|
Edited on Mon Apr-19-04 10:35 PM by flaminlib
"This is where I really get charred at the RKBAer's on this board. The NRA and the folks who support gun rights can do no harm. Here we have a documented example of incredibly inhumane behavior and the response is, in effect, that yep, he should vote for Bush because his son could've been killed by anything, cuz once again the AWB is a poorly written scare-tactic."
The ongoing dilemma, as I see it, is whether the AWB in its current form is effective. My comments had nothing to do with bush. I posted my response about the possibility of that boy being killed by a weapon other than an assault weapon to point out that without the AWB, that boy would still be dead. Ive said repeatedly that I support "strengthening" the AWB into something that is meaningful rather than cosmetic. Probably would not have saved that boy, but the current AWB is ludicrous.
As to the NRA and gun rights supporters, they are not one in the same. I know ALOT of gun owners, most of them are liberal, and very few of those that I know support the NRA. Not necessarily because of the issues, but because of those that they align themselves with. And yes, gun supporters can do harm, I dont think Ive ever implied that they cant. I dont know who would suggest otherwise.
As to the central issue, this is one guy who lost a son. I never implied that he should vote for bush because he is still a gun rights supporter. My post was meant to clarify the fact that the AWB "had" no effect on his son's death, and he would have been killed regardless of the type of weapon the assailants used.
"When does the Right get chastised down here? Half as often as Feinstein? Nope. When does the NRA get chastised down here? Little to nothing about the big Cheney piece."
I can only speak for myself but I have very busy reminding some of the more ardent gun controllers that "I AM NOT A RIGHT WING, NRA, RED NECK, RACIST!" That seems to be a reminder they need daily, if not more frequently. Havent had much time to criticize how the right wing's relationship with the NRA actually does more to interfere with our RKBA than it does to help it. I would love to have that discussion though, if we can get past semantics and personal attacks. Feinstein happens to be the target du jour. Im nowhere near California so I cant say I know much else about her other than she is very much interested in over-regulating or removing our RKBA.
"Oh, did anyone notice that deaths by school violence in 2003 equaled 2001 and 2002 combined? Its that steady hand on the moral compass of America. Things are so much better with the adults back in charge."
This comes back to the bottom line debate. Are guns the "reason" for this increase in violence, or is it something else. What else has increased along with violence in schools? What societal factors might be involved? These questions seem to get lost among semantics and personal attacks. It seems that no one wants to even consider that guns "may" not be the problem.
It wasnt but a few years ahead of me that kids could take their rifles to school for shop projects. Hand made stocks were the interest then, now its taking out teachers and classmates. I dont know why, but I dont think excess gun control will stop a criminal from doing a crime.
Im quite sure the number of guns hasnt gone up in the past 50 years. But drug use and despair have. That, along with other societal factors, is why I hesitate to get behind the "guns are responsible" line of crapola. The cheney/nra ordeal is nothing new, and wont find much support among us liberal gun toters.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
