EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on May 5, 2014 13:09:52 GMT -5
To save you some time, I will help you in your search for relevant facts about the NRA: Once upon a time they actually were in favor of "gun control" (bet you didn't know that). They stopped being in favor of it when it passed the point of being reasonable and tried going to the point of being extreme. And I was once a member- I stopped being in favor of them when they passed the point of being reasonable and went to the point of being extreme.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,712 
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 5, 2014 14:38:39 GMT -5
cool. it is nice to know that someone will be rise to my defense when i am slandered on this board.  If I know facts that can back up that defense... I will happily defend the truth. Always have. Always will. As to the irony I saw... it was ironic that you saw irony in my comments when there wasn't any. Irony: (noun) a state of affairs or an event that seems deliberately contrary to what one expects and is often amusing as a result. A "Saturday Night Special" isn't a useless weapon if used as intended. as a suicide tool? firecracker? to open a recalcitrant pickle jar? what is that intended use?You aren't supposed to be able to be accurate with it at distance. It's SUPPOSED to be a "close in, face-to-face, self defense" weapon. They are also designed to be "cheap, dispose of after use, let the police keep it for evidence - I'll just go buy another one" guns. If people that buy them, use them in any other manner (or if they get stolen and then sold on the black market)... that's not the fault of the weapon designer/manufacturer. Also worthy of note: You might want to check out the following link to see what the NRA says about "Saturday Night Specials"... before you state anything about their opinion on them: NRA: SNS Fact Sheetwhat i said is "show me that the NRA is opposed to owning them, and i will concede the point". does your fact sheet make that assertion? (i am intentionally NOT reading it to draw attention to my actual CLAIM). |
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 28, 2024 17:42:50 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2014 18:05:11 GMT -5
If I know facts that can back up that defense... I will happily defend the truth. Always have. Always will. As to the irony I saw... it was ironic that you saw irony in my comments when there wasn't any. Irony: (noun) a state of affairs or an event that seems deliberately contrary to what one expects and is often amusing as a result. A "Saturday Night Special" isn't a useless weapon if used as intended. as a suicide tool? firecracker? to open a recalcitrant pickle jar? what is that intended use?You aren't supposed to be able to be accurate with it at distance. It's SUPPOSED to be a "close in, face-to-face, self defense" weapon. They are also designed to be "cheap, dispose of after use, let the police keep it for evidence - I'll just go buy another one" guns. If people that buy them, use them in any other manner (or if they get stolen and then sold on the black market)... that's not the fault of the weapon designer/manufacturer. Also worthy of note: You might want to check out the following link to see what the NRA says about "Saturday Night Specials"... before you state anything about their opinion on them: NRA: SNS Fact Sheetwhat i said is "show me that the NRA is opposed to owning them, and i will concede the point". does your fact sheet make that assertion? (i am intentionally NOT reading it to draw attention to my actual CLAIM). The NRA isn't opposed to owning them. Why would they be? As I said "If used as intended" there's nothing wrong with them. I also (just below your bolded, snide, addition) specified the appropriate uses of SNS's. Would it help if I colored and bolded it for you? |
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 28, 2024 17:42:50 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2014 18:08:25 GMT -5
To save you some time, I will help you in your search for relevant facts about the NRA: Once upon a time they actually were in favor of "gun control" (bet you didn't know that). They stopped being in favor of it when it passed the point of being reasonable and tried going to the point of being extreme. And I was once a member- I stopped being in favor of them when they passed the point of being reasonable and went to the point of being extreme. The best way to fight extreme is with extreme... hopefully resulting in a compromise that both sides can live with. And, they only began going extreme to counter the extreme of the anti-gun lobbyists. |
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,475
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on May 5, 2014 18:10:49 GMT -5
... they only began going extreme ... So they have gone extreme. |
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 28, 2024 17:42:50 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2014 18:17:27 GMT -5
... they only began going extreme ... So they have gone extreme. Never said they didn't... did I? |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,712
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 5, 2014 18:19:47 GMT -5
what i said is "show me that the NRA is opposed to owning them, and i will concede the point". does your fact sheet make that assertion? (i am intentionally NOT reading it to draw attention to my actual CLAIM). The NRA isn't opposed to owning them. Why would they be? As I said "If used as intended" there's nothing wrong with them. I also (just below your bolded, snide, addition) specified the appropriate uses of SNS's. Would it help if I colored and bolded it for you? give me a break, Richard. i respond as i go. i read your reply. but i don't really accept it. close combat is way better done with an accurate revolver than a cheap piece of stamped Chinese crap. if you feel otherwise, i would be very surprised, but i am not prepared to argue with you any more at that point if you don't. and as to "why"?, because i thought they were concerned with gun safety. or are you backing down on that claim? |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,712
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 5, 2014 18:21:06 GMT -5
And I was once a member- I stopped being in favor of them when they passed the point of being reasonable and went to the point of being extreme. The best way to fight extreme is with extreme... sorry, what is "extreme" about any proposed legislation, iyo?hopefully resulting in a compromise that both sides can live with. And, they only began going extreme to counter the extreme of the anti-gun lobbyists. the resulting compromise is no compromise. WINNING! |
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,475
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on May 5, 2014 18:22:07 GMT -5
So they have gone extreme. Never said they didn't... did I? No idea. |
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on May 5, 2014 18:50:43 GMT -5
What's with the pink?  |
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770 
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on May 5, 2014 18:54:32 GMT -5
And I was once a member- I stopped being in favor of them when they passed the point of being reasonable and went to the point of being extreme. The best way to fight extreme is with extreme... hopefully resulting in a compromise that both sides can live with. And, they only began going extreme to counter the extreme of the anti-gun lobbyists. I couldn't disagree more, I'm afraid. If you're objecting to extremism, the worst thing you can do is apply extremism yourself. That tends to make anything you say, or do, appear not only hypocritical, but ridiculous. When thinking individuals are confronted with extremism on both sides of an issue, they'll usually turn their backs on the whole issue and make up their own minds - acting accordingly. They'll reject both sides or pick the first (because the most recent extremism is the watershed for the hypocrisy). |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,712
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 5, 2014 19:48:51 GMT -5
What's with the pink? just going with the Richard flow, Virgil. what is good for the goose is.... um....well, it's good for the goose. |
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 28, 2024 17:42:50 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2014 21:35:46 GMT -5
What's with the pink? Mine was purple... I cannot comment on the pink. Purple is a good "highlighting" color (to me, anyway) on the blue background I use. Brings attention, but isn't glaring. |
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 28, 2024 17:42:50 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2014 21:38:04 GMT -5
The best way to fight extreme is with extreme... sorry, what is "extreme" about any proposed legislation, iyo?hopefully resulting in a compromise that both sides can live with. And, they only began going extreme to counter the extreme of the anti-gun lobbyists. the resulting compromise is no compromise. WINNING! In the case of gun legislation the resulting compromise is actually that no new BS infringements of our rights get passed. That's "WINNING! " |
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 28, 2024 17:42:50 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2014 21:48:18 GMT -5
The NRA isn't opposed to owning them. Why would they be? As I said "If used as intended" there's nothing wrong with them. I also (just below your bolded, snide, addition) specified the appropriate uses of SNS's. Would it help if I colored and bolded it for you? give me a break, Richard. i respond as i go. i read your reply. but i don't really accept it. close combat is way better done with an accurate revolver than a cheap piece of stamped Chinese crap. if you feel otherwise, i would be very surprised, but i am not prepared to argue with you any more at that point if you don't. and as to "why"?, because i thought they were concerned with gun safety. or are you backing down on that claim? I respond as I go too... but if something in the post I have quoted, and am responding to, and can see in my own post because the quote is there for me to read, changes what I want to say, or clarifies something I was questioning... I alter my comment accordingly. I agree it's "way better done" with a good, reliable Smith & Wesson or other comparable weapon (that can do the job over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera). That, however, doesn't mean that those SNS's can't do the job (at least once) too. And I am concerned with gun safety... what part of "if used as intended" is so hard for you to comprehend? If you use a S&W (I'm sure we can agree that they make quality weapons) with improper rounds (intentionally, say you want more power, but don't want to buy a bigger gun, so you just over-load some home pressed bullets)... who's fault is it if the gun mis-fires or explodes? Is it S&W's because you were too stupid to use it as it was designed? |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,712
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 6, 2014 10:41:24 GMT -5
the resulting compromise is no compromise. WINNING! In the case of gun legislation the resulting compromise is actually that no new BS infringements of our rights get passed. That's "WINNING! " um.....yeah. that is what i said, bro. do you like arguing? |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,712
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 6, 2014 10:42:19 GMT -5
give me a break, Richard. i respond as i go. i read your reply. but i don't really accept it. close combat is way better done with an accurate revolver than a cheap piece of stamped Chinese crap. if you feel otherwise, i would be very surprised, but i am not prepared to argue with you any more at that point if you don't. and as to "why"?, because i thought they were concerned with gun safety. or are you backing down on that claim? I respond as I go too... but if something in the post I have quoted, and am responding to, and can see in my own post because the quote is there for me to read, changes what I want to say, or clarifies something I was questioning... I alter my comment accordingly. i already said i disagree with the position, so there was no reason to correct it. you can accept that, or not. your choice. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,712
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 6, 2014 10:47:07 GMT -5
And I am concerned with gun safety... what part of "if used as intended" is so hard for you to comprehend? the part where you are making this about you. you and i both think gun safety is a good idea. my question is not about you or me. my question was about the NRA. they don't seem too concerned with gun safety. the diatribe you posted reinforced that perception. they posted all of the wonderful benefits of SNS's without a single word about how they are basically useless POS's. i find that singularly unconvincing in terms of whether entire classes of weapons are safe. they might have pointed out that the way to operate a SNS safely is to get a better gun, for example.If you use a S&W (I'm sure we can agree that they make quality weapons) with improper rounds (intentionally, say you want more power, but don't want to buy a bigger gun, so you just over-load some home pressed bullets)... who's fault is it if the gun mis-fires or explodes? Is it S&W's because you were too stupid to use it as it was designed? no, of course not, but again, this is not about S&W or other reputable manufacturers like (Colt, Winchester, Ruger) that make very high quality inexpensive armaments. this is about the NRA's refusal to admonish off-brands and cheap lines. you know what, never mind. we are arguing about two different things, and like you, i have better things to do than repeat myself. |
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 28, 2024 17:42:50 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2014 19:28:13 GMT -5
In the case of gun legislation the resulting compromise is actually that no new BS infringements of our rights get passed. That's "WINNING! " um.....yeah. that is what i said, bro. do you like arguing? Seemed to me you were being sarcastic. If I was in error, I apologize. |
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 28, 2024 17:42:50 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2014 19:35:38 GMT -5
And I am concerned with gun safety... what part of "if used as intended" is so hard for you to comprehend? the part where you are making this about you. you and i both think gun safety is a good idea. my question is not about you or me. my question was about the NRA. they don't seem too concerned with gun safety. the diatribe you posted reinforced that perception. they posted all of the wonderful benefits of SNS's without a single word about how they are basically useless POS's. i find that singularly unconvincing in terms of whether entire classes of weapons are safe. they might have pointed out that the way to operate a SNS safely is to get a better gun, for example.If you use a S&W (I'm sure we can agree that they make quality weapons) with improper rounds (intentionally, say you want more power, but don't want to buy a bigger gun, so you just over-load some home pressed bullets)... who's fault is it if the gun mis-fires or explodes? Is it S&W's because you were too stupid to use it as it was designed? no, of course not, but again, this is not about S&W or other reputable manufacturers like (Colt, Winchester, Ruger) that make very high quality inexpensive armaments. this is about the NRA's refusal to admonish off-brands and cheap lines. you know what, never mind. we are arguing about two different things, and like you, i have better things to do than repeat myself. Maybe they didn't post that they are POS's... because they AREN'T POS's if used as designed. Is that not in the realm of possibility? "Off brands" and "cheap lines" have their place... as long as they are safe when used as intended. A "Smart for 2" micro car is an "off brand" and a "cheap line"... but that doesn't mean that as a commuter car it's bad... I just wouldn't suggest going off-roading for the weekend with it. It's all about "Use as intended and designed". |
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on May 6, 2014 19:49:28 GMT -5
A smart gun used as intended isn't an unsafe gun. That requires an assumption that the purpose of such a purchase was for self-defense and that the technology is failure prone- which has not been shown.
Saw this yesterday- not a smart gun- but a smart trigger lock- won't here a peep about banning this I bet:
www.wired.com/2014/05/sentinl-gun-lock/
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 28, 2024 17:42:50 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2014 20:06:31 GMT -5
A smart gun used as intended isn't an unsafe gun. That requires an assumption that the purpose of such a purchase was for self-defense and that the technology is failure prone- which has not been shown.
Saw this yesterday- not a smart gun- but a smart trigger lock- won't here a peep about banning this I bet:
www.wired.com/2014/05/sentinl-gun-lock/
If the technology fails it's absolutely unsafe... because then it CAN'T be used as intended (unless it was intended to fail). A trigger lock can be opted out of (by simply not using it... even if provided free with the gun). A gun that has "smart technology" embedded in it, and requires it's proper function to operate operate CAN'T be opted out of (if the technology becomes a requirement on ALL guns). |
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on May 6, 2014 20:24:03 GMT -5
And if your only purpose is to go target shooting, then it fails safe. And here we with the NRA opposition- they are scared the government will mandate the technology and the government will snap up all of the other guns.
Which back to my point- instead of being vigilant against gun laws- they are backing banning a gun- which makes them hypocritical and anti-freedom.
And for the gun nuts that had the gall to resort to death threats against the guy and his family- they need to be found out and locked up for a little while- unless of course the NRA would like to include death threats under the first amendment- if any group can stretch an amendment to absurd lengths they are it. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,712
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 6, 2014 21:01:53 GMT -5
um.....yeah. that is what i said, bro. do you like arguing? Seemed to me you were being sarcastic. If I was in error, I apologize. if i enter a negotiation, and i leave without having to give in one stitch, that is winning. the NRA is amazingly successful. they are the Mike Tyson of the lobbying world. so, no, i was not being sarcastic. they win all the damned time. spectacularly. while we are at it, i will confess my undying admiration for the Bush administration convincing a full 60% of the US population that Saddam had something to do with 911 without ever directly stating it. masterful. say what you will about conservatives and plutocrats, they really know their stuff when it comes to PR and lobbying. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,712
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 6, 2014 21:03:39 GMT -5
no, of course not, but again, this is not about S&W or other reputable manufacturers like (Colt, Winchester, Ruger) that make very high quality inexpensive armaments. this is about the NRA's refusal to admonish off-brands and cheap lines. you know what, never mind. we are arguing about two different things, and like you, i have better things to do than repeat myself. Maybe they didn't post that they are POS's... because they AREN'T POS's if used as designed. Is that not in the realm of possibility?. imo, no. i am done here. any further replies will be for others to entertain. |
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on May 6, 2014 21:28:49 GMT -5
Seemed to me you were being sarcastic. If I was in error, I apologize. if i enter a negotiation, and i leave without having to give in one stitch, that is winning. the NRA is amazingly successful. they are the Mike Tyson of the lobbying world. so, no, i was not being sarcastic. they win all the damned time. spectacularly. while we are at it, i will confess my undying admiration for the Bush administration convincing a full 60% of the US population that Saddam had something to do with 911 without ever directly stating it. masterful. say what you will about conservatives and plutocrats, they really know their stuff when it comes to PR and lobbying. Much better than Tyson- they ran over legislation that had 90% support. That's power.
And speaking of the conservatives and plutocrats- they take this to an art form. I forget the guys name right now- Frank something- but what an expert on how to frame the issues, how to use the correct language to win support. Talking about selling shit to a farmer.
|
|
