NRA Obama Ad

Two Peas is Closing
Click here to visit our final product sale. Click here to visit our FAQ page regarding the closing of Two Peas.

Posted 1/16/2013 by Jamieson B. in NSBR Board
< 1 2
 

tamhugh
Ancient Ancestor of Pea

PeaNut 12,875
March 2001
Posts: 8,668
Layouts: 11

Posted: 1/17/2013 9:32:44 AM


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They have gone the way of PETA, a good idea once, but have gone way too overboard and frankly nuts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


If the Constitution had an amendment regarding animal rights, this might even be comparable.



Well, there is a Constitutional Amendment that guarantees freedom of religion and freedom of speech, but I still find Westboro Baptist to be a fringe group.

Simply_Lovely
AncestralPea

PeaNut 463,295
April 2010
Posts: 4,172
Layouts: 3
Loc: New York City

Posted: 1/17/2013 9:33:04 AM

I swear, when I see myself quoted in purple, I'm scared to read the response.


LOL!! I don't know whether to feel offended, embarrassed, or proud

I didn't mean to single you out, and I didn't think you were rude. I was just defending Mapchic. Nothing personal =) Even though I decided to stop debating this issue here, I did learn a great deal from both sides. Too bad the good arguments get lost amongst "You're an idiot!" and "Is your gun more important to you than dead babies?" types of arguments. The clincher for me was someone saying "I don't care to learn anything about guns, I just want the violence to stop and I don't understand why you people don't!" If you (that poster, not you Aggie) can't understand that every single person here, and everyone in the right mind, would like the violence to stop, and we are just debating on how to do it best, then I don't want to participate in a conversation with you. Too bad there are so many of these people here and in the world, who refuse to see the other side no matter what. There is no room for rational discourse unless both sides are educated on the matter and are willing to compromise.




Meow!

scrappinghappy
Ancient Ancestor of Pea

PeaNut 38,979
May 2002
Posts: 5,873
Layouts: 71
Loc: Anywhere one or more of my kids are

Posted: 1/17/2013 9:41:31 AM
Imagine the world you will live in if everyone NEEDS a gun to protect themselves.

Instead of moving to peace, we are condoning violence.

More murders with guns of any sort occur in poor areas and are gang related.

America is one of only a few countries in the world who experience mass shootings and in schools at that. Maybe we should look at what other countries are doing RIGHT to prevent it instead of getting up in arms (pun intended) over protecting everyone with even more guns

Mass shootings in schools worldwide

And FTR, I have lived in a country, Israel, where there are soldiers carrying assault weapons everywhere with LIVE ammunition. Off duty soldiers are not allowed to take their weapons home. They must be left on base. Israel has the potential to be a very violent country given the political instability that exists there yet they have strict laws governing which citizens may carry a gun and where and there has never been a mass shooting of citizens as we see here way too frequently.

Maybe it's time for us to understand that while we may have the right to bear arms, we should need to show a necessity to bear arms before a license is granted. And we really need to crack down on illegal weapons.

Ha, compare the right to bear arms to the sense of entitlement a lot the peas complain about. Our forefathers had NO IDEA what arms would like 100's of years out. I think it's high time we revised that amendment.


---------------------------------------------------

"you bunch of Hippocrates" - troll on SBR board
"What's a Hippocrate? A big box used to transport large African animals?" - SuPeaNatural

You gotta watch this video:
Right then, right then, I laughed so hard my water broke...and I wasn't even pregnant - Jeanne Robertson, age 65



Kelpea
Owner of "best tacky invitation" thread EVER

PeaNut 176,832
November 2004
Posts: 14,039
Layouts: 2
Loc: Stalking Dave Gahan

Posted: 1/17/2013 9:43:17 AM
The above poster did a really nice job explaining her viewpoints. Thank you. Makes sense to me!



Aggiemom92
PeaFixture

PeaNut 90,200
June 2003
Posts: 3,313
Layouts: 2

Posted: 1/17/2013 9:43:55 AM

LOL!! I don't know whether to feel offended, embarrassed, or proud


Oh, definitely proud. First, although I don't set out to be a witch just because I'm anonymous, I don't really care what most people think on an anonymous message board. But second, when you challenge me you are usually right! It worst I realize I was actually wrong, at best I realize I came across differently than I meant to (as here).

TinaFB
the lunatics have taken over the asylum

PeaNut 25,135
November 2001
Posts: 25,984
Layouts: 349
Loc: Maryland

Posted: 1/17/2013 10:00:03 AM
I will agree with this. When these discussions first started a month ago on this board, there was some hysteria "why does ANYONE need a gun?!" "It's DISGUSTING that people have guns" and it went on and on in a very shrill manner. You could almost see them shaking someone by the shoulders until their teeth rattled. [\quote]
----------------------
Perhaps those strong reactions were a direct result of the unimaginable horror of the Newtown massacre. People were understandably very emotional. And I think that most of those reactions were about specific types of guns, not all guns in general.


Tina

Uploaded with iPhone client

~*kristina*~
Typical Liberal Pea

PeaNut 55,230
November 2002
Posts: 18,604
Layouts: 106
Loc: Fly Over Country

Posted: 1/17/2013 10:14:06 AM

Finding comments disgusting is one thing. Vulgar language is another. Have it, Kristina.


Thank you, I will.






doesitmatter?
Ancient Ancestor of Pea

PeaNut 509,811
May 2011
Posts: 6,639
Layouts: 27

Posted: 1/17/2013 2:08:17 PM
I would like to see armed police at all of my children's schools.


Child of God, follower of Jesus, and so thankful for His presence in my life <><
Uploaded with iPhone client

mapchic
Top Tier Pea

PeaNut 31,157
February 2002
Posts: 12,615
Layouts: 55
Loc: Chicagoland

Posted: 1/17/2013 3:12:50 PM


That's one of the things that is really irrational in the gun control discussion. Not just the use of the totally meaningless term 'assault weapons'... I am going to assume that they just mean rifles when they say that. Most murders involving guns are committed with handguns - not rifles. In fact, more people are killed with blunt objects (hammers and the like) than with rifles. If those who support gun control were genuinely interested in stopping murders then they would focus far more on handguns.


If this poster had left off the first two sentences and begun with "Most murders involving guns" it would have been a more "rational" (yep, using an emotional word to make my rational argument) argument. But because it begins with calling my idea irrational, I'm less open to the rest of the argument, which once I FORCED myself to let my defensiveness go actually interested me and made me think.
I was not saying that *you* were somehow irrational. I was just trying to point out that it is nonsensical to use gun crime rates as a justification for banning rifles (of any kind). Very few crimes are committed by rifles and most murders which involve a gun are committed with a handgun. In 2011 6,220 people were killed with handguns and only 323 were killed with rifles (of all types).

I am sorry if you thought my first two sentences were not civil. I am very sorry if they cam across that way. I have really tried very hard in the discussions about gun rights here on 2peas in the last month to be as courteous as possible. I am sure I have not always succeeded but I have really tried.

One of the things that has happened is that I have many times on many threads tried to make the point that the use of the phrase 'assault weapon' does nothing to advance the discussion. Perhaps I have become to frustrated to post it yet again and so I just dismissed it in that post. I will try and give the whole explanation again but it really comes down to this... in gun terms the phrase 'assault weapon' means nothing.

Any weapon can be an assault weapon... if I assault you with it. A rock, a butter knife... anything. In gun rights discussions the term 'assault weapon' is most often used by politicians and media who don't really know much about guns and are not willing to put the time in to do the research on the topic.

They know that if they come out against 'big scary guns' then people will realize they don't know what they are talking about... so instead they use the official sounding phrase 'assault weapon'.

The 'assault weapon ban' that was passed in 1994 banned guns based on almost random cosmetic characteristics. The ban had little if any effect on safety and really just showed that in order to be seen to be 'doing something' politicians passed a useless law.

There is a great example of how little politicians know about the guns they are trying to control on youtube. A congressman is being pressed to describe or explain one of the characteristics she wants to outlaw - a barrel shroud. When pressed she said that it was 'The shoulder thing that goes up.". Not. Even. Close.

It's that kind of thing that leaves knowledgeable gun owners to say to politicians that at least on this topic... "You're not smart enough to tell me how to live."

Some people seem to use the term 'assault weapon' and 'assault rifle' interchangeably. That's a problem. Mostly because Assault Rifle really does have a meaning. Assault rifles are military rifles capable of fully automatic fire. They have been heavily, heavily regulated since 1934 and completely banned since 1986. There is a serious difference between a fully automatic and a semi automatic gun. You can see that really well demonstrated on this really good youtube video assault rifle vs. sporting rifle. He also includes an excellent demonstration of how restricting the size of magazines is kind of pointless.

I have asked peas who use the phrase 'assault weapons' on several threads - what do they mean? I will ask that question again here. When you say 'assault weapon'... what do you mean?




Just a word about the generalized hatred of the NRA on this thread (full disclosure - I am not a member of the NRA)...

The NRA is a private organization of 4.25 million of your fellow American citizens. Your neighbors, coworkers and friends - mothers, fathers, sisters and brothers. The NRA is an organization made up of citizens who focus on protecting the constitution and educating and training their fellow citizens in gun safety and marksmanship.

It's kind of amazing really... there are roughly as many members of the NRA as there are members of the military (active and reserve) and law enforcement in this country. If the NRA and it's membership were so evil and dangerous or crazy as some people seem to think then our nation would be in a great deal of danger.

Nobody really thinks that the NRA is dangerous. Even if you disagree with them and their positions on defending the second amendment it's not helpful to denigrate the NRA membership. You can't really think they are that bad... because you would never treat a really crazy well armed group so poorly. On some level the bullying name calling shows that people are deeply confident that the NRA and it's membership are not crazy or evil or dangerous.








"When someone asks you 'think about what Jesus would do', remember that a valid option is to freak out and turn over tables" -- Unknown

“I am a Roman Catholic - the one true faith, (the Microsoft of Christianity) and I know Roman Catholicism is the one true faith because Roman Catholicism tells me it’s the one true faith... And if you remember from earlier in this sentence Roman Catholicism is the one true faith – so how could it be wrong?” ~ Stephen Colbert ‘The Word’ 11-28-06

Vocatus atque non vocatus, Deus aderit

scrappower
Allons-y Alonso

PeaNut 174,150
October 2004
Posts: 15,754
Layouts: 0

Posted: 1/17/2013 3:20:47 PM

Nobody really thinks that the NRA is dangerous. Even if you disagree with them and their positions on defending the second amendment it's not helpful to denigrate the NRA membership. You can't really think they are that bad... because you would never treat a really crazy well armed group so poorly. On some level the bullying name calling shows that people are deeply confident that the NRA and it's membership are not crazy or evil or dangerous.


Are you honestly saying that we shouldn't be able to speak out against the NRA? Is my dad who was a member for most of his life not able to either? Since when did this rule come out? And because they are armed we should be scared? Uh no. I have no problem with the members, it is their leadership that sucks.



mapchic
Top Tier Pea

PeaNut 31,157
February 2002
Posts: 12,615
Layouts: 55
Loc: Chicagoland

Posted: 1/17/2013 3:55:44 PM

Are you honestly saying that we shouldn't be able to speak out against the NRA?
I never said that.

I am just saying that bullying and name calling isn't really helpful. If you have specific disagreement with their positions then absolutely speak out.

Bullying, name calling and denigrating your fellow citizens will not help advance the discussion or change the minds of those who you disagree with.




"When someone asks you 'think about what Jesus would do', remember that a valid option is to freak out and turn over tables" -- Unknown

“I am a Roman Catholic - the one true faith, (the Microsoft of Christianity) and I know Roman Catholicism is the one true faith because Roman Catholicism tells me it’s the one true faith... And if you remember from earlier in this sentence Roman Catholicism is the one true faith – so how could it be wrong?” ~ Stephen Colbert ‘The Word’ 11-28-06

Vocatus atque non vocatus, Deus aderit

scrappower
Allons-y Alonso

PeaNut 174,150
October 2004
Posts: 15,754
Layouts: 0

Posted: 1/17/2013 4:30:03 PM
Sorry but I don't see any bullying going on. Shrug. I said how I honestly felt that the NRA has gone the way of PETA. And I stand by that. And they are losing ground with members with their new advertising, press conferences, etc. Many do not stand with the NRA's hardnose tactics and unwillingness to bend at all.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-jim-moran/gun-safety-even-nra-membe_b_2338553.html


This past May, Frank Luntz, noted Republican pollster, conducted a survey of NRA members on gun safety. The results are encouraging, and highlight a large schism between NRA's leadership and the views of its members. According to the poll, NRA members support:

Requiring background checks for every gun purchase (74% NRA member support);
Requiring background checks on gun shop employees (79% NRA member support);
Prohibiting individuals on the terrorist watch list from purchasing firearms (71% NRA member support);
Requiring gun owners to report to police when their guns are lost or stolen (64% NRA member supports); and
Establishing minimum standards for concealed carry permits (63-75% NRA member support for each standard)



Aggiemom92
PeaFixture

PeaNut 90,200
June 2003
Posts: 3,313
Layouts: 2

Posted: 1/17/2013 4:52:21 PM
mapchic,
I hope you read my subsequent posts along with those of Simply Lovely.

However, you provide an excellent example of what I was asking for in your last post.


Some people seem to use the term 'assault weapon' and 'assault rifle' interchangeably. That's a problem. Mostly because Assault Rifle really does have a meaning. . . .


This way of stating the position is much easier for me to listen to with an open mind than statements like, 'those who use the term assault weapon don't have a clue about guns.' (I know it wasn't you that said this particular thing.) See what I was trying to say?



Uploaded with iPhone client

Fraidyscrapper
She calls me a Fun Sucker

PeaNut 38,100
May 2002
Posts: 13,565
Layouts: 0
Loc: Jersey Strong

Posted: 1/17/2013 5:20:44 PM
Mrs_T, I think there is a particular difference between a diffuse threat and a specific one.


"The sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country." - Robert F. Kennedy

Gia LuPeaA
StuckOnPeas

PeaNut 416,889
March 2009
Posts: 2,918
Layouts: 0
Loc: The right place, at the right time.

Posted: 1/17/2013 5:45:53 PM

It fucking disgusting is what it is and anyone who agrees with it is fucking disgusting too.


Kristina, what exactly are you referring to when you say "it"?


Princess of Procrasti Nation.

Glitterati Polka Dotti


mirabelleswalker
My president has 6-pack abs.

PeaNut 175,521
November 2004
Posts: 11,718
Layouts: 14
Loc: Here today, gone to Morocco.

Posted: 1/17/2013 6:52:01 PM
Sidwell Friends does not have 11 armed guards. It does not have any armed guards at all.

Yesterday, Andrew Sullivan printed a letter from a grad of Sidwell Friends who wrote that they don't have armed guards because it is a Quaker School and the Quakers are pacifists.

I wondered if that was still the case, so I referred to my friend Google.


...the online directory for Sidwell Friends lists 11 people as working in the Security Department. Five are listed as "special police officer," while two are listed as "on call special police officer," which presumably means they do not work full-time. The directory also lists two weekend shift supervisors, one security officer and the chief of security...

But we spoke to parents who said they had never seen a guard on campus with a weapon. And Ellis Turner, associate head of Sidwell Friends, told us emphatically: "Sidwell Friends security officers do not carry guns."

Sidwell Friends, by the way, has two distinct campuses, a lower school in Bethesda and a middle and upper schools in Washington. So given shift rotations and three different schools, it appears that the 11 "armed guards" is really just one or two unarmed guards per school at a time.


Thank you, Washington Post.



LBrock44
Equality for ALL

PeaNut 40,268
June 2002
Posts: 11,849
Layouts: 57
Loc: Southern California

Posted: 1/17/2013 7:24:25 PM
word

word

word

word

word


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------





We must learn to live together as brothers or perish together as fools. - Martin Luther King, Jr.

lynlam
Don'tcha wish your girlfriend had spurs like mine?

PeaNut 46,248
August 2002
Posts: 6,800
Layouts: 41
Loc: Ohio

Posted: 1/17/2013 9:18:38 PM
"And yet, this fear that our kids are in danger at school, a fear reinforced by the events at Sandy Hook, is exactly what has the President and others suggesting that we strengthen our gun laws. So which is it? "
-----------

Ding ding ding! Winner winner, chicken dinner!





"We demand entire freedom of action and then expect the government in some miraculous way to save us from the consequences of our own acts... Self-government means self-reliance." Calvin Coolidge

Lynlam, the second-tier Pea, paid (except it appears she is not) political shill.
Uploaded with iPhone client

scrappower
Allons-y Alonso

PeaNut 174,150
October 2004
Posts: 15,754
Layouts: 0

Posted: 1/17/2013 9:22:38 PM

Sidwell Friends does not have 11 armed guards. It does not have any armed guards at all.

Yesterday, Andrew Sullivan printed a letter from a grad of Sidwell Friends who wrote that they don't have armed guards because it is a Quaker School and the Quakers are pacifists.

I wondered if that was still the case, so I referred to my friend Google.

...the online directory for Sidwell Friends lists 11 people as working in the Security Department. Five are listed as "special police officer," while two are listed as "on call special police officer," which presumably means they do not work full-time. The directory also lists two weekend shift supervisors, one security officer and the chief of security...

But we spoke to parents who said they had never seen a guard on campus with a weapon. And Ellis Turner, associate head of Sidwell Friends, told us emphatically: "Sidwell Friends security officers do not carry guns."

Sidwell Friends, by the way, has two distinct campuses, a lower school in Bethesda and a middle and upper schools in Washington. So given shift rotations and three different schools, it appears that the 11 "armed guards" is really just one or two unarmed guards per school at a time.


Thank you, Washington Post.


Interesting. So there are no armed guards there besides the SS for the first children. There goes that argument.



mapchic
Top Tier Pea

PeaNut 31,157
February 2002
Posts: 12,615
Layouts: 55
Loc: Chicagoland

Posted: 1/18/2013 12:47:11 AM

mapchic,
I hope you read my subsequent posts along with those of Simply Lovely.

However, you provide an excellent example of what I was asking for in your last post.


Some people seem to use the term 'assault weapon' and 'assault rifle' interchangeably. That's a problem. Mostly because Assault Rifle really does have a meaning. . . .


This way of stating the position is much easier for me to listen to with an open mind than statements like, 'those who use the term assault weapon don't have a clue about guns.' (I know it wasn't you that said this particular thing.) See what I was trying to say?
I did read your later post. Sorry I didn't read it before I responded. Particularly during the day I tend to respond to posts as I see them and sometimes post after others have already covered things.

It is a bit frustrating that I write paragraphs and paragraphs and really do try and have a respectful discussion on this thread... and those on the other side of the issue don't seem to feel the same obligation.

I do think that it's a bit of a double standard to expect me to be perfectly civil on a thread where people who support gun rights are bullied and called names. Yes, we should always stay respectful and positive in all discussions however I note that you didn't call out any posts like these...


The NRA is a fringe looney group who need minders

NRA, Glenn Beck, PETA....crayyyyyzzzzzyyyyyy


Again, I am not a member of the NRA. I do have friends and family who are members. I can't imagine how people think that attacking the 4.25 million fellow citizens like this because they are defending civil rights is not going to change anyone's mind. Rather, it is likely to harden people's positions because nobody responds well to bullying.




"When someone asks you 'think about what Jesus would do', remember that a valid option is to freak out and turn over tables" -- Unknown

“I am a Roman Catholic - the one true faith, (the Microsoft of Christianity) and I know Roman Catholicism is the one true faith because Roman Catholicism tells me it’s the one true faith... And if you remember from earlier in this sentence Roman Catholicism is the one true faith – so how could it be wrong?” ~ Stephen Colbert ‘The Word’ 11-28-06

Vocatus atque non vocatus, Deus aderit

GrinningCat
Proudly Canadian

PeaNut 43,061
July 2002
Posts: 33,591
Layouts: 2

Posted: 1/18/2013 7:25:11 AM

Again, I am not a member of the NRA. I do have friends and family who are members. I can't imagine how people think that attacking the 4.25 million fellow citizens like this because they are defending civil rights is not going to change anyone's mind. Rather, it is likely to harden people's positions because nobody responds well to bullying.
Who's bullying? The NRA or those who have realised that they are now as relevant as PETA? (and the correct answer includes the NRA, by the way).

Sarah*H
Bring me that horizon!

PeaNut 239,162
December 2005
Posts: 29,196
Layouts: 417
Loc: The final frontier

Posted: 1/18/2013 7:35:39 AM
IMO, the "bullying" claim is ludicrous and demeans people who have been victims of actual bullying. People are allowed to have the opinion that the NRA leadership and publicly stated positions have become fringe positions and that their recent public behavior and statements are "crazy" or as Mika Brzezinski said "sick in the head." Their own internal polling says that the 4+ million strong membership you keep citing does not agree with the leadership so I'm not sure why you keep bringing it up as though it's somehow relevant to whether or not Wayne LaPierre has gone off the rails.



obliolait
PeaAddict

PeaNut 550,788
April 2012
Posts: 1,482
Layouts: 0

Posted: 1/18/2013 7:48:59 AM
the NRA is another example of how conservatives are reactionary twits

Aggiemom92
PeaFixture

PeaNut 90,200
June 2003
Posts: 3,313
Layouts: 2

Posted: 1/18/2013 8:09:22 AM

I do think that it's a bit of a double standard to expect me to be perfectly civil on a thread where people who support gun rights are bullied and called names. Yes, we should always stay respectful and positive in all discussions however I note that you didn't call out any posts like these...


You're totally right, Mapchic. In my mind, I didn't call out posts like those (or the ones that are just so overrun with foul language that I don't know what side of the debate they're on) because I just don't see those types of posts as worth responding to. The people who write those things don't care that they're rude, they're not trying to change minds, they just LIKE the fight. Frankly, I just wasn't talking to them.

I think I just didn't get my message across and I totally see how you feel picked on. I'm truly sorry. I chose a post that I thought made a really good point (or at least it was a new way to look at the issue for me), so that I could say that a lot of people have great ideas if we could leave off the emotional language AND if we could just get past being defensive about that language (here I was admitting that I went on the defensive when I saw the word 'irrational' in relation to an idea that I had). I was trying to encourage both the "writers" and the "listeners" to push past emotion.

Then I quoted a post that I thought was just rude, and tried to say that some of them are just rude. I was hoping that contrast would show the difference between "just rude" and "emotionally charged."

I really am sorry. I'm no good at keeping up with "who's who" on this board. I know who the people that I think are total loons are on this board, and I try to just not respond to them at all. But I chose your one paragraph without putting in the context of your posting history, and so my intentions were lost. I agree that you have been gracious and reasonable and grounded. I agree that you got "called" on one sentence that was pulled out of context (that really wasn't even bad!), and that's not fair.

~*kristina*~
Typical Liberal Pea

PeaNut 55,230
November 2002
Posts: 18,604
Layouts: 106
Loc: Fly Over Country

Posted: 1/18/2013 8:13:18 AM

It fucking disgusting is what it is and anyone who agrees with it is fucking disgusting too.

Kristina, what exactly are you referring to when you say "it"?


Actually that first It should be It's, but let's not get into semantics.

It = the whole freaking ad, the reference to the children, the disrespectful reference to the President, the idea that the President thinks his children are more important that yours and in light of the truth about Sidwell Friends, the lies in the ads.

Hell, Joe Scarborough dropped the f-bomb on air yesterday regarding the ad and now today Governor Christie is calling it "reprehensible".








< 1 2
Show/Hide Icons . Show/Hide Signatures
Hide
{{ title }}
{{ icon }}
{{ body }}
{{ footer }}