The NRA at its best

[Dirty Penguin]

Have you evidence that "absolute" meant possessing any weapon?
If so, I'll be happy to disagree with him, & even call him a "poop head".

[youtube]qGDqFMP7sYQ[/youtube]
NRA Leader Wayne LaPierre Responds to Obama's Inaugural Address - YouTube

Absolutist | Define Absolutist at Dictionary.com


Personally I don't think I misunderstood what he was trying to convey. He says it plainly....

Wayne LaPierre, NRA Leader, Responds To Obama Inaugural Address

Quote:

LaPierre quoted former Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black, a one-time Democratic congressman who served on the high court in the 1930s. "Justice Black understood the danger of self-appointed arbiters of what freedom really means, like President Obama," LaPierre said.


Quote:
But Black is a problematic hero for LaPierre. In 1939, Black and fellow Supreme Court justices ruled unanimously in a landmark gun control case, United States v. Miller, that the Second Amendment does not protect blanket access for citizens to any type of firearm.

 

[Revoltingest]

[youtube]qGDqFMP7sYQ[/youtube]
NRA Leader Wayne LaPierre Responds to Obama's Inaugural Address - YouTube
Absolutist | Define Absolutist at Dictionary.com
Personally I don't think I misunderstood what he was trying to convey. He says it plainly....
Wayne LaPierre, NRA Leader, Responds To Obama Inaugural Address
Quote:
LaPerre quoted former Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black, a one-time Democratic congressman who served on the high court in the 1930s. "Justice Black understood the danger of self-appointed arbiters of what freedom really means, like President Obama," LaPierre said. Quote:
But Black is a problematic hero for LaPierre. In 1939, Black and fellow Supreme Court justices ruled unanimously in a landmark gun control case, United States v. Miller, that the Second Amendment does not protect blanket access for citizens to any type of firearm.

I couldn't your video to run to the end, but I read your HuPo article, & nowhere I saw did it state that
an "absolute" right means the right to own any weapon. Rather, "absolute" means non-voidable to me.
Might you be grasping at straws for something to LOL about?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Revoltingest, no matter how desperately you contort the matter, Wayne's position is self-contradictory. Suppose you are correct, and Wayne believes an "absolute" right only means non-voidable, not the right to own any weapon. Then it follows that Wayne's criticism of Obama is nonsense, since Obama is not abolishing the "absolute" right.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Those accidents are certainly appalling, but it's worth noting that no one died, since there was no intent to kill.
It's a stretch to call any of these a "shooting". But every accident is an inexcusable failure, & should be dealt
with harshly.

With all due respect, I think you've missed the point. Guns have risks, and no amount of training or good intentions or harsh punishments can eliminate those risks. Accidents happen, every machine designed by humans has a failure rate (I'm sure as an engineer you appreciate this fact). So, for anyone concerned about the safety of children, the risk of accidental shootings caused by the presence of guns must be weighed against the risk of an intentional shooting caused by a maniac. The latter risk at the typical kindergarten, as we all know, is quite small. The former risk may be small in individual cases but becomes significant when you multiply the number of interactions of people with guns, a fact overlooked by the sanguine arguments of gun-proponents and their talk of "you don't see shootings at gun shows".

 

[Revoltingest]

Revoltingest, no matter how desperately you contort the matter, Wayne's position is self-contradictory. Suppose you are correct, and Wayne believes an "absolute" right only means non-voidable, not the right to own any weapon. Then it follows that Wayne's criticism of Obama is nonsense, since Obama is not abolishing the "absolute" right.

Methinks you're too desperate to win some kind of argument. How do I know?
No one has shown anything to support the claim that Wayne says the 2nd supports any weapon.
Yet the argument continues without any evidence other than to claim a convenient but odd definition of "absolute".

 

[Revoltingest]

With all due respect....

Oh, no! I dread seeing that....I feel about to be disrespected!

....I think you've missed the point.

No, I think you've missed my posts. Dustin & I have explored the below issue you raise in another thread.
We didn't accomplish much, but the point of quantifying the risks & getting real world positive results is the goal.

Guns have risks, and no amount of training or good intentions or harsh punishments can eliminate those risks. Accidents happen, every machine designed by humans has a failure rate (I'm sure as an engineer you appreciate this fact). So, for anyone concerned about the safety of children, the risk of accidental shootings caused by the presence of guns must be weighed against the risk of an intentional shooting caused by a maniac. The latter risk at the typical kindergarten, as we all know, is quite small. The former risk may be small in individual cases but becomes significant when you multiply the number of interactions of people with guns, a fact overlooked by the sanguine arguments of gun-proponents and their talk of "you don't see shootings at gun shows".

Just cuz you didn't see something, doesn't mean it wasn't there, Mr Sanguine. I've already proposed this way of looking at guns in schools.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Methinks you're too desperate to win some kind of argument. How do I know?
No one has shown anything to support the claim that Wayne says the 2nd supports any weapon.
Yet the argument continues without any evidence other than to claim a convenient but odd definition of "absolute".

I never said that was his claim. I have no idea which and what weapons he believes we should be allowed to have under the second admendment...but he was clear in his speech that he believe the 2nd admendment is absolute. He explicitly said it. I saw his citation Of Chief Justice Black as deperate and reaching considering recent SCOTUS opinion on the matter differs from LaPiere's understanding.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

No one has shown anything to support the claim that Wayne says the 2nd supports any weapon.

Semantics aside, the charge being made is that Wayne LaPierre didn't fully understand the source he cited, Justice Black. Because no one who understands Justice Black's decision on firearms could plausibly claim that Obama's position on gun control makes him, in LaPierre's words, "a dangerous self-appointed arbiter of what freedom really means", in contradistinction to Justice Black, who presumably understands what freedom really means.

Ergo, either LaPierre did not appreciate the actual record he was citing, or his criticism of Obama based on that record makes little sense. Like a lever, if one end of his argument is raised up, the other falls flat. Take your pick.

 

[Revoltingest]

Semantics aside, the charge being made is that Wayne LaPierre didn't fully understand the source he cited, Justice Black. Because no one who understands Justice Black's decision on firearms could plausibly claim that Obama's position on gun control makes him, in LaPierre's words, "a dangerous self-appointed arbiter of what freedom really means", in contradistinction to Justice Black, who presumably understands what freedom really means.
Ergo, either LaPierre did not appreciate the actual record he was citing, or his criticism of Obama based on that record makes little sense. Like a lever, if one end of his argument is raised up, the other falls flat. Take your pick.

Meh....I charge that no gun control crazy understands the 2nd Amendment.
When they scream "No one needs a gun designed to kill people!", they entirely miss the point.
The 2nd Amendment ain't about duck hunting, target shooting or collecting pretty antiques.
Wayne gets it better than the gun grabbers do.

 

[Revoltingest]

I never said that was his claim. I have no idea which and what weapons he believes we should be allowed to have under the second admendment...but he was clear in his speech that he believe the 2nd admendment is absolute. He explicitly said it. I saw his citation Of Chief Justice Black as deperate and reaching considering recent SCOTUS opinion on the matter differs from LaPiere's understanding.

The conversation starting with post #175 sure seemed to lead in this direction.
But if not, then I don't know what it is you're criticizing about Wayne's remarks.

 

[Wirey]

With all due respect, I think you've missed the point. Guns have risks, and no amount of training or good intentions or harsh punishments can eliminate those risks. .

With all due respect, I call bullpucky. I work in an industry that used to kill a person a week, and now we don't kill anyone at all through training, education and, most importanatly, implimentation of absolute rules related to workplace safety. Training and punishments can, and will, reduce risks. I also think responsibility is key. Eliminate private gun sales. Establish brokers who sell for you for a nominal fee. That way, guns remained tracked. And if your gun is used during an illegal act, and you didn't take reasonable care to prevent that (i.e. selling it without a broker who performs background checks) you get whatever the perp gets.

 

[Revoltingest]

With all due respect, I call bullpucky. I work in an industry that used to kill a person a week, and now we don't kill anyone at all through training, education and, most importanatly, implimentation of absolute rules related to workplace safety. Training and punishments can, and will, reduce risks. I also think responsibility is key. Eliminate private gun sales. Establish brokers who sell for you for a nominal fee. That way, guns remained tracked. And if your gun is used during an illegal act, and you didn't take reasonable care to prevent that (i.e. selling it without a broker who performs background checks) you get whatever the perp gets.

This can be largely achieved without having everything go thru brokers, you poopy hea.....oh, wait....we mostly agree.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

The conversation starting with post #175 sure seemed to lead in this direction.

The misunderstanding was yours not mine.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Training and punishments can, and will, reduce risks.

Agreed. This is not incompatible with what I said: "Guns have risks, and no amount of training or good intentions or harsh punishments can eliminate those risks." Both statements can be true simultaneously.

If it makes any difference, I enjoy guns. I'm just a novice, far from an expert, but I've been target shooting and hunting on and off again since I was about 12. I am not trying to make some grandiose claim on the issue, I'm simply adding what I perceive to be a modest, and indisputable, nuance to an argument which cropped up on this thread (or was it another thread?) The argument went like this: gun shows are abnormally safe compared to, say, a kindergarten classroom which is unprotected by guns. "This kind of shooting would never happen at a gun show. Therefore ..." You can agree or disagree with that argument, but surely the fact that accidental shootings are not uncommon at gun shows (as one would expect) is a necessary fact that everyone should take into account when evaluating the merit of this argument. Wouldn't you agree? That's all I'm saying.

 

[Revoltingest]

The misunderstanding was yours not mine.

Oh, well....it did continue for a while before pointing out that you meant something else.
What did you mean?

 

[Revoltingest]

Agreed. This is not incompatible with what I said: "Guns have risks, and no amount of training or good intentions or harsh punishments can eliminate those risks." Both statements can be true simultaneously.

If it makes any difference, I enjoy guns. I'm just a novice, far from an expert, but I've been target shooting and hunting on and off again since I was about 12. I am not trying to make some grandiose claim on the issue, I'm simply adding what I perceive to be a modest, and indisputable, nuance to an argument which cropped up on this thread (or was it another thread?) The argument went like this: gun shows are abnormally safe compared to, say, a kindergarten classroom which is unprotected by guns. "This kind of shooting would never happen at a gun show. Therefore ..." You can agree or disagree with that argument, but surely the fact that accidental shootings are not uncommon at gun shows (as one would expect) is a necessary fact that everyone should take into account when evaluating the merit of this argument. Wouldn't you agree? That's all I'm saying.

Gun shows are pretty safe, & it's interesting to note that the carnage appears to be accidental.
Someone bent on mass murder would not likely choose a gun show. Armed robberies are unknown too. (Although thefts do occur.)
Schools are different, since the shootings are with an intent to kill (except for that bone headed DEA agent who shot his own foot.)
What this points to is that there is some usefulness in have it be known that multiple armed people will resist violent assault.
This effect must be taken into account in evaluating public policy.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Gun shows are pretty safe, & it's interesting to note that the carnage appears to be accidental.

Accidental carnage is safe carnage. Got it.

What this points to is that there is some usefulness in have it be known that multiple armed people will resist violent assault.
This effect must be taken into account in evaluating public policy.

Agreed, and so does the effect of "accidental carnage". I already said that both effects, not just one of them, must be considered. That was precisely my point, I'm glad we agree here.

 

[Revoltingest]

Accidental carnage is safe carnage. Got it.

Oh, you rascal, you!

Agreed, and so does the effect of "accidental carnage". I already said that both effects, not just one of them, must be considered. That was precisely my point, I'm glad we agree here.

'bout time!