"[The gun ban lobby's] predictions that America's streets would run red have been shown up as a fraudulent sales pitch for public disarmament," said Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
Why does he say things like that? I have three problems with this typical pro-gun rhetoric.
1. Is there really such a thing as the "gun ban lobby?" If such a thing does exist, how do you think it compares to the "gun lobby" in size and power?
2. Wouldn't it be best referred to as the "gun control lobby?"
3. When did any gun control person say the "streets would run red?"
If Gottlieb has valid points, why is it necessary for him to exaggerate everything he says?
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
1) The Brady campaign and VPC certainly qualify for that title
ReplyDelete2) No, not until they quit advocating the prohibition of self-loading firearms and "unsafe" firearms.
3) The "Blood in the streets" quote was from many newspaper editorials in the wake of Florida's Shall-issue carry law back in the mid 80`s. I could not find the original author.
“1. Is there really such a thing as the "gun ban lobby?"”
ReplyDeleteYes, the VPC, Brady Campaign, Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, etc…
“If such a thing does exist, how do you think it compares to the "gun lobby" in size and power?”
A small fraction in size, funds, and public support.
“2. Wouldn't it be best referred to as the "gun control lobby?"”
Perhaps if they drop bans from their agenda.
“3. When did any gun control person say the "streets would run red?"”
Why are you so hung up on that?
Several mistakes here.
ReplyDeleteFirst, it should be convicted felon Alan Gottlieb. That is wholly accurate--unlike the "gun ban lobby" terminology.
Second, the "blood in the streets" quote is pretty accurate. The US ranks number one among first world industrialized nations for gun violence. In fact, we're right up there with many third world countries.
But this is a typical gunloon argument--they take a phrase like "blood in the streets" or "wild west" because they really don't want to acknowledge the fact that the world's most powerful nation has a problem that involves the wholesale slaughter of its citizens. Meanwhile, convicted felons like Alan Gottlieb rail against "gun ban lobbies" that do not now nor never have existed.
Jade: “First, it should be convicted felon Alan Gottlieb.”
ReplyDeleteI didn’t know we had a scarlet letter law that requires attaching “convicted felon” to the preface of your name. Aside from that would “short fat bald white male convicted felon Alan Gottlieb” be more accurate still? How far should we take this? Personally, I’d rather just type “Jade” than spell out all the things that you are when addressing you.
Jade: “That is wholly accurate--unlike the "gun ban lobby" terminology.”
I missed the part where Paul Helmke praised the Heller and McDonald rulings because they are not a gun ban organization. Can you please explain to me how you can say with a straight face that they have never even existed?
TS: Alan Gottlieb is a convicted felon. That's a fact, not a supposition or opinion or guess or insult. It's a fact I used to show the difference between a fact (Alan Gottlieb, convicted felon) and a non-fact (gun ban lobby).
ReplyDeleteWRT Helmke--you're engaging in the mistaken belief that if someone believes Heller and/or McDonald were decided incorrectly--it means that someone wants to ban all guns.
BTW, the GOP Solictor General of the US believes Heller was decided wrong, as does Sanford Levinson of "Embarrassing Second Amendment" fame.
Jade: “Alan Gottlieb is a convicted felon. That's a fact, not a supposition or opinion or guess or insult.”
ReplyDeleteI know that. It is also a fact that he is a short fat bald white man.
Jade: “WRT Helmke--you're engaging in the mistaken belief that if someone believes Heller and/or McDonald were decided incorrectly--it means that someone wants to ban all guns.”
And you are under the mistaken belief that if they don’t want to ban ALL guns that they are not a gun ban organization. They still support gun bans; based on type, size, geographical location, incidental features, etc…
Jade: “BTW, the GOP Solictor General of the US believes Heller was decided wrong, as does Sanford Levinson of "Embarrassing Second Amendment" fame.”
Yes, you and Laci are not the only people in the country who believe Heller was wrong, but you are in the minority. But anyone who believes Heller was wrong is in fact a gun ban supporter, even if they are not a TOTAL gun ban supporter.
TS: I see.
ReplyDeleteSo, do you believe you have a right to own a machine gun?
Why wouldn't we?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJadegold is a felon
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWell, blogspot has now decided to eat eat almost every comment I try to submit here. The several deletions that were my own choice are because I had broken the comment into two parts, and the second one kept showing, but not the first. The second doesn't make any sense without the first.
ReplyDeleteEven if Mikeb generously enters my comment for me, it won't have the links and formatting, and those things are kinda necessary this time.
I am sure it was going to be awesome, Zorro. Take that, Jade!
ReplyDeleteJade: “I see. So, do you believe you have a right to own a machine gun?”
Sure, I don’t see a problem with that. However, it is not the fight worth fighting. I am much more concerned with fighting new bans than repealing 75 year old ones. Since machine guns might as well be belt-fed with 20 dollar bills, it is not a hobby I would be into.
I still don’t think “you see”, so I’ll explain the difference to you. A gun ban organization would be one that pushes for new bans on guns (i.e. trying to ban something that is currently legal). An organization that doesn’t oppose a 75 year old ban (such as the NRA) would not be considered a gun ban organization. So you have “doesn’t oppose a 75 year old ban” on one side of the coin- and “actively pushes for new bans” on the other side. Do you see now?
Jade, the fact that you want to stress how gun ban organizations don’t exist and never have is very telling. Why is that? The only conclusion is because “ban” is considered a dirty word among the public. You don’t have public support for gun bans, so you try to dodge that terminology. The Brady’s know this too- that is why they changed the words they use, however they never changed their actions. In places where they have more public support, gun controllers have no problems using the B-word.
Remember this?
ReplyDeleteWarning that Florida streets have the potential to morph into the O.K. Corral, gun-control advocates . . .
And:
The Washington-based Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence will hand out leaflets at Miami airport . . . warning visitors . . . "Do not argue unnecessarily with local people."
[ . . . ]
The campaign hopes to hit Florida where it hurts: in its tourism economy. And if it succeeds? "Hey, it wasn't us who passed the law," says [Brady Bunch spokeseunuch Peter] Hamm.
Not shy about trying to cause widespread unemployment in FL (which didn't suffer any more than Starbucks' business did under Brady Bunch attack):
If Gottlieb did exaggerate, I thought you were cool with that:
If I exaggerate that number, that's the same thing. Hardly a major crime and one which has nothing to do with the message I carry.
And:
I tend to exaggerate for emphasis . . .
Different rules for your side? I'm shocked!.
Alright, I finally got sick of fighting this weird blockage, so, although I'm not interested in staring a blog, I opened one, just so I could make this comment.
ReplyDeleteI have no intention of updating the "blog"--this is just a stopgap measure.
From Zorro (links get lost)
ReplyDelete*******************
Remember the Brady Bunch's shrieking hysteria when Florida passed the Castle Doctrine law? I don't remember seeing, specifically, the words, "the streets will run red," but there was plenty of hyperbolic, fear mongering rhetoric.
An example:
Warning that Florida streets have the potential to morph into the O.K. Corral, gun-control advocates will launch an international campaign . . .
. . . And:
The Washington-based Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence will hand out leaflets at Miami airport from Monday, and at Orlando in the week, warning visitors to adopt strategies that include: “Do not argue unnecessarily with local people.”
And they weren't shy about trying to sabotage Florida's tourism industry (although they were as laughably ineffectual at that as they have been at just about every other recent endeavor):
The campaign hopes to hit Florida where it hurts: in its tourism economy. And if it succeeds? “Hey, it wasn’t us who passed the law,” says [Brady Bunch spokeseunuch Peter] Hamm.
One more:
On October 1, 2005, Florida became a more dangerous place. That's when the Shoot First Law goes into effect, giving the people of Florida the right to use deadly force as a first resort when they feel threatened, even in a public place. But the Shoot First doctrine isn't just staying in Florida — it's about to become a national disgrace.
Not close enough to "streets will run red," for you?
From Zorro (links get lost)
ReplyDelete************************
Besides, Jadefool's Biggest (Only?) Cheerleader, even if Gottlieb did exaggerate, I thought you were cool with that:
Well, even if it's true, so what? Is that any different than any leader of any group trying to make his popularity seem more than it is?
You know how many hits I'm getting on the blog now? If I exaggerate that number, that's the same thing. Hardly a major crime and one which has nothing to do with the message I carry.
. . . And:
Well, never one to avoid the truth, I admit he's right. There are not "scores" per day, at least not in the main stream media. That would make these stories 20 times more frequent than DGUs. There are only 2 or 3 per day. I tend to exaggerate for emphasis as well as use the occasional attempt at humor and irony.
Different rules for your side? I'm making my Shocked! face.
From Zorro (links get lost and these may be out of order)
ReplyDelete**************************
Remember the Brady Bunch's shrieking hysteria when Florida passed the Castle Doctrine law? I don't remember seeing, specifically, the words, "the streets will run red," but there was plenty of hyperbolic, fear mongering rhetoric.
An example:
Warning that Florida streets have the potential to morph into the O.K. Corral, gun-control advocates will launch an international campaign to alert travelers about a new state law that allows people to use deadly force in self-defense.
. . . And:
The Washington-based Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence will hand out leaflets at Miami airport from Monday, and at Orlando in the week, warning visitors to adopt strategies that include: “Do not argue unnecessarily with local people.”
And they weren't too shy about trying to sabotage Florida's tourism industry (although they were as laughably ineffectual at that as they have been at just about every other recent endeavor):
The campaign hopes to hit Florida where it hurts: in its tourism economy. And if it succeeds? “Hey, it wasn’t us who passed the law,” says [Brady Bunch spokeseunuch Peter] Hamm.
One more:
In a country where thousands die needlessly every year in gun accidents and violent confrontations, this law is an enormous step backwards in civic responsibility and public safety. What's more, it envisions a society in which fear and distrust are the rule, and reason and responsibility are an endangered species.
If you live in Florida, or plan on visiting Florida, get the facts on the Shoot First Law. Know when you're safe, and how to avoid misunderstandings. Learn about when the people of Florida can shoot to kill... and when they think they can.
Not close enough to "streets will run red," for you?
To be Continued
Zorro, I get your points that our side exaggerates too and that I've been OK with that in certain cases. Nevertheless, Gottlieb's entire argument, unlike yours for instance, often consists of hyperbolic exaggerations and putting words in the mouths of his opponents.
ReplyDeleteWhy you would spend so much time arguing that by nit picking through past quotes rather than just agree that he's a bit of a blowhard, is beyond me.
Be careful though, if this keeps up I'll have to retract what I said yesterday about you're tendency towards prolixity.
Actually, I'm starting to think that "gun ban lobby" is a little too tame. I'm leaning toward "pro-tyranny lobby," or maybe even "pro-genocide lobby" (maybe just for special occasions on that last one).
ReplyDeleteIt's time for gun rights advocates to drop the nice guy routine--the pro-tyranny lobby (yeah--I like it) isn't going to moderate their predatory agenda just because we try to work with them.
Being moderate hasn't worked for us--might as well give radicalism a try.