|
|
Post by badgerhoya on Jan 17, 2013 19:41:43 GMT -5
If guns are outlawed, only criminals will have mountain lions. Has anyone seen Kim Bauer? Wasn't she just kidnapped again? |
|
|
|
Post by Problem of Dog on Jan 18, 2013 12:33:33 GMT -5
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Jan 18, 2013 12:46:15 GMT -5
As usual, making vile ads is not restricted to one side or the other: |
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jan 18, 2013 13:35:33 GMT -5
|
|
GUJook97
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,445
|
Post by GUJook97 on Jan 18, 2013 13:52:20 GMT -5
As usual, making vile ads is not restricted to one side or the other: If that was a political ad by his opponent, I would have a lot of problems with it. But, it's a coalition for gun violence ad. You would expect them to be passionate about the issue to that extent. But, i hear you what you are saying, you are noting this in response to the criticism of the NRA ads. I dont think the NRA ads are vile, I just dont think it's appropriate to talk about the Presidents daughters. |
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Jan 18, 2013 14:43:32 GMT -5
If that was a political ad by his opponent, I would have a lot of problems with it. But, it's a coalition for gun violence ad. You would expect them to be passionate about the issue to that extent. Implying that people who own guns or politicians who accept money from the NRA are more or less directly responsible for Newtown goes a step or two beyond "passionate," IMHO. I have a Colt Commander that belonged to my grandfather. He carried it while serving in the US Air Force. I am proud that it was passed down to me. To take those previous three sentences and use them to imply that I support or promote mass murder would offend me pretty deeply. |
|
GUJook97
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,445
|
Post by GUJook97 on Jan 18, 2013 14:47:39 GMT -5
I didnt see the byline or where they talked about "blood money" at the end. I would agree that goes too far. I thought they were just criticizing his support of the NRA.
I do think it is different when it's an advocacy group, though. If Mothers Against Drunk Driving wants to take a Congressman to task for openly supporting the Alchohol Beverage Association, even if they imply that the ABA is responsible for drunk driving, that doesnt seem vile. That's their whole purpose of being. Unlike John Barrow's political opponent, for instance, whose purpose it to beat John Barrow in an election.
"Blood money" is a little much.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,480
|
Post by TC on Jan 18, 2013 17:03:41 GMT -5
As usual, making vile ads is not restricted to one side or the other: Apparently, even in advertising, you don't bring a knife to a gun fight. |
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Jan 18, 2013 19:03:07 GMT -5
As usual, making vile ads is not restricted to one side or the other: Apparently, even in advertising, you don't bring a knife to a gun fight. I am not sure what you meant by that, but that phrase always reminds me of Sean Connery's completely over-the-top, chew-every-bit-of-scenery death scene in 'The Untouchables,' so I'm going to give it a thumbs up! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Mar 19, 2013 13:25:47 GMT -5
|
|
CTHoya08
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Bring back Izzo!
Posts: 2,954
|
Post by CTHoya08 on Apr 11, 2013 7:49:12 GMT -5
Now that this gun bill is going to the Senate floor, I have an honest question for the people who are more pro-gun-rights than I am:
What is the objection to universal background checks?
I truly do not understand how anyone could object to such a requirement. Sure, it may create a bit more of a hassle and delay for someone trying to buy a gun, but if that person is one of the NRA's "good guys," then he'll be able to buy the gun. If the source of violence in our country is not guns per se, but rather the people wielding them ("bad guys," people with mental health issues, etc.), shouldn't we make at least this minimal effort to keep weapons out of the hands of those people?
The closest thing I've seen to an argument against background checks is "criminals will find a way to get guns, anyway." But that argument is meaningless. Criminals manage to murder people every day--should we just give up and legalize murder because criminalizing it isn't 100% effective as a deterrent?
I have seen arguments put forth in opposition to an "assault weapons" ban. Some of them I find more legitimate than others, but they all seem to be grounded in logic. But, for the life of me, I can't think of any reasonable argument against a universal background check system. Am I completely missing something here, or is this just a case of the NRA holding some lawmakers hostage?
|
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Apr 11, 2013 9:47:14 GMT -5
Now that this gun bill is going to the Senate floor, I have an honest question for the people who are more pro-gun-rights than I am: What is the objection to universal background checks? I truly do not understand how anyone could object to such a requirement. Sure, it may create a bit more of a hassle and delay for someone trying to buy a gun, but if that person is one of the NRA's "good guys," then he'll be able to buy the gun. If the source of violence in our country is not guns per se, but rather the people wielding them ("bad guys," people with mental health issues, etc.), shouldn't we make at least this minimal effort to keep weapons out of the hands of those people? The closest thing I've seen to an argument against background checks is "criminals will find a way to get guns, anyway." But that argument is meaningless. Criminals manage to murder people every day--should we just give up and legalize murder because criminalizing it isn't 100% effective as a deterrent? I have seen arguments put forth in opposition to an "assault weapons" ban. Some of them I find more legitimate than others, but they all seem to be grounded in logic. But, for the life of me, I can't think of any reasonable argument against a universal background check system. Am I completely missing something here, or is this just a case of the NRA holding some lawmakers hostage? I'm guessing you'll have better luck getting answers to your question by asking folks in Huntsville. I'm for background checks, so I'm not a huge help here, but I've heard the following objections from the main gun enthusiast at my office. One, government databases can be used for nefarious purposes once established. Apparently the bill would create a semi-permanent database, and the ACLU is opposed to the bill on this ground. Two, the increased use of background checks puts power in the hands of "government bureaucrats" who will be able to expand the definition of terms like "mentally ill" to prevent a person who had an appointment with a shrink in 1962 from purchasing a firearm. Sadly, I don't know enough about the bill language to comment on the legitimacy of the arguments I've repeated here, though the second one in particular seems very suspect. |
|
