1. We will stop referring to ourselves as a “civil rights” organization that defends “human rights.” It is a sacrilege to people actually killed or harmed by civil and human rights abuses.
2. We will stop pointing at Chicago and saying gun laws don’t work. We will admit the majority of Chicago crime guns are trafficked from states and counties with loose laws.
3. We will stop saying “the government is going to take your guns” to block federal laws. The confiscation we announced 7 years ago never happened.
4. We will stop blaming “mental health” problems for U.S. gun violence. We admit every country in the world has mental health problems but they don’t have Newtowns and Virginia Techs.
5. We admit fighting universal background checks arms criminals and that armed criminals sells more guns to “good guys.” Ka-ching.
6. We acknowledge that “outlaws” don’t have guns in the 28 EU countries, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Japan and other countries with strict gun regulations. We also admit, grudgingly, they are not “tyrannies.”
7. We will stop our insulting comparison of guns to knives, hammers, cars and swimming pools–none of which kill when used as directed. On the same day as the Sandy Hook massacre, 20 Chinese school children were attacked with a knife and none died.
8. We accept responsibility for the armed vigilante movement popularized by George Zimmerman and Michael Dunn. We admit “concealed carry” laws are the biggest revenue infusion since “Obama is going to take your guns.”
9. We will stop defending sales to civilians of non-defensive weapons like TrackingPoint’s “can’t miss” sniper rifle. We admit they are ready-made for insurrectionists, terrorists and hate groups.
10. We regret our work to help suspected domestic abusers keep their guns while under orders of protection. We admit this costs many women’s lives and that our sleazy sales pitch to tell women to arm themselves too just makes things worse.
I find this . . . unlikely.
ReplyDelete2. We will stop pointing at Chicago and saying gun laws don’t work. We will admit the majority of Chicago crime guns are trafficked from states and counties with loose laws.
ReplyDeleteUm, to say that black market trafficking thrives in spite of "strong" gun laws is another way of saying gun control doesn't work. Chicago doesn't even allow gun shops, so no I'm not surprised that a "majority" of guns used in crimes weren't bought in Chicago.
I think it proves that gun control laws DO work, if only we had them in the loose states and counties.
DeleteJust like the drug trade with South America proves that prohibition works...and just like the bootlegging of Liquor from Canada proved the same thing!
DeleteBanning guns would be a fantasy nightmare. Some people can't comprehend the simple truth of what SJ says.
DeleteWho's talking about banning guns?
DeletePlenty on your side. And besides, that's what Chicago had done, for the most part, before being forced to change its ways, so if it is proof of concept for any gun law, it would be poof for a ban of all gun stores and a near total ban of citizen gun ownership, not proof of concept for your goals that you claim you would be satisfied with (but which you've admitted you would add to if they failed to work).
DeleteMANY in the anti gun crowd.
DeleteChicago banned handguns, Mike. And then when people pointed out how it didn't work, they cried that it was because the rest of the state, country, and world didn't also ban handguns which is why the criminals still had them.
DeleteAren't you guys tired of abusing the meaning of ban yet? There are very few people who want to ban all civilian ownership of all guns. And those who do express such extreme positions don't speak for the rest of us, who are reasonable, common-sense, gun control advocates (myself included).
DeleteAren't you guys tired of abusing the meaning of ban yet?
DeleteAren't you tired of trying to defend a double standard for what constitutes "legitimate" use of the word "ban." I've never heard you complain about calling the 1994-2004 federal "assault weapon" prohibition a "ban."
This, despite it have numerous "loopholes," allowing manufacture and sale of nearly identical guns, just by virtue of taking off some largely meaningless "assault feature" like a bayonet mount (which "gun control" supporters complained bitterly about endlessly).
That "ban" of course also had a "grandfather clause" (and we know what you think of those, Mikeb), and it was vastly more generous than the corresponding section of more recent bans, such as Connecticut's. In the federal ban, any "assault weapon," and any "high capacity" magazine manufactured (and already in this country, if it had been imported) before the effective date was not affected at all by the law--owners could resell them, you could buy them in gun shops, etc. Connecticut, on the other hand, required that all the "assault weapons" already owned be registered (and rather quickly). They could never be sold in the state, or even passed on to heirs (and were magazines grandfathered at all?)
In other words, Mikeb, is it "abusing the meaning of ban" to call the 1994 AWB a "ban"?
I wouldn't call you reasonable, but you have stated you don't support a ban. Yet, there are groups by the thousands (a much larger group than you and your blog represents) that do, so don't pretend part of the anti-gun crowd doesn't want a ban.
DeleteKurt, when Silvia said "Banning guns would BE a fantasy nightmare." she's talking about total civilian disarmament. She reinforced this idea in her next comment by making the ridiculous claim that there are "groups by the thousands" that do want that. When pressed most of you abusers of the word ban fall back on a less than total ban as qualifying for the expression.
DeleteTo answer your question, the AWB was not a ban in the true and total sense of the word. But we know what we're talking about when we use it, unlike the changeable tricky way you often use it.
The gun show loophole is another example of a misnomer that communicates clearly what we're talking about. Only you crybaby gun nuts turned that one into a torture.
Ridiculous claim? Are you saying no anti gun group is calling for a total ban on guns? I hope not because you would be so obviously wrong.
Delete"there are groups by the thousands"
DeleteI presume you mean groups (plural) which have thousands of members.
Name them and show us where they support a total ban on civilian gun ownership.
3. We will stop saying “the government is going to take your guns” to block federal laws. The confiscation we announced 7 years ago never happened.
ReplyDeleteThis is another good one. Some people would argue that Machin-Toomey was a registration scheme, and that registration leads to confiscation, and I am sure its proponents argue otherwise. But it was defeated. So this is essentially arguing "since we failed at everything we tried at a national level the past seven years, you should stop resisting us."
Yeah, we were on the brink of mass confiscations and door to door thuggery, except Manchin-Toomey failed to pass. Pshew, that was close.
DeleteYou're not listening. I am not saying we were close to having gun confiscation, but you guys can only claim that it's an NRA boogi man if you had your way for the last decade or so. The fact is you lost just about everything at the national level.
DeleteYes, and that's what we blame on the NRA (and you gun fanatics). That's why we still have so many unnecessary deaths. That's why criminals and mentally ill people can still buy guns with ease.
DeleteUh-huh, and if you're going to call the NRA an impediment to what the gun control movement wanted these last seven years, you can't also claim the lack of gun control progress as proof that "nobody wants to take your guns".
DeleteIt's true that "nobody wants to take your guns," as long as you're talking about certain guns and certain people. Some guns are off limits, or should be, and some people are disqualified from ownership, or should be.
DeleteThe fair statement is "some people don't want to take every gun from everybody." How about you stick to that?
DeleteThe fair statement is "some people don't want to take every gun from everybody." How about you stick to that?
DeleteAnd if Mikeb agrees to that, maybe we won't argue that "approximately" all "gun control" advocates want to take "approximately" every gun from "approximately" everybody ;-).
You call us liars when we call a gun control law with "ban" in its title a ban since it doesn't meet your definition. Then, after admitting that there are at least some gun controllers who want to ban all guns and confiscate them, you insist that not only are you justified in saying that "nobody wants to take your guns", but that this statement is TRUE.
DeleteHate to say it, but not only is the statement false, but you've admitted as much above here in this comment thread, and by your own standards that makes you a willful liar trying to deceive people into following your side.
Number 8 has to be the funniest one. I love it when these silly cud-munchers whine about guns being too accurate. Apparently, too few innocent bystanders are being hit.
ReplyDeleteYou mean number 9. And as usual you divert attention from the main point, which is the "insurrectionists, terrorists and hate groups."
DeleteYou mean number 9.
DeleteOops--yeah. Thanks.
And as usual you divert attention from the main point, which is the "insurrectionists, terrorists and hate groups."
If that's the "point" away from which I "diverted attention," I did Rosenberg a favor--the less her idiocy is scrutinized, the less idiotic she looks.
How are "insurrectionists, terrorists and hate groups" going to benefit any more from accurate rifles than any one else who shoots? Hell, given the price of these TrackingPoint rifles, which puts them out of reach of most non-governmental actors, one could quite plausibly make the argument that these guns will help out governments a good deal more than they will "insurrectionists" and the rest.
I like how you changed the title of the article Mike doing so took the article even farther into the realm of fantasy than Martha Rosenstalin's version
ReplyDelete"New Year’s Resolutions for the NRA"
ReplyDeleteBid difference.
Actually it is a big difference Mike..Your title suggest this crap came from the NRA while hers makes suggestions to the NRA
DeleteWell, whether you call it a big difference or a subtle one, I liked it better this way.
Delete"Well, whether you call it a big difference or a subtle one, I liked it better this way"
DeleteOf course you do Mike, it is disingenuous and thats the antis and your SOP