Wednesday, December 19, 2012

The NRA is a Terrorist Organization


Some key excerpts:

Consider that jihadist terrorists have only been able to kill 17 Americans in the United States since 9/11. Meanwhile, some 88,000 Americans died in gun violence from 2003 and 2010, according to the U.N. study.
That means that in the past decade, an American residing in the United States was around 5,000 times more likely to be killed by a fellow citizen armed with a gun than by a terrorist inspired by Osama bin Laden.
....................

 Last year, some 3,000 Afghan civilians died in the Afghan War out of a population of 30 million, which makes the civilian death rate from the Afghan war 1 in 10,000.
Yet residents of New Orleans are being killed at a rate that is six times that of Afghan civilians killed in that war. New Orleans had 199 murders last year, or 6 for every 10,000 residents.

.......................

Frankly, if you see an NRA bumpersticker--it's no different that a bumpersticker  reading "I *heart* Al Qaeda."

44 comments:

  1. Actually, I think that bumper sticker is on Obama's limo, since he *hearts* and is arming Al Qaeda in Libya and Syria.

    orlin sellers

    ReplyDelete
  2. The NRA protects basic rights. What people do with those rights is their responsibility alone.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The U.S. needs to allow Ex post facto prosecutions so they can punish those who have held firearms after prohibitive measures are taken.

      Delete
    2. Poe's Law. You're not legit

      Delete
    3. E.N., you show that you have no understanding of American law or values. The Constitution specifically bars Congress or the states from passing ex post facto criminal laws.

      Delete
    4. He knows this--he wouldn't have used ex post facto otherwise--he would merely have called for such laws in effect, but not by name. E.N. is a first rate troll who is probably pro-gun or neutral in this argument, but is offering a bad, and obnoxious parody of the other side.

      Don't feed the Troll.

      Delete
    5. Interesting that I am the only one here who makes a coherent argument for that side (other than Mikeb, Laci is long gone), yet I am the only one who you accuse of being a "troll".

      Greg, If you need an explanation (and don't want to suffer the incessant mocking you will endure by asking me or "Chickatee" directly) ask "Tennesseean". He can figure out what you have been ambling about for months.

      Delete
    6. The trouble with the term, troll, is that the views being expressed here are held by too many in this world. It's the underlying philosophy of the gun control freaks.

      Delete
    7. Some of these views are held by many, but it's pretty rare to find all of them in this exact mix, so I would rather deal with the arguments when they appear coming from a real person like Mike rather than wasting any more of my time in a pointless flame war with a figment of someone's imagination.

      Delete
    8. You argue with Mike, because he (being kind to the cognitively challenged) is willing to compromise his ideas, you argue with "democommie", because he is incoherent. You cannot win with me, as I will show you no quarter in illuminating your idiocy. So you run. Like a child, you take your toys and go home. Prove that you are better, although I doubt that you are capable of such.

      Delete
    9. Chickadee, you're just repeating what E.N. has already said. I've answered that nonsense before. Try something new, and I'll be happy to address it.

      Delete
    10. "cognitively challenged?" Huh?

      Delete
    11. Sorry Mike, trolls don't like being called out. You resident troll kinda started flinging crap every which way when we stopped feeding him, and somehow he managed to toss some your way too.

      Many apologies for your becoming collateral damage there.

      Delete
    12. Mike:

      It reads "Mike, because he (being KIND to the cognitively challenged) is willing to compromise....."

      Note the word kind. Mike is kind to such (pro-gun retards), and is willing to compromise his ideas.

      I am not a "troll". That term ought to be reserved for the likes of "Tennesseean", who appears to be cognitively challenged, and thus refuses to make a proper argument, instead preferring simply to label those with opposing views as "trolls".

      Delete
  3. Are you always this idiotic, Jade, or is today a special occasion?

    ReplyDelete
  4. If they're going to restrict my 2nd amendment rights, your 1st amendment rights should be restricted Jade...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rights are rights. Infringe one, and what's to stop the government from infringing all?

      Delete
    2. No rights are absolute. What the hell are you talking about?

      Delete
    3. Come now, Mike; you know what he's getting at, and playing stupid is unbecoming.

      If we were not talking about guns, but about two other items in the Bill of Rights, you wouldn't act like you couldn't follow the argument that allowing the government to pass unconstitutional prior restraints on the press might embolden them to disrespect other parts of the Bill of Rights such as search and seizure restrictions--after all, if the press can't report on it, they can do Driving While Black stops all they want.

      The question of the day is what is an unconstitutional infringing on the 2nd Amendment, and what is the equivalent of "Shouting 'FIRE' in a crowded theater." E.g. the most directly analogous thing would be a prohibition on firing into a crowd or shooting straight up in the air--reckless to directly criminal misuse of the right just like shouting fire in a theater is reckless misuse of the right of free speech.

      Delete
    4. Who exactly is talking about "unconstitutional prior restraints?"

      I'd like gun owners to be better qualified and when they fuck up to lose their rights.

      Delete
    5. Mike,

      I was making an analogy showing how one violation of one item of the Bill of Rights could affect another right from the list--the type of argument Jake and Greg were making. I was doing this to indicate that the type of argument underlying their argument is valid.

      As for your statement of wanting better qualifications and loss of rights for "fuck ups," tell us: 1) what qualifications you want and how you justify placing them on the exercise of an enumerated right; 2) what do you mean by "fuck up"? Accidental discharge? Someone steals their gun? Or misuse by the owner himself?

      Delete
    6. Mikeb, the term, prior restraint, typically is used in cases of censorship--where the government tries to block publication of something that it doesn't like. By analogy, you're advocating for the same thing with regard to guns.

      Tennesseean is correct here. If we were talking about any other right, you'd scream from the rooftops about infringement--at least, I hope you would--and I'd be there with you.

      Delete
    7. Tennessean,

      http://mikeb302000.blogspot.it/2012/08/one-strike-youre-out.html

      Delete
    8. Mike,

      Thank you for the clarification so that I didn't have to search archives.

      I can't say that I agree fully with you, but there might be an acceptable middle ground that could be found on a couple things. For instance, dropping a gun could cover a number of situations, many of which would never come to a court's attention and shouldn't result in a revocation of rights. Example: dropping it if you trip and fall out hunting.

      However, on the other end of things, if the drop happens because of some type of grossly negligent behavior like a terminal dumbass twirling a loaded gun or tossing it hand to hand and dropping it causing a negligent discharge that kills someone. (Actually covering two of your items at the same time). In this latter case, I'd definitely say loss of rights, depraved heart murder charge, and seek maximum penalty.

      Somewhere between these two, the loss of rights line is crossed. With a little more nuance and a little less shock, there may be a point on this and other items where we'd find an acceptable place where people could agree on the law.

      Delete
    9. You sound like a rare reasonable pro-gun guy.

      Delete
    10. Mike,

      First, I'll say thank you for the compliment. Second, I will apologize in advance if this seems long or preachy.

      Honestly, I'm not that unusual. The thing is, the tactics used by some people on your side have caused a lot of people to give up on the idea that the discussion is useful. In large part, it's the shock tactics--e.g. the statement ending the post we're commenting on now.

      It's also a feeling that most gun control proposals are either counterproductive (e.g. the assault ban registry idea), worthless (e.g. the 94 AWB which had more loopholes than my knit scarf), or unduly restrictive (e.g. the ATF ruling, currently under review, which classified a hunting bullet as armor piercing--if you want me to explain this and my position on it, I can).

      These feelings are exacerbated by the perception that the defects in these laws are a result of shocking ignorance of the subject matter at hand. Perhaps the best example of this was a conversation I had with a Brady Campaign attorney at a Continuing Education event. She was asking me why anyone needed to shoot the high power round that an AR uses since it would destroy all the meat on a deer if you hunted with it. This is a common misconception heard on blogs and TV news, but the truth is, the .223 round is banned from hunting deer in many states because of the fear that it is too wimpy to kill the deer quickly and relatively painlessly. Instead, people use Bigger and much more powerful rounds on deer to be humane--rounds just as likely to puncture vests and more likely to kill a human with one shot.

      Delete
    11. Tennesseean, you're risking having Democommie come after you with that comment. He and I have discussed the .223 round before. I can't decide if the ignorance of the gun control freaks is good or bad. Stupid laws are harmful, but intelligent laws could do much more damage.

      Delete
    12. Greg,

      I've seen one of his comments where he referred to some fight over that. Hopefully we can avoid such a red herring here since I'm not denying that it is a lethal round, I'm just saying that when you compare it to say a .308 of the same type (soft point, ball, etc.) it stacks up as less powerful due to smaller mass and thus less conservation of velocity.

      Kinda like the difference between getting hit by a ferrari or a suburban while playing on the interstate. You're likely dead either way, but one has more momentum and kinetic energy even at the same speed.

      Beyond that, we can save the debates over wounding efficacy for self defense forums and government purchasing decisions. Unless of course someone decides to propose banning bullets that deform or fragment (on which topic I will offer a general rule of thumb for those who are not as familiar with guns: the more something deforms or breaks up, generally the less likely it is to puncture a cop's vest. The less it deforms or fragments, the more likely it tears right through.)

      Delete
  5. Jade,

    If your final, summary statement is meant as hyperbole, it's not witty, enlightening, or constructive.

    If you are serious about classifying NRA and its members as terrorists, and then presumably applying the current "War on Terror" rules to it and its members, then you are a delusional bastard who is, knowingly or unknowingly, calling for the next civil war.

    In sincerely hope that the latter is not the case, and that this was just an example of douchebaggery parading as wit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As one who refers to itself as a "Tennesseean", you serve to express your treasonous disloyalty to the supreme authority of the Federal Government (subject only to the authority of the U.N.). Your name implies that you hold your "citizenship" to a mere State at a higher value than your duty as an American Citizen, and as a subject of the World.


      The private ownership of arms serves to undermine the power of the collective State, and therefore constitutes disloyalty. Any organisation which seeks to promote the fulfillment of a goal inconsistent with State policy, and whose members are armed (as in the case of the NRA) is therefore a terrorist organization. The possession of arms by civilians which is manifestly implicit of the goal of an insurrection, creates a situation where any politically oriented group not mandated by State policy (such as an intelligence agency or a police force) which fosters the armament of it's civilian members can reasonably be construed as an implicitly violent terrorist organization.

      The mere civilian, with no ties to any law enforcement agency, no employment based armament need, and who conveys no public authority bears no interest in the preservation of domestic tranquility. If the U.S. government continues to allow individual non-State actors to obtain and possess firearms, the United States congress is in gross violation of the peoples right to Civilian Disarmament, as expressed in the preamble of the Constitution of the United States. You have no reasonable claim of any right to possess weapons, however you (and your ilk) have the right to be disarmed. Congress bears the fundamental duty to fulfill this right.


      There will be no "civil war". Terrorist sympathizers such as yourself will tremble and obey their orders. When under threat of imprisonment, capital punishment, and forfeiture of property, those with anarchist tendencies (such as yourself) will submit to the authority of the collective State.

      Delete
    2. I agree that the NRA is an evil organization. They fight for policies that directly result in unnecessary deaths of US citizens. It's not that much of a stretch to call such a group, terrorists.

      Delete
    3. E.N.'s errors:

      1. The United States is a sovereign nation, subject to no other. We may enter into treaties, but those may not violate the Constitution.

      2. Human beings have fundamental, individual rights. The idea of a citizen recognizes those rights. The term, subject, shows an evil desire for tyranny.

      3. The government of this country has only such powers as we're willing to give it. That's our founding principle. Any changes to that would make this a new nation, at which point, all bets are off.

      4. There is no such thing as a right to be controlled. Rights are about choices for the individual. The idea of a "right to be disarmed" is absurd, a contradiction straight out of 1984.

      5. Any state that acts in the manner described by E.N. is a despotism and has no legitmate claim for its continued existence.

      Delete
    4. Seriously Mike?

      Not a stretch to call them terrorists? Do you then mean that it's not a stretch to call for property confiscations, black bagging and shipping to Gitmo, and predator strikes? Because that is the Obama Administration's policy toward terrorists.

      Even if you disagree with Obama's policies, I have to ask--when you apply the term terrorist, what do YOU think should follow that declaration? Jade should respond here too if he/she wants.

      Delete
    5. Tennesseean:

      I think Mikeb is speaking of the ideological terrorism perpetrated by extremist groups such as the GOA or the more radical members of the NRA.

      The empowerment of violent, anti-State, or criminal groups by means of the avocation of their armament is interpreted by some to be "terrorist". While they fail to understand that gun rights organizations do not consider their cause to be associated with violent activity, they are correct in stating that some gun rights organizations may (unintentionally) advocate the distribution of firearms to criminal or terrorist elements.

      Jadegold is wrong in Stating that we should label the NRA as a terrorist group. To the contrary they ought to be ignored (as opposed to adorning them with a label which may strengthen their cause) in order to make valuable progress on such a treacherous issue. The pro gun side ought to be ignored (as happened in the U.K. and Australia) in order to move forward and implement stringent, yet reasonable regulation of small arms.

      Ian

      Delete
  6. Ian,

    Your statement is far more nuanced and moderated than Jadegold's, but or even Mike's, but I still have a question: Why use a term like "Ideological Terrorism"? I take it that this term means either A) Their ideology promotes terrorism that they haven't acted on yet, B) Their ideology terrorizes society because it allows people to get guns, or C) Something I haven't thought of.

    If you mean A, there is a serious discussion that we could have on the topic to try to determine if this is the proper term, or if there is a better one.

    If you mean B, then I would say that while your statement doesn't suggest the same support for military action against the NRA that Jadegold's statement could be interpreted to support (I'm not saying he does and I hope he doesn't), it is still unduly inflamatory--especially in the current environment of the "War on Terror" and all of its new rules that Bush wrote and Obama expanded.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When I mention the "Ideological Terrorism" perpetuated by (extremist) gun rights activists, I am speaking of their willingness to portray any form of gun regulation as a ban (or an attempt or progression to such). My statement should not be construed to imply that the possession of lethal arms by civilians is manifestly dangerous or that the avocation of such is per se terrorist activity. Although the mass proliferation of small arms does present the danger that such may be used by terrorist entities, (and therefore a compelling need for regulation arises) civilian gun ownership (although quite dangerous) is rarely an inherently nefarious act.

      Delete
    2. Gun control either is a ban or a set of regulations so onerous that few would be able to meet the requirements. That's a de facto ban.

      Delete
    3. Ian,

      In that case, I think there might be a better term than terrorism. If you consider this to be hyperbole, dishonesty, or logical fallacy, call it out as such. When you call it terrorism instead, you push gun owners away, whereas, when you use other terms, you may find some of us agree with you. I have seen many discussions on gun blogs decrying GOA's periodical overreactions, or making up threats.

      On the topic of regulations being attempts to ban guns: We know that there are some who have this as their final goal, so it is only prudent for gun owners to question whether the person they are dealing with is in favor of total bans, or just the regulation discussed at the present.

      Even if we assume or are satisfied that the goal of a regulation is not to pursue a course leading to banning of various weapons, gun owners often see other reasons to oppose various regulations as many are either overbroad, or so poorly written as to be pretty much worthless. In some cases they are both--e.g. the 1980's Armor Piercing Ammo Ban which focused on composition and not actual armor piercing ability. The result was a haphazard law that left lots of armor piercing ammo on the market, perfectly legal to own, and yet banned, or left in a gray legal limbo many bullets that have no hope of piercing armor because they are designed to deform or shatter on impact so that they are more effective for hunting, or so that they are less likely to puncture walls and hurt someone else in a self defense situation when one or more shots miss.

      If you have a regulation that you think would be helpful in reducing criminal misuse, suggest it and we can debate it.

      Delete
    4. Ideological terrorists. That works.

      Delete
  7. Mike,

    Why not offer helpful suggestions of specific regulations and why you think they would work instead of inflammatory names?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Have you not seen me do that? Are you that new around here?

      Delete
    2. Mike,

      I am fairly new around this blog, and besides, I was trying to foster a new conversation wherein both sides offer solutions and discuss their merits. I wouldn't want to try to pull old posts and try to pick them apart in unrelated threads, or spend my time pontificating to myself in ancient threads.

      If you want an AWB, we can discuss the merits of that. Or a Magazine ban; combining NICS with No-Fly, or bans on types of ammo. I'm not a fan of any of these ideas, but I'm open to having a discussion in which maybe we can both learn from each other.

      Delete