Skip to main content

View Diary: Why the NRA Really Hates Background Checks (230 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Nothing sloppy about the way I phrased it. (0+ / 0-)

    And Obama did propose an AWB.
    "Obama Calls for Assault Weapons Ban, background checks"--USAToday 1/16/13

    Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

    by FrankRose on Fri Apr 26, 2013 at 05:37:51 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Oh, I know it's on purpose. (7+ / 0-)

      I'm not an idiot, so the necessity to phrase it that way is apparent.  Saying that Diane Feinstein is proposing to halt sales of a a kind of gun doesn't scare up panic. Saying the black guy is banning all guns does.  So you get as close to the latter as you can.  And by "you" I mean the NRA, because that's where you get all your rhetoric.  In a VERY grassroots way, you repeat the exact words.

      That's not even "gun control". It's more like "massacre control".

      by Inland on Fri Apr 26, 2013 at 05:46:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Any ban drums up sales. (0+ / 0-)

        And Obama did propose a ban. I even gave you a news story to educate you.

        Strange that you don't think that Obama isn't the leader of his party. Why do you think so little of him?

        Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

        by FrankRose on Fri Apr 26, 2013 at 06:05:50 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  So does the election of a scary black man. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          tytalus, poco

          As was noted to you before.

          Seems to me that the common thread is people who are fearmongering for their own purpose.  There's a reason why you and the RKBA types on daily kos throw around terms that implicitly or explicitly play into people's fears that Obama's going to take your guns; the false statements are carefully crafted to be regurgitated by th people who ate them up with a spoon.

           Strange that you don't think that Obama isn't the leader of his party. Why do you think so little of him?
          I don't think he'll take it personally; the people who think Obama is supremely powerful are mostly those in the grips of the right wing fever dream about black helicopters and stockpiling to shoot cops.

          That's not even "gun control". It's more like "massacre control".

          by Inland on Fri Apr 26, 2013 at 07:44:40 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  How does race play into it? (0+ / 0-)

            Obama proposed a ban; gun sales shot way up.
            It looks to me (and by any reasonable person) that it was the threatened ban that drove sales.

            "fearmongering"
            How so? It isn't me whom is insisting on banning an object (an object used in less than half the murders that bare hands are).

            "play into people's fears that Obama's going to take your guns."
            I never said that. I said "ban guns", which is exactly what the 'assault weapons ban' is designed to do. Hence the word 'ban'. There is nothing false in that statement. The name of the bill says it all, no 'crafting' required on my part.

            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

            by FrankRose on Fri Apr 26, 2013 at 07:58:11 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Obama elected, gun sales shot up. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              poco

              I think, as a person who is closer to those who are purchasing the guns, could tell me how race plays into it.   It can't be a gun ban, unless someone was telling people what Obama would ban guns, even though he had shown no interest in guns whatsoever...besides allowing them in national parks....before the Sandy Hook massacre.

              So you tell me what people in your neck of the woods were being told.  Either way, it's the fearmongering I was speaking of.

              "play into people's fears that Obama's going to take your guns."
               I never said that. I said "ban guns",
              There IS something false in your statement: it's a false implication that would fool a weakminded individual who isn't around someone who clarifies it for you.

              I don't expect you to change: the confusion is purposefully meant to fearmonger.

              That's not even "gun control". It's more like "massacre control".

              by Inland on Fri Apr 26, 2013 at 08:08:33 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Obama pushed for gun control while in Illinois (0+ / 0-)

                Thus, he had shown interest in gun control.

                I didn't think that he would push for gun control as Pres. I told people that thought Obama would push for gun control that they were wrong.
                They weren't.

                Again 'assault weapons ban'. It is telling that you are unable to concede exactly what it's purpose is. Describing the purpose of a bill isn't 'fearmongering'.
                 Banning an object used in less than half the murders that bare hands are is.

                Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                by FrankRose on Fri Apr 26, 2013 at 08:16:53 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Was that what the NRA was saying? (0+ / 0-)

                  I think we can skip the part of it not being true, and just go straight to what people are being told.

                  Again 'assault weapons ban'. It is telling that you are unable to concede exactly what it's purpose is
                  To ban further sales.  Notably, no guns are actually banned by the AWB. So don't give me any shit about being accurate.

                  Notably, you make sure you don't say "AWB", because it's not scary enough even thought it's more accurate and easier to type than "ban guns".

                  That's not even "gun control". It's more like "massacre control".

                  by Inland on Fri Apr 26, 2013 at 08:24:25 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  It is what Obama said. (0+ / 0-)

                    So why don't we NOT skip it.

                    How is banning the manufacture of a gun not a 'ban'?
                    Again, there is a reason why it is called the 'assault weapons ban.

                    There is a reason why you find simply the name of the bill & what it is designed to do so distasteful.
                    It's not my words, it is the bill itself.

                    Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                    by FrankRose on Fri Apr 26, 2013 at 08:56:34 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Oh, the victims of fearmongering would say so. (0+ / 0-)
                      Q: Is the D.C. law prohibiting ownership of handguns consistent with an individual’s right to bear arms?
                      A: As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can’t constrain the exercise of that right, in the same way that we have a right to private property but local governments can establish zoning ordinances that determine how you can use it.
                      Of course, someone who has been softened up by fearmongering, there's all sorts of alarm bells going off.  Because there's plenty of people, including you, who are equating any gun control with a gun ban.  For example"
                      How is banning the manufacture of a gun not a 'ban'?
                      It's not a "gun ban" because nobody's gun is banned or taken; all the guns in existence continue to be in existence, in use, legally.  I still have conventional light bulbs and Freon, because they aren't banned.

                      But for you, a statement like "Nobody is trying to take your guns away" isn't very scary.  "Nobody is going to be able to buy these guns in the future" isn't very scary.  "Obama's banning guns" is scary.

                       

                      That's not even "gun control". It's more like "massacre control".

                      by Inland on Fri Apr 26, 2013 at 09:09:20 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Yes, however could Obama's votes to ban guns (0+ / 0-)

                        lead people to think that he would try to....ya know.....ban guns.

                        I assume that in light of hard evidence that Obama did vote for gun bans, you now understand the small uptick in gun purchases after he was first elected....and, of course the huge uptick in gun purchases after he specifically proposed the AWB.

                        I'm glad I could help, however may I suggest that you use Google before wrongly accusing someone of saying something untrue?

                        Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                        by FrankRose on Fri Apr 26, 2013 at 09:23:26 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  There were Obama votes to ban guns. (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          coquiero, poco

                          But someone posting it as if it were true might...ya know...make someone think otherwise.  Particularly if you had softened them up by feeding them scary stuff.

                          Here's Obama's vote, from your link:

                          Obama voted for a bill in the Illinois senate that allowed retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed weapons
                          But then again, you're still not acknowledging that the Assault Weapons Ban wouldn't take away anyone's guns, either, and we all know why:  it's not scary so you aren't interested.  Anything that pulls a thread on the sweater of fear and ignorance knitted by the NRA has to be avoided.

                          That's not even "gun control". It's more like "massacre control".

                          by Inland on Fri Apr 26, 2013 at 09:39:22 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Did you miss the part of the link where Obama (0+ / 0-)

                            said that he would support legislation to ban the manufacture, sale & possession of handguns?
                            Don't worry I can post it again.

                            I never said that the assault weapons ban would lead to confiscation.

                            "ignorance"
                            So says somebody whom just learned of Obama's gun control history (after, so confidently, calling it 'untrue').
                            Irony.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Fri Apr 26, 2013 at 09:48:13 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  So you didn't mean "vote". (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            coquiero, poco

                            Can I ask how the discussions go where your word choice isnt challenged?  Because I'm convinced that the point is to confirm the fears of simpletons.

                            That's not even "gun control". It's more like "massacre control".

                            by Inland on Fri Apr 26, 2013 at 10:38:01 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Oh. Only votes....not reasonable causes to believe (0+ / 0-)

                            Obama would ban guns (which was the entire basis of this discussion)

                            I can do that for you

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Fri Apr 26, 2013 at 11:57:33 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Now, when you say "ban guns", do you mean (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            coquiero, poco

                            ban SOME guns, like automatic weapons?  Or ban the sale of some guns?  Or confiscate guns?

                            Because unlike people who are willing to assume the worst because they're fed constant streams of guff, I need to find out just how thin you intend to slice your baloney.  

                            Why is that important?  Because you're not going to succeed in getting most people outraged by the AWB or expanded background checks.  People have heard all the arguments and are either supportive or overwhelmingly supportive of the proposals actually made.

                            You have to set up a strawman to scare people and get them to buy more guns, either in fear of confiscation or the ultimate bullshit of defending against tyranny.

                            Whenever you're trying to do something the NRA doesn't do, so that you can have some support for your faux outrage at a question of whether you're a member or help it out, feel free to mark it for us.

                            That's not even "gun control". It's more like "massacre control".

                            by Inland on Fri Apr 26, 2013 at 12:22:37 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Automatic weapons are already highly regulated (0+ / 0-)

                            and isn't covered by the AWB.

                            By 'ban guns' I mean 'ban guns'. This is exactly what the AWB does, it even says so in its name.
                            As much as you want to 'poo-poo' deciding what liberties other Americans can have, your fear of an object doesn't surpass their liberty.

                            Your shameless distrust of your fellow citizens & paranoia of their liberties has already failed. Spectacularly. Again.

                            Now all that remains is the election.
                            And the results will belong to you & your fellow gun controllers.
                            It's all yours.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Fri Apr 26, 2013 at 05:12:29 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Just as much as the ban on automatics "bans guns" (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            coquiero, TheFern

                            Now, when you say "poo pooing liberty" are you including the liberty to have automatics, or are you also in favor of banning guns?   Either you're a nut, or you can give the rhetoric a rest.

                            As for my trust of citizens, ninety per cent want an increase in background checks.  And a majority of NRA members. Their judgment seems sound and your rhetoric does not.

                            That's not even "gun control". It's more like "massacre control".

                            by Inland on Fri Apr 26, 2013 at 05:35:23 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Oh yeah....obviously 90% supported the B/C plan. (0+ / 0-)

                            Just look at how well it worked out.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Fri Apr 26, 2013 at 05:56:28 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  More than half of the senators supported it. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            coquiero, TheFern

                            So if you want to pretend that "only" more than half of the citizens support it, fine.  It hardly matters, since in any case, your rhetoric about "trusting citizens" is in the trash along with your "gun ban" talk.   Your sloganeering is weak, your rhetoric transparent.  

                            Again, what happens when the room is just you gun people and nobody is around to call bullshit?  I get a clue from the way the RKBA people, the NRA and their allies talk, in slogans and hyperbole, no matter what is said here, but I tell me just how bad it gets?  Do people actually believe the NRA is a grassroots organization, for example, or do you all know it's BS?

                            That's not even "gun control". It's more like "massacre control".

                            by Inland on Fri Apr 26, 2013 at 06:27:26 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Why else would you want the AWB? (0+ / 0-)

                            They are used in less than half the murders than bare hands are.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Fri Apr 26, 2013 at 06:31:20 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  More fearmongering. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            coquiero

                            You know why, but you can't just disagree.  You've got to assert that nothing but gun grabbing motivates people and all their reasons are lies.  You're hawking NRA goods but nobody is buying.

                            That's not even "gun control". It's more like "massacre control".

                            by Inland on Sat Apr 27, 2013 at 04:34:20 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  How is asking you why you want the AWB (0+ / 0-)

                            'fearmongering'?
                            How is pointing out that bare hands are used in over twice the number of murders than all rifles combined are an example of 'fearmongering'?

                            Your insistence on taking liberties from innocent Americans, and banning objects is based entirely upon fearmongering.
                            I understand that you think those guns look 'scary', but your fears don't surpass other people's liberties.

                            "nobody is buying"
                            For an example of 'nobody buying', just take a gander at the AWB's derp-filled failures, both practically and politically.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Sat Apr 27, 2013 at 10:50:59 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  Meant "not" votes to ban guns. (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          coquiero

                          That's not even "gun control". It's more like "massacre control".

                          by Inland on Fri Apr 26, 2013 at 09:40:54 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                •  What gun control did Obama push in Illinois? (0+ / 0-)

                  Calling other DKos members "weenies" is a personal insult and therefore against site rules.

                  by Bob Johnson on Fri Apr 26, 2013 at 09:16:46 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Click on the (0+ / 0-)

                    Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                    by FrankRose on Fri Apr 26, 2013 at 10:00:15 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Push? (0+ / 0-)

                      He didn't push anything. He was asked what he supported and what he did not support.

                      You're full of crap, as usual.

                      Calling other DKos members "weenies" is a personal insult and therefore against site rules.

                      by Bob Johnson on Fri Apr 26, 2013 at 10:05:42 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  "pushed" is scarier. (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        coquiero

                        I don't think he can panic the herd by saying "Obama if nothing to promote gun control".

                        That's not even "gun control". It's more like "massacre control".

                        by Inland on Fri Apr 26, 2013 at 10:51:07 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  Oh...so the reason for a spike in gun purchases (0+ / 0-)

                        after Obama's election wasn't because of...
                        Obama saying, in writing, that he supported state legislation to:
                        ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns
                        and ban assault weapons.

                        Nor was it for hissupport of banning the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic firearms, increasing state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms and requiring manufacturers to provide child-safety locks with firearms, while he was a state senator in Illinois.

                        Nor was  it while he was in the U.S. Senate,  when he supported the re-authorization of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban & voted against legislation protecting firearm manufacturers from liability suits.

                        And, of course, ignoring the fact that people that bought guns were flat-out correct that Obama would try to push to ban guns & the far larger spike after he did try to push for the AWB...

                        The real reason for the spike in gun sales after his election--based upon the impeccable credibility of your clairvoyance is.....because he's black.

                        Top notch argument, Bob.
                        Hats off to you.

                        Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                        by FrankRose on Fri Apr 26, 2013 at 04:57:28 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site