Thread: NYS Gun Laws
View Single Post
      02-07-2013, 07:35 PM   #146
Mr Tonka
Tonka.... Mr. Tonka
United_States
43
Rep
1,204
Posts

 
Drives: Exceptionally well :)
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Tampa, FL

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl View Post
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)
The whole 2nd amendment thingy was written by a group of men who as far as i can see are MUCH smarter than the group of jack asses running this country now. And those words aren't mine or the NRA's, those words were spoken by some of the greatest men to grace our government offices.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl View Post
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 still don't know where you're getting this enemy jargon. It's just a list of organizations who are openly anti-gun. It's just a list, they don't implore you to do anything about this list, they don't call them names, they don't order hits on their officers, it's just a factual list. Do with it as you please and get over it. You don't think they know that you could also use that list as a "who to support" if you're anti-gun yourself?

Quote:
Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl View Post
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.
In 86 i was in 6th grade. I wasn't aware my rights were being eroded at that point in my life. I can't help to think that's part of the plan. In one generation take away some rights. A few generations later and they are used to not having those rights; so it's easy take away some more rights. A few generations more and those rights are all gone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl View Post
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 personally don't care what the average moderate thinks about them. The average moderate who doesn't have a hard stance on the issue typically doesn't own a firearm and certainly won't join the NRA. The NRA's mission (what ever their motivation) is to lobby for the preserve our constitutional freedoms within the bill of rights. It is not to sway people who are on the fence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl View Post
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.
I could get on board with more regulation in regards to registration, licensing, etc... IF i trusted the government. I don't think you trust the government fiscally and neither do i. I also don't trust them to act rationally with regards to the preservation of my rights weather related to guns or otherwise.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl View Post
Why must everything be absolute? I dont understand the argument that unless an action reduces the risk of something to zero, it should not be undertaken at all. Massacres are not zero in these places, but regardless of that article, there are a ton of metrics will all suggest that gun fatalities per 100K people in the USA are much, much higher than these other places. If 10 thousand die per year, then reducing it to zero would be ideal of course, but isnt reducing it to 5000 better than leaving it at 10000 ?

The Australian gun murder rates post-Port Arthur massacre have fallen, but not a factor of 10 or anything. However, they werent in the same ballpark as American gun fatalities before that. They had less room to fall. They went from having few guns and some controls, to even fewer guns and even more controls. If you were to implement some more controls here, since there is so much more room for improvement, the results would be more dramatic.
It doesn't have to be zero, i was making a point. I didn't write the article but i don't disagree with it either. I do think in order to deny the rights of many for a few, the results had better be drastic though. And the bolded statement is speculation at best. The differences between the UK and Australia are vast in regards to social culture and gun culture.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl View Post
Yup, DOJ stats prove that inner city gangs skew the numbers. So, then you would support legalizing pot and a variety of other contraband to stop the gang wars then ? After all, we know the violence caused by prohibition, and how that didnt work.
I'm not sure, i would guess so in regards to pot. Not sure about other things. But i don't drink, smoke or do any drugs; never have. So i don't see the draw to it. But i understand from social interaction and history (prohibition) that people want their drink. It's not unrealistic to say that our country could be in a very different state if the government didn't attempt to control citizens' rights they shouldn't have been controlling. Major crime as we know it was born in this era due to the government knowing what's best for us. I can't help to think what may change over the next 50 - 75 years from now if the government ever gets to an all out ban on firearms or even one similar to that of the UK.
__________________
-Joe


"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." — Frédéric Bastiat