NRA gunning for making elephants extinct

[eridani]

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/23107-nra-gunning-for-more-than-just-right-to-bear-arms

hen the Obama administration announced plans to halt the domestic sale of most elephant ivory, the National Rifle Association urged its members to mobilize against the ban.

While the NRA said it agreed with the goal of ending endangered elephant poaching, it warned that something far more important was at stake: “This is another attempt by this anti-gun administration to ban firearms,” the organization asserted in an alert.

When it comes to defending gun rights, no issue is seemingly too obscure for the NRA — not even the ivory trade. Amid the high-profile epic battles, including the recent clashes following the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary in Connecticut, there have been smaller, under-the-radar ones, too — often appearing to touch only tangentially on actual guns.

Indeed, the NRA doesn’t pick its battles: It fights every single one, according to Professor Robert Spitzer, a political scientist at the State University of New York in Cortland and author of “The Politics of Gun Control.”

“Part of their political strategy is to look for any issue, any time, any place, any moment where they can exert some political pressure,” Spitzer said, “because the larger strategy is to be aggressive and always be on the offensive.”

[NutmegYankee]

1. I wish NARAL fought like that.

[calimary]

135. I do too!!!!

[hack89]

2. Just grandfather in heirloom guns with ivory grips

It's not complicated.

[eridani]

3. Good idea--the elephant would have been killed quite a long time ago n/t

[liberal N proud]

5. The problem comes in verification that they are older

I saw a segment on PBS or History explaining that they try to sell new ivory as old to get past this situation. By banning all ivory, it avoids this and sends a signal that we need to protect the elephant.

[hack89]

6. Is it an all or nothing fight?

at what point do you compromise and take the best deal possible?

As for existing ivory artifacts, why not establish standards by which owners can verify and document the age of artifact? Make it the responsibility of the owner but give them the opportunity to prove the ivory is not new.

[7962]

10. Yes. Seems as though it'd be easy to verify the age of the gun that had ivory on it.

So write it into the law and take the argument away from them.

[CreekDog]

13. why don't you ask the NRA about that?

they seem to be saying it is.

of course you take their side.

[pipoman]

17. Wrong

To my knowledge the NRA has never objected to the decades old ban on new ivory. In fact it says just that in the op. Further the NRA is in the company of many areas of collectable and antiquities interests on this issue.

[hack89]

19. So reasonable compromise is not to your liking?

I will put you down as all or nothing.

If it can be proven that a gun does not use new ivory, what is the harm? I thought the idea was to stop the sale of new ivory. Why is it something that cannot be compromised on?

[CreekDog]

42. you're here arguing for "reasonable compromise" with the NRA?

with a straight face.



if you're going to be more skeptical of the administration than the NRA, it's a waste of oxygen to discuss it with you.

[hack89]

50. No - I am arguing for reasonable compromise from you

would you support a scheme that would allow owners to keep and sell ivory artifacts if they can prove they were not made with new ivory? Simple question.

[CreekDog]

55. ok, how's this, what do you think?

exemptions for commercial trade of 100-year-old antiques into regulations that re-affirm the criteria that must be met for an item to qualify as an antique

imports of African elephant ivory will be limited to certain items and purposes where the ivory item will not be sold, including ivory for law enforcement and scientific purposes, specified worked ivory items such as musical instruments, items in museums and other exhibitions, and items that are part of a household move.

what do you think?

[hack89]

62. 100 years is too old - the proposed regulation does not even go that far

the cut off is 1990 or 1975 depending on the type of elephant.

I would support a total import ban of ivory - I think the domestic market is big enough to allow owners to sell if they want. I just question the bans on sales across state lines - that is what the real issue is here.

[CreekDog]

64. so once's it's smuggled into the USA, no problem

[hack89]

67. No - owners would have to document the age and history of the item

just like the legislation requires for in state sales.

[Lizzie Poppet]

76. And even if they did, no interstate sales.

But some people will support this utterly useless (to the elephants) idea because it has a negative impact on people they don't like.

Ah, the human condition...gotta love it.

[DanTex]

82. That's exactly what they want.

A thriving domestic market in illegal ivory. Make sure that the reward for ivory poachers is as great as possible. All because the NRA says so.

Brings gun nuttery to an entirely new level.

[GOPee]

164. JUST BAN ALL GUNS.. Problem solved..

[jmowreader]

97. Ivory sellers attempt to pass new ivory as old

Sorry, NRA: synthetic ivory has existed for a very long time and the first thing anyone ever made out of it was a set of pistol grips. If you want to sell your ivory handled revolver, switch out the grips for these elephant-and-rhino-friendly ones.

[hack89]

100. The EO allows for owners to keep ivory if they can authenticate the age and history

at least for in state sales. If what you say is impossible, why is it written in to EO?

As for guns, the ones with ivory built it are valuable collectors items. It is not a question of functionality - it is about the artistic value of the weapon. The president is blithely asking these owners to throw away thousands of dollars and some are shocked when they say no?

[jmowreader]

130. It's not impossible to authenticate old ivory

It's also not impossible to fake an old weapon for the purpose of moving real ivory from an elephant killed last year.

[pipoman]

143. Just a fairly small market of very knowledgeable collectors..

The better market for ivory from last year is Asia.

[pipoman]

142. Maybe i would understand this thread

If we were only talking about guns...guns are the absolute tip of the iceberg. I don't think people get how many antique and collectibles have ivory adornments. ..including the desk in the Oval Office.

[dionysus]

106. while i mostly agree with you... who totes ivory inlays these days... wyatt earp wannabes?

[hack89]

107. We are primarily talking valuable collectibles, not everyday guns.

many people collect guns for their historic or artistic merit - many are never fired, just admired.

[dionysus]

108. so.. the ivory is very old.. so whats the big deal?

I have a few collectibles myself, but they ain't that fancy

[pipoman]

26. That is exactly where we are without changing anything. .

[pipoman]

4. The ivory ban set by the administration is

Ineffectual, silly and short sighted. There are countless items of antiquity that contain ivory. Making those items illegal to sell or trade robs the owner of wealth unnecessarily. The OP title is deemed a lie in the very first sentence of the second paragraph. The antiquities world is reeling because of this stupidity too..

[el_bryanto]

7. Are elephants currently being killed and their ivory harvested? nt

[pipoman]

11. Apparently

It has been illegal to trade in ivory for decades now over most of the 1st world. This new ban encompasses ivory harvested long before the ban on new ivory, in some cases centuries before. Items of historical importance. Items of interest to vast numbers of people. How does banning the sale of a 19th century Steinway piano, or a 1920's carpenters rule, or an 18th century game table, or a 1890's colt revolver help the problem of modern day elephant poaching?

[Paladin]

23. Emphasis on that "1890's colt revolver," right? Riiiiight..... (nt)

[pipoman]

24. Searching aren't we...

I'll mark you in the 'ban pianos' opinion. ..

[quakerboy]

147. How?

That seems simple. I believe the assertion is that they use the currently legal trade in old Ivory to mask sales of new ivory.

If you make all Ivory sales illegal, then there's no way to cover the new ivory sales and pretend they are legal.

And if you reduce the opportunity to sell new ivory, that would presumably result in a reduction of modern elephant poaching.

Whether the facts support that logic, whether a significant portion of illegal ivory sales are slipped by using the guise of a legal old Ivory sale, I could not speak to. But the rational seems fairly obvious.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

162. stopping the market entirely does seem to be the goal.

good explanation.

[leftyladyfrommo]

49. Yes.

There have been several incidents lately where poachers, helped by park rangers, have simply poisoned the water holes and many elephants have died. One whole family of 30 was killed this way.

It's disgusting. And so horribly sad.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

163. ...

[leftyladyfrommo]

167. Poaching is absolutely disgusting.

There are some parks in Africa where poachers are simply shot on site.

The waterhole where the 30 elephants were killed? The Park Ranger was paid $85 to tell the poachers where the elephants were.

[oneshooter]

168. I was released from my contract with the Kenyan Park Rangers for the cause of politics.

They did not consider a white Ranger shooting black poachers to be "proper". I guess I should have let my Zulu and Masai trackers spear them.

[leftyladyfrommo]

169. I don't think they should shoot them.

That is really pushing it. But I do wish they could get people who would protect those animals and not sell the store for some miserly amount of money. That might seem like a lot of money to someone who has very little and has kids at home to feed.

Those animals are Africa's national treasure. She should protect them.

[Crepuscular]

8. putting aside

putting aside the gun aspect, there are a whole bunch of other consumer products that historically used ivory, would the suggested ban make it impossible to sell antique Ivory combs, pocket knives with Ivory handles or for that matter would it prohibit me from selling the 1938 Steinway with Ivory keys that is sitting in my living room? There is certainly the need for reasonable accommodation for existing objects that may contain ivory and that includes but should not be limited to firearms.

[pipoman]

12. Yes, it would

And that is exactly what the NRA and many others (myself included) are objecting to.

[Crepuscular]

29. They

They will have to pry the Ivories from my wife's baby Grand from her cold, dead fingers. Seriously, they don't want to piss her off!

[DanTex]

37. According to the actual regulation, rather than the NRA, it looks like you will be able to sell

it instate, provided you can verify that the ivory was legally imported before 1990 or 1975:

http://www.doi.gov/news/pressreleases/interior-announces-ban-on-commercial-trade-of-ivory-as-part-of-overall-effort-to-combat-poaching-wildlife-trafficking.cfm

Significantly Restrict Domestic Resale of Elephant Ivory: We will finalize a proposed rule that will reaffirm and clarify that sales across state lines are prohibited, except for bona fide antiques, and will prohibit sales within a state unless the seller can demonstrate an item was lawfully imported prior to 1990 for African elephants and 1975 for Asian elephants, or under an exemption document.

[hack89]

41. Why not apply the same rules for in and out of state sales?

what is it about out of state sales that require a different rule?

[DanTex]

46. I don't know, I didn't write the law, but I can guess.

For example, allowing in state sales but not out of state sales would make the market for potential illegal traffickers smaller, while still allowing people with legitimate objects to sell them. But I'm pretty sure that whatever the rationale, you are going to take the NRA's side regardless. After all, when it comes down to the Obama administration versus Wayne LaPierre, we all know where you come down.

[hack89]

53. It would take a small compromise to placate the NRA(and antique/art dealers)

just allow owners that can prove the age of the ivory to keep and sell them. Are you so anti-gun that you are willing to torpedo this legislation rather than give an inch? I suspect yes.

[DanTex]

86. I've never seen the NRA be placated by anything, so I doubt this is true.

And when it comes to the Obama adminstration's judgement vs the NRA's I'm pretty sure what side I come down on. The NRA is saying absurd things as usual ("This is another attempt by this anti-gun administration to ban firearms&quot , and team NRA on DU is coming to their defense no matter what they say, also as usual.

Oh, and this isn't piece of legislation, it's an executive order.

[hack89]

90. So the president thinks it is now the right time to pick a fight with the NRA

I trust his political instincts - he obviously knew it would create this uproar. Why not give the president credit and see where it ends - this may end up as a defeat for the NRA.

[DanTex]

92. I think it's more that the NRA decided that this is the right time to pick a fight with Obama.

Of course, the NRA always thinks it's the right time to pick a fight with Obama, so this is nothing new really.

[hack89]

93. The actual point of the OP is that the NRA fights all the time on every issue

that is why they win all the time. (A lesson, btw, that the LGBT community has learned with great success)

And clearly the Obama administration understood that when they proposed this EO - so maybe they think this is a winning issue for them.

[pipoman]

70. No, it would violate the commerce clause. ..

The feds have little to no control over intrastate commerce....

[DanTex]

79. Well, they are regulating intrastate commerce, just not as severely.

There are ways to get around the interstate commerce clause.

[pipoman]

85. And that's a good thing? "Getting around" constitutional limitations on government?

[DanTex]

87. The Civil Rights Act was a good thing in my opinion, yes. I imagine you are opposed on

states' rights grounds, like Rand Paul and the rest of the crew.

[oldhippie]

89. Of course, when it's something we want. Nt

[CreekDog]

170. interesting that you didn't want to answer the question that DanTex asked you

[pipoman]

171. 6 months is my limit on revisiting threads.

[jmowreader]

99. The Constitution only regulates interstate commerce

Intrastate commerce is properly the purview of the states.

[hack89]

101. I assume the president picked this fight deliberately

it will be interesting to see how it plays out.

[merrily]

149. The SCOTUS held that interstate commerce includes one person, growing food

in his own back yard, for consumption only by him and his immediate family.

President Kennedy used interstate commerce to justify forcing integration via the Interstate Commerce Commission.

IOW, one can find a nexus between interstate commerce and almost anything, if that is what one wants to find.

[rrneck]

61. If it's a federal law maybe they can't regulate intrastate transactions? nt

[DanTex]

80. Maybe, although they are regulating them somewhat.

[rrneck]

83. Yeah

I saw that in your other post after I posted the question. Interesting.

[merrily]

151. Intrastate transactions have been regulated plenty, at least since the New Deal.

Long before, if you count things like child labor laws. Whether it's the spending power or the interstate commerce power or the general welfare (more controversial), one can always find a way.

If one wants to, that is. If one doesn't want to, one can slip and slide.

The SCOTUS holding that feds could, under the interstate commerce power, regulate a lone man growing food in his own back yard for consumption only by him and his immediate family is a perfect example of how political the definition of interstate commerce is. So does Roberts holding that the feds could not, under the interstate commerce power, impose the individual mandate of Obamacare (though they could under the taxing power).

Bottom line: all of this, including interpretation of the Constitution of the United States, is a lot more subjective than anyone in power will ever admit to the general populace, lest we cease pretending otherwise. JMO

[merrily]

150. Please see Reply 149.

[Crepuscular]

74. Ridiculous.

I'd like to know how the person who possess's an object made of ivory is supposed to be able to determine whether the origin was from an African or Indian Elephant or from a completely different species for that matter. DNA test? ridiculous.

So an item made in the 1920's, long before there were any kinds of bans on the use of elephant ivory is excluded from being classified as a "bone fide antique" because it's less than 100 years old? equally ridiculous.

I'm all for stopping poaching but these kind of over-reaching, arbitrary and essentially unenforceable laws are the wrong way to remedy the problem.

[DanTex]

81. What's ridiculous is putting the interests of a tiny number of ivory collectors that can't

actually validate that their ivory was imported legally over protecting endangered species. I'm pretty sure the Obama administration has put more thought into this than the NRA...

[Jenoch]

115. My father has a necklace made from carved

ivory that was given to my mother in 1974. She received it from an African man from Chad who was a guest in our house. How is my father supposed to prove the age of the ivory?

[DanTex]

119. You're asking the wrong person, I know nothing about dating ivory.

If he wants to sell it, he probably needs to figure out how to certify that it was legally brought into the country before 1990. Otherwise, looks like he's just going to have to hold on to it. Not really the end of the world. The alternative, it seems to me, is to allow free domestic commerce in illegal ivory.

I must say, I'm not an expert on the ivory trade, but this seems like a pretty reasonable step to take to help protect an endangered species, and the fact that the only people here complaining seem to be the pro-gun people (who probably wouldn't even have heard of this if not for the NRA stamping its feet) makes me think that this is more just a case of taking the NRA's side reflexively over the Obama administration than anything else.

[Jenoch]

123. I don't tgink anyone here, me included,

is taking the side of the NRA jist to oppose President Obama. I don't own a gun with ivory grips, but if this issue prevents the sale of guns with ivory grips in which the ivory pre-dates 1990, then I am opposed to making a change in the law. Using new ivory is already illegal.

[DanTex]

124. You can still sell the old guns, just verify that the ivory was imported legally.

Like I said, it doesn't seem unreasonable at all to me. And it certainly isn't some back-door attempt by the Obama administration to ban guns, like the NRA claims.

The regulation is designed to reduce the trade in illegal ivory, in order reduce demand and protect endangered species. Sure, it would be nice to be able to not worry about the legality of imported ivory, but there are tradeoffs, and at some point convenience has to give way to protecting the environment.

[Jenoch]

127. "...protecting the environment."

I'd rather protect the elephants.

Dating ivory grips is easy, that is if the date of the gun's manufacture is acceptable as proof of the age of the grips. On older models, the serial number of the gun is sometimes written on the inside of the grips. The problem I have with laws like this is that it puts otherwise law abiding people into law breakers with no intent on their part. I tbink it should be ip to the government to prove that the ivory is new. You know, "innocent until proven guilty"?

[DanTex]

128. Preserving species falls under environmental protection.

Well, I care more about species extinction than the convenience of ivory traders. In fact, one problem with the whole gun debate is that the pro-gun side places the convenience of gun owners above everything else, be it human life, or in this case elephants and rhinos.

"Innocent until proven guilty" applies to criminal courts. It has nothing to do with the current situation. This change doesn't make anyone a law breaker because you can still own the ivory. Now, if someone decides to sell the ivory without certifying it's legality, then they will be actively and intentionally breaking the law, which means they would no longer be "law abiding".

[Jenoch]

129. Do you think anyone with a gun with ivory grips

and then sells the gun with ivory grips is in same category as the people who actually are selling new ivory tusks?

[DanTex]

131. No.

And I'm pretty sure that actual ivory smugglers will be punished more severely than people who just sell a gun they own with an ivory grip. Both will be breaking the law, but one of them in a much more significant way.

[Jenoch]

136. Your last sentence is the point the NRA and other here are attempting to make.

Selling a gun with ivory grips should not be against the law. Not having that law will not endanger elephants.

[DanTex]

138. And the NRA is wrong about that.

Having a thriving secondary market for ivory in the US increases the value to poachers and smugglers. So, yes, allowing people to sell a gun with an ivory grip without certification ultimately endangers elephants, because it increases the international value of the illegal ivory. Selling an ivory grip is legal, provided you certify that the ivory was imported legally, which seems like a good compromise to me.

The NRA isn't known for it's careful policy analysis, they only care about inconvenience to gun owners. The Obama administration's decisions regarding how to best protect endangered species are much better informed than the NRA's.

[Jenoch]

140. Do you have evidence that there is a 'thriving secondary market' for new ivory in the U.S.?

[DanTex]

144. Well, that is the rationale for the decision by the Interior Department to impose these regulations.

I haven't studied the issue personally, but the administration has, and I don't have any reason to doubt them. In fact, some environmental groups think the regulation doesn't go far enough, and they need to simply ban all domestic ivory commerce period.

Conversely, I'm pretty sure that the NRA has not done any studies of the impact of the US market on ivory smuggling, and their theory that Obama made the whole thing up as an excuse to attack gun owners is patently absurd. At least it is to me -- do you actually believe that?

[Jenoch]

146. I don't pay to much attention to what the NRA

is doing. I am agreeing with them on this issue of reselling guns with ivory grips not because the NRA is opposed to it, but because I am opposed to it. That I became aware of it because of the NRA is immaterial.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

9. If Obama banned parrot feathers hunted by blow darts in the Amazon, ...

... the NRA would say he is grabbing guns.

When their only tool is a gun, everything they see is either a bullet or a target.

[pipoman]

15. There are millions of guns

In circulation with ivory components. From grips on pistols and inlays on rifle stocks to tiny bead sights on shotgun barrels.

[Jgarrick]

21. Ban 'em! That'll make the ghosts of long-dead elephants do a happy dance!

[CreekDog]

14. some of the responses indicate that NRA supporters are lining up

in support of the NRA and against the administration.

so fast.

[Jgarrick]

16. As I understand it, this policy would ban the trade of millions of guns.

Under that circumstance, what would you expect the NRA to do?

[pipoman]

22. I happen to collect antique carpentry tools

.

All of these historically significant tools are BANNED by this decision. The decision is stupid. Time for the administration to realize that and rethink this silliness.

[ET Awful]

139. That first item is stamped 2006 or 2008.

Is that a part no. or a date?

The site that lists that picture has a very similar item made of ebony and ivory that's listed as a reproduction and priced at over $3,000.

Methinks that may not be an antique.

Edited to add: http://www.jimbodetools.com/Magnificent-Rare-Paul-Hamler-4-1-2-inch-Ebony-Ivory-SANDUSKY-Center-Wheel-Plow-Plane-p24318.html

Actually, I'm fairly sure it's NOT an antique. I wonder where Mr. Hamler got the ivory to build that reproduction.

[pipoman]

141. yeah...I just Google imaged

Ivory plow plane. There are planes like this that are ivory. This one looks like a reproduction. I have seen several reproduction ivory pieces. The ones I have seen were all micarta, a very realistic synthetic ivory. Some collectors fill out their collection with these because the real thing is crazy expensive.

The only ivory tools I have collected are rules. Mostly Stanley. I quit buying them several years ago because they got so pricey. The last one i bought was off an auction in London. ..absentee bidder. The ones I have I intend to sell when I retire. I also have a brace like the one on the bottom only it is entirely box wood except for an ivory button on top.

[oldhippie]

28. Who would have thunk it?

...NRA supporters are lining up in support of the NRA ...

Duh!

[DanTex]

30. The best are those who say "I really hate the NRA, I just happen to agree with everything they say!"

[AcertainLiz]

40. I honestly didn't think I'd make too many people angry by opposing the NRA...

[DanTex]

43. Welcome to DU's own team NRA.

For sort of complicated reasons, the "DU is for Democrats" rule is waived during gun discussions. If you want to see the really ugly side, check out the Gun Control and RKBA forum (aka the gungeon). It's pretty much indistinguishable from Free Republic in there. It sort of started out as a "big tent" thing and then somehow the tent got so big that Michelle Bachmann and Louis Gohmert would feel right at home.

[AcertainLiz]

48. These people are more fanatical than my Repub. family on guns.

Actually, my family aren't gun nuts and support some gun control.

[DanTex]

52. Some of them claim to be "pro-gun progressives", but I've never met a Democrat in real life with

anywhere near these kinds of extreme right-wing views on guns. And I lived in Texas for a while, so I've known my share of gun owning Democrats.

I've also met a bunch of gun nut yahoos like you find in the gungeon, but none of them had anything good to say about the Democratic party. Of course, the gungeoneers don't often talk about too many issues other than guns, so who knows...

[AcertainLiz]

54. Even my ex-military Republican dad thinks the NRA are insane.

I think the country is slowly turning against these extremist gun nuts.

[CTyankee]

157. I've been waiting patiently for someone to say that!

My feeling, entirely. You'd think they would realize how hollow and incoherent that line of thinking is. And how patently ridiculous it sounds.

[AcertainLiz]

18. The NRA are total assholes

[pipoman]

25. If'n ther fur it, I'm again' it...

[CreekDog]

33. you're making fun of opposing the NRA?

while supporting their position in the thread.

charming.

[pipoman]

35. Uh, no

Making fun of people who oppose positions based on who supports them without regard for the merits of the discussion is what I'm doing. ..

[AcertainLiz]

39. It's good to know the NRA are also for killing endangered species...

[pipoman]

45. care to share?

I'm not seeing anything that would indicate that.

[AcertainLiz]

51. 'NRA gunning for making elephants extinct'

[pipoman]

65. Is a lie based on the first sentence

Of the 2nd paragraph of the op...it is also not the headline of the linked story....it was made up by the op...

[AcertainLiz]

110. Um...

"When the Obama administration announced plans to halt the domestic sale of most elephant ivory, the National Rifle Association urged its members to mobilize against the ban. "

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/23107-nra-gunning-for-more-than-just-right-to-bear-arms

[pipoman]

112. You do know that ivory importation and trade has been banned for

Decades no?

I am not aware of the NRA opposing those long standing bans.

This is about banning items, deeming them worthless, that have been around since long before any ban. That is what the NRA opposes from everything I have read..

[AcertainLiz]

113. Yeah and nice to know the NRA will stand against effective bans on this as well.

I wonder what next the NRA will oppose...

[DanTex]

47. Wait, you mean like people who oppose a regulation because the NRA says so

without actually reading what the regulation says?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4819837

[Paladin]

63. "....the merits of discussion...."?

Jeez, don't slip that in while I'm having my late morning coffee, you'll owe me a new key board (one without a bayonet lug). As if there's anything like rational, productive discussion to be had anymore on guns.

[pipoman]

66. This isn't about guns, it's about antiquities in general

Some of which happen to be guns...

[Paladin]

68. It's about the NRA, but let's not quibble.... (nt)

[Lizzie Poppet]

73. Agreed. The article in the OP is more about the NRA in general.

The ivory ban issue was just the lead-in, really. The article is correct about the NRA's "scattergun" approach (see what I did there?). That's just one reason I abandoned that organization about 15 years ago.*

The thread, though, has focused largely on that ivory ban plan, as one might expect when it's the subject of the headline. the discussion of that need not involve the NRA, except perhaps to cote the old "stopped clock" homily. The plan's faults transcend consideration of that organization's many foibles.

* That was hard for me to do, not because I think the organization is a good influence (it's not), or that it even deserves to be a "thought leader" for 2nd Amendment rights (it doesn't). It was hard because the Life Membership I rescinded was a gift when I was younger from my much-loved late grandfather.

[Paladin]

96. It's tough to give up a grandfather's gifts. (nt)

[spanone]

20. fuck the nra

[Lizzie Poppet]

27. The NRA can pound sand, but this is a poorly-thought-out plan.

The ban's broad-reaching effect on all sales, even those of antique items, is ill-considered. If the goal is to protect endangered elephants, banning the sale of ivory taken decades (or centuries) ago is pointless. Differentiating between old and new items is far from impossible.

[CreekDog]

32. if it's pointless then why do you oppose it?

is it because, gasp, there are guns out there with ivory handles?

how materialistic does one have to be to value that over elephants?

[pipoman]

38. Still dodging the answer to how banning antique ivory helps

Living elephants, whilst ignoring the millions of other nongun aantiquities banned by this stupidity?

[CreekDog]

44. are you arging that the ban won't work or that it's unfair?

if it won't work, then it's not going to have any effects, therefore won't be unfair.

i love it when NRA talking points crash into each other.

[Lizzie Poppet]

58. Epic critical thinking fail.

The argument isn't that it "won't work" in terms of the transfers taking place anyway. The argument is that it "won't work" in terms of doing fuck-all to help elephants. Duh.

Stop and actually think things through instead of being in such an obvious hurry to take potshots at gun owners.

[CreekDog]

59. i'm not the one peppering my posts with swear words

and based on your above posts, maybe you should read the ban and the proposed changes because it seems like you don't know what the ban is and isn't.

[Lizzie Poppet]

71. Complaining about cussing on DU? Seriously?

Fucking priceless...

And I most certainly have read the details of the proposal...which you seem not to have done. I suggest the Washington Post article...I'm sure you can find it.

[CreekDog]

72. in response to you telling me to restrain myself, yes i'll point out your swearing

and out of control-ness.

[Lizzie Poppet]

75. Ah, so you're responding to something that never happened. Okay, got it.

Since you seem determined to make this about me, rather than the actual matter under discussion (argumentum ad hominem...quelle surprise!) and to make shit up, I'll just back quietly away and leave you to your...whatever it is you think you're doing.

[NCTraveler]

102. +1 nt

[Lizzie Poppet]

56. Wrong question.

Why would anyone support a pointless law? New ivory has been illegal for decades.

I'm actually more concerned over the effect on wonderful vintage pianos than ivory-gripped pistols, and such. So your clumsy attempt at "poisoning the well" falls flat. Moreover, you're presenting a very transparent false dichotomy in asserting that retaining the ability to buy and sell antique ivory is incompatible with the continued survival of elephants. Critical thinking fail.

Next time bring your A-game. If you have one...

[CreekDog]

57. and there are no exemptions for that proposed?

yes or no? or are we just reading the NRA stuff to figure out what was actually proposed?

[Lizzie Poppet]

69. In practice? No, not really.

First off, I have no idea what the NRA's "information" about this might be, save for the brief snippet in the cited article. I could care less what that clown car full of shitheels says.

More to the point, while the proposal has some exemptions written into it, those exceptions are qualified in such a way that the vast majority of antique and pre-ban ivory will be ineligible for sale (and even that which does fall under the exemptions will remain ineligible to sale across state lines). In actual effect, this is a ban on almost all sales of pre-ban ivory in the US.

Ironically, the plan has provisions for still allowing the "non-commercial" importation of hunting trophies. While trophy hunting isn't nearly the threat to these species that poaching is (so that the tusks - and rhinoceros horn - can be made into "medicine" so insecure assholes in China can get wood), it's still a source of elephant deaths...which trade in pre-ban ivory is not.

You did look into the specifics of the law before commenting, right?

[DanTex]

31. Kinda weird that all these gungeoneers are suddenly self-professed experts in the ivory trade.

Whatever it takes to defend the NRA and St LaPierre on all fronts, I guess.

[pipoman]

34. kinda weird that so many gun control advocates

Are so anti gun that they believe it is a good idea to ban 17th century game tables...

[DanTex]

36. 17th century, huh. I believe that would be more than 100 years ago...

Apparently, the NRA lemmings didn't bother to even read the regulation in question before heeding St LaPierre's call to arms. I mean, I get it, when has the NRA ever exaggerated or been wrong about anything before, right?

http://www.doi.gov/news/pressreleases/interior-announces-ban-on-commercial-trade-of-ivory-as-part-of-overall-effort-to-combat-poaching-wildlife-trafficking.cfm

The Service will:

Prohibit Commercial Import of African Elephant Ivory: All commercial imports of African elephant ivory, including antiques, will be prohibited.
Prohibit Commercial Export of Elephant Ivory: All commercial exports will be prohibited, except for bona fide antiques, certain noncommercial items, and in exceptional circumstances permitted under the Endangered Species Act.
Significantly Restrict Domestic Resale of Elephant Ivory: We will finalize a proposed rule that will reaffirm and clarify that sales across state lines are prohibited, except for bona fide antiques, and will prohibit sales within a state unless the seller can demonstrate an item was lawfully imported prior to 1990 for African elephants and 1975 for Asian elephants, or under an exemption document.
Clarify the Definition of “Antique”: To qualify as an antique, an item must be more than 100 years old and meet other requirements under the Endangered Species Act. The onus will now fall on the importer, exporter, or seller to demonstrate that an item meets these criteria.
Restore Endangered Species Act Protection for African Elephants: We will revoke a previous Fish and Wildlife Service special rule that had relaxed Endangered Species Act restrictions on African elephant ivory trade.
Support Limited Sport-hunting of African Elephants: We will limit the number of African elephant sport-hunted trophies that an individual can import to two per hunter per year.

[pipoman]

60. The table pictured was offered at

Christies of London, an yes it would be illegal for a US buyer to bring it home. Further there are millions of legally produced items. ..collectables of historical significance not 100 years old.

[DanTex]

78. Illegal to import, but not illegal to sell if you already own it.

Bet let's keep in mind the real victims here. No, I don't mean endangered species. I mean the 1%ers who can't satisfy their thirst for ivory antiques domestically, and instead bid at Christies in London. LOL. Poor hedge fund managers. Anything for the NRA, I guess.

[pipoman]

84. Excuses for stupid ideas based on completely unrelated topics

[DanTex]

88. What? You are the one who brought up the plight of international ivory collectors!

I mean, I get that you couldn't care less about endangered species, but can't you think of a better victim than some 1%er who adorns his McMansion with antiques that bids on at London auctions?

[CreekDog]

91. most DUers are wrong on everything, that's why you are constantly correcting their liberal ideas

[pipoman]

94. There is nothing liberal about this....quite contrary. ..

[CreekDog]

104. you've also argued that civil rights can only be violated by government

would you say that's a liberal opinion? you might, but almost nobody else would.

and it's factually wrong too. but you said it.

and on issue after issue, you're arguing with liberals and telling them they are wrong here.

i'm not saying you're wrong, i'm just surprised that you won't own it.

[pipoman]

109. Lol...yea, the ACLU is a bastion of conservatism. ..

Civil rights *can* only be violated by government. ..civics 101 it is...

Banning art, antiquities, and destroying historical artifacts is not liberal, regardless who supports it...

[CreekDog]

114. and you argue against the dangers of second hand smoke

[pipoman]

116. And you spend way too much time investigating

And not enough admitting you are wrong, or making your case....lol...

[CreekDog]

117. i think my questions are relevant and i notice you didn't answer

[pipoman]

118. What didn't i answer?

You are completely wrong on the very first point you made. Civil rights can only be violated by government. It's a fact, like it or not. Prove otherwise.

oh, and that fact is EXTREMELY liberal. ..

[CreekDog]

120. the second hand smoke? hate crimes?

when you talk about spending too much time, i think it's a waste of time to come here and argue with stuff i could read on the Daily Caller.

but with certain people, that's what you end up doing.

and with you, the same.

[pipoman]

121. lol....abject fail

You are as wrong on these things as on civil rights violation. One at a time.

[CreekDog]

122. you think second hand smoke science is correct and that second hand smoke is dangerous

funny though, that's not what you've been saying.

and you support passage of hate crime legislation? funny, i'd love to hear about that because that's not what you've been saying.

[pipoman]

125. Are you talking to someone else?

Responding in the wrong window? One of the many you have open trying to make a case of some sort?

Back to civil rights, once that is settled we can move on to your next piece of damning evidence...lol...

[CreekDog]

126. of course you'd like to go back

or else you'd have to talk about what you think of global climate change (or don't think of it)

or else you'd talk about what you think of the dangers of second hand smoke (or don't think of it)

or what you think of hate crime legislation...

like i said before, when we started talking about the ivory ban, i thought to myself, "i don't come to DU to argue with conservative or NRA talking points..."

if someone is providing them on this topic, and they provide them on a host of topics across the board...

then i know enough to thin it's pointless to discuss with them here.

[pipoman]

133. lol

Yeah, I know if someone is unwilling to admit when they are obviously and demonstrably wrong about one thing, it is a waste of time to discuss other things with them.

[CreekDog]

134. ACLU doesn't automatically take liberal positions

finding that organization associated with something doesn't automatically make it liberal.

[pipoman]

137. we are talking about truth and fiction

Last edited Mon Apr 14, 2014, 07:16 PM - Edit history (1)

divert and deflect

Oh, and i have met very few ACLU members who aren't liberal and Democrats.

[SwankyXomb]

77. How about this for a compromise?

Instead of using ivory, they can use the bones of children murdered by guns. Always a steady supply of those.

[oldhippie]

95. That's just disgusting .....

I can't believe anyone would post such an insensitive comment. Sometimes DU sucks. I'm outa here for awhile.

[SwankyXomb]

98. It was meant to disgust

The NRA expletives care more about their guns than everything else, especially human life.

[Jgarrick]

103. Oh, well that makes it ok then.

[AcertainLiz]

111. Don't you know those AR-15s protect the kids...

[gopiscrap]

105. Fucking NRA asswipes

anybody in the NRA IMHO is pure shit!

[11 Bravo]

132. Great, can they start with the entire GOP?

[pangaia]

145. This ban is NOT about gun handles.

It is about banning forever the white keys on pianos and must be stopped!
If the white keys are also black, how will anyone know which notes to play?

I just don't get it. This is an outrage and just another example of the Obama administration taking away our freedoms.

Plus it is obviously also geared to have fewer...well... you know...whites. This multiculturalism must be stopped ! NOW !!

But wait... there are no wild elephants in America..

[merrily]

148. All large animals, including humans, are

magnificent to ponder.

Heartbreaking to see what has been happening to all of them, whether it's guns, war, global warming, or other greed-driven things.

Trivial pursuit: In the movie Wall Street, Gorden Gekko was paraphrasing comments made by Ivan Boesky during, of all things, a commencement speech. Like Mr. Gekko, Mr. Boesky was convicted of securities law violations some time after making the speech.

http://www.pophistorydig.com/?tag=greed-is-good-speech

[blkmusclmachine]

152. Kill, baby, kill

[Turbineguy]

153. Luckily for elephants

the NRA is making people extinct too. It's just a question of who gets there first.

[hack89]

155. Do you know how stupid that sounds?

Last edited Tue Apr 15, 2014, 10:47 AM - Edit history (1)

gun deaths have been steadily declining for 20 years and you think that the NRA is making people extinct?

[Turbineguy]

159. Serves me right

for replying in a gun thread. And you are right, they are declining. For example, in 1999 there were 28,874 gun deaths and in 2011 the number had declined to 32,163.

That many lives is certainly worth the wonderful freedoms we enjoy from gun ownership. I just have to wonder, how many lives do the other 9 amendments in the Bill of Rights cost?

[hack89]

160. No - emotional hyperbole is par for the course in these threads

perhaps I was to snarky in my reply - I apologize.

[SmittynMo]

154. The only elephant they need to make extinct is the GOP in 2016 n/t

[marmar]

156. “This is another attempt by this anti-gun administration to ban firearms,”

I hate to say I hate anyone, but what I feel for the NRA leadership is something very close to it. ....... Makes you wish we could arm the elephants.

[lonestarnot]

158. And I didn't think I could hate these fuckers more.

[SmittynMo]

161. Ditto

Bingo, Bango, Bongo!!!

[tofuandbeer]

165. Assholes.

[catbyte]

166. The NRA doesn't give a damn about human life, why would they care about

elephants? A despicable organization led by despicable people and has despicable members. Anybody who supports today's NRA doesn't give a shit about people. My dear dad, a cop for 30 years and a Lifetime NRA member, saw the writing on the wall & cancelled his membership a decade ago. He saw where they were headed & hated it. I miss my dad.

[trueblue2007]

172. Um, why dont we shoot elephant slaughters instead?