Sunday, January 30, 2011

The NRA Predictions

Everyone is talking about what exactly President Obama will have to say about gun control when he eventually gets around to saying it. The NRA has compiled a list of the major predictions, which I'm sorry to see have mainly to do with that magazine capacity nonsense. Don't get me wrong, I agree with a common-sense limitation of magazine size, but it seems many of these gun control folks are putting all their eggs in that one basket. That, I don't get.

Senator Lautenberg got a mention.  Of course the NRA denigrates the senator's efforts at legislating background checks as "nothing more than “solutions” in search of a problem."  That's pretty funny.  But the funniest is the NRA prediction / call-to-arms.

Which, if any, of these proposals and theories will get the president’s endorsement remains to be seen. But gun owners should be prepared: The second two years of President Obama’s term may be tougher than the first.

Is it any wonder that so many individual pro-gun guys talk like frustrated adolescents, boasting and bullying to cover up their insecurities? Look at how their "alma mater" uses veiled threats and intimidation.

What't your opinion?  Please leave a comment.

11 comments:

  1. "solutions in search of a problem." That's a good one. "Oh, no problem here," says the NRA,"just your run-off-the mill mass murder. Just ignore that silly little thing. Not a problem looking for a solution. Nor any of those other 100,000 shootings."

    It's interesting to note how the NRA is focusing its zeal on countering an argument against proposals from Obama as if the proposals will focus on the Tucson shooting. All the language is couched in refuting claims based on Tucson. But if I know anything about Obama, it's that he will address broader issues, not related to any one mass shooting, but gun crimes in general. And that's a lot harder to refute than a single incident.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Look at how their "alma mater" uses veiled threats and intimidation.

    The NRA, with its Neville Chamberlainesque willingness to compromise with the forcible citizen disarmament lobby is hardly my "alma mater.

    Also, those "threats" must be heavily "veiled," because I don't detect them at all.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Obama is going to make a speech where he proposes gun control???

    Seriously???

    There must be a winning lottery ticket in my pocket.

    Actually, I do have this vision that the Tea Party crowd, despite it's "Second Amendment" pretensions is responsible for the first serious US gun control measures EVER using the current DC model.

    Then, they have hearings that show climate change IS a reality.

    They fix health care to make it a single payer, safety net system.

    Then, they shout:

    APRIL FOOL!

    ReplyDelete
  4. "I agree with a common-sense limitation of magazine size"

    Could you please do a blog entry about how it is "common-sense" to imprison people for having a box that is in excess of a wholly arbitrary limit?

    Can you please explain why it is "common sense" that the target shooter who buys a 15 round .22 LR magazine belongs in prison for a decade, but the next psycho planning a massacre belongs on the street after he buys one hundred ten round magazines? Exactly what is common sense about that?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Nobody can predict Obama's next move. He's the man!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous, I didn't say ten years in prison or any time in prison would be an appropriate punishment for "having a box that is in excess of a wholly arbitrary limit."

    You must be confusing me with some UNreasonable gun control advocate.

    Either that or you're doing that exaggerating thing you guys like so much. You exaggerate the perceived offense and rant and rave about it as if your opponent really said it.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "Either that or you're doing that exaggerating thing you guys like so much. You exaggerate the perceived offense and rant and rave about it as if your opponent really said it."

    Or he read McCarthy's bill. Have you read it?

    ReplyDelete
  8. @Miekb, re: exaggerating.

    Well, Mikeb, in your writings you are continually exaggerating the negative things firearms are used for, while ignoring or minimizing the positive uses, so I'd say this is a case of pot, meet kettle.

    ...Orygunner...

    ReplyDelete
  9. Well, now that's a little different than exaggerating what a person said, isn't it.

    I know the McCarthy bill has that ridiculous nonsense in it, but the Anonymous guy was referring to me.

    Orygunner, I certainly do exaggerate, but not in order to make what you say sound more wrong. That's what this guy, and others too, did.

    ReplyDelete
  10. mikeb - do you support the McCarthy bill?

    ReplyDelete
  11. "mikeb - do you support the McCarthy bill?"


    No, if you want the one-word answer.

    ReplyDelete