Thread: NYS Gun Laws
View Single Post
      02-07-2013, 02:17 PM   #144

Drives: M3
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sitting down, facing the keyboard

iTrader: (0)

Originally Posted by MP0WER View Post
It seems that your opinion and many like yours view anyone who is pro-gun to be anti-peace. Clearly this isn't the case.
I dont think that pro-gun = anti-peace. I think you'd be hard pressed to find any post of mine which says that. I have observed, over and over, that pro-gun often (but not always) goes hand-in-hand with paranoia and fear-driven ideology. They are quick to condemn those who want some additional controls or checks in the system as leveraging fear and emotion to support their cause, when the NRA is just as guilty, if not more so, than any other group. The whole 2nd amendment argument is based entirely on the creation of fear and paranoia (remove the checks and balances on Monday, and tyranny will follow on Tuesday)

Originally Posted by MP0WER View Post
I hope that the rest of the world doesn't make the same assumptions you make based on limited sample of information. Sadly, many of the sheeple eat up anything the media and politicians tell them.
Same assumptions that I make?!? You know that I am not the NRA webmaster, right? People like me are not the NRA's biggest public relations problem, the NRA itself is. The NRA is the group who is painting large groups of people with the same brush on their own website. Lots of organizations have self-serving agendas, but how many outside of the NRA (and politician attack ads), list the people and entities which they deem to be unfriendly to their cause? And do so in such a manner to indiscriminately include such large groups ?

All your doctor/lawyer/clergy aquaintences who enjoy guns, I'd bet at least some of them are card carrying members of the NRA.. It would be interesting to ask them what they think about the NRA calling out another group they belong to on their website, and painting them as the enemy.

I cant help but wonder what the NRA was trying to acheive by suggesting that such a large and diverse group of organizations are all enemies of the cause, and thus create the suggestion that their respective members are no friend of the NRA either. The only goal it seems to serve is to advance the idea that "you are either with me, or you are against me". Show me someone who thinks the politics of division actually works, and I'll show you someone who hasnt been paying attention the last 4 years.

Originally Posted by MP0WER View Post
If you don't want guns, that's fine. But don't think that because you don't want guns, i can't have them.
I dont think that because I dont want guns, that you can't have them. Conversely, I hope that you dont think that just because you dont want them to do something, that means they wont do it.

When they took away your right to buy a new automatic rifle in 86, I was not the mastermind of that. If they further restrict your ability to buy additional weaponry going forward, be it magazine capacity, or whatever it is, that wont be my doing either.

If I had guns and wanted to keep them, I wouldnt advocate supporting an organization which has such an incredibly poor ability to read public sentiment. You need to appeal to the average moderate to win (neither gun lover nor gun hater). The average moderate does not see the NRA as the rational voice of reason, and crazy lists on their website dont help that.

I'm not pro-ban, but I am pro-Regulation. (you know, the R word that actually appears in the 2nd amendment wording?) Having said that, I cringe every time Piers Morgan opens his mouth. He does my cause no favors, just like the NRA does nothing to sway the fence sitters onto your side, whether you choose to acknowledge that or not.