Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Who proposes that?
Read some posts
Who argues it?
Read and watch Wayne and Dana's latest
Read some posts
Who argues it?
Read and watch Wayne and Dana's latest
Doctors and bullets---The Dumb Continues
- Thread starter DaleA
- Start date
- Status
Glenn E Meyer said:
Have done. I haven't read anyone proposing that.
Glenn E Meyer said:
I googled their names, socialist and kindergarten. I founding nothing asserting that. My failure to get that out of google doesn't mean they didn't say it, but I've still never seen that assertion, and I do follow the issue with some interest.
LaPierre did make a reference to socialism in his speech to CPAC. He described a movement in which individual rights aren't protected by a principle of limited government in front of a convention of people with a political and philosophical affinity for the idea of limited government. That's effective advocacy.
You might not enjoy CPAC and might not view the dominant culture of the NRA as your own. I have such a reaction to the NRA, ACLU and Legal Aid, all of which do much good work. That is not a description of a problem with their message.
zukiphile, go back to last month's American Rifleman and read LaPierre's column. Dr. Meyer's comments are only slight exaggerations. LaPierre rants about socialism and education, is overtly partisan, and comments on Obamacare and financing university education. (I don't have it hand to give you quotes.) Those are not the issues of the NRA. We should be a single-issue organization. As for partisanship, polls usually show something on the order of 1/3 of registered voters disagreeing with their party's line about gun control. Why would we want to alienate 1/3 of either party who agrees with us? That is something on the order of 50 million people whose support we reject by the rhetoric that is presented.
Is the goal firing up the base? Fund raising? Or changing minds by calmly presenting well-reasoned arguments for the protection of gun rights?
Which of those goals stands the greatest hope of preserving gun rights for another generation?
Is the goal firing up the base? Fund raising? Or changing minds by calmly presenting well-reasoned arguments for the protection of gun rights?
Which of those goals stands the greatest hope of preserving gun rights for another generation?
I’ll admit I only read the first few posts.
I’ve seen bullet wounds on the battlefield and I’ve hunted. Frequently I’m surprised at what .223/5.56 can do. Even the old 55gr fmj can be ghastly.
I’ve seen 40lb animals have limbs removed by some of the varmint bullets.
If you ever want to know, just take a .223 hunting and get close to the game, it will change your opinion if you ever doubted the damage that little bullet causes.
Yep, there are more powerful options out there, but a little bullet going super fast is nothing to discount. Especially at close ranges.
I do however, understand that “military grade ammunition” is not the peak of power and destruction that has been playing in the media.
You are not going to fool the public now that they’ve seen and heard ARs in real time. After Vegas, you’ll never convince the other side that they aren’t military style weapons. You’re not going to convince them that they cannot be fired at a rate similar to automatic fire, the world heard it.
I’ve seen bullet wounds on the battlefield and I’ve hunted. Frequently I’m surprised at what .223/5.56 can do. Even the old 55gr fmj can be ghastly.
I’ve seen 40lb animals have limbs removed by some of the varmint bullets.
If you ever want to know, just take a .223 hunting and get close to the game, it will change your opinion if you ever doubted the damage that little bullet causes.
Yep, there are more powerful options out there, but a little bullet going super fast is nothing to discount. Especially at close ranges.
I do however, understand that “military grade ammunition” is not the peak of power and destruction that has been playing in the media.
You are not going to fool the public now that they’ve seen and heard ARs in real time. After Vegas, you’ll never convince the other side that they aren’t military style weapons. You’re not going to convince them that they cannot be fired at a rate similar to automatic fire, the world heard it.
Dr. Leana Wen - author of the NYT link - is pretty far out there.
She views just about everything as something that, with enough funding, the Health Department could address.
One of her Tweets even claims racism is a health issue & the Health Department should have funding to address from that angle..
She's just goofy enough to be a future Surgeon General & really do some damage...
She views just about everything as something that, with enough funding, the Health Department could address.
One of her Tweets even claims racism is a health issue & the Health Department should have funding to address from that angle..
She's just goofy enough to be a future Surgeon General & really do some damage...
buck460XVR
New member
^^^This. The same ol' "they're so stupid"(pound on chest), "shall not be infringed"(pound on chest again) is getting pretty old even for us ardent gun supporters. While it riles up those here, it has done little or nuttin' to change the opinions of folks outside of gun forums. It also has folks turning their heads and walking away in boredom whenever they hear it. So if and when there is something more significant to hear, they are already gone. Once folks get to name calling and personal attacks, the debate is lost, and this is where these types of threads always go. We whine about anti's using rhetoric, using rhetoric to do it. Somehow, that just don't make sense to me.
Read what Double Naught Spy wrote in post #5.
My hog count pales in comparison to that of DNS but my experience mirrors his exactly.
The chest of a hog shot in the heart/lung area will be filled with bloody goo. Sometimes the diaphragm and liver are badly damaged.
Dr. (USA Colonel) Martin Fackler treated thousands of wounded troops. He is an authority on military bullet wounds.
http://kjg-munition.de/Zielwirkung/military_bullet_wound_patterns.html
BTW: The US military used hogs in the testing of rifle bullets.
My hog count pales in comparison to that of DNS but my experience mirrors his exactly.
The chest of a hog shot in the heart/lung area will be filled with bloody goo. Sometimes the diaphragm and liver are badly damaged.
Dr. (USA Colonel) Martin Fackler treated thousands of wounded troops. He is an authority on military bullet wounds.
http://kjg-munition.de/Zielwirkung/military_bullet_wound_patterns.html
BTW: The US military used hogs in the testing of rifle bullets.
Tailgator said:
I cannot agree. It isn't a slight exaggeration of the argument to that the left wants to take guns so that kindergarten teachers can turn our children into socialists. It's a misrepresentation of the analysis. I asked if someone had said that because the allegation has been the same each time.
Lapierre correctly notes the growth of an idea that one's individual rights held against the state are to be subordinated to new and increasingly invasive state authority. One's rights to his income, his freedom to speak or not (in the form of "hate" speech criminal enhancements and state compelled speech, and limits on campaign speech), freedom of association in insurance and medical matters, freedom of religious practice, and right to keep and bear arms come under attack from a recognizable portion of the political spectrum. Those attacks rest on an analysis hostile to the concept of principled and enduring limits on state power. The 2d Am. is but one of those limits.
Amongst holders of elected office that portion of the spectrum is found in the american democrat party and european, labour, social democrat and socialist parties. There is enough commonality in these positions that american political players can find roles in Israel and western Europe.
LaPierre's point is both substantially correct and not reducible to "the left wants to take your guns so kindergarten teachers can turn your children into socialists", even in caricature.
Tailgator said:
I think that is short sighted. The philosophy on which the 2d (and 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th,8th and 9th) Am. rests does not apply only to arms. Rhetorically stripping the 2d Am. from its foundation by silencing advocacy on other constitutional limits serves to trivialise the right itself.
Tailgator said:
I doubt that explaining the problem has that effect. From Irving Kristol to Phil Graham and Jeane Kirkpatrick, democrats who disagree with the vision of the unlimited state have recognised the problem. Just because a person registers as a democrat doesn't mean he disagrees with a word of LaPierre's column.
Tailgator said:
I would not use that conjunction.
Firing up the base is a necessity; people who don't care are less likely to vote. Advocacy requires fundraising. Changing minds and gaining ground on an issue can involve calmly presented and well -reasoned arguments, as well as other sorts of arguments.
I think, zukiphile, that we are going to continue to disagree on this. The point I am trying to make is that, with the country roughly evenly split between two major parties, and only around 2/3 of a favored party opposing increased gun control, we are starting with a minority. If we alienate voters who may agree with us on gun issues, either by calling them idiots for their registration, or by bringing up other issues upon which to demand their allegiance, we will not achieve a majority. We need votes more than we need rhetoric, in my opinion. I think you and I can agree without being disagreeable - we are, I think, doing that right now in this thread. The current rhetoric of the NRA does not allow anyone to do that.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
I agree with TailGator and don't need to repeat myself. One can agree or disagree that Wayne and Dana will be successful in the long run and whether their diatribes move anyone outside of the choir. That is an empirical question.
Tailgator, persuasion will require communicating something important; one can't say anything important if he will not risk offending someone looking to be offended.
Pointing out the problems of a limitless state doesn't demand a seamless allegiance or call anyone an idiot for their registration. I do know a few socialists who are also 2d Am. fundamentalists; they recognise the internal tension.
I agree that votes are needed. I see more than one way to persuade people about it, but they will all involve rhetoric.
I believe that it isn't just that you, Glenn and I are disagreeing without being disagreeable; we are disagreeing without being thin skinned, becoming indignant and looking for offense.
Individual ideological variation for prudential or moral reason on a specific issue isn't rare. In my experience people who engage in it may be both better informed and more tolerant of disagreement than average. What about identification of an important political movement would disallow civil discourse?
If one is a man of the left but believes the 2d Am. right is important and worth defending, he finds himself up against a reality that it shouldn't be the NRA's to help him deny.
Tailgator said:
Pointing out the problems of a limitless state doesn't demand a seamless allegiance or call anyone an idiot for their registration. I do know a few socialists who are also 2d Am. fundamentalists; they recognise the internal tension.
I agree that votes are needed. I see more than one way to persuade people about it, but they will all involve rhetoric.
Tailgator said:
I believe that it isn't just that you, Glenn and I are disagreeing without being disagreeable; we are disagreeing without being thin skinned, becoming indignant and looking for offense.
Individual ideological variation for prudential or moral reason on a specific issue isn't rare. In my experience people who engage in it may be both better informed and more tolerant of disagreement than average. What about identification of an important political movement would disallow civil discourse?
If one is a man of the left but believes the 2d Am. right is important and worth defending, he finds himself up against a reality that it shouldn't be the NRA's to help him deny.
Thallub said:
If you've attended a private liberal arts college in the last couple of decades, you know that the article, while unsubtle and written in broad strokes, is also largely true.
Saying things that fall outside a fairly narrow bandwidth will find objection as "micro-aggression", misogyny, racism, eurocentrism, etc. Incoming students are often routinely indoctrinated in matter of "diversity" and "equity". At the College of Wooster, a senior wrote on Facebook that he liked some "alt-right" youtube videos. There was a sit in to discuss student feelings about it, the senior was removed from campus (four years and well over $200,000 into his undergraduate education) and the college committed to instituting a new "Cultural Competence" class for every incoming freshman.
An officer with the Wooster College Republicans wrote an article in the school paper calling for greater tolerance of varying viewpoints on campus rather than name-calling and threats. I recommended to her that she make common cause with genuinely liberal faculty who also should have an interest in an intellectually tolerant environment. Her extraordinarily sad response? She didn't know any.
As the Berkeley treatment of several speakers last year demonstrated, the problem isn't confined to small private colleges.
Last edited:
La Pierre's article is made up trash.
i began college in 1984 at age 45. Got my bachelors in 1988, my MBA in 1997. i know numerous college professors, many are my friends. Except for some who teach politics, they seldom mention politics in class.
After amassing just over 260 credit hours i encountered two professors who were classical "liberals". One was an undergrad professor of speech. The other was a published professor who taught American government. The man very seldom revealed his personal politics in class.
Evan Thomas
Inactive
Since we've drifted into pure politics -- closed. The evils (or otherwise) of socialism are seriously off-topic here.
PS from Glenn - I can't resist. My academic credentials are having been a liberals arts professors at two such colleges from 1977 to 2016, plus teaching at some other state school at night. Wayne's fears are a touch out there, despite the excesses of a small number of students. Sorry, Evan.
PS from Glenn - I can't resist. My academic credentials are having been a liberals arts professors at two such colleges from 1977 to 2016, plus teaching at some other state school at night. Wayne's fears are a touch out there, despite the excesses of a small number of students. Sorry, Evan.
- Status