Now can we officially call them a hate group?

Hmm?

Fortunately, there are many gun owners who despise the NRA.

although I think we should all join the NRA and stage a coup from within and throw out all those asshole RW'ers like Nugent, LaPierre, and such. You would see RW'ers heads do this:

with the same goal.

As I pointed out below, this insurance is nothing new. I would like to see a radical change in the leadership take place in the very immediate future.

show us the plenty of pro-NRA sentiment down in the Gungeon. I visit there frequently and I haven't seen it. If it's so prevelant, it shouldn't be hard to provide links. The only support I've seen is the NRA's safety programs like the Eddie Eagle program that teaches children what to do if they find a gun. Other than that, there is no support for the NRA, especially the political arm of them, the NRA-ILA.
I myself won't but this insurance as I have my own, but I'm certainly not going to trash those that want to, their choice and all.

Last edited Wed Jun 13, 2012, 08:53 PM - Edit history (1)

The NRA is nothing but a front group for the Republican Party. Their policies are incomparable with the principles of the Democratic party. Too many people on DU & in the gungeon in particular claim to be Democrats, yet they go out of their way to promote the NRA's policies, and go out of their way to denigrate & deride Democrats who oppose the NRA and support reasonable gun control policies.

When popularly elected Democrats in majority-Democratic cities (like NYC, Chicago, Detroit, etc, etc.) and municipalities enact popular & reasonable gun restrictions, nobody on DU should be advocating for the opponents of these Democrats.

edit:
No surprise that the usual suspects are supporting this RW extremist shit.

Gary McDowell is running unopposed for the Democratic Party nomination to run for a seat in the House in Michigan's 1st Congressional District.

"McDowell, an NRA member with a perfect NRA voting record as a state legislator..."

http://eupnews.com/recent-mcdowell-announcements-includes-ss-committee-and-nra/

At his campaign website, he talks about his "A" rating from the NRA.

"Gun Rights
Gary is a strong supporter and advocate for the 2nd Amendment rights of every individual.

In the Michigan legislature, Gary authored legislation and supported the right for each of us to legally possess and carry firearms as well as preserving the right to hunt and fish. Advocating these principles is why Gary always received an “A” rating from the National Rifle Association."

http://www.mcdowellforcongress.com/home/issues

If it is, then conservadems seem to do well there.

Last edited Wed Jun 13, 2012, 11:09 PM - Edit history (1)

McDowell is fair game here at DU until the end of the primary season, which I believe is early September. However, after that, attacking a Dem such as him could be seen as pushing it.

That's why the gungeon exists.

is A+ rated by the NRA, but also pro choice, pro gay marriage, voted for the ACA, all in all, very liberal. How do you explain that?

Trying to smear a long time Dem like Gary McDowell for supposedly belonging to a hate group is not a wise thing to do on DU.

http://mcdowellforcongress.com/

Until the group was basically gone.

And the Blue Dogs died in 2010.

Fuck the NRAGOP.

Sounds like a pretty far right (hate filled) concept to me.

Hmm.... Maybe it is YOU that needs to find a forum that encourages the denigration of civil liberties?

people buy guns for lots of reasons (yea, sure lets go with that for a moment), but to claim to need coverage in the event that you stand your ground???

self defense is quite another thing altogether. if someone breaks into your home and you shoot them, there is no legal cost and you are covered by traditional self defense laws.

this is a farce

I think it is a stupid idea but I can't see how it is encouraging people to commit murder. After all, it specifically says you have to be acquitted of any criminal charges to be paid.

someone else is going to pay their lawyer's fees.

The cost of good representation emboldens unethical people when they have that resource, and victimizes those who can't afford it to fight back.

in any case, I suspect that gun violence rates will continue to decline and it will be impossible to pin any deaths on this insurance.

A certain gun-religionist always - ALWAYS - trots out the same falsehood about some connection between more guns or looser gun laws with lesser gun violence.

When this particular gun-relgionist is told he is making a false statement, he sputters about not doing it - and then about .04 seconds later does it again.

Gun-religionists are a strange, strange breed.

The only thing we can say with certainty is that gun violence has steadily declined to historic lows and is still declining. The reasons are many and complex.

Having corrected your lie many times before, why are you still repeating it?

...that the US has gun violence rates some 5-10X higher than the rest of the developed world, where gun laws are based in reason and public safety rather than right-wing ideology.

we know very well who is killing who in America.

Why don't you say exactly what you mean?

"we know very well who is killing who in America." For the sake of argument WHO is killing WHO?

most murders are committed by criminals with extensive criminal records. Gang violence is the biggest source of murders - did you just miss the bloody weekend Chicago just experienced?

those gangs that live in those cities with astronomical murder rates.

Link?

Here are the FBI crime reports - all sorts of good details to sink your teeth into.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010

Here is the FBI 2011 National Gang Threat Assessment

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/2011-national-gang-threat-assessment

The Gang Threat Assessment link is a great read. Motorcycle and prison gangs. Very interesting stuff.

The report cited in the ABC article states "gang members are believed responsible for as much as 80 percent of crime in America." That does not break down the murder rates with firearms. If I missed the stat, please show me. I am looking for what you claimed we all know, "who is killing who."

lots of data on murders.

Table 3 does not support the still unanswered question.

WOW!
The "logic" around here really amazes me sometimes.

They are an extremist group and nothing less.

This is insane. No, strike that...it's fucking scary.

What about cases of legitimate self-defense? Why should you not be able to insure against the potential legal costs associated with that?

To have it otherwise would put you in the position of having to choose between risking your life or risking your financial well being.

We all know the reluctance of insurance companies to pay off. So if you try to collect, you are apt to be met with questions regarding proof the death you cause was really "self-defense". I can see it all now. The law says you are justified to kill while your insurance takes you to court to prove otherwise. LOL.

I do wonder how they will keep blacks from purchasing it.

only if found innocent.

But, isn't the point to pay the legal cost to get these people off?

it may be a slam dunk as far as one's innocence and still be expensive as hell.

Numerous states actually provide civil immunity, and if attempted, many award the costs of defense as compensable by the plaintiff!

Florida
776.032?Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—

(1)?A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

(3)?The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).

North Carolina

(e) A person who uses force as permitted by this section is justified in using such force and is immune from civil or criminal liability for the use of such force,

Texas, Oklahoma, Virginia, and Idaho just to name a few.

but many don't

Like "scooping" the moon is not made of cheese.

-this insurance has been available for years. I do not know when it was first offered but have been aware of it for more than three years
- it only reimburses the policy holder after aquital
- despite the snide implication, it is available to any NRA member, regardless of "skin conditions"
- its main purpose was/is to prevent the bankrupting of an innocent person who by bring forced to protect them self is first dragged through the criminal system and found to be justified, the family gets a 'second whack' in the civil court.


This is also not the only such insurance out there and most rights proponents advise against the NRA insurance as the policy holder must pay for their legal defense first. Most other policies act like other liability policies (home, auto...) and cover your legal fees up front.

insurance. Not that they're ineligible for coverage with this insurance. This insurance will surely embolden plenty of George Zimmermans out there. I'm sure their thinking will be: Hey, why even have insurance if you're not going to use it? After all, the George Zimmermans of this world really need more legal protections, don't they?

to go out and run into other cars? Why have it if not use it? Once you have your tabs, just cancel until you need to renew the registration...

If Z. had this insurance, he would be facing exactly what he is facing now. A trial for murder on his own dime. If he is exonerated, why shouldn't he be reimbursed? He would have been found justified by a jury of his peers.

I know that wouldn't sit well with those who convict after reading a headline, but if the jury says Not Guilty, then you are not guilty in the eyes of the law.

I know that there's a very, very slight chance of me ever needing to kill someone in my lifetime. I also know that if that incredible unlikelihood ever occurs, it will be pretty damned obvious that I killed to either protect my own life or protect the lives of others. I also know that if that incredible unlikelihood does occur and I'm sued by some belligerent asshole, I have the ability to counter sue for court costs. The only type of person I could ever imagine purchasing something like this is someone who's itching to kill someone and wants to make it more likely to not disrupt their lives. Who the hell purchases insurance for something you're so incredibly unlikely to experience? It's like someone in Ohio purchasing volcano insurance. It's just dumb. If you're purchasing this insurance, you're thinking it's at least SOMEWHAT likely that you're going to kill someone. Who the fuck thinks that way?

> If you're purchasing this insurance, you're thinking it's at least SOMEWHAT likely that you're going to kill someone. Who the fuck thinks that way?

Gun-religionists.

The mere fact that this insurance exists makes me incredibly sad for the country.

you live in a country that will sue at the drop of a hat. Being completely innocent of a crime will not prevent gun owners from being dragged into court if someone sees an opportunity to make a buck.

Because the chances of someone being brought into court for killing someone are miniscule unless you actually intend to kill someone. And we already have a legal system to take care of issues where someone is sued unnecessarily. The only people I can reasonably see purchasing such insurance are people who think there's a good chance that they'll kill someone. That's sick.

how does a poor gun owner afford the legal talent required to survive in that legal system you are so proud of? What would you rather have - an overworked, underpayed public defender or a competent lawyer?

And what about civil cases? There are no publicly provided lawyers for those. And a civil suit is much more likely, don't you think? Hence my comment about suing at the drop of the hat. A frivolous civil suit can still bankrupt you.

If it's a civil case, and you're found guilty, you can counter sue for court costs. As many have noted before, it wouldn't matter because they have to pay for their own defense initially anyway. It's only if they're found innocent that their defense gets paid. So this insurance sure as hell isn't going to do anything to help those poor people.

It's ONLY going to be used by people who already think that there's a decent chance they are going to kill someone. If you think that way, you're fucked in the head. And this insurance is only going to embolden people to commit murder.

it is clear you have your agenda so I'll let you be.

Do people purchase insurance for things that there's an extremely minute chance of them experiencing? Do people in Kansas buy flood insurance? Do people in Montreal buy tsunami insurance? My only agenda here is pointing out how ridiculously stupid something like this is. I can no doubt see how this appeals to the NRA crowd.

what I object to is your dismal view of your fellow man such that their only motivation is to kill people. It just fits into that common anti-gun meme that all gun owners are unstable and dangerous. It is black and white thinking at its worse.

Either way, it speaks very poorly on both the people who'd buy this insurance and those who'd sell it. Surely not all gun owners are unstable and dangerous, but the great bulk of the people who'd buy this insurance surely would be. Either that or incredibly stupid. And I tend to think that the incredibly stupid gun owners are also incredibly dangerous gun owners.

I have to have flood ins. where I live even though the last flood was over a 150 years ago. Your ridiculous ascertation that those of us who wish to carry that ins. because we believe we may have to murder some one is so asnine in so many ways. I carry that kind of liability ins. on my house policy, not because I believe I am going to one day "murder" someone, its because in the unlikely event I do have to defend myself, whether at home or out in public, I don't want to be bankrupted.

Murder my ass, if you have to shoot some one in self defense and they die and it is determined to be a legitimate shooting, it's called justifiable homocide, not murder.

The NRA idiots who purchase this insurance obviously think that it's at least somewhat likely to happen. And your comparison about you having to buy flood insurance doesn't really mean anything, no one is being forced to buy this. If you're involved in a clear case of self defense, most likely there will be no trial. If there IS a trial and the one is subject to malicious prosecution, one is entitled to sue for court costs. This insurance is good for nothing and will only increase the culture of fear in this country and I'm damned sure will embolden murderers.

can you provide links showing it has embolded murderers? Or is this your gut feeling?
I've had this type of ins. for years, I've had a CHL for years, I have lots of friends who carry this ins. and have a CHL and none of us have been embolded to commit murder, but if you have proof of your claim, by all means, I would be interested in seeing it.

And I know of no studies that have been done on people who have this type of insurance, so I can't help you there. But common sense tells me that the people who have this insurance are far more likely than the general population to kill someone. And considering how extremely likely it is for ANY person to ever kill another, it's simple common sense that the people buying this insurance are far more likely to be looking for trouble than people who do not. And you're muddying the issue by bringing up CHLs. I said nothing against firearm ownership at all, but this NRA provided insurance is scary bullshit. All of my issues stand.

and I respect your opinion, but like I said, this ins. and this type of ins. has been available for years and if what you say were true, there would be statistics out showing a link between the those with this type of ins. and murder.
I didn't say anything about your stand on firearm ownership and if I came across that way, I apologize. The NRA has offered this ins. for quite a while as have other ins. companies, mine is as a, I believed its called a rider, have to drag out the policy and look at it, to my home ins.
The reason I brought up CHL's is because those of us who do have a CHL tend to have this type of ins..

You're assuming that they've actually done studies on the people who've bought this insurance. I'd imagine it would only be when a fairly large number of people have themselves covered that they'd even bother to do such a study, I have no idea how large that number currently is. If you have any information backing up your assertion that those who have CHLs tend to have this kind of insurance, I'd love to see it.

all over it if it where true, The Violence Policy Center, And the Brady Campaign to Prevent Handgun Violence. They would have been screaming it from the mountain tops if there was any correlation between those of us who carry this ins. and murder. I flat guarantee it. I rate these 2 org. with the NRA, both full of themselves and full of shit. They all use scare tactics.
As for the statistics you ask for, like you, no, the only thing I have is my own experience with other CHL holders, which is not definitive proof I concede.

Its a real pleasure having a civil conversation with you without all the innuendos and name calling that others at this site do, and that I have been on occasion, guilty myself.
Thanks

And there's no reason to believe those studies HAVE been done. If you're so convinced that those studies exist, they should be relatively simple to find. I've searched the internet and I've been unable to find anything.

Likewise, with regard to the civility. I, too, find myself hot-headed on occasion. More than I'd like to admit to.

I know of no studies, but if studies had been done, I flat guarantee that those 2 aformentioned gun control org. would be screaming it from the mountain tops.
I looked also and was not able to find anything. It would be interesting to see a study done and see the results. A study done by a company with no bias for or against firearms.
Who knows, maybe someday.

Because you have to pay for your defense either way. And once again, this boils down to thinking that it's even slightly likely that you're going to have to murder someone in your life. Normal people don't think like that. People who think they're going to murder someone do.

is reimburse your cost upon acquittal. You are not out, or can repay the second mortgage you had to take to cover the cost of defending yourself.


You keep saying murder, that is not the only reason one person kills another. For those who choose to carry or keep a gun to defend their home, they have given consideration to the possibility of having to shoot in self-defense. Yes, the odds are very small that it may occur but is still greater than the chance of being hit by lightening. Once accepting that, however remote, it is a possibility, the next step is to consider the aftermath. Too many do not take this step. If you shoot someone you should expect to go to court. It does not matter if your state has SYG, DTR, castle doctrine or Scooby Doo and meddling kids law- expect to go to court to have to explain your actions.

Acknowledging that if you are extremely unlucky and do someday shoot someone, and you have to go to court, you may wish to prepare for the expense of a trial. Some people will have an attorney on retainer, some will buy the insurance, some will hope they never face the situation.

People who think they are going to murder someone won't do any of this thought because they don't care and believe they will just get away with the crime.

And if one has the ability to mount a successful defense, one can most likely afford to counter sue. They're even more likely to be able to counter sue (in the extremely unlikely event they find themselves in that situation) if they had saved that money that otherwise would have gone to murder insurance. And you're way off base when you say:

"Acknowledging that if you are extremely unlucky and do someday shoot someone, and you have to go to court, you may wish to prepare for the expense of a trial. Some people will have an attorney on retainer, some will buy the insurance, some will hope they never face the situation."

Because this does nothing to prepare anyone for the expense of a trial. It only reimburses one AFTER the trial. If they don't have money for the trial in the first place, it does nothing for them.

I will just leave it as summing my opinion that having such insurance is not evidence of premeditation to murder.

and that the first one is if and when you are convicted of committing a crime with your gun, the policy is rendered null and void. That's how most other insurance works. For instance; if I get in an accident and am found to be guilty of drunk driving, my insurance policy is no longer in effect retroactive back to the instant the accident occurred.

I sure wouldn't want that to stop anyone from posting racist cartoons though...

It is anything BUT racist. It shows how this type of culture and this kind of ridiculous fear mongering gets minorities killed. Do you know that stand your ground cases are far more likely to result in the killer getting off scott free when the victim is a black person? THAT is racist. Talking about how minorities are hurt by this kind of bullshit is about as far from racism as you can get.

I do know those who shoot for hunting and as sport and are responsible reasonable gun owners who don't fall into lock step with the NRA IN FACT they hate the NRA.



Also those who do have guns. A cousin recently bought a gun and next thing he knows he's getting flayers asking him to join NRA and even a call. Do gun shops have some sort of deal with NRA to sell the names of those who buy guns to NRA or is it just this shop?

My friend went back to ask the owner and the owner had no shame about telling him he sells his customers names to the NRA said he is a proud member.

As getting the insurance in advance, if you ever need to use it, shows intent.

I've had this type of ins. for years as a rider to my home ins. Now if you go out and get it and then the next day go out and shoot someone, then, yeah, that could be a definite problem for you.

Great cartoon... made me giggle (as does the righteous indignation in response)