Armed guards protect Senate Democrats as they demand new gun-control laws

[Pointedstick]

What a great headline.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... y-demand-/

Senate Democrats gathered Thursday on the steps of the Capitol surrounded by about a dozen armed guards to announce a new push for tougher gun-control laws.

The officers from the U.S. Capitol Police, who carried sidearms, were in addition to the regular detail paroling the Capitol ground due the large number of elected officials attending the event, according to a officer on the scene.

About 27 Democratic senators attended the event.

[moda0306]

I find myself more and more just the hated independent/devil's-advocate in the room on this topic. 


Liberals:

- Completely forget that laws aren't polite suggestions, but have to be enforced by guys with guns.
- Want to ban assault rifles when handguns are the real problem
- Want to create gun-free zones, which just ensure a disarmed public to criminals.
- The ignore overall crime statistics and look at only "gun crime" statistics, which is a scientific fail on its face.
- They treat a school shooting as exponentially worse than any other sort of crime.  While Sandy Hook shook whatever soul I had to my core, we have to step back and look at numbers when determining policy.
- Their attitude towards "gun crime" seems to be a lot like conservatives are about "terrorism."  Basically, throw away all thought and let your emotional reaction guide you towards something you don't understand.


Conservatives:

- Treat the NRA like a resource for them, while they're really a shill of the gun industry.  Which is fine... if we're willing to acknowledge reality.
- Want to arm teachers (agents of the state) while simultaneously warning that we have to defend ourselves from the state.
- Want to "defend ourselves from tyranny," when the government is plenty equipped to lay waste to us.
- Pretend that the 2nd amendment is simultaneously more under-assault than other amendments, and abundantly more useful at sustaining liberty in our country than any other part of the constitution.  Both of which are amazingly false in 2015.
- Some sort of limitation on "bearing arms" is implied by anything up-to-and-including limiting distribution of nuclear weapons, yet conservatives act like the arbitrary line they draw around weapons is one worth defending with asinine rhetoric about revolution.
- They constantly use opposing logic.  "30 round clips aren't useful for a mass killing because I can reload real fast." oh, and "If I only have 10 round clips, what if I run out of ammo when my house is invaded?"



BTW... Here's a great skit by Jim Jefferies that if anything is at least hilarious, if not a bit on-point at times.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rR9IaXH1M0

[Pointedstick]

Conservatives:

- Treat the NRA like a resource for them, while they're really a shill of the gun industry.  Which is fine... if we're willing to acknowledge reality.

Can you explain what evidence led you to this conclusion?

- They constantly use opposing logic.  "30 round clips aren't useful for a mass killing because I can reload real fast." oh, and "If I only have 10 round clips, what if I run out of ammo when my house is invaded?"

There is nothing contradictory about these positions. When you are facing armed, aggressive attacker(s), having to pause to reload may be perilous. When you are the armed, aggressive attacker facing no serious resistance, you have all the time in the world to reload. Successful mass shooters have used revolvers, low-capacity pistols, shotguns, and bolt-action rifles.

Oh, and they're magazines. 

[moda0306]

Conservatives:

- Treat the NRA like a resource for them, while they're really a shill of the gun industry.  Which is fine... if we're willing to acknowledge reality.

Can you explain what evidence led you to this conclusion?

- They constantly use opposing logic.  "30 round clips aren't useful for a mass killing because I can reload real fast." oh, and "If I only have 10 round clips, what if I run out of ammo when my house is invaded?"

There is nothing contradictory about these positions. When you are facing armed, aggressive attacker(s), having to pause to reload may be perilous. When you are the armed, aggressive attacker facing no serious resistance, you have all the time in the world to reload. Successful mass shooters have used revolvers, low-capacity pistols, shotguns, and bolt-action rifles.

Oh, and they're magazines. 

To the first point, I've realized that many "NFP" organizations are just simply an arm of the economic interests that surround them.  If Wayne LaPierre was concerned about the agents of the state taking over our country (the issue he points out with one side of his face), he wouldn't advocate for there to be cops/teachers/guards with guns in every school (the policy he advocates with the other side).

Individual liberty and gun industry sales are two separate issues.  It seems obvious to me that the NRA is more concerned with the latter.

I suppose it's somewhat irrelevant what an industry thinks of things, but I think it's telling that lots of gun enthusiasts fall into the trap.



To the other point, while those situations are different, the principle remains... it takes time to reload, and time is a risk.  Of course, it's even MORE of a risk when you have an unarmed populace, but I hope you all know I'm not advocating for that, nor do we currently have that, and I made it clear I'm opposed to "gun-free zones," unless done by private owners (still think it's short-sighted, but it's their right).

[Pointedstick]

To the first point, I've realized that many "NFP" organizations are just simply an arm of the economic interests that surround them.  If Wayne LaPierre was concerned about the agents of the state taking over our country (the issue he points out with one side of his face), he wouldn't advocate for there to be cops/teachers/guards with guns in every school (the policy he advocates with the other side).

Individual liberty and gun industry sales are two separate issues.  It seems obvious to me that the NRA is more concerned with the latter.

I suppose it's somewhat irrelevant what an industry thinks of things, but I think it's telling that lots of gun enthusiasts fall into the trap.

I think you seem to have confused the NRA for some kind of libertarian organization. It is no such thing. The NRA does not care about "individual liberty" or "agents of the state taking over our country." The NRA has one mission: preserving the American Citizenry's right to buy, own, carry, and shoot guns. That's it. If they use libertarian rhetoric, it's purely in that service, because they sure use conservative rhetoric too. They use whatever rhetoric will advance the goal. As you yourself point out, Wayne LaPierre is in favor of schoolteachers carrying guns. It should be completely, mind-numbingly obvious that rather than exposing him as a (gasp) fake libertarian, all it does is reveal his existing position: that empowering more responsible people to own and carry firearms is a positive thing. HE doesn't care about "agents of the state" taking over the country--YOU do. Wayne LaPierre is fine with armed government employees as long as they're doing something he wants--protecting and promoting the right to keep and bear arms, or protecting other people with their weapons.

Besides, the gun industry already has its own organization: the NSSF.

To the other point, while those situations are different, the principle remains... it takes time to reload, and time is a risk.  Of course, it's even MORE of a risk when you have an unarmed populace, but I hope you all know I'm not advocating for that, nor do we currently have that, and I made it clear I'm opposed to "gun-free zones," unless done by private owners (still think it's short-sighted, but it's their right).

The principle may remain, but with fatal injuries inflicted by my argument. Obviously, any break in shooting is not risk-free, but just compare the risks. Would you rather be reloading when facing an armed adversary or a bunch of unarmed victims?

[MachineGhost]

I find myself more and more just the hated independent/devil's-advocate in the room on this topic. 

You're not alone, bro!  Word to your mother.

[MachineGhost]

Can you explain what evidence led you to this conclusion?

Gee, could it be the pre-emptive legal terrorism they unleash on any and all proponents of common-sense gun control legislation?  They go way overboard, to say the least.  The 2nd Amendment has been rendered null and void against government tyranny due to technological changes a long time ago, so whatever Bullshit they continue to sell to their members has no relation to reality.

The NRA is like the ACLU.  The mission and self-preservation (i.e. profit) matter more than a compromise that would actually make everyone safer.

[Pointedstick]

Can you explain what evidence led you to this conclusion?

Gee, could it be the pre-emptive legal terrorism they unleash on any and all proponents of common-sense gun control legislation?  They go way overboard, to say the least.

Can you cite any defensible examples to back up this bluster?

[MachineGhost]

Can you cite any defensible examples to back up this bluster?

None that I can recall how to find, sorry.  I'm sure you can find plenty of examples if you search for them.  It's not like their overzealous behavior is a secret or anything.

[Pointedstick]

Can you cite any defensible examples to back up this bluster?

None that I can recall how to find, sorry.  I'm sure you can find plenty of examples if you search for them.  It's not like their overzealous behavior is a secret or anything.

I actually have no idea what you are referring to by "overzealous behavior." The reason why I requested examples is because I believe your hyperbolic assertion is dead wrong. If even you can't actually think of anything to back it up, I'm pretty comfortable calling it BS. I am extremely familiar with the NRA and their actions. You are simply incorrect. The NRA brings almost no lawsuits against anyone; what they do is offer financial support to certain pre-existing lawsuits other people have already filed that they believe will succeed. Politically, for the most part all they do is rate politicians on how pro-gun they are or aren't. The organization that does file a lot of lawsuits is the Second Amendment Foundation, but they only challenge laws they view as unconstitutional. They by no means always win. How in the world is that "legal terrorism?"

[dualstow]

I'm not a part of this conversation. Just want to say that is indeed a delicious headline.

[moda0306]

Seriously guys... first things first here... watch that Jim Jefferies video (be sure to watch the 2nd part as well).

It's absolutely hilarious.

[MachineGhost]

I actually have no idea what you are referring to by "overzealous behavior." The reason why I requested examples is because I believe your hyperbolic assertion is dead wrong. If even you can't actually think of anything to back it up, I'm pretty comfortable calling it BS. I am extremely familiar with the NRA and their actions. You are simply incorrect. The NRA brings almost no lawsuits against anyone; what they do is offer financial support to certain pre-existing lawsuits other people have already filed that they believe will succeed. Politically, for the most part all they do is rate politicians on how pro-gun they are or aren't. The organization that does file a lot of lawsuits is the Second Amendment Foundation, but they only challenge laws they view as unconstitutional. They by no means always win. How in the world is that "legal terrorism?"

I checked my browsing history (which I never delete) but nothing relevant came up, so I honestly don't remember where I read about the NRA's legislative terrorist behavior.  They don't have to initiate lawsuits themselves or file amicus briefs when they have a gargantuan war chest that is alone threatening (and they do use it to see that their ideology is maintained).

Do you deny that current NRA leadership is resistant to ANY gun control legislation that they take action against in whatever way shape or form, no matter how common sense?  AFAIK, the last time the NRA supported anything common sense was way back in 1968.  Essentially, Carter and LaPierre were and are ideological extremists and the NRA's actions reflects that.

[Pointedstick]

Seriously guys... first things first here... watch that Jim Jefferies video (be sure to watch the 2nd part as well).

It's absolutely hilarious.

Hilarious? I didn't find it funny at all. But oh, he wants to "call out bullshit arguments and lies?" Wonderful. How about some of his own:

- The Port Arthur shooting was not "the biggest massacre on earth."
- The Australian government's response to it was not "no more guns!"
- "Fuck off, I like guns" is not even remotely "the only argument [we've] got."
- "Protection" vastly outweighs homicides and suicides committed with firearms according to the U.S. government in multiple federal government studies of the subject (I can provide links)
- Using a gun to protect oneself from a home invasion does not require sitting in front of the window with your gun drawn.
- "Most people who break into your house want your TV," and yet the people who broke into his house tied him up, shaved his head, and threatened to rape his girlfriend?
- Guns locked in a safe offer no protection? I guess he's never heard of biometric quick-access safes.
- Apparently teachers might shoot students who make them feel bad? Are these teachers 9 years old?
- People who are hired for security apparently provide zero security?


Oh, it's just a comedy show, ha ha funny. Count me among the 10% who are fuckin' seething'. But not because he's making good points--because he's reminding me of western civilization's slow-motion suicide, because he's a man whose inner life is evidently populated by people who are helpless and incompetent, where nobody can do anything right, where you might as well not try because you might hurt yourself, where you're just a dunce who should really just listen to your betters. I grew up around men like him. I know them well. Their learned helplessness and revulsion to anyone not as big a pussy as they are drive me up the wall.

By contrast, I live in the real world, where we have these things called competence and responsibility, where we can do things we put our minds to, where we have the emotional control to avoid attacking people who make us feel bad, where for the most part we behave like adults.

I'm glad I live in this world, because I have seen entirely too much of the one he's from and I say no thank you.

[i reacted the same way... and then quit watching after the third joke or so.. thanks for choking it down and replying to the message passing itself as "humor"

[Pointedstick]

I checked my browsing history (which I never delete) but nothing relevant came up, so I honestly don't remember where I read about the NRA's legislative terrorist behavior.  They don't have to initiate lawsuits themselves or file amicus briefs when they have a gargantuan war chest that is alone threatening (and they do use it to see that their ideology is maintained).

Do you deny that current NRA leadership is resistant to ANY gun control legislation that they take action against in whatever way shape or form, no matter how common sense?  AFAIK, the last time the NRA supported anything common sense was way back in 1968.  Essentially, Carter and LaPierre were and are ideological extremists and the NRA's actions reflects that.

Of course the NRA opposes gun restrictions. I suppose next you'll take the Sierra Club to task for opposing "common-sense oil exploration", right?

What in the world does "common sense" mean, anyway? It's just code for "whatever I want." Blanket gun confiscation seems "common sense" to an awful lot of people who I personally know.

That said, the NRA absolutely does support certain forms of gun control that would keep guns out of the hands of bad people and has recently. For example:

After Virginia Tech, it was revealed that the shooter should have failed the background checks he underwent to buy his guns at gun stores because he had been institutionalized and declared mentally unfit by a judge. The NRA supported legislation to increase information-sharing that would have put those records in the database:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01080.html

[MachineGhost]

Well, "common sense" to me as an independent is obviously going to be a lot different than that of an ideologue from either side.

If the NRA has been becoming less intrasignant (sp?) due to all the mass shootings since 2007, then I'm glad they're softening their ideological stance and waking up to reality!

There's flaws with the current system of "checks and balances" that the NRA is responsible for.  If they don't outright oppose gun control legislation where they can prevent it from being passed, then they work to get the legislation weakened as much as possible.  From my perspective, that affects everyone's security.

[Xan]

From my perspective, that affects everyone's security.

For the better.

[Pointedstick]

There's flaws with the current system of "checks and balances" that the NRA is responsible for.  If they don't outright oppose gun control legislation where they can prevent it from being passed, then they work to get the legislation weakened as much as possible.  From my perspective, that affects everyone's security.

I want examples. You keep throwing out these hyperbolic claims. Back them up, please. Provide examples of where the NRA has weakened gun control legislation that would actually improve the situation they were proposed in response to or else you're just full of hot air.

[MachineGhost]

I want examples. You keep throwing out these hyperbolic claims. Back them up, please. Provide examples of where the NRA has weakened gun control legislation that would actually improve the situation they were proposed in response to or else you're just full of hot air.

Man, use Google!  Here's a good place to start: http://www.politifact.com/personalities ... sociation/

This is why I avoid getting involved in gun control debates.  Neither side wants to do any work.

[Pointedstick]

I want examples. You keep throwing out these hyperbolic claims. Back them up, please. Provide examples of where the NRA has weakened gun control legislation that would actually improve the situation they were proposed in response to or else you're just full of hot air.

Man, use Google!  Here's a good place to start: http://www.politifact.com/personalities ... sociation/

This is why I avoid getting involved in gun control debates.  Neither side wants to do any work.

I have a font of information in my head from the last 8 years worth of using Google on this subject, and constantly refresh that information to keep myself sharp. What you have presented is the Politifact page for the NRA. I happen to believe that Politifact has a huge, glaring liberal bias and routinely rates statements made by conservatives that are somewhat or mostly true as "false" or "pants on fire." On first glance, most of the things they rated the NRA on are actually true and they're being overly harsh. For example the NRA said that Cass Sustain wanted to ban hunting, and he did, but later walked the commend back after it got bad press. Politifact rated the NRA's statement as half-true. Really? It's half true because the guy who said what they said he said later regretted it and tried to weasel out of it? Another example: Obama said he wanted to ban handguns back in the 90s. The NRA picked up on that and claimed Obama had a plan to ban handguns. Okay, maybe there was no official plan, but he clearly wanted to do it. Politifact rated that has false, not half-true or even somewhat true. The one about banning deer hunting ammunition is absolutely correct, due to the way the law is written; Politifact simply doesn't understand it very well. I could go on.

But even if the information presented therein is 100% correct and the NRA really does lie a lot, it is immaterial to any of the things that you have claimed, including that the NRA "[goes] way overboard, to say the least," exhibits "overzealous behavior," "unleashes legal terrorism" and works to weaken "common sense" gun control laws. You still have yet to back up any of statement with proof that they are even happening or what they even mean in the first place. It's just a bunch of fluff.

I press you on this subject because I believe that I am fully capable of refuting your arguments, once you actually get around to making them. The NRA works against lots of gun laws because nearly all of them are completely irrational and an objective observer could see that they have no hope of actually reducing any violence. They are simply an anti-gun dog-whistle to hurt gun owners because anti-gun people don't like us, and that's the most they can hope for due to our political strength that flows from our numbers, passion, and organization.

You know me; I am always willing to be proven wrong. But I very strongly believe that the facts are on my side, and your unwillingness thus far to present any evidence that's in support of your case is telling.

There are very, very few issues I consider myself an expert on, but this is one of them.

[MachineGhost]

Wow, I bow to thee!  If I ever come across those positions that you take issue with in the future, I will be sure to post them here for you to dissect.

[MachineGhost]

For the better.

Why does it seem like every gun-owning NRA apologist has an Arrogant Hero Fantasy Complex that they think they'll be the last man standing to shoot down that mentally-deranged mass shooter or a RIFFF?  Prevention is worth a pound of cure.  And TRUE prevention comes BEFORE guns.

Half the population (read: Democrats) doesn't own guns and that puts pressure on political safety measures to balance out the power imbalance with gun owners.

Tying mental health databases into the background check system is my example of "common sense".  So is closing the gunshow loophole which is beyond retarted (just wait until a RIFFF acquires his weapons that way...  there will never be the end of it in the media).  Yet, the NRA seems to have been steadfast against any compromises as if upholding competence to buy and/or own a gun equates to government tyranny.   They're just as ridiculous as the ACLU with its legal terrorism on school vouchers equating to government respecting a religion.

we can defer to the experts for clarification... but i believe the "gunshow loop hole" is either nonexistent or a bad misnomer,
any ffl (licensed dealer) MUST preform a background check on any sale, no matter where it takes place (even gun shows). the mis named "loophole" anti-gun types use to frighten the masses, is no more than the right for any private citizen to sell his privately owned guns to another private citizen anywhere (even gun shows)..

[Pointedstick]

Half the population (read: Democrats) doesn't own guns and that puts pressure on political safety measures to balance out the power imbalance with gun owners.

Wrong.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/Self- ... -1993.aspx

Tying mental health databases into the background check system is my example of "common sense".

They already are. And as I pointed out earlier, the NRA has no problem getting more records into the system.

So is closing the gunshow loophole which is beyond retarted (just wait until a RIFFF acquires his weapons that way...  there will never be the end of it in the media).

I want you to explain, in your own words, exactly what the "gun show loophole" is.

[Reub]

Dems demanding gun control for others while security protect them with guns? It sounds a lot like when they imposed Obamacare on the country while exempting themselves and their union backers.

[MachineGhost]

Is Gallup implying a whopping 95% of all households have guns?

They already are. And as I pointed out earlier, the NRA has no problem getting more records into the system.

That may be true nowadays but where have they been since 1968?  Since we can't even get "common sense" legislation passed, who do you think is to blame?  It can't be the liberals because they're in a zeal to eliminate all weapons.

I want you to explain, in your own words, exactly what the "gun show loophole" is.

No background check.  Does the NRA acknowledge this is a problem?