laws on the books as it stands, and close to 20,000 state and local laws as well abridging people's 2nd amendment rights. Should we apply that to the rest of the bill of rights? Should we put up with 22,000 exceptions to our 1st amendment rights?

 

Coming partially to the defense of Obama here (a President whom I do not support), the FBI's own stats also say only 6% of known terrorists are Muslim extremists, while 7% are Jewish extremists, 24% are left-wing extremists, etc:

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013...ttacks-on-u-s-soil-between-1970-and-2012.html