| |
 aslan PeaFixture PeaNut 138,465 March 2004 Posts: 3,675 Layouts: 28 Loc: South East
 | Posted: 1/17/2013 8:21:49 AM
don't think the NRA has cornered the market on this. This seems to be true of many (I might even go so far as to say most) groups now. As well as individuals. Those ridiculous annotated pics (right now I'm thinking of the one that juxtaposes a pic with Hitler surrounded by kids with one of Obama surrounded by kids) that go all over Facebook rely on people thinking emotionally rather than rationally. Sadly, this is the way it's done these days.
I agree. That Hitler/Obama picture is disgusting and relies totally upon an emotional response. I get so mad when it shows up on my feed, and I want to take to task the people who are posting it.
I would have to say, though, that the President surrounded by children was intended in the same way. An image that would have emotional impact, and there are certainly people who are looking at those sweet faces and seeing the President doing "something", yet are not actually taking the time to thoughtfully and rationally examine exactly what that "something" is and what its true impact upon the problem will be. |
"Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions."
- G.K. Chesterton
| |
|
|
 TinaFB the lunatics have taken over the asylum PeaNut 25,135 November 2001 Posts: 25,721 Layouts: 349 Loc: Maryland
 | Posted: 1/17/2013 8:22:39 AM
Wait, didn't Obama call for up to 1,000 more school resource officers yesterday? What are we arguing about?
|
|
|
 ~*kristina*~ Typical Liberal Pea PeaNut 55,230 November 2002 Posts: 17,552 Layouts: 106 Loc: Hawkeye Nation
 | Posted: 1/17/2013 8:24:01 AM
I don't care if my school has guns or not. I'd prefer not, but whatever they decide, I'll be fine. I sure as shit don't think my kids are in danger like the Obama kid, or the Bush kids, or Chelsea, or any of them.
Yep....I would prefer they not have them and in my school district they won't, at least not in the time that we have left in high school.
I definitely have to agree with poster about the conniption fit the right and Fox News would have had if this ad would have come out with the Bush girls on it. This would be a 10 page thread about the evil liberals and their media. In fact, I'm quite sure the right would be salivating over it.  |
|
|
 TinaFB the lunatics have taken over the asylum PeaNut 25,135 November 2001 Posts: 25,721 Layouts: 349 Loc: Maryland
 | Posted: 1/17/2013 8:28:08 AM
So this is what the president is doing:
*Take executive action to provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers: COPS Hiring Grants, which help police departments hire officers, can already be used by departments to fund school resource officers. This year, the Department of Justice will provide an incentive for police departments to hire these officers by providing a preference for grant applications that support school resource officers.
*Put up to 1,000 new school resource officers and school counselors on the job: The Administration is proposing a new Comprehensive School Safety program, which will help school districts hire staff and make other critical investments in school safety. The program will give $150 million to school districts and law enforcement agencies to hire school resource officers, school psychologists, social workers, and counselors. The Department of Justice will also develop a model for using school resource officers, including best practices on age-appropriate methods for working with students.
This is what you guys and the NRA wanted! How is this evidence of him doing nothing? |
|
|
 scrappower Allons-y Alonso PeaNut 174,150 October 2004 Posts: 13,202 Layouts: 0
 | |
 WannaPea No Peas for you ! Come back one year! PeaNut 151,172 June 2004 Posts: 26,941 Layouts: 175 Loc: In my PJ's
 | Posted: 1/17/2013 8:29:31 AM
This is what you guys and the NRA wanted! How is this evidence of him doing nothing?
It just....it just.....it just IS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Heaven forbid someone would admit he did something they wanted him to do. |
Cop's wife - Mom to one
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." ~ Delos B. McKown
 | |
|
|
 ~*kristina*~ Typical Liberal Pea PeaNut 55,230 November 2002 Posts: 17,552 Layouts: 106 Loc: Hawkeye Nation
 | Posted: 1/17/2013 8:37:01 AM
It just....it just.....it just IS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Heaven forbid someone would admit he did something they wanted him to do.
You must be joking..... |
|
|
 Fraidyscrapper Serious Interlocutor PeaNut 38,100 May 2002 Posts: 12,525 Layouts: 0 Loc: Jersey Strong
 | Posted: 1/17/2013 8:46:01 AM
His girls have always attended private schools that hire armed guards for protection (besides the secret service they are absolutely entitled to have because of their father's position). Yet he thinks the rest of America's children should be in gun-free schools? Yes, that's elitist, and yes, President Obama is very hypocritical on the issue.
I'm sorry. I have read this sentiment three times now on this thread and it still makes no damn sense. I can see the "gun-free school zone" sign from my window, yet our three SRO's are all packing weapons. The zone does not extend to law enforcement officers. Whoever said it did? Or is there some other meaning to this that I am missing? There must be, because what I am understanding no one would be suggesting. |
| "The sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country." - Robert F. Kennedy | |
|
|
 aslan PeaFixture PeaNut 138,465 March 2004 Posts: 3,675 Layouts: 28 Loc: South East
 | Posted: 1/17/2013 8:48:47 AM
There are nearly 99,000 public schools in our country. !,000 SRO's is a start, I suppose. |
"Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions."
- G.K. Chesterton
| |
|
|
 Simply_Lovely PeaFixture PeaNut 463,295 April 2010 Posts: 3,449 Layouts: 3 Loc: New York City
 | Posted: 1/17/2013 8:54:11 AM
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.
Mapchic has been nothing but polite and rational in all the gun arguments we had here. She never lost her cool and constantly replied with detailed facts and descriptions. In fact the post you quoted is the most "rude" she has ever been, and I would not deem that rude by any standards. What you have to understand is that after multiple threads it becomes aggravating to argue with people who unfortunately do not know anything about guns. So, no, we don't know what you mean by an "assault weapon."
Someone here yesterday called for a ban on "automatic assault weapons." Ummm...what the hell are those? And, ummmm.....assault weapons have been banned a long time ago. Do you mean the infamous AR-15? Because Mapchic has shown a comparison between that and a rifle with a wood handle that looks a lot less scary but packs the same power, and yet people keep saying "hunting rifles are OK, but the AR-15 is not." Why is one OK and one isn't? They don't know. Why are handguns OK, when some handguns are more powerful than some rifles and hold more bullets? They don't know. They just want something banned. It's frustrating.
It's like arguing about early term abortion, for example, when one party doesn't know how babies are made!! Could you really have a meaningful discussion abortion discussion with someone who doesn't understand about sperm and eggs and fetus formation? No, you can't. This is the same situation. How can you advocate bans of a category of weapons when you don't know the difference between auto, semi-auto, handgun v. pistol, rifle v. shotgun, etc. Mapchic has been amazing about trying to educate about this, and it gets ignored. And Aggie, nobody said you were stupid, they said you don't know anything about guns. Calling you stupid would be saying "you don't know anything!" If someone says I don't know anything about black holes and dark matter, they are not calling me stupid, they are stating a fact. It's OK to not know some things, I can't know everything. But I also don't debate black holes and dark matter, and if I did, and got called out on my lack of knowledge of the particular subject matter, I certainly wouldn't be offended. I'd ask to be educated on the matter. |
Meow! | |
|
|
 Aggiemom92 StuckOnPeas PeaNut 90,200 June 2003 Posts: 2,759 Layouts: 2
 | Posted: 1/17/2013 9:08:39 AM
the President surrounded by children was intended in the same way.
Agreed, and while it's not really better, I guess I just don't notice the images that are meant to illicit a positive emotional response as much as those that are meant to incite fear/anger. But, you are right.
Mapchic has been nothing but polite and rational in all the gun arguments we had here. She never lost her cool and constantly replied with detailed facts and descriptions. In fact the post you quoted is the most "rude" she has ever been, and I would not deem that rude by any standards.
Ugh, I didn't say she was rude. In fact, I specifically said that I wasn't meaning to pick on her personally, it was just a clear example of my point. And I also said that I totally do that as well. I was just trying to say that the collective we have gotten in the habit of arguing with negativity towards the PERSON we're arguing against instead of the argument itself. It was meant as a general observation about the general discourse these days. I am sorry I quoted a generally nice person though. (How many times can I use a version of "general" in one paragraph?)
Frankly, I didn't quote any of the people I think are REALLY rude because, well, they're just rude (consistent foul language and name calling). There were some real doozies up thread that I didn't evan want to dignify by responding to. I guess I feel like there's no hope for some people, but people like Mapchic ARE reasonable. Does that make any sense?
And Aggie, nobody said you were stupid, they said you don't know anything about guns. Calling you stupid would be saying "you don't know anything!" If someone says I don't know anything about black holes and dark matter, they are not calling me stupid, they are stating a fact.
I'm sorry, when you use a phrase like "people who use the term 'assault weapon' don't have a clue about guns in general" (I know that's not exact), it's rude, and is interpreted by ME as you calling me stupid. If you say something like, "I think there's some misunderstanding here about the term 'assault weapon,'" that might be equivalent to saying I don't know anything about black holes. But a phrase like "you don't have a clue" is EMOTIONAL. The point of my post was about using emotional vs. rational language. Besides, I do have "a clue" about guns. I may not be an expert, and I may use the wrong term for what I mean, but I do know more about guns that I do about black holes.
I swear every time myself quoted in purple I stress out!
 | |
|
 shannoninkc PeaAddict PeaNut 304,038 March 2007 Posts: 1,374 Layouts: 0 Loc: Where you vacation.
 | Posted: 1/17/2013 9:14:58 AM
No, I do not think parents who want their children protected are delusional, but to think your kids have the same chance of being gunned down.....I don't think so. So that ad from the NRC to me, is over the top and intended to divide this country just a little more, cause that is what we need right now.
Random shoot outs, are just that random shoot outs. The president's children are targets.
That was my only point, I don't care to argue how to solve this problem, I don't have the answers. | |
|
 gottapeanow Full of faith pea PeaNut 79,417 April 2003 Posts: 9,904 Layouts: 57 Loc: Phoenix area
 | Posted: 1/17/2013 9:26:25 AM
I guess we're even.. I find most of your comments disgusting. I stand my statement.
ETA: to correct typo
Finding comments disgusting is one thing. Vulgar language is another. Have it, Kristina.
Btw, there was still a typo in your "corrected" post.
Lisa | |
|
 aslan PeaFixture PeaNut 138,465 March 2004 Posts: 3,675 Layouts: 28 Loc: South East
 | Posted: 1/17/2013 9:26:26 AM
No, I do not think parents who want their children protected are delusional, but to think your kids have the same chance of being gunned down.....I don't think so.
Given the number of school shootings, the number of shootings planned but foiled, vs. the number of attempts on the lives of any First Family, it could be argued that that our kids have a better chance of being gunned down. |
"Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions."
- G.K. Chesterton
| |
|
|
 tserenity BucketHead PeaNut 397,621 October 2008 Posts: 523 Layouts: 0
 | Posted: 1/17/2013 9:27:24 AM
No, I do not think parents who want their children protected are delusional, but to think your kids have the same chance of being gunned down.....I don't think so. So that ad from the NRC to me, is over the top and intended to divide this country just a little more, cause that is what we need right now.
Random shoot outs, are just that random shoot outs. The president's children are targets.
That was my only point, I don't care to argue how to solve this problem, I don't have the answers.
I don't mean to pick on you, but you said delusional...your words...As for random? I don't think any shooting is random...I think the climate we live in today, means to be smart, you take the action needed to protect your loved ones...armed 'whatever word makes you feel better'..guard, liason, whatever...I think every child is entitled to be educated in as safe as an environment as physically possible and if that means a few armed individuals who are already within the school, then so be it. My whole point is basically that I don't think most of those who are so against guns and all they entail, think beyond their immediate small world...they for whatever reason, don't hink about the world we live in as a whole...no sugarcoating needed for me...I get it, I wish more did. |
|
|
 scrappower Allons-y Alonso PeaNut 174,150 October 2004 Posts: 13,202 Layouts: 0
 | Posted: 1/17/2013 9:30:06 AM
Given the number of school shootings, the number of shootings planned but foiled, vs. the number of attempts on the lives of any First Family, it could be argued that that our kids have a better chance of being gunned down.
You cannot honestly say that though. I am sure they don't exactly advertise attempts made towards the First Family that were thwarted. They do tend to keep stuff like that quiet and for good reason. |

Blessed Be! | |
|
|
 tamhugh Ancient Ancestor of Pea PeaNut 12,875 March 2001 Posts: 7,950 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 PeaFixture PeaNut 463,295 April 2010 Posts: 3,449 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! | |
|
|
 aslan PeaFixture PeaNut 138,465 March 2004 Posts: 3,675 Layouts: 28 Loc: South East
 | Posted: 1/17/2013 9:38:13 AM
You cannot honestly say that though. I am sure they don't exactly advertise attempts made towards the First Family that were thwarted. They do tend to keep stuff like that quiet and for good reason.
You are right, but since neither of us knows for sure how many attempts are made or thwarted, I guess neither of us can argue the point either way. Fair enough? |
"Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions."
- G.K. Chesterton
| |
|
|
 Nightowl scrapper Intl Assoc of Epic Length Posters - USA Chapter PeaNut 103,889 August 2003 Posts: 24,976 Layouts: 0 Loc: Colorado
 | Posted: 1/17/2013 9:41:22 AM
My whole point is basically that I don't think most of those who are so against guns and all they entail, think beyond their immediate small world...they for whatever reason, don't hink about the world we live in as a whole...
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.
And people responded with (these are not exact, but the TYPE of responses) "well, my husband shot 5 coyotes this week on our cattle ranch" "I'm a pretty accomplished skeet shooter" and "we're 25 miles from the nearest sheriff substation". those responses were considerably more polite and restrained than was deserved by the people snarling epithets about the crazy wingnut gun owners.
It's one thing to not want a firearm for yourself, to feel no need or desire. But to be totally oblivious that people in this country either have a daily need or desire (hobby) for firearms shows an amazing ignorance of the population of one's own country.
And I saw people maligning gun owners as wingnuts, 'having a love affair with guns', hillbillies, and the like. Gun rights advocates are still being occasionally accused of being just fine with schoolchildren being massacred, and gun manufacturers described as being content that massacres are just a cost of doing business.
Can't imagine why national discourse on the subject is a challenge.
 |
"Until you put a thought into words, clearly and precisely, it is not a thought at all. It is a kind of fog rolling around inside the skull."
| |
|
|
 scrappinghappy Ancient Ancestor of Pea PeaNut 38,979 May 2002 Posts: 5,357 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. |
|
|
 Kelpea In a HapPea Place PeaNut 176,832 November 2004 Posts: 12,326 Layouts: 2 Loc: gone to chemo with BethAnne
 | 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 StuckOnPeas PeaNut 90,200 June 2003 Posts: 2,759 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: 25,721 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. |
|
|
 ~*kristina*~ Typical Liberal Pea PeaNut 55,230 November 2002 Posts: 17,552 Layouts: 106 Loc: Hawkeye Nation
 | 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.
|
|
|
 aslan PeaFixture PeaNut 138,465 March 2004 Posts: 3,675 Layouts: 28 Loc: South East
 | Posted: 1/17/2013 10:40:27 AM
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.
The first amendment guarantees us the right to free speech and the right to religious freedom. Do you believe that citizens must demonstrate a necessity to worship freely or to publish an article or a book, and then be licensed by the state before doing so? |
"Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions."
- G.K. Chesterton
| |
|
|
 doesitmatter? AncestralPea PeaNut 509,811 May 2011 Posts: 4,894 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 <>< | |
|
|
 mapchic Top Tier Pea PeaNut 31,157 February 2002 Posts: 12,233 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: 13,202 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. |

Blessed Be! | |
|
|
 mapchic Top Tier Pea PeaNut 31,157 February 2002 Posts: 12,233 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 | |
|
|
 Mrs_Tyler Sorting Laundry PeaNut 197,836 March 2005 Posts: 24,217 Layouts: 246 Loc: Enjoying the humid continental climate zone.
 | Posted: 1/17/2013 3:56:59 PM
The President kids are not more important then mine but they are way more in danger them mine .
I think the many school shootings have proved this to be inaccurate.
Obviously our public schools are not always safe and regular children of non- politicians and non-celebrities have repeatedly been targets and victims. If our schools are safe and we aren't in need of armed protection for our kids and our kids rent targets for gun violence, then the entire discussion regarding gun violence in schools is unfounded. Yet the president used the tragedy at Sandy Hook as his reason behind the 23 Executive Orders about gun control. Either our public schools are safe and our kids aren't targets and we don't need 23 executive orders regarding gun control or they aren't safe and our kids are targets nod we need better protection for our kids. So which is it? | |
|
 scrappower Allons-y Alonso PeaNut 174,150 October 2004 Posts: 13,202 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)
|

Blessed Be! | |
|
|
 Aggiemom92 StuckOnPeas PeaNut 90,200 June 2003 Posts: 2,759 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?
|
|
|
 Fraidyscrapper Serious Interlocutor PeaNut 38,100 May 2002 Posts: 12,525 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: 2,625 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. | |
|
|
 mirabelleswalker My president has 6-pack abs. PeaNut 175,521 November 2004 Posts: 11,026 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. |
|
|
 Mrs_Tyler Sorting Laundry PeaNut 197,836 March 2005 Posts: 24,217 Layouts: 246 Loc: Enjoying the humid continental climate zone.
 | Posted: 1/17/2013 6:53:42 PM
It just....it just.....it just IS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Heaven forbid someone would admit he did something they wanted him to do.
Interesting since I said I was happy to see that list of fluff executive orders.
Nope, no Robles reading around here. | |
|
 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: 6,397 Layouts: 41 Loc: Ohio
 | |
 scrappower Allons-y Alonso PeaNut 174,150 October 2004 Posts: 13,202 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. |

Blessed Be! | |
|
|
 mapchic Top Tier Pea PeaNut 31,157 February 2002 Posts: 12,233 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: 31,773 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: 27,943 Layouts: 413 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 BucketHead PeaNut 550,788 April 2012 Posts: 869 Layouts: 0
 | Posted: 1/18/2013 7:48:59 AM
the NRA is another example of how conservatives are reactionary twits | |
|
 Aggiemom92 StuckOnPeas PeaNut 90,200 June 2003 Posts: 2,759 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: 17,552 Layouts: 106 Loc: Hawkeye Nation
 | 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".
|
|
|