NRA reasoning
- Thread starter buttercup
- Start date
Here's an article that states the GOP and NRA are far right, and we know what the NRA wants don't we?You know that's not true, and I know that's not true, but I'll give you a moment to cite a source before anyone says anything more.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-reinbach/the-nra-and-the-gop-the-r_b_2348946.html
Here's a link on Democrat vs. Republican views, including their position on gun control ( if you don't know Democrats are left leaning and Republicans are right leaning).
http://www.diffen.com/difference/Democrat_vs_Republican
Note the Gun Control section:
Gun control Laws
Democrats favor more gun control laws e.g. oppose the right to carry concealed weapons in public places. Republicans oppose gun control laws and are strong supporters of [COLOR=#009900 !important]the Second Amendment as well as the right to carry concealed weapons.[/COLOR]
Do you now see now the left want gun control, or less guns, vs the right who want no gun control, or more guns?
Back to you, your turn to back up your iinteresting claim.
Funny, then, that here in Canada the issue split the NDP. I never knew that the NDP harbored far right wing people in its caucus.
I think you are confusing left/right with urban/rural and with the current platforms of the two US parties, one of which currently has an urban power base and the other a rural/suburban one.
I think you are confusing left/right with urban/rural and with the current platforms of the two US parties, one of which currently has an urban power base and the other a rural/suburban one.
Funny, I thought the title of this thread was NRA reasoning, did I miss something about the NDP being part of the NRA?Funny, then, that here in Canada the issue split the NDP. I never knew that the NDP harbored far right wing people in its caucus.
btw, there are some not so far left Democrats who are ok with no gun control, and not so far right that want gun control, the comment is based on theoretical positions that the left and right stand for, noting there are always exceptions, but not the norm.
You started talking in generalities about left versus right.Funny, I thought the title of this thread was NRA reasoning, did I miss something about the NDP being part of the NRA?
and you're very good at taking threads in directions that no one has ventured before, stick to the program will you.You started talking in generalities about left versus right.
Anynym was talking about the NRA and I responded to his post, not talking in generalities as you claim.
In reality you wrote a general claim and used the NRA only as an example, and you were the one to bring it up:and you're very good at taking threads in directions that no one has ventured before, stick to the program will you.
Anynym was talking about the NRA and I responded to his post, not talking in generalities as you claim.
What in the world are you talking about? That's so preposterous that it's laughable. Here's a Political History lesson 101 for you: the far left don't anyone to have guns of any type, the far right, like the NRA, want every citizen to have guns, and there's lots of room in the middle for those conservative types.
Untrue, but we can probably work with it.Do you now see now the left want gun control, or less guns, vs the right who want no gun control, or more guns?
Back to you, your turn to back up your iinteresting claim.
The right want *less* gun control, not none. But they (apparently unlike the Democrats) also know that the simple fact is that people who aren't "supposed" to get guns *will* get guns anyway.
The City of Chicago has been run by Democrats since the stone age (not really, but come along for the ride). Today, they have some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation.
As a result, the City of Chicago is a Liberal panacea, with rates of gun violence that would be the envy of a war zone.
Still wrong, How are those references coming along?Untrue, but we can probably work with it.
The right want *less* gun control, not none. But they (apparently unlike the Democrats) also know that the simple fact is that people who aren't "supposed" to get guns *will* get guns anyway.
The City of Chicago has been run by Democrats since the stone age (not really, but come along for the ride). Today, they have some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation.
As a result, the City of Chicago is a Liberal panacea, with rates of gun violence that would be the envy of a war zone.
The fact that Chicago isn't presently run by Democrat admin, doesn't mean they are liberals, certainly not by Canadian or British standards, just more liberal than the Republicans, although that bar is set really low. It's a hoot when americans call the Democrats socialist. They show their child like view of the world from their fishbowls.
Nice backtrack, but it didn't work. I think everyone on this board knows the position on gun control be either of the two major US parties. I think you do now as well.Untrue, but we can probably work with it.
The right want *less* gun control, not none. But they (apparently unlike the Democrats) also know that the simple fact is that people who aren't "supposed" to get guns *will* get guns anyway.
The City of Chicago has been run by Democrats since the stone age (not really, but come along for the ride). Today, they have some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation.
As a result, the City of Chicago is a Liberal panacea, with rates of gun violence that would be the envy of a war zone.
fuji, you do this to all the posters on here, you seem to want to twist and interpret words to your liking until you pound members into the ground and can't be bothered with you. Here you do it again. I know what I meant when I posted but for some reason you think you know better than I as to what I had in my head when I was posting, lol. It's really, really hard for you to ever admit your wrong in any post isn't it fuji? Heck, I don't think you ever think you're wrong and have never seen a post from you that admits to a mistake. You should leave your ego at the door sometime, it will make you a better man. Read the second sentence in my sig line.In reality you wrote a general claim and used the NRA only as an example, and you were the one to bring it up:
Apparently he did once or twice to some minor faux pas, although most members could easilly dismiss it as a backhander, just so, i'm sure, we could could never correctly say never, but don't ask me when it was.fuji, you do this to all the posters on here, you seem to want to twist and interpret words to your liking until you pound members into the ground and can't be bothered with you. Here you do it again. I know what I meant when I posted but for some reason you think you know better than I as to what I had in my head when I was posting, lol. It's really, really hard for you to ever admit your wrong in any post isn't it fuji? Heck, I don't think you ever think you're wrong and have never seen a post from you that admits to a mistake. You should leave your ego at the door sometime, it will make you a better man. Read the second sentence in my sig line.
It'll be news to Rahm Emanuel that he isn't a Democrat. Beyond that, who called anyone socialist? Do you read what you post?Still wrong, How are those references coming along?
The fact that Chicago isn't presently run by Democrat admin, doesn't mean they are liberals, certainly not by Canadian or British standards, just more liberal than the Republicans, although that bar is set really low. It's a hoot when americans call the Democrats socialist. They show their child like view of the world from their fishbowls.
Sorry, typo, 'is' run by Democrats. The rest of my post stands. Presently, MSOG, Americanson, and possibly OTB, but many of the Hill Republican leaders call them socialist, even communist. Remember Allen West for one?It'll be news to Rahm Emanuel that he isn't a Democrat. Beyond that, who called anyone socialist? Do you read what you post?
I think he gave up on trying to claim he knows NYC and it's anti-gun measures better than mayor Bloomberg as to why gun crimes and violence are down.fuji, you do this to all the posters on here, you seem to want to twist and interpret words to your liking until you pound members into the ground and can't be bothered with you.
I don't think he'll be able to resist the bait. LOL
There isn't anything to debate, crime in New York started dropping before the gun policies were enacted, and the biggest reductions were in the years before the policies came into effect.I think he gave up on trying to claim he knows NYC and it's anti-gun measures better than mayor Bloomberg as to why gun crimes and violence are down.
I don't think he'll be able to resist the bait. LOL
The two most widely believed theories are that it was due to the decline of crack cocaine, use of which peaked in the late 80's, or that it was Giuliani's CompStat "broken windows" policing policy.
In any case the only result the data supports is that gun policy slowed down the decline in crime, but most likely was simply irrelevant.
If you want to argue it was relevant you have the uncomfortable fact that declines in crime in New York slowed down after the policy took effect.
So you consider the 8% drop last year as insignificant on top of the previous year over year decreases?There isn't anything to debate, crime in New York started dropping before the gun policies were enacted, and the biggest reductions were in the years before the policies came into effect.
gun policy slowed down the decline in crime, but most likely was simply irrelevant.
As you use the term "most likely" it means you are merely speculating/guessing. No proof.
I'll take Bloomberg's reasoning over yours. It is multifactorial and gun control is a significant contributor.
Bloomberg is a lying piece of shit. Biggest reason for NYC's drop in crime and violence: gentrification.
And you can prove this?Bloomberg is a lying piece of shit. Biggest reason for NYC's drop in crime and violence: gentrification.
Or will you just attempt to use your linguistic talents cunningly?
