[PassedOut]

Massive wildfire hits northwestern Wisconsin

Quote

"We thought the fire was going to go north of us," he said, "but when the wind switched it came at us so fast we had to run. I grabbed my guns, my mother-in-law and my wife — in that order — and we got out."

[Trinidad]

blackshoe, on 2013-May-15, 15:17, said:

Trinidad, on 2013-May-15, 12:55, said:

blackshoe, on 2013-May-15, 12:05, said:

Pfui. We need one rule: "An' it harm none, do what thou wilt." We don't need a huge overbearing government to administer it.

That's an excellent rule. If that is your rule then euthanasia is clearly illegal and guns are clearly not outlawed. Glad to see that we agree.

Rik

FYP.

Please explain to me, seriously, how euthanasia (assisted suicide) is harming someone and guns are not (please bear in mind that this thread is about the death of a two year old that clearly didn't ask to be killed).

Rik

[Winstonm]

FM75, on 2013-May-15, 15:21, said:

It is nice that you have provided your "impression". I am sure everyone was particularly interested in it.
It was also probably much easier for you to provide, since it did not involve actually finding the financial statements of the NRA to see what their revenues and expenses really are. That said, would you change your impression if you had the facts?

What does it cost to be a member of the NRA? How many members does it have? How many people like what they are doing, but do not pay any membership fees? What is the thing that makes their membership drives particularly successful? What percentage of their revenues comes from membership fees? What are their expenses? Does your congressman understand what that membership represents? Does he need to be bribed to vote?


Damn the facts! Full speed ahead!

Perhaps it is because the NRA is not exactly trustworthy when it comes to providing facts. To wit:

Quote

Mother Jones magazine in January documented how the NRA’s estimate of its membership rolls has varied greatly in the past 20 years, between 3 million and 4.3 million. In an update, the magazine also suggested an alternative way of discovering the actual membership — counting the number of subscribers to the NRA’s magazines, which are provided free as part of the membership fee. (In fact, that’s the only way to get the magazines, since they are not sold on newsstands.)
The Alliance for Audited Media, which audits the circulation of magazines and newspapers, on Thursday released new magazine circulation figures — reported by the publishers — for the six-month period that ended Dec. 31, 2012. For the first time, digital subscriptions were also included. Let’s see what the results show.

The Facts
With a new membership, the NRA offers the choice of three six-times-a-year magazines: American Rifleman, American Hunter or America’s First Freedom. (For children under the age of 15, there is also a digital publication, NRA Insights, but that has a circulation of just 25,000.)
But the numbers show that there has actually been a decline in subscribers for two of the magazines in the past year, with an increase in a third, for a slight overall decline in circulation.

Six months ended 12/31/12 ended 12/31/11

American Rifleman: 1,731,416 1,697,350
American Hunter: 877,029 932,076
First Freedom: 502,724 526,725
Total: 3,111,169 3,156,151

Regardless of 3.1 million or 4.3 million, the NRA membership is a small percentage of total Americans to account for such a significant amount of influence on gun control.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2013-May-15, 12:05, said:

Pfui. We need one rule: "An' it harm none, do what thou wilt." We don't need a huge overbearing government to administer it.

But in the case of guns, "An' it harm none" is where we may reasonably disagree. Read the title of the thread.

[barmar]

As I mentioned in an earlier post, 10% of the NRA budget is devoted to political influence: lobbying, contributions to PACs, and contributions directly to candidates. That's a pretty large percentage. Remember last year when anti-abortionists were rallying against Planned Parenthood? Only 3% of their budget goes to abortion, versus 35% for contraception.

I haven't researched how much of their income comes from the gun industry, I'm repeating what I recall from the news (possibly The Daily Show -- even though it's "fake news", they usually try to get the facts straight) when there was lots of talk about the NRA after Newtowne.

[blackshoe]

Trinidad, on 2013-May-15, 22:27, said:

Please explain to me, seriously, how euthanasia (assisted suicide) is harming someone and guns are not (please bear in mind that this thread is about the death of a two year old that clearly didn't ask to be killed).

If you limit the definition of "euthanasia" to assisted suicide, then it harms no one and should be legal. As for guns, they are inanimate objects and thus harm no one on their own.

[dwar0123]

barmar, on 2013-May-16, 08:24, said:

As I mentioned in an earlier post, 10% of the NRA budget is devoted to political influence: lobbying, contributions to PACs, and contributions directly to candidates. That's a pretty large percentage. Remember last year when anti-abortionists were rallying against Planned Parenthood? Only 3% of their budget goes to abortion, versus 35% for contraception.

I haven't researched how much of their income comes from the gun industry, I'm repeating what I recall from the news (possibly The Daily Show -- even though it's "fake news", they usually try to get the facts straight) when there was lots of talk about the NRA after Newtowne.

We agree on many things, but there is a massive difference between the NRA and Planned Parenthood, such that comparing their budgets in this way fits the cliché of comparing apples to oranges.

Planned Parent hood receives a third of their budget from federal grants.

I am going to go out on a limb and state without looking it up that the NRA doesn't receive any federal grants.

[ArtK78]

blackshoe, on 2013-May-16, 10:41, said:

As for guns, they are inanimate objects and thus harm no one on their own.

Love it.

This is like saying that it isn't the fall from 100 stories up that is fatal, it is the sudden stop at the end.

[billw55]

Honestly I am surprised that the NRA spends only 10% of their revenue on lobbying. I would have thought it was much higher. What else do they do?

[blackshoe]

ArtK78, on 2013-May-16, 11:57, said:

Love it.

This is like saying that it isn't the fall from 100 stories up that is fatal, it is the sudden stop at the end.

No it's not. Not at all. Spin all you want, I'm right on this point.

[dwar0123]

blackshoe, on 2013-May-16, 13:07, said:

No it's not. Not at all. Spin all you want, I'm right on this point.

No you're not.

In fact, you are so wrong that it is actually somewhat difficult to figure out how to explain it.


To even understand where you went wrong I have to un-assume many things I take for granted when speaking to an educated person.

One being, that laws are meant to legislate people and how they interact with objects, never objects in isolation. Cause you know, they are inanimate and that would be stupid.

Quote

they are inanimate objects and thus harm no one on their own.

Of course this is true, but to even doubt its truth you have to un-assume the above.

Quote

as for guns

This isn't limited to guns, this is true for every object. As we legislate about how people interact with objects all the time, linking only guns to the above, without explaining why guns are special, renders your statement rhetorically devoid of content and thus wrong.

People don't kill people, guns used by people kill people.
Thus no laws about guns.

Car's don't kill people, people driving cars kill people.
Car's don't kill people, people repairing them improperly kills people.
Car's don't kill people, people manufacturing them improperly kills people.

Thus no laws about cars.

[barmar]

billw55, on 2013-May-16, 12:16, said:

Honestly I am surprised that the NRA spends only 10% of their revenue on lobbying. I would have thought it was much higher.

I was surprised, too.

Quote

What else do they do?

Someone mentioned a magazine.

Beside their political activities, they seem kind of like the ACBL: they publish a magazine, they train and accredit instructors, they organize gun clubs, they host conventions.

[Trinidad]

Nuclear bombs don't kill people, faulty traffic lights don't kill people, poison does not kill people, cocaine doesn't kill people, electric chairs don't kill people. We will hand out some nukes, we won't fix faulty traffic lights, marketing cyanide to kids is okay, cocaine should be available from 7-Eleven and electric chairs should be sold at IKEA in the versions "Völt", "Åmpere" and "Wätt".

Bottom line: "Guns don't kill people" is bogus. There is no spin: Guns do kill people. Without guns, the two year old girl would still be alive.

Blackshoe can go and tell that five year old that the gun didn't kill his sister, he did. I will tell him instead that this was disaster waiting to happen. If he wouldn't have been there, his sister might have ended up dead anyway, simply because the gun was there. If the gun wouldn't have been there, his sister would be alive today.

Rik

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2013-May-16, 10:41, said:

As for guns, they are inanimate objects and thus harm no one on their own.

This is true, and guns "on their own" are fine with me.

The problem is, people pick them up.

[blackshoe]

Trinidad, on 2013-May-16, 17:28, said:

Nuclear bombs don't kill people, faulty traffic lights don't kill people, poison does not kill people, cocaine doesn't kill people, electric chairs don't kill people. We will hand out some nukes, we won't fix faulty traffic lights, marketing cyanide to kids is okay, cocaine should be available from 7-Eleven and electric chairs should be sold at IKEA in the versions "Völt", "Åmpere" and "Wätt".

Bottom line: "Guns don't kill people" is bogus. There is no spin: Guns do kill people. Without guns, the two year old girl would still be alive.

Blackshoe can go and tell that five year old that the gun didn't kill his sister, he did. I will tell him instead that this was disaster waiting to happen. If he wouldn't have been there, his sister might have ended up dead anyway, simply because the gun was there. If the gun wouldn't have been there, his sister would be alive today.

Rik

This is why I should know better than to participate in these threads. I'm done. You guys keep on yammering if you want.

[PassedOut]

The gun was not damaged

Quote

Ninnemann's wife, Marie, took a gun from the basement, but didn't know how to load the shells. She took the weapon outside and hit the bear on the head, giving her husband his chance to escape. Pointing the gun at the bear, the couple backtracked into their cabin.

Nor was the husband shot...

[Trinidad]

LOL.

Moral of the story: It would probably have been better if she had taken a baseball bat, a skillet, or a guitar. At least she wouldn't have wasted time trying to load the baseball bat, or to tune the guitar.

Rik

[barmar]

I don't think that anyone has ever claimed that guns have never been used for reasonable purposes. Some people have successfully defended themselves from attacks by using a gun.

But the issue is whether the good outweighs the harm. Murders, suicides, and accidents are far more common results than self defense. I think it's something like a 3:1 ratio.

[PassedOut]

Saw this piece in the Post today: Jeffrey Nugent says his brother Ted Nugent is wrong on background checks

Quote

Ted and I recently attended the NRA convention in Houston, where he delivered the gathering’s final speech and continued his ardent defense of the Second Amendment. Ted and I have hunted together for decades, and we legally own a large number of guns. We both understand that guns constitute deadly force, so safety is foremost in our minds. It’s part of responsible gun ownership.

And I agree with Ted that our constitutional right to bear arms should not be undermined. I want all those who are qualified to purchase a gun to be able to do so. But — and here is where I part ways with my brother — not everyone is qualified to own a gun, so expanded background checks should be a legislative priority.

I believe strongly that expanding and improving mandatory background checks will keep a lot of people who aren’t entitled to Second Amendment rights from having easy access to guns. As of today, a convicted felon can find a gun show or a private seller and buy a firearm without a background check. That loophole should be closed. Every gun transaction must include a thorough background check. Why would responsible gun owners want to protect people who threaten not only our safety but our gun rights?

The NRA has it wrong: Irresponsible gun owners are bad for everyone. If you shouldn’t have access to a gun, then there should be no way for you to access a gun! Can anyone argue with that?

Evidently, yes.

[mike777]

PassedOut, on 2013-May-18, 11:27, said:

Saw this piece in the Post today: Jeffrey Nugent says his brother Ted Nugent is wrong on background checks


Evidently, yes.

this continues the false very false theme that the right to bear arms was created by the bill of rights...it was not...

please read your history..it existed before....

Second Amendment did not create any rights.

People seem to forget the bill of rights is all about limiting govt....one may even go further and say it is about limiting the majority of voters, the tyranny of democracy.

---


As we all know the bill of rights has been voted down in poll after poll over decades and decades.

--


Please read Madison or Jefferson but please read Plato....on this issue.