Today I joined the NRA thanks to David Hogg

Think of it this way. If you woke up to the usual cable news then it would be another day and you would feel that no action should be taken. However, when you wake up to students doing mass protests rallying for sweeping control or bans or trashing out your favorite firearms group...when you wake up to a retired Supreme Court Justice writing about repealing the 2nd Amendment...you know this is no ordinary day and its time to take action.

I hope for more news articles, protests and rallies on banning firearms. I look forward to it. Thats because it will get us up out of our usual sitting position and take action. Thanks Justice Stevens, thanks Mr Hogg...we needed that wakeup call.
 
Its always been a mystery to me why gun owners would not want to support the NRA.... Nit-picking and finding fault seems like an excuse to not pay dues..
 
Supporting an organization and pointing out that their personnel or strategy may be ineffective are two different things.

If you pay money to someone, you want them to do the job well.

How dare all those supporters of Obama, not support Hillary and switch their votes to Trump. Were they just being picky?

Tribal loyalty of any type as compared to reasoned action decisions has been a bane to humanity for a long time.
 
carguychris said:
Perhaps the concept of the stalking horse is more appropriate in this case.

If the current push for gun control bears little fruit for its major backers, I predict that the sophomoric rhetorical excesses of Hogg and so forth will be blamed.
Click to expand...

The stalking horse here would be the issue of school safety. I think it's a fairly transparent one when the murderer didn't use a bump stock or "high" capacity magazines, but a lot of the focus is on those.

The human shield concept involves the person of the advocate specifically. Sometimes John McCain, Bob Kerry and Chuck Hagel used this to limited effect in Congress. Hagel has a great record of enlisted service in Vietnam, Kerry came back with one fewer leg, and McCain suffered greatly in captivity and behaved admirably. None of those are actually a qualification of expertise in foreign affairs, yet each of them has used the experience in policy arguments (Kerry on only two occasions I can recall).

Deploying the Parkland students as advocates on the gun control issue is a more brazen use of the human shield. Even here, criticism is muted not based on the merit of the criticism, but because criticism might not "look" good. That's entirely about who they are rather than what they say.
 
zukiphile said:
The stalking horse here would be the issue of school safety. I think it's a fairly transparent one when the murderer didn't use a bump stock or "high" capacity magazines, but a lot of the focus is on those.
Click to expand...
He also didn't use a military rifle, yet the students are proclaiming that he did. On the other hand, it seems the students are now calling for a ban on ALL semi-automatic firearms. In short, they don't know anything about guns, they just parrot what the anti-gunners have been feeding them.

Which is sad. I can't blame them for wanting to feel safe in their schools, but that ship sailed a long time ago. If it's not a random shooter, they still are very much at risk of bullying, and schools in general do their best to pretend that bullying doesn't exist, even where it does. I saw that with my own daughter in our local school. The kids are justified in asking that the schools be made safe, but they don't understand that the gun ban they're calling for won't -- can't -- guarantee that.

zukiphile said:
Deploying the Parkland students as advocates on the gun control issue is a more brazen use of the human shield. Even here, criticism is muted not based on the merit of the criticism, but because criticism might not "look" good. That's entirely about who they are rather than what they say.
Click to expand...
True. It's just not a good "optic" to attack children. Might as well condemn Mom and apple pie.
 
Using victims is a well known effect in trying to mold opinions. All politicians use the vivid instance. Using a victim that is valued by society (women, kids) is common.

I fail to see why folks are so shocked by it. Pick a topic and a vivid horrible instance will be featured in the PR campaigns.
 
I renewed my membership for five years because it was due. I also signed up my kid for one year to boost their membership numbers. $25 for one year. We p for his AAA membership annually so I’ll add the money to that account.

If you are able sign up another. More strength through more votes!
 
Aguila Blanca said:
He also didn't use a military rifle, yet the students are proclaiming that he did. On the other hand, it seems the students are now calling for a ban on ALL semi-automatic firearms. In short, they don't know anything about guns, they just parrot what the anti-gunners have been feeding them.
Click to expand...

IMO, he did use a military rifle. An AR-15 is a military rifle, just it lacks the automatic fire capability that the military uses. But otherwise, it's the same gun. IMO, gun rights people shoot themselves in the foot and are playing defense by trying to pretend otherwise. The problem with that whole argument about "military guns," "weapons of war," etc...is that pretty much all guns are either military, formerly military, or functionally-identical to military designs. Lever-actions, bolt-actions, pump-action shotguns, semiautomatic handguns, semiautomatic rifles, etc...the military uses them all today minus lever-actions, which were military in the past.

So IMO, I would say to such people that yes, he used a military gun, but that's because pretty much all the guns you can buy are either military or functionally identical to military, minus automatic fire on certain ones. Arms are arms. Tools of war, as war is not just something that happens between nations but also between individuals. Not all weapons of war are something people have a right to, but arms, the basic tools of war (today, specifically, small arms), are a fundamental right people do have. They are a basic tool citizens possess just as citizens also possess hand tools. Law enforcement make use of them and military make use of them. That is what the whole issue of the concept of the right to keep and bear arms is about.
 
LogicMan said:
IMO, he did use a military rifle. An AR-15 is a military rifle, just it lacks the automatic fire capability that the military uses. But otherwise, it's the same gun.
Click to expand...
When I was in graduate school I took a History of Architecture class that was taught by an expatriate Cuban architect. He had a very heavy accent and it was difficult to understand most of what he said. But he had one pet phrase, which I still remember, and your argument echoes Mario exactly:

"So all the time ees the very same thing, essept ees different."

I carried an M16 in Vietnam. An AR-15 looks like an M16, but it's not the same. A Springfield M1A is not the same as the M14 I trained on in Army Basic Training. I'm not pretending anything ... if the AR-15 is not the same as the rifles the military carries and uses, then it's different. Functionally, an AR-15 is no different than a Ruger Mini 14, which (until the advent of David Hogg & cohorts) wasn't even on the gun banners' radar. Your argument that an AR-15 is the same as an M16 ... except for the things that make it different ... seems illogical to me.
 
Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American… [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
– Tench Coxe
Click to expand...

Arguing about whether the AR-15 is a military arm, or not, is a red herring to the fundamental discussion.

We failed, in the beginning to argue the only valid point, that we have a right to "military weapons". Instead, we argued that it wasn't a military weapon, (which, it wasn't) but thereby conceding their point that we shouldn't have military weapons at all.

Clearly the quote from Tench Coxe (and other writings of the Founders) showed that they believed otherwise.
 
44 AMP said:
We failed, in the beginning to argue the only valid point, that we have a right to "military weapons". Instead, we argued that it wasn't a military weapon, (which, it wasn't) but thereby conceding their point that we shouldn't have military weapons at all.
Click to expand...
I'm well aware of Tench Coxe and the true intent of the 2nd Amendment. In fact, based on Coxe's statement about "all the terrible implements of the soldier," I think I should be allowed to own fully functional Ma Deuces, tanks, and F-16 aircraft -- complete with rockets and AAMs. However, we live under the aegis of the NFA. M16s are "machine guns," and off limits to ordinary mortals, whereas AR-15s are not NFA firearms and are thus available to [most] of us who aren't prohibited persons (excluding California, Connecticut, and New York).

I know we should all be allowed to own real M16s and real M4s but, as long as we're not, then I think it's both valid and important to recognize the distinction between the non-military, semi-auto look-alikes and the full-auto genuine articles.
 
Aguila Blanca said:
Functionally, an AR-15 is no different than a Ruger Mini 14, which (until the advent of David Hogg & cohorts) wasn't even on the gun banners' radar. Your argument that an AR-15 is the same as an M16 ... except for the things that make it different ... seems illogical to me.
Click to expand...

That is a good point.
 
44 AMP" said:
Arguing about whether the AR-15 is a military arm, or not, is a red herring to the fundamental discussion.

We failed, in the beginning to argue the only valid point, that we have a right to "military weapons". Instead, we argued that it wasn't a military weapon, (which, it wasn't) but thereby conceding their point that we shouldn't have military weapons at all.
Click to expand...

Well not necessarily. If you argue that a particular weapon that the gun controllers insist is a military weapon is not in fact a military weapon, that doesn't mean you are conceding the argument of a right to possess military guns. The point is that the weapon in question is not a military weapon. IMO, it's like when gun controllers confuse semiautomatic guns with being automatic, and you point out that they are not and that actual automatics have been heavily restricted for years now. That doesn't mean that you are arguing against a right to posses automatics, but rather just pointing out the reality of a particular weapon.
 
What about the fully semi-automatics?

:p

The gun banners have the power of social media and the regular media on their side....we're swimming against a powerful current but such is the challenge.
 
Originally Posted by 44 AMP
We failed, in the beginning to argue the only valid point, that we have a right to "military weapons". Instead, we argued that it wasn't a military weapon, (which, it wasn't) but thereby conceding their point that we shouldn't have military weapons at all.
Click to expand...

Completely agreed, and as a follow up to that a bolt action rifle is also a "military weapon." So were we to cede AR15's on the ground that they are a "military weapon," that leaves open nearly every weapon in existence. The military uses pump action shotguns, semi-automatic pistols, bolt action rifles... heck just about everything other than lever action rifles and revolvers. So agreed that arguing the semantics is not the answer. Instead, we need to oppose bans to even "military weapons." Fun fact, there are tanks that are legally owned by private individuals... with fully operational main guns.
 
I believe it was our own "affinity for accuracy" that led us down the wrong path, when this issue first became a public controversy.

And it began back in the mid-later 80s, with the Stockton CA school shooting. It began as our response to the fact that the news media was misidentifying the weapon used. And how it kept on, because the media refused to correctly identify the weapon, (and everything else in that class).

They said "assault rifle". We said it wasn't, and explained the difference.
Then they said "semi automatic assault rifle". Again, we explained their error. Didn't matter. what mattered more than technical accuracy was a handy sount bite, and semiautomatic assault rifle was a mouthful. So they invented the term "assault weapon". THEN they went to ban them...

WE, being the more logical types, did what one must do, for a reasoned discussion, we attempted to have the terms used properly defined, before we engage in debate about them.

They didn't. They defined their own terms, and made them up as they went along. And they made up terms deliberately nearly identical to the actual valid terminology, to make them easily confused in the public mind.

In hindsight, this appears to have been a serious error on our part. (expecting the other side to play by the same rules we do...)
 
44 AMP said:
In hindsight, this appears to have been a serious error on our part. (expecting the other side to play by the same rules we do...)
Click to expand...
If I might offer a minor editorial correction:

"In hindsight, this appears to have been a serious error on our part. (expecting the other side to play by the same rules we do... fair)"
 
If the end justifies the means then yes, we made an error.

I'm not of that mind.....I'd rather die for the right reasons than live for the wrong ones.
 
Knowing that the other side will lie and cheat doesn't mean you have to -- it just means be prepared for when the other side lies and cheats, so you're not surprised when they do it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top