Amid Wave of Pro-Gun Legislation, Georgia Proposes Sweeping Law (NYT)

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**LordofHats**

daedalus wrote:
Yeah, but then you're saying that like "lobbying" isn't just as appalling and horrifying.

Lobbyists are like lawyers. We all hate them, but they're kind of essential to making the system work

**d-usa**

They are like lawyers and politicians, we hate them except the one guy that is on our side.

I don't have any love for the NRA, in my mind they are a lobby for the gun manufacturers and not for the gun owners.

**Frazzled**

d-usa wrote:
They are like lawyers and politicians, we hate them except the one guy that is on our side.

I don't have any love for the NRA, in my mind they are a lobby for the gun manufacturers and not for the gun owners.

Strangely you're wrong. Are you a member?

**d-usa**

Frazzled wrote:
d-usa wrote:
They are like lawyers and politicians, we hate them except the one guy that is on our side.

I don't have any love for the NRA, in my mind they are a lobby for the gun manufacturers and not for the gun owners.

Strangely you're wrong. Are you a member?

Nope, because everything I have seen them push and lobby for over the last decade has been more focused on making sure gun-sales are up instead of anything else.

There are other organizations besides them.

**Spacemanvic**

There are other organizations besides them.

Which are the other groups that have the same clout and membership roll numbers? And nothing says you cant belong to more than one group.

**Seaward**

d-usa wrote:
Nope, because everything I have seen them push and lobby for over the last decade has been more focused on making sure gun-sales are up instead of anything else.

There are other organizations besides them.

None as effective.

**Frazzled**

d-usa wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
d-usa wrote:
They are like lawyers and politicians, we hate them except the one guy that is on our side.

I don't have any love for the NRA, in my mind they are a lobby for the gun manufacturers and not for the gun owners.

Strangely you're wrong. Are you a member?

Nope, because everything I have seen them push and lobby for over the last decade has been more focused on making sure gun-sales are up instead of anything else.

There are other organizations besides them.

They have four million members. All those members have been hoodwinked by the evil gun manufacturers? The NRA hasn't stopped a metric gakload of federal legislation in its tracks and helped recall several politicians especially in Colorado?

Wow. Its an excellent conspiracy theory, truly worthy of MSNBC.

**d-usa**

Spacemanvic wrote:

There are other organizations besides them.

Which are the other groups that have the same clout and membership roll numbers?

Seaward wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Nope, because everything I have seen them push and lobby for over the last decade has been more focused on making sure gun-sales are up instead of anything else.

There are other organizations besides them.

None as effective.

Frazzled wrote:

They have four million members. All those members have been hoodwinked by the evil gun manufacturers?

Public Unions have 7.2 million members. If the size of an organization is the only factor then you guys need to sign your union cards.

I don't support the NRA, I don't agree with a lot of their public statements, I don't think that they represent me. It's as simple as that.

**Frazzled**

(Edited for being overly hostile. )

They are like the ACLU. They fervently defend the Second Amendment, just like the ACLU defends the First Amendment.

**Kilkrazy**

easysauce wrote:
yes its very much true that guys like bloomburg and the groups they support want to ban all guns.

They may not advertise it, but that is in fact the goal. For now, they advertise what they can get away with, make that particular cut/ban/ect, and then move on to the next thing.

They did a very similar tactic in canada, slowly banning/restricing everything bit by bit by bit, its a very effective tactic. Many of the same international organizations and big money contributers are the same between those who pushed for canadas harsh gun control (which STILL isnt enough to stop parties running on platforms to BAN ALL GUNS)

So while some low down supporters of more gun control may not want to ban all guns, the people at the top 100% do.

Exactly right!

It's this thin end of the wedge, they have already got the public half-way down it. No-one is allowed nuclear weapons or nerve gas, the next thing you know cluster munitions and napalm will be on the banned list, then where will we all be?

**daedalus**

Kilkrazy wrote:

It's this thin end of the wedge, they have already got the public half-way down it. No-one is allowed nuclear weapons or nerve gas, the next thing you know cluster munitions and napalm will be on the banned list, then where will we all be?

I only want that nuclear weapon to detonate for 4th of July to show how patriotic I am. I mean, it's an American* invention, and it'd make a hell of a firework.

Why do you

HATE AMERICA

???

* Yeah, I know. Just let me have it for the purposes of the comment.

**LordofHats**

* Yeah, I know. Just let me have it for the purposes of the comment.

Despite being a narcissistic know it all, I shall allow it to slide

**Dreadclaw69**

d-usa wrote:
They happen less in gun free zones than in gun legal zones.

Really? Because your list does not given enough information, but seeing as many occurred in shopping malls, workplaces, schools, and houses of worship it is more likely than not that many of those were gun free zones

d-usa wrote:
You know what all shootings have in common though?

Mental health issues. Which is why in gun threads I always advocate more treatment and funding for mental health

d-usa wrote:
If you want to imply that (very weak) correlation = causation then you won't like where it leads the logical argument.

Yet you attempted the same logic in trying to claim that fewer mass shootings happen in gun free zones

**whembly**

Interesting...

NRA’s LaPierre: ‘Gun Rights Have Become a Metaphor for Something Larger’
National Rifle Association Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre, addressing donors and key supporters at the NRA Convention in Indianapolis this morning, said, “Gun rights have become a metaphor for something larger: a feeling, this sense of something that’s slipping away, a yearning for individual rights.”

Despite the recent victories of the Second Amendment supporters in recent years, LaPierre indicated that a key understanding and traditional Constitutionally-backed freedoms is slowly eroding: “We’re at a precipice in this country. I know every one of you feels it. These next two and a half years are going to determine how things go for the rest of our lives. I have never seen it on edge the way it is now. If it’s going to be saved, it’s in our hands. It’s in your hands. People like you throughout the country people I’m going to engage this fight every day, you’re not going to back me down, and we’re going to win it. We’ll save it, by gosh, between now and 2016.”

**d-usa**

something something racist something something two and a half more years of a black president something something white people slipping away something something

Had to be done

**Grey Templar**

Funny, I see no mention of race in that article.

Unless a casual reference to the term limit of the President is racist because he happens to be half-black.

**easysauce**

d-usa wrote:
something something racist something something two and a half more years of a black president something something white people slipping away something something

Had to be done

No it didnt... there is nothing racist at all in that statement, and to inject racism where there is none is far more of a racist act.

I know you dont like the NRA, as I once did, but take it from someone who used to actually work with "anti" gunners...

The NRA is doing far more to help out gun owners and the 2nd amendmant then anyone else is.

period.

Also, totally not fair to say that the NRA spokeman is being racist... obama is a 2nd term president not up for re-election who has a definate anti gun leaning.

So him making remarks on the rest of his term being important, are just that, its an important time frame.

**Ahtman**

The NRA National Convention is going on right now. There was a big sign that said "Find out what the NRA can do for you!" and the picture was Ted Nugent holding an AR-15 in one hand and an M-16 in the other with an American Flag guitar around his neck and a look on his face like he just ripped the biggest fart the world would ever know. It seemed a regressive an ill-advised bit of advertising. It didn't say 'responsible gun owner' so much as 'guy on PCP found an armory!'.

Lots of other cool things though, especially if you enjoy hunting.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

easysauce wrote:
obama is a 2nd term president not up for re-election who has a definate anti gun leaning.

Because he did so much to get rid of guns while President. Oh wait...

Manufacturers should give him an award for increasing their sales without actually having to do anything.

**d-usa**

Fear mongering is good for business.

**Gentleman_Jellyfish**

d-usa wrote:
something something racist something something two and a half more years of a black president something something white people slipping away something something

Had to be done

Wow.

**d-usa**

I'll be sure to insert a 1000x1000 pixel sarcasm alarm pic next time since it seems that everyone is a bit dense today.

**Dreadclaw69**

Ahtman wrote:
Because he did so much to get rid of guns while President. Oh wait....

You're right. I mean after Newtown he didn't pose with children to push his gun control agenda. He didn't help try to pass a Bill into law. When said Bill was not made law he didn't stand and berate those who didn't vote for it, and the NRA in particular.

**Gentleman_Jellyfish**

d-usa wrote:
I'll be sure to insert a 1000x1000 pixel sarcasm alarm pic next time since it seems that everyone is a bit dense today.

Spoiler:

Dreadclaw69 wrote:You're right. I mean after Newtown he didn't pose with children to push his gun control agenda. He didn't help try to pass a Bill into law. When said Bill was not made law he didn't stand and berate those who didn't vote for it, and the NRA in particular.

Exactly. Just because gun control hasn't been super victorious lately doesn't mean they're not trying.

**Ahtman**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
Because he did so much to get rid of guns while President. Oh wait....

You're right. I mean after Newtown he didn't pose with children to push his gun control agenda. He didn't help try to pass a Bill into law. When said Bill was not made law he didn't stand and berate those who didn't vote for it, and the NRA in particular.

All it took was four or so years, a couple of mass shootings, and immense political pressure to get him to do almost nothing! What an evil anti-gun radical!

**Gentleman_Jellyfish**

Ahtman wrote:
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
Because he did so much to get rid of guns while President. Oh wait....

You're right. I mean after Newtown he didn't pose with children to push his gun control agenda. He didn't help try to pass a Bill into law. When said Bill was not made law he didn't stand and berate those who didn't vote for it, and the NRA in particular.

All it took was four or so years, a couple of mass shootings, and immense political pressure to get him to do almost nothing! What an evil anti-gun radical!

Sorry he couldn't just executive order this one?

**d-usa**

Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
d-usa wrote:
I'll be sure to insert a 1000x1000 pixel sarcasm alarm pic next time since it seems that everyone is a bit dense today.

Spoiler:

Look at me.

Look at my posts.

Look at me.

Now look at you.

Now look at me.

Now look at you looking at me and ask yourself:

"Has d-usa ever given a feth about what you think about him or his posts?"

If I thought he was a racist pandering to racists, I would have said he was a racist pandering to racists and I wouldn't care if it ticked you guys off if I thought he was a racist and I wouldn't bother with any sort of damage control because you guys got your internet feelings hurt.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
Because he did so much to get rid of guns while President. Oh wait....

You're right. I mean after Newtown he didn't pose with children to push his gun control agenda. He didn't help try to pass a Bill into law. When said Bill was not made law he didn't stand and berate those who didn't vote for it, and the NRA in particular.

All it took was four or so years, a couple of mass shootings, and immense political pressure to get him to do almost nothing! What an evil anti-gun radical!

Sorry he couldn't just executive order this one?

He only has how many years left to double the amount he signed so far in order to catch up to Reagan?

**Gentleman_Jellyfish**

d-usa wrote:
Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
d-usa wrote:
I'll be sure to insert a 1000x1000 pixel sarcasm alarm pic next time since it seems that everyone is a bit dense today.

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

Look at me.

Look at my posts.

Look at me.

Now look at you.

Now look at me.

Now look at you looking at me and ask yourself:

"Has d-usa ever given a feth about what you think about him or his posts?"

If I thought he was a racist pandering to racists, I would have said he was a racist pandering to racists and I wouldn't care if it ticked you guys off if I thought he was a racist and I wouldn't bother with any sort of damage control because you guys got your internet feelings hurt.

Next time I'll put a second sarcasm image

**d-usa**

**whembly**

d-usa wrote:
I'll be sure to insert a 1000x1000 pixel sarcasm alarm pic next time since it seems that everyone is a bit dense today.

You didn't use the bolded skulls thingy

**easysauce**

Ahtman wrote:
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
Because he did so much to get rid of guns while President. Oh wait....

You're right. I mean after Newtown he didn't pose with children to push his gun control agenda. He didn't help try to pass a Bill into law. When said Bill was not made law he didn't stand and berate those who didn't vote for it, and the NRA in particular.

All it took was four or so years, a couple of mass shootings, and immense political pressure to get him to do almost nothing! What an evil anti-gun radical!

all I said was he was anti gun leaning... not that he had been successful in his endeavors... and he certainly has tried.

But im sorry, would you call him a PRO gun leaning president then?