...purpose for the 2A is a hedge against tyranny, I would consider corruption and criminal activity among the 2A's political detractors rather relevant. Stale for sure for a 200+ year old law but relevant. Wouldn't you?

...take that as a "no"?

and why you're so determined to protect criminals' access to guns.

...where I mentioned protecting criminals.

and their proposals have to do with keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. I'm still waiting to read what that has to do with tyranny.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayors_Against_Illegal_Guns

...not at all. I do oppose some of their proposals. However, I found the Fatal Gaps report very enlightening and I believe it highlights some of the principle difficulties with the NICS and some of the problems that will be faced in updating it.

I am not a stop and frisk fan nor do I think warrant-less searches are acceptable.

I find the MAIG problematic mostly because, as public officials, they should do more to police (no pub intended) their own ranks.

Have a nice evening.

In actuality they support bans of currently legal guns.

Did you read the Fatal Gaps report?
If so, what was your opinion?

Shouldn't you be able to come up with something better than "you have a gun you must be part of the NRA" or "its old so i don't need to respond or consider it"

NRA talking points are just noise. Their design and purpose is to distract or disrupt any reasoned discussion of the gun issue. They don't require a response other than a call out.

So in short you have no response but to claim that anyone who disagrees with you is using NRA talking points. Why are you here?

You think it's a violation? Use the alert function.

Risk of a spin is slim to none.

I like your posts right where they are they illustrate my point.

...or a few hours, the unresponsiveness is itself an answer.

What principles of the Democratic Party or the political left do you hold? You do not appear to like being challenged on what many of us perceive as "talking points from the NRA" ... perhaps true, perhaps not. Guns and RBKA seems to be your greatest interest... but what principals of the Democratic Party and the Political Left do you share with us.

I am quite open and welcoming to members that generally embrace the political left but differ on the subject of guns.

You asked a member why they are here ... OK ... why are you here?

I don't defend them, I don't associate with them. What I take issue with is the dismissing of an argument by simply relating it to a group that you find completely revolting. That's not a discussion or even a debate it's pointless bickering. You asked why I am here I am here because I like discussion, both participating in and spectating

Got it

RL

I have found common ground with several gun enthusiasts,through this type of conversation we were able to establish that we agreed far more than we disagreed on most subjects held dear by liberals.

Conversations identifying liberal values that happen to coincide with gun enthusiasm usually helps make the discourse related to gun control much more civil and when commonalities are identified it helps "others" step back and listen more openly.

I am never going to agree with many on the role of guns in American society, but at least I can have respectful disagreement.

Then, there are the cretins that enter through the gungeon, post significant amount in RKBA and offer little else ... REFUSING to engage in conversation related to Democratic or liberal causes.

My fishing elsewhere will increase the potential for intelligent conversation with a liberal gun enthusiast... on that we can agree

I see that a lot. Even when a gun owner offers ways to help limit gun deaths they ignore that and go back to "you are using NRA talking points again."

...have to address?

Must be nice.

I mean, your side can just take pretty much anything, even objective fact, and call it an NRA talking point, and refuse to defend or discuss it.


For example this objective fact: "New-manufacture semiautomatic rifles fed from detachable magazines will still be legal to purchase under Feinstein's new ban".

Care to discuss it, or is this an "NRA talking point" that you can avoid?

...a conclusion based on your claim: "NRA talking points are just noise. Their design and purpose is to distract or disrupt any reasoned discussion of the gun issue. They don't require a response other than a call out."

The conclusion is that an assertion's correctness is dependent on who says it.

Would it be valid for pro-RKBA poster to claim that anything that is published by the VPC or one of its officials is just noise?

since publishing "National Rifle Association: Money, Firepower & Fear" in 1992. If you try to smear Josh and VPC, I'd say your primary motive would be defending the NRA.

...accept that your purpose in this assertion is simply to disrupt discussion and sharing of ideas.

BTW, you wouldn't have place where you burn books would you?
Oh, and how is Josh and his FFL business doing these days?

"Assault weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully-automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons --anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun-- can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons."

"One tenet of the National Rifle Association's faith has always been that handgun controls do little to stop criminals from obtaining handguns. For once, the NRA is right and America's leading handgun control organization is wrong. Criminals don't buy guns in gun stores. That's why they're criminals. But it isn't criminals who are killing most of the 20,000 to 22,000 people who die from handguns each year. We are."

And my favorite:
"The NRA is Right: But We Still Need to Ban Handguns," (emphasis mine)

Why would I want smear him... or even the ink from any of those quotes?

that is his license number. You can go to any FFL or local ATF office to verify the number and the location using ATF's database.

...when apocalypsehow contends that, when I made that previous statement, it was an NRA talking point and thus dismissable?

You should start a thread there with a link to the previous statement.

That Mayors Against Gun Violence don't have a right to influence the political process because they don't make enough profits from murder, like your friends in the gun lobby?

and while you're add it, explain why stopping of illegal gun purchases is so objectionable to you folks.

I will not just accept your straw men and answer questions based on them. Spend less time gathering straw and more time reading what is posted and you might just understand what is going on in this thread.

When I see a little effort toward discussion and a lot less toward confrontation I will be more willing to answer your questions.

That doesn't take long. It's hardly high level intellectual stuff. It does, however, echo NRA paranoia. http://www.wnyc.org/articles/wnyc-news/2009/nov/23/nra-fights-back-against-bloombergs-gun-control-coalition/

Gun owners NEVER break the law. The fact they kill 38,000 people a year is minor technicality. It's not like those lives actually count, right?

I guess that's an NRA talking point too.

If he is convicted, that would push the number up to at least 12.

gun deaths a year? Are you really trying to keep score? You'll lose on that one.

Lives that apparently have no meaning to you. Provide evidence for the rest.

Perhaps you can tell us which lives matter: not suicides, not people of color.

suicide rates don't drop because lack of a gun. Gun suicides would drop, but not the suicide rate. What does color have to do with it? You are scapegoating rural people of color as well.

as opposed to 5% by pills.

It is simply factually false that most gun deaths are a result of gangs or drugs. Most are domestic. You have no evidence to back up your claims because none exist.

There are lots of 100% effective suicide methods. Would you like me to list some?

And that's just those still counted as members. MAIG also had a habit of listing members and using their names without their knowledge.

Is this news???

and are subject to daily gunfire be denied self determination so that those of you who live in your privileged suburban worlds get to watch more and more of our children die, even though gun control in cities have absolutely no impact on your own lives.

most of the urban gunfire is getting bong contents to market.

Because you insist that we don't have a right to ban guns in our cities. Because you lobby to repeal laws that save lives. Because you, in your post below, said the lives of the 38,000 Americans who die every year are meaningless.

because guns flow from areas with laxer gun laws to the cities.

That is how the colossol failure of Chicago's gun ban is rationalized. Are you saying it is not true?

That would be fine with most rural firearm owners.

He and the rest of the gun lobby wants to ensure criminals maintain access to guns.

The point is it makes guns more difficult for them to obtain and more expensive. That, of course is the problem for the gun lobby. They want criminals to have steady access to guns because they are a major profit stream. That is the only reason they could possibly resist background checks. LaPierre said as much before congress. "Criminals won't submit to background checks." Yes, that's exactly what he fears: decreased gun sales.


Also the fact is more deaths result from self injury, domestic murders, and accidents than murders by people with prior felony convictions. But you know that.

Mostly they get them by theft, or straw purchase.

Suicides by guns do outnumber all other types of gun deaths, but I am not worried about that. If a person wants to quit living that is their right.

Gun accidents are at an all-time low.

Domestic murderers amost always have prior convictions. It is extremely rare for a person to commit murder as a first offense. Please not that "rare" does not equal "never".

I call bullshit. Adam Lanza's gun's were purchased legally, as were James Holmes. Your continual fiction that only prior felons commit gun crimes is nonsense.
Also given the absence of background checks, they don't have to use straw purchases.

I hope you have invested in some Kevlar, at least.

Sure, by all means, your municipality should ban ALL guns, they should make it a crime to even THINK about a gun.

But don't try to change what we sane people in rural, civilized America are allowed to responsibly own.

It forbid cities from banning handguns, just so you red staters could control the rest of the country. I could care less what you do. What bothers me is that you impose your fetish for guns on the rest of the nation and don't care who dies in the process. It would take a lot of convincing for me to believe that the gun lobby, that is right wing, doesn't view dead black and brown people as a bonus.

Maybe you can convince them that the 2nd Amendment doesn't really exist.

Really.. do tell.

What are you wearing right now?

I really think common sense may be gaining some traction at last.

"The Pope the Mayor of Ypsilanti? How many divisions does he have?”

The 850 "strong" MAIG needs to stop with pretense and rename themselves for what they truly represent; MAG.