Off Topic Messages

NRA

Sat Dec 22, 2012 12:23 am

What a loving, caring group of Nazi's

Re: NRA

Sat Dec 22, 2012 2:22 am

I presume you're referring to their desire to have an armed police officer in every school in the USA and their view that "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."

The article further says "The NRA largely disappeared from public debate after the shootings in Newtown, Connecticut, choosing atypical silence as a strategy as the nation sought answers after the rampage."

Perhaps they should have stayed silent rather than offer up moronic "don't take my toys away!" solutions to a very serious issue.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/ar ... d=10855658

Re: NRA

Sat Dec 22, 2012 2:59 am

KiwiAlan wrote:What a loving, caring group of Nazi's


It certainly seems odd to suggest that the way to deal with armed criminals is to arm the general public !

Re: NRA

Sat Dec 22, 2012 3:00 am

KiwiAlan wrote:What a loving, caring group of Nazi's


Godwin's Law in 1. Pretty good!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

Chris

Re: NRA

Sun Dec 23, 2012 3:05 pm

From Today's Independent on Sunday:

A Pic - 026.JPG
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Re: NRA

Sun Dec 23, 2012 7:53 pm

Matthew wrote:I presume you're referring to their desire to have an armed police officer in every school in the USA and their view that "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."

The article further says "The NRA largely disappeared from public debate after the shootings in Newtown, Connecticut, choosing atypical silence as a strategy as the nation sought answers after the rampage."

Perhaps they should have stayed silent rather than offer up moronic "don't take my toys away!" solutions to a very serious issue.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/ar ... d=10855658


The NRA is probably keeping silent because there is a lot of emotion around and they can't maintain their own position without risking scoring an own goal. In private, they have probably not moved their position one bit. Obama, on the hand, is rightly acting while the momentum is with him. It will be extremely hard for anyone to persuade legisiators to make great changes, but the world's favourite US President will have, at least, a lot of the world behind him again.

Re: NRA

Sun Dec 23, 2012 8:30 pm

The NRA is ran by a bunch of NUTS. They don't care what happened in Conn. There is nothing wrong with people owning guns but why do people need Militaray style guns?? Can you go hunting with them? If a person needs that type of gun to hunt then that person needs to stop hunting.

Re: NRA

Tue Dec 25, 2012 7:03 am

mark wrote:They [NRA] don't care what happened in Conn.

:facep: Surely you don't really mean that.

To disagree with their policies and their stance on the 2nd Amendment is one thing, but to say "they don't care what happened in Connecticut" is unreasonable and pure nonsense.

Re: NRA

Tue Dec 25, 2012 7:10 am

mark wrote:The NRA is ran by a bunch of NUTS. They don't care what happened in Conn. There is nothing wrong with people owning guns but why do people need Military style guns?? Can you go hunting with them? If a person needs that type of gun to hunt then that person needs to stop hunting.


As has been stated on other topics relating to the horrific events in Newtown, it's pretty clear that no average American citizen needs to own weapons of war, such as those which were used in the shooting.

Any organization that supports this idea might well indeed be termed a group that does not care about what happened.

---

Peace on the earth, good will to men
From Heaven’s all gracious King

Re: NRA

Tue Dec 25, 2012 7:45 am

Blue River wrote:
mark wrote:They [NRA] don't care what happened in Conn.

:facep: Surely you don't really mean that.

To disagree with their policies and their stance on the 2nd Amendment is one thing, but to say "they don't care what happened in Connecticut" is unreasonable and pure nonsense.


Ok, to be fair: Wayne LePierre clearly does not care about what happened in Newtown, CT.

Nothing personal to any other NRA members, or gun owners. I think that should be very clear by now. He couldn't even be bothered to have his minions work that hard on his speech, or he might not have made the statement about schools' lack of armed security making kids "defenseless." Because a man named Neil Gardner, a sheriff's deputy in Jefferson County, Colo., was the armed guard assigned to watch Columbine High School who usually ate lunch with the students, so he could be in the school. A real good guy, who carried a gun to protect the students.

This was certainly not the most offensive and callous thing he has said, just perhaps the most ignorant and lame.

Ah, if only every school could be as well-protected by "a good guy with a gun"!

rjm

Re: NRA

Tue Dec 25, 2012 7:57 am

Peace on the earth, good will to men
From Heaven’s all gracious King

For :
Nancy Lanza
Charlotte Bacon, 6
Daniel Barden, 7
Rachel Davino, 29
Olivia Engel, 6
Josephine Gay, 7
Ana Marquez-Greene, 6
Dylan Hockley, 6
Dawn Hochsprung, 47
Madeleine Hsu, 6
Catherine Hubbard, 6
Chase Kowalski, 7
Jesse Lewis, 6
James Mattioli, 6
Grace McDonnell, 7
Anne Marie Murphy, 52
Emilie Parker, 6
Jack Pinto, 6
Noah Pozner, 6
Caroline Previdi, 6
Jessica Rekos, 6
Avielle Richman, 6
Lauren Rousseau, 30
Mary Sherlach, 56
Victoria Soto, 27
Benjamin Wheeler, 6
Allison Wyatt, 6
... and Robin's mom

phpBB [video]

Re: NRA

Tue Dec 25, 2012 8:30 am

Blue River wrote:
Peace on the earth, good will to men
From Heaven’s all gracious King

For :
Nancy Lanza
Charlotte Bacon, 6
Daniel Barden, 7
Rachel Davino, 29
Olivia Engel, 6
Josephine Gay, 7
Ana Marquez-Greene, 6
Dylan Hockley, 6
Dawn Hochsprung, 47
Madeleine Hsu, 6
Catherine Hubbard, 6
Chase Kowalski, 7
Jesse Lewis, 6
James Mattioli, 6
Grace McDonnell, 7
Anne Marie Murphy, 52
Emilie Parker, 6
Jack Pinto, 6
Noah Pozner, 6
Caroline Previdi, 6
Jessica Rekos, 6
Avielle Richman, 6
Lauren Rousseau, 30
Mary Sherlach, 56
Victoria Soto, 27
Benjamin Wheeler, 6
Allison Wyatt, 6
... and Robin's mom

phpBB [video]



Thank you, Blue. Outta my heart. Have a very Merry Christmas!

Robin

Re: NRA

Tue Dec 25, 2012 8:52 am

Blue River wrote:
mark wrote:They [NRA] don't care what happened in Conn.

:facep: Surely you don't really mean that.

To disagree with their policies and their stance on the 2nd Amendment is one thing, but to say "they don't care what happened in Connecticut" is unreasonable and pure nonsense.

Wayne LePierre speaks for the NRA so far i have never saw a NRA member say that he was wrong.
I haved own rifles and shot guns but i saw no need to get a military style weapon

Re: NRA

Thu Dec 27, 2012 2:51 am

Blue River wrote:
mark wrote:They [NRA] don't care what happened in Conn.

:facep: Surely you don't really mean that.

To disagree with their policies and their stance on the 2nd Amendment is one thing, but to say "they don't care what happened in Connecticut" is unreasonable and pure nonsense.


They want all schools to have armed guards. They want all kids to go to school and see those armed guards every day, thus teaching those kids that violence is the answer to threatening behaviour.

To someone who was only earlier today saying that religion teaches us right and wrong, how can you as a religious man say that is right?

The right thing to do would be to restrict weapons to those who need them and to the type of weapon they need, and to put in place help for those who need it - and therefore let kids grow up in an environment which teaches them about the good in humankind and not remind them every day of the bad.

Re: NRA

Thu Dec 27, 2012 3:37 am

poormadpeter wrote:
They want all schools to have armed guards. They want all kids to go to school and see those armed guards every day, thus teaching those kids that violence is the answer to threatening behaviour.

The right thing to do would be to restrict weapons to those who need them and to the type of weapon they need, and to put in place help for those who need it - and therefore let kids grow up in an environment which teaches them about the good in humankind and not remind them every day of the bad.



The right thing to do would be to make sure (as sure as possible) that the mentally ill don't have access
to weapons. But that is nearly an impossible task.

I totally disagree about the armed guards at school. I believe that many of the children would pay no mind
to whether a security guard was armed or not. And to those that did, it might comfort them to know that
they were there for their safety. I would imagine the parents of the children would be comforted too.

Some weapons should be banned, but that won't solve the problem. It's all too easy to illegally purchase large
magazines for any type of weapon. Or even make or alter a magazine to make it high capacity. What could
and should be done is for the laws that are already on the books to be enforced.

I'm not a member of the NRA, but there are many good American Citizens who are. Some of them are part
of my family. So I wish you guys would consider such when you're calling them the names you choose to use.

Re: NRA

Thu Dec 27, 2012 3:48 am

poormadpeter wrote:
Blue River wrote:
mark wrote:They [NRA] don't care what happened in Conn.

Surely you don't really mean that.
To disagree with their policies and their stance on the 2nd Amendment is one thing, but to say "they don't care what happened in Connecticut" is unreasonable and pure nonsense.

They want all schools to have armed guards. They want all kids to go to school and see those armed guards every day, thus teaching those kids that violence is the answer to threatening behaviour.

:roll: Oh really... is that what it would teach them? Geeezz.
And I was actually naive enough to think it would teach them that protection is the answer to violent, threatening behaviour.



poormadpeter wrote: To someone who was only earlier today saying that religion teaches us right and wrong, how can you as a religious man say that is right?

I never said that "religion" teaches right and wrong. And I am not a "religious" man and haven't claimed to be.
You've taken what I wrote on a different thread (now deleted) totally out of context... but hey, that's what you do. :smt023

:facep: Where, oh where, do you get your way of thinking from? Don't answer that... I really don't want to know.
Last edited by Blue River on Thu Dec 27, 2012 4:11 am, edited 3 times in total.

Re: NRA

Thu Dec 27, 2012 3:50 am

Anyone who thinks an armed officer in EVERY school is a reasonable idea is a complete moron. How do you like them apples?

Re: NRA

Thu Dec 27, 2012 3:58 am

Matthew wrote:Anyone who thinks an armed officer in EVERY school is a reasonable idea is a complete moron. How do you like them apples?

I don't even think that's necessarily the answer, Matthew, but I certainly don't think a couple of armed guards in some particular schools is a bad idea.
Last edited by Blue River on Thu Dec 27, 2012 3:59 am, edited 1 time in total.

Re: NRA

Thu Dec 27, 2012 3:58 am

I'm quite interested how the NRA will respond when one of the armed guards carries out a massacre in a school they have been protecting.

Re: NRA

Thu Dec 27, 2012 4:05 am

poormadpeter wrote:I'm quite interested how the NRA will respond when one of the armed guards carries out a massacre in a school they have been protecting.

Of course that's a possibility, but what's to stop a disgruntled police officer on the streets from going into any school and shooting?

What's to stop a disgruntled off-duty military man from going into a school and shooting?

Etc... etc... etc... etc.

Re: NRA

Thu Dec 27, 2012 4:26 am

Blue River wrote:
Matthew wrote:Anyone who thinks an armed officer in EVERY school is a reasonable idea is a complete moron. How do you like them apples?

I don't even think that's necessarily the answer, Matthew, but I certainly don't think a couple of armed guards in some particular schools is a bad idea.

'Some schools' isn't the proposal though, 'all schools' is.

Re: NRA

Thu Dec 27, 2012 4:59 am

Blue River wrote:
poormadpeter wrote:I'm quite interested how the NRA will respond when one of the armed guards carries out a massacre in a school they have been protecting.

Of course that's a possibility, but what's to stop a disgruntled police officer on the streets from going into any school and shooting?

What's to stop a disgruntled off-duty military man from going into a school and shooting?

Etc... etc... etc... etc.


You miss my point. The armed guards will already be on the school premises, presumably at the doors of the school. They have access to the building without any questions whatsoever. A policeman or military would, hopefully, normally not have such access without questions as to who they wanted to see and why.

Re: NRA

Thu Dec 27, 2012 8:03 am

Going to school shouldn't be akin to military experience. And has been experienced in many schools, the wrath of those armed guards goes not on intruders entering the school, but upon the students themselves. No more talk to the principal, if you act you get a full styled police interrogation, and maybe tossed around for good measure.

From the death penalty on down, the use of violence to suppress violence does indeed reinforce the lesson that the answer to problems is violence.

The infuriating thing about the NRA's stance is that in the week before they made their statement, a majority of actual NRA members and gun owners were stating their support for stricter measures in regards to access to automated weapons. Unfortunately, the NRA is now a lobbying wing of gun manufacturers and don't give a damn what the American people or those owner members want.

Re: NRA

Thu Dec 27, 2012 9:18 am

poormadpeter wrote:
Blue River wrote:
poormadpeter wrote:I'm quite interested how the NRA will respond when one of the armed guards carries out a massacre in a school they have been protecting.

Of course that's a possibility, but what's to stop a disgruntled police officer on the streets from going into any school and shooting?
What's to stop a disgruntled off-duty military man from going into a school and shooting? Etc... etc... etc... etc.

You miss my point. The armed guards will already be on the school premises, presumably at the doors of the school. They have access to the building without any questions whatsoever. A policeman or military would, hopefully, normally not have such access without questions as to who they wanted to see and why.

Your reasoning is delusional at best. Adam Lanza entered the school building without any questions whatsoever. He forced his way in.

An armed street officer or an armed military man out to kill someone (or several) wouldn't stop at a door or gate to answer questions. They could/would simply force their way in just like the Sandy Hook murderer did.

Re: NRA

Thu Dec 27, 2012 11:17 am

likethebike wrote:From the death penalty on down, the use of violence to suppress violence does indeed reinforce the lesson that the answer to problems is violence.

"Violence"... one side is offensive where there are innocent victims, the other side is defensive to protect the innocent before they become victims.

The difference is as opposite as night and day.