Another anti-NRA organization called the"Liberal Gun Club" is rearing its ugly head. No surprise, it supported Obama during the election. They claim not to be a 'political organization' but in reality, there are several sections on their site that are there solely devoted to supporting political candidates. They also use the traditional "We support the 2A but.." arguments like:
1) slippery-slope to nukes
2) waiting periods
3) registration/licensing
4) 'Assault Weapon Bans'
5) Magazine bans
6) Opening up Trace Data
7) Universal checks through FFL dealers
You can hear their president, Mark Roberts, on the 'Rick Smith' show here, starting at about 27:35, where he endorses the Factcheck report. The usual buzzwords (reasonable, sensible), along with Red Herrings, Ad Hominems, False Dicotomies, etc. abound. A word of warning, keep any heavy objects away while listening.
They also openly advocate Joyce Foundation funded organizations as well as the AHSA.
Why is it that these "NRA Alternatives" always have more in common w/ the Brady Campaign or VPC than any other pro-gun group like the SAF, CCRKBA, etc. ?
Oh, right. Nevermind.
21 comments:
You would think, after years and years of putting up organizations like this, that the hoplophobes would get a leetle better at camouflaging them. I mean, damn when they make it that obvious, we cannot help but to call them out as the false-flag liars that they are.
The NRA has "since 1871"
These crusty douche nozzles?
"since, uh...like last April I think"
I'll be making another donation to the NRA-PVF tonight.
Hiya,
I am the president of the club you linked to. Thanks for giving it a read - despite the fact that I dont consider myself a 'crusty douchenozzle'. :)
So much to address here but I dont think I can adequately do it in the comments. First, Linoge, what am I lying about? You say that I am a 'false-flag' liar.... about what? That I am a 'hoplophobe"? Ha... I have a significant firearms collection that I fire quite frequently. I have used weapons since I can remember. My dad cleaned them in the living room while we watched TV. I do not fear weapons, either mine or yours. So... thats not it. As a matter of fact, one of our most active members is a hunting guide - has been for 15 years. Pretty sure he isnt afraid of weapons either. So, lets stop throwing around easily spewed hatred without actually knowing anything about the other person, ok?
We are a group of gun owners who happen to disagree with you about where the right to bear arms begins to interfere with other people's rights. Thats all. Its a valid debate and one that both sides have good arguments for. But patently dismissing anyone who disagrees with you is exactly what the NRA does and is exactly why we started this.
As far as some of the things in the post - you got some of it right and some of it wrong. We absolutely do NOT agree with an AWB. AT all.
As a matter of fact, here is what we advocate:
1. Increasing the quality and quantity of data regarding gun crimes. Making informed policy
decisions can only come from having quality data.
2. All commercial weapons transactions take place through a licensed firearms dealer and include a NICS criminal background check and 3 day waiting period. This does NOT include
person to person sales.
However, gun shows continue to allow for people who claim to be hobbyists to be able to make sales as if it were not a commercial sale but a person to person sale. We believe that a compromise could be reached on gun show regulations by licensing all gun shows as FFLs. All sales between vendors and attendants would need to be cleared through a booth at the gun show where a NICS check could be run. Many honest dealers already conduct background checks at gun shows. Requiring all vendors to conduct background checks - and providing them with an easy, centralized resource for doing so - is a viable compromise on the gun show 'loophole'.
3. A return to the Large Capacity Magazine limit imposed by the expired Assault
Weapons Ban.
4. Increased diligence in ensuring that convicted domestic abusers, sex crime offenders or
other felonious criminals are not sold weapons.
5. Increased mandatory jail time for people convicted of crimes involving firearms.
6. Increased gun owner education.
7. Work to decrease the root causes of many violent crimes: poverty, lack of education, lack of
enough properly equipped/trained police, illegal drug trafficking.
I don't know if all of that will come through in a comments section. THere is nothing in there about banning AW. There is nothing in there about trace data - which is a bunch of hooey. I would love to discuss these issues with you but a comments section seems poorly suited to it. Feel free to come over and give us a chat at our forums. I welcome the discussion.
Thanks for taking the time to read this.
Mark
Mark,
Unfortunately for you, you do support an AWB by inaccurately describing them as ""assault style" (i.e. weapons made for trained soldiers like S.W.A.T. teams or the Special Forces to use in assaults on other, potentially heavily armed, forces".
And: "By making these types of weapons harder to acquire, it is hoped that horrific violence like this could be minimized."
You support closing the "gun show loophole" which doesn't exist since the majority of private sales occur OUTSIDE of gun shows.
Are you familiar at all with the history of the Joyce Foundation in regards to run control? Are you aware that they advocate the banning of hunting rifles as "intermediate sniper rifles"?
http://daysofourtrailers.blogspot.com/2008/02/for-hunters-who-dont-believe-theyre-on.html
Did you even read the response pieces on Factcheck's lack of factchecking and the authors admitted bias against the NRA?
http://daysofourtrailers.blogspot.com/2008/09/factcheck-plays-partisan-politics.html
Are you familiar at all w/ the history of the AHSA and its support of anti-gun groups? Where is the AHSA on the current attacks against hunting and lead ammo?
Are you aware at all of Obama's anti-gun activities while a state senator in IL? Or the fact that he considered a bill that banned shotguns just a 'minor wording issue'? Are you familiar w/ the anti-gun zealotry of the people he's filled his cabinet w/ including his vice-president?
And you still defend these ideas?
Hey again,
No, I don't support the AWB and my posts about it show that:
"And I agree that the AWB mainly just took guns that looked scary and demonized them. Again, I have no problem with those weapons"
1. Perhaps I need to update the "beliefs" page to more accurately reflect that idea. I do think that the original intention was as you quoted, to minimize damage during violent crimes. As you have surely read, the DOJs reports don't show any effect of banning what were termed "assault weapons". There was no decrease in violent crime. But they do say that LCMs, when used in a crime, create many more shots fired, many more victims - much more carnage. So no, the AWB is a bad idea for lots of reasons - I agree. But I think that a ban on LCMs is reasonable and would have benefits.
2. I have been to many gunshows. Aside from being mostly overpriced crap - these guys are almost never just 'private citizens'. And yes, most of them are licensed dealers and conduct themselves as such. But there are some that claim to be hobbyists and act as private citizens and they travel the same circuit as the dealers setting up in the same gun shows, selling the same stuff. If I were a dealer I would be pissed. I think that very very few guns are purchased for crimes from gun shows. But there are some studies which show that some percentage of felons (i forget the study and the numbers) bought their weapons at gun shows. So yes, most people are decent and do the right thing. Some dont. Lets say it stops only two murders per year - is it worth it? You say this loophole does not exist - implying that private sales do not occur in gun shows. So then if everyone at a gun show is a dealer, then it will be no skin off of anyone's back if we require all vendors to do a NICS check, right?
3. I don't really care what the Joyce Foundation says. I am not backed by not backing the Joyce Foundation. I have read somethings about them/by them. I agree with some, I don't agree with others. Same for Brady. Just because I don't agree with the NRA doesn't mean my mind has been 'poisoned' by these other groups. Before starting this web site, I had never heard of them.
4. I am aware that the NRA and many of their supporters found fault with the Factcheck.org document. Obviously I did not. Your post pointed to other like minded individuals and not to any factual sources that could prove that factcheck.org was wrong. The truth of the matter is that the NRA greatly exaggerated at least half of their points.
5. I am somewhat familiar with the AHSA. Despite having a pretty website, the AHSA seems to be a rather empty organization. I see nothing much happening with it. As far as the "attacks on hunters and lead ammo" you won't get me to support you there. The NRA took reasonable scientific studies and distorted them. The studies in question found that people who eat a lot of game taken with lead ammo have higher lead contamination levels than a similar group who did not eat the meat. That is all it said. The NRA said something along the lines of 'this is bs because none of these people's levels needed medical care' and 'their levels were lower than most Americans'. (not quotes, paraphrasing). Yes, its true, they didn't need medical care and their levels were lower than most people. That is true for both groups. I am sure if you took people from any industrial city and compared their blood lead levels, they would be much higher. But that is not the point (talk about red herrings). The point is that you have two groups that have very similar lifestyles except that one eats meat taken with lead and one does not. The one that does has significantly higher blood levels. So..... they warn that you might want to be careful about that. Thats all the thing said. And the NRA freaks out and acts as if somehow there is a giant conspiracy against hunters because someone found out that if you eat a little lead now and then and your neighbor doesnt - you will have more lead in your blood. Duh. If you eat lead paint chips and your neighbor doesnt you will have a higher blood lead level. This isn't ground breaking its common sense. Yet the NRA felt compelled to rally against it. Why? Hmmm.... who would not want people to stop buying lead ammo? People that make the lead ammo? Perhaps. I can't think of any other good reason to blast this research and distort its findings.
6. Yes, we have discussed some of Obama's early statements regarding guns. There are mixed feelings among our members about what he will do with guns. Most don't think it is a priority and that he won't do anything about it, if at all, until his second term. As a matter of fact, there is a little wager on this in or forums right now. Personally, I see it this way. There are basically two groups of people when it comes to guns, with two different experiences with weapons. There are people like myself who associate weapons with memories of shooting with my father and similar activities. Warm, family memories. Then there are people who grew up in large cities and were not exposed to weapons growing up except under violent circumstances. The first obviously tends to have guns and to not want to ban them. The second group fears them. Your energy, and the energy of the NRA is best spent familiarizing the people who are afraid of guns with weapons and their use - not raising a stink over a study that shows that if you take in lead you have more of it in your blood.
Ok... long posts in a comments section are no fun. haha.
Mark
I want to further comment on #6, about BO. Yes, some of his early statements were retarded. He has since tempered his approach considerably. I said many things in my youth that I no longer agree with. I think he started his thinking based on being from the "big city" group I mentioned above - and he feared guns. It seems that his views have evolved over time. I no longer think he holds those same beliefs. His current statements about weapons are in contrast to the past ones so we are left with either two choices: 1. he is a liar or 2. he has a different opinion.
I know you will pick #1. I will pick #2. Only time will tell.
Mark,
1) "LCM" bans and "AWB" go hand in hand. You will not find one w/o the other. How many rounds is a "LCM"? Do you want them confiscated? Grandfathered? Banning of any further sales? Manufacturing? What? I heard your interview on Smith. You didn't correct him when he talked about "AK-47's" and people walking down the street.
2)Nice way to twist words. Did I say that no private sales take place at gun shows? No I did not. What I said is that there is no difference so your 'compromise' means nothing. The study you're thinking of is by Wintemute, an anti-gun advocate who wandered around various shows taking clandestine pictures.
3) Yet you link to and advocate studies by them and the groups they fund. You have such a hard-on against the NRA that you really don't care about the full extent of what the anti-gun groups are working towards.
4) You just showed that you didn't read the linked articles at all. There were numerous primary sources showing that Factcheck was in fact not checking their facts and admitted their own bias including changing their stances when the same claims were made by Hillary Clinton. Once again you refuse to acknowledge that because of your own personal hatred.
5) Beyond your attacks against the NRA, you obviously have no clue what you're talking about. The Humane Society of the US is actively lobbying in several states to get lead ammo banned. Their stated goal is to ban hunting. This is a fact. You also don't know the difference between elemental and particulate lead. Do you know the effects that would have on hunting?
Apparently the AHSA is such an "empty organization" that you have them linked prominently on your site.
6) Some of his 'early' statements? Howabout all the statements he made throughout his political career as well as his cabinet choices? You can have all the 'wagers' you want. When he starts pushing licensing/registration/bans/etc., your 'wagers' will mean nothing.
You think he's changed his stances?
Why didn't he sign onto the Heller Amici signed by over 300 other Senators and Representatives? He said whatever it took to fool gun owners like you. His actions over his ENTIRE legislative career have shown differently.
"Another rifle caliber, the 30.30 caliber, was responsible for penetrating three officers? armor and killing them in 1993, 1996, and 2002. This ammunition is also capable of puncturing light-armored vehicles, ballistic or armored glass, armored limousines, even a 600-pound safe with 600 pounds of safe armor plating. It is outrageous and unconscionable that such ammunition continues to be sold in the United States of America."
-Sen Ted Kennedy on his ammo ban bill.
You'll note that "FactCheck" did NOT report on that statement. If you've done so much research on the issue, ask yourself why?
1. They go hand in hand for you - not for me. I am for one, and not for the other. They don’t go hand in hand in my world. I would like no more sales. I also didn’t laugh at a joke he made - it was hard to hear him and I missed many opportunities to say many things. But yes, that is a bogus argument.
2. I wasn’t trying to twist your words.
You said
“You support closing the "gun show loophole" which doesn't exist since the majority of private sales occur OUTSIDE of gun shows.”
I said
“You say this loophole does not exist - implying that private sales do not occur in gun shows. So then if everyone at a gun show is a dealer, then it will be no skin off of anyone's back if we require all vendors to do a NICS check, right?”
How did I twist your words? I don’t see the difference in what you said and what I said. Again, you say now that ‘there is no difference so that your compromise means nothing’. I think we are saying the same thing here. You think that private sales largely occur outside of gun shows and show a NICS check won’t change anything since almost everyone at gun shows do it anyway. I am saying yes, that is true but there are some that don’t. So if almost everyone does it, and requiring it will make no difference, then what’s wrong with putting it into law that gun show transactions should have a NICS check. What offends you about that?
3. I link to studies that I find by Googling that seem to me to be fairly well written and lacking in obvious bias. If some of those are Joyce/Brady things, then so be it. Yes, when I wrote the page, I linked to the AHSA. I had high hopes for them. I still do. But they seem to be pretty impotent. The NRA does not give me a hard on. I find their tactics vile, dishonest and distasteful. It’s the same hyperbole for effect that Michael Moore uses - and I find it distasteful when he does it as well. I do care what they are working towards and some of it I agree with. Some if it I don’t. That is the beauty of being able to think freely - I can weigh individual arguments on what I judge to be their merits regardless of who says it.
I have no problems acknowledging things that are factual. I clicked on the first few links and didn’t see any thing so I gave up. Also, “say uncle” timed out. Progunprogressive argued a bunch of points and linked to two things that didn’t change the FC argument any. I saw nothing new that FC didn’t cover on Patterico. The next guy links back to PGP and Patterico - then I gave up. I read through the FC thing carefully and it discusses all of the arguments pointed out by PGP and Patterico. For example, PGP blows the whistle on FC by letting everyone know that if you click on one of the links in the article it goes to another one of their articles that talks about the infamous questionnaire and that he did indeed have handwriting on one version. Busted. Except that the FC article that we are talking about says this:
“The NRA bases its claim on a disputed 1996 questionnaire that Obama's Illinois state Senate campaign filled out for the nonprofit voting group, Independent Voters of Illinois-Independent Precinct Organization. On it, somebody filled in the word "yes" in response to the question, "Do you support legislation to ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns?" But the Obama campaign said that the survey was actually filled out by his then-campaign manager who "unintentionally mischaracterized his position," adding that Obama never saw the survey.
As we wrote previously, an amended version of the questionnaire was later submitted to the group, with Obama's handwritten notes on it providing more detail on some of the answers. Obama clearly saw and handled this version personally and did not alter the question about banning the sale and manufacturing of guns. Nevertheless, his aides maintain that the gun-ban answer was a mistake and didn't reflect Obama's true position.
Whatever his position may have been in 1996, in 2003 he submitted another survey form to the same group avoiding a yes-or-no answer to the gun ban question and stating a position similar to his current stance. According to the Chicago Sun-Times, Obama's answer read:
Obama, 2003: While a complete ban on handguns is not politically practicable, I believe reasonable restrictions on the sale and possession of handguns are necessary to protect the public safety. In the Illinois Senate last year, I supported a package of bills to limit individual Illinoisans to purchasing one handgun a month; require all promoters and sellers at firearms shows to carry a state license; allow civil liability for death or injuries caused by handguns; and require FOID applicants to apply in person. I would support similar efforts at the federal level, including retaining the Brady Law."
In February 2008, the Associated Press reported that Obama said, "[T]here are people who say, 'Well, he doesn't believe in the Second Amendment,' even though I come from a state – we've got a lot of hunters in downstate Illinois. And I have no intention of taking away folks' guns." Even more recently, on April 16 at a Democratic debate in Philadelphia, Obama said,"I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns."”
There ya go… the good and the bad all layed out as plainly as anyone can see including the stuff that PGP points out. Nothing new.
I don’t care what the Humane Society said. The NRA may have a legitimate complaint with the HS. That doesn’t justify their distorting this article. What effects would this have on hunting? The same effects that everyone predicted when we switched away from lead ammo for waterfowl? Damn, it’s a shame that there is no more duck hunting because of that. Um… elemental lead is pure lead… the element. Ya know….. Pb. Particulate lead is lead that um… exists as a particulate….. often suspended in air. What is your point? That has nothing to do with the study or its merits. If I does I would love for you to enlighten me. I will admit that I am not a chemist, perhaps you are and I can learn something here.
I am OK with his cabinet choices. I like them for the most part. His early statements were more hardline, his more recent statements showed more respect for the 2A. Well, since I am not worried about bans - he can no more ban guns than Bush could ban abortions - I will keep on betting.
I think he was politically smart not to sign onto it. The NRA has done such a good job of causing the left to despise everything they touch that he would have alienated his base. I don’t think he is a big fan of guns. I think he respects the constitution. I think he has bigger fish to fry. I think I am going to go shooting tomorrow. I just wish you guys would stop freaking out and buying up all the ammo - you are driving the price through the roof. Sheesh.
1) Your world obviously doesn't pay attention to real world legislation then.
2)You said
“You support closing the "gun show loophole" which doesn't exist since the majority of private sales occur OUTSIDE of gun shows.”
I said
“You say this loophole does not exist - implying that private sales do not occur in gun shows. "
Try reading it again skippy.
3) If they're Joyce/Brady reports, then they're biased. You have 'high hopes' for a group that was designed and started specifically to reduce the influence of pro-gun organizations.
4) "The Obama campaign said". Exactly. Every argument made in support of Factcheck is based off of campaign rhetoric and not his actual voting/legislative history.
5) Back to your hardon against the NRA. So much for your support of hunting. Elemental lead does not break down like particulate lead does. Particulate lead creates oxides which are what leads to lead poisoning. Elemental lead does not. So your claims of 'distortion' are nonsense.
So you have no problem w/ Emanual supporting Bush's terrorist watch list? Howabout all the others calling for AWB's, hunting bans, etc. His 'hardline stance' ended when he hit the campaign trail. Meaning his 2A support consists of political rhetoric and that's it.
You do realize that the NRA had nothing to do w/ Heller except for an Amici brief right? Oh, wait, you probably didn't.
Ok... last time on here. It really is fairly painful to do long posts on blog comments, they aren't set up for it. Come on over to the forums and we can continue if you like.
1. You and I just live in different worlds.
2. Your implication is still that private sales dont happen. However, I think you are getting at that you said "the majority". It doesn't change the argument that if *almost* no one is going to be effected by this because *nearly* all private sales occur outside of gun shows - then why are you upset with it? It should basically change nothing, right?
3. I started a group that was designed specifically to reduce the influence of groups like the NRA. I am ok with it. I do think that some of the things they put out are biased. I don't agree with a lot of what the Brady campaign says. Some I do. So what.
4. Yes, FC says that BO has stated X. That doesn't mean that FC is wrong or biased. I think FC didn't a pretty good job of laying out the good the bad and the ugly. And yes, there is some of each in the voting history and rhetoric of BO.
5. LOL.... Where do you think particulate lead comes from. Elemental lead (pure lead) is broken down to form particulates. Lead oxide was used in lead paint. It is not 'particulate lead'. It is simply soluble lead. That is different. Because it is soluble it is more easily absorbed. Lead, as found in ammunition is still absorbed, just not as readily. You want some science on that? How about this:
http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.2193/2005-620
Its an manuscript from the Journal of Wildlife Management. It is an actual scientific publication - peer reviewed an everything. The first line says "The potential of ingested elemental lead to kill or sicken free-ranging vertebrates, particularly birds, is well documented. "
Its funny that you are so very quick to claim that I obviously did not know what I was talking about and did not know the difference between elemental Pb and particulate Pb - but it seems that you are not accurate in this regard.
In addition, my claims of distortion have nothing to do with what type of lead we are talking about. ITs fairly simple. There were two very similar groups, except that one ate a lot of game taken with lead ammo. The ones that ate that game had higher blood lead levels. It isn't causation, but it is surely a strong correlation. And its statistically significant at that. Its not just like a little bit different. So.... the two groups are different. What does particulate lead have to do with this? Or lead oxide? These people should have had equal exposure to both of these types of sources (although the hunters would have seen more particulate elemental lead because you get that when you fire your weapon). What is your point? Were the hunters also eating paint chips? Because if that is the case then you are right - that changes everything. Otherwise, I don't see what lead oxide has to do with anything. I think your knee jerk defense of the NRA let you believe anything you read about lead. Its a simple study. Its not complicated. It has a simple lesson.... if you eat a lot of game that you take with lead ammo, you might want to either not get it ground, eat a lot less, or switch ammo.
Tuna fishers said the same thing about mercury in tuna back in the day - that it was all blown out of proportion. Its not. There is a reason that pregnant women are advised not to eat it.
I followed the Heller case, and if I remember correctly, the NRA actually stayed away from it - it was the GOA that filed a brief. I stand corrected.
Look... here is the point that I am trying to make. I can disagree with you on lots of things, I can be ultra liberal and you can be ultra right - and we can both own weapons. The right are not the only ones with guns (thank god). Luckily you and I live in a country where we are allowed to disagree. But I should not forget about all of our disagreements and vote republican because they are 'pro-gun'. There are lots of issues and a politicians stance on gun rights should be considered - but so should lots of other issues.
Ok... I enjoyed the conversation - thanks for letting me speak my mind and for taking the time to share your thoughts with me. You reminded me that I need to clean up some things on the website to clarify some stuff, like the AW stuff. So thanks for that. I think we have beaten the hell out of this horse however. Do stop on by our forums though, we would love to have you in for a chat.
Take care and thanks again.
mark
Wait a minute, the NRA did file a brief. It was just that the GOA one was the one that everyone seemed to be reporting. Its late and I need sleep. Take care.
Since the president of the club is here, i'd like to ask him a question: What is the purpose of a waiting period for a gun? You say it will limit "heat of the moment" gun violence, but according to the BATF, the "time-to-crime" of a firearm ranges from one to 12 years.
In other words, "heat of the moment" gun violence isn't a problem. People aren't buying guns in a gun store and then going out to use it in a crime that same day or even that same month. To be effective at reducing violence of any kind, waiting periods would have to be at least a year long, which is hardly reasonable.
Another for the president:
You also say, "We have requirements to register cars, limits on the types and power of cars, and laws regarding their use - why not arms?"
Your comparison of cars and guns is flawed. Cars are my passion, even more so than guns. I don't know about your state, but where I live, you're only required to register a vehicle if you plan to operate it on public roads. If you're only planning to use that car on private property, then there are no requirements to register it and there are no limitations on type or power.
And guns are no different. No sane person is asking to walk through the mall with an "assault style" weapon on their shoulder. They just want to be able to buy one and use it on private property (a gun range for example).
And just as most owners of top fuel dragsters aren't madmen who are tearing through our streets, the majority of people who own "assault style" rifles with magazine capacities greater than 10 aren't shooting up the streets either. This is reflected in the nearly extremely low usage of those types of weapons in crimes.
Just as we don't dare tell engine builders that they can't build and sell 1500hp engines, we shouldn't tell gun manufactures that they can't build and sell 30 round magazines.
My last commen:
On your "beliefs" page, you say, "They also probably won't be able to get all of the different weapons that are assigned to the trained, professional soldiers but their right to bear arms as a Militia is unchanged."
Correct if i'm wrong, but if you don't have the same weapons as professional soldiers, can you really be a militia?
Not that it matters, because those weapons have been severely restricted to the wealthy and patient for some time now. And unless something earth-shattering happens (the repeal of the GCA of 1968 or an all out war on American), you will see fewer and fewer military weapons in civilian hands.
1) That's right. Mine is the world of reality. I actually look at the legislation and statements made instead of thinking what would be 'nice'.
2) Wrong again skippy. What do you think the ultimate goal of all sales through FFL dealers is? Try looking at the push to repeal the "Protection of Lawful Commerce" act.
3) Good for you. You're now giving legitimacy to the anti-gun groups. Congratulations. You admit that your intent is not to try and change the way they operate but to diminish their influence. I can hear Paul Helmke applauding from here.
4) The very author of the FC pieces admitted he's biased against the NRA. Obviously you missed that.
5)Actually what they said is that certain types of bullets 'might' cause problems. That involves further research, not outright bans. Guess which the HSUS is calling for? You know, the group that you don't care about?
6)You stated "I followed the Heller case, and if I remember correctly, the NRA actually stayed away from it" but earlier you claimed "
I think he was politically smart not to sign onto it. The NRA has done such a good job of causing the left to despise everything they touch that he would have alienated his base."
So they stayed away from it so Obama was smart not to sign onto it? Wow, there's some logic for you.
Here is the point I'm trying to make. If you want to hate the NRA, fine. Lots of people do. What you're doing though is spending all your energy attacking them while giving legitimacy to the anti-gun groups and legislators by using their arguments and statistics to 'disagree' firearm owners who disagree with you. The Brady Campaign love people like you.
You also fall into the classic misnomer that because I generally support the NRA I must be "right-wing" (however you choose to define it).
One of your posters stated "At least he's honest" about the little blurb beneath my picture. Obviously they didn't notice (or didn't care that) that was a quote from a former director of Ceasefire PA. An individual who openly advocates repealing the 2A.
Such 'progressive' thinking.
I also like how he implied that there are "Hobbiests" at gun shows selling "the same stuff" as licensed dealers, but not conducting the NICS check.
Mark, either it's a FTF private transaction, or it's sold as a buisness. The latter REQUIRES an FFL by Federal law, and therefore requires a NICS.
As a private citizen I'm allowed to sell guns to other lawful private citizens with no paperwork (unless prohibited by state law) but I cannot sell them as a buisness or as a source of income. As soon as I do that, I'm a fellon, and I can loose ALL my guns.
Same goes for selling a gun to a person who couldn't otherwise pass a background check.
And while I'm questioning, what's the big deal with normal capacity magazines, and why do you support their ban?
Sounds like he is either a shill or has no idea what he is talking about.
Bah. It appears I am a little late to this shindig, and the coward has already slunk back to the safety of his hovel. Such is life, I suppose.
I will, however, take the time to go ahead and address the comments he made in his first post.
Nothing you are advocating, Mark, has any basis in reality, fact, or logic, and thus, therefor, must be emotionally driven. If that emotion in question is not fear, what is it? Because, from here, it looks and smells exactly like fear.
1. What do you mean? Because there is already a plethora of data out there on firearms, firearm use, firearm use in crimes, criminals using firearms, and just about everything else you would want. Or are you, as I suspect, talking about repealing the Tiahrt (sp?) Amendment, under the specious assumption that it somehow limits police officers from doing their jobs (which it categorically does not)? Also, what are you going to do with that data (other than try and restrict our rights further, that is)?
2. All commercial weapon transactions already take place through a licensed firearm dealer and include NICS criminal background checks. As for the useless waiting periods, they do nothing (and even less than nothing), and sometimes even get people killed. Forgive me for not supporting a baseless restriction on my rights that only serves to limit people's abilities to defend themselves.
Oh, and there is no "loophole". Give up that fallacy, and people like me might take you more seriously.
3. Why? Limiting magazine capacity accomplishes precisely nothing. Stopping production of normal-capacity magazines does nothing, considering the number of normal capacity magazines currently on the market. All laws like this do is increase the number of times I have to take time out of my shooting at a range to reload my magazines, and decrease the amount of ammunition my home-defense rifle can effectively carry - in short, it limits my ability of self-defense. You can take that idea, write it on a piece of paper, fold that piece of paper until it is all sharp corners, and shove it up your...
4. Selling firearms to convicted domestic abusers, sex crime offenders, or other felonious criminals is already illegal. What do you want to do - make it more illegal? This is the government you are talking about - they cannot even deliver the mail on time, and you want them to be 100% accurate on something like this? Yeah, best of luck with passing more laws to somehow make the government more effective...
5. Amusingly, this is the only thing of yours I actually agree with.
6. All the education firearm owners could ever want, need, and absorb is on the internet, and is a Google search away. Or are you talking about using that education as a limiting factor of ownership, as I suspect? Because that is the only reason you would mention it, and that is a complete and utter load of hogwash.
7. Yeah, that was a nebulous, pointless comment right there.
Nope, sorry, you fail the test for being an honest firearms-rights-advocate, in that you are only out to limit other people's rights, moreso than they already are. I stand by my "hoplophobe", "false-flag", and "liar" comments - your words have already exposed you.
It could be just a simple case of greed here.
Jessie Jackson made a hell of a living playing the race card. Mark might just be out to build an organization that does a whole lot of nothing while endlessly calling about the newest gun control law that the folks in his back room are pushing for.
No, I don't really believe that, profits are evil to the liberals... (That's why Soros, Gates, 5 out of the top 10 richest senators have a D behind their name, etc....) UNLESS you use them to control what other folks do.
Markie Marxist sez: "The function of our false front groups is to advance our gun ban agenda when doing so has become extremely difficult or even impossible. We run with gun control when we can run with it, and we proceed at a crawl with it when can only crawl. Right now, we're only able to crawl, if that. These phony groups, that exist to 'prove' that gun owners support gun control, aren't very effective, but we make the effort anyway. If we can leverage token gun ownership along with token opposition to some gun laws, in order to achieve real gun restrictions, then it's worth it."
"AHSA has pretty much foundered, so a new subversive group is welcome. Wish they hadn't picked "Liberal Gun Club" for a name though. Kinda gives away the whole plan, doesn't it?"
"Unfortunately, these little subversive groups aren't going to win the war on guns for us. Their contribution is too slight, if it amounts to anything at all. Sometimes I think that rather than doing anything helpful, these groups do more to get gun owners riled up such that droves of them sign up for the NRA."
"One problem we Marxists have never been able to solve is that sometimes our useful idiots are more idiotic than useful, but we have to work with what we have, which unfortunately, is often not much."
Post a Comment