Comments on: Gun Control: What Is the Agenda?

By: Charlemagne

Charlemagne — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 01:54:34 +0000

Mark @ 12,
No kidding. That's obvious, but a far cry from "the largest and best funded gun control lobby in America." Some of these post are absurd.
We actually had a reasonable Democrat for Governor of Georgia once, Roy Barnes, whom was pro second amendment and was heavily endorsed by the N.R.A. Not quite in the mold of Mr. Roberts' N.R.A. as toadies for the G.O.P.
Try basing suppositions on fact, not U.F.O. sightings....

By: Etienne Gervaise

Etienne Gervaise — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 21:47:01 +0000

@12 Mark
I once worked a conservative conference and manned a table next to some "conservative" organization -- can't recall the exact name off-hand -- and asked the fellow what he did there. He said we send out fund-raising letters. I asked what he did with the funds, to which he replied, "I said, we send out fund-raising letters."

I was flabberghasted. Not even a newsletter! That had to violate some sort of panhandling legislation. There are no shortage of these outfits operating out of townhouse basements on Capitol Hill. The operators can easily get starry-eyed young grads eager to be in Washington to man the phones and stuff envelopes, and then move on to something else with the tax-free skimmings.

By: Mark Higdon

Mark Higdon — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 00:40:23 +0000

@10 & 11: Historically, the NRA's PAC has been to the 2nd Amendment what the National Right to Life Committee's PAC has been to the "right to life": perpetual fund raising machines whose goal is to claim enough political "victories" to motivate donors to bankroll even more fund raising solicitations, whose purpose is to convince their donors to keep giving so that future "victories" can be attained. It's an intentional, never-ending loop: dependent--in both examples--upon mitigated failures for its continuity. These mainstream, politicized organizations are no more apt to achieve ultimate victory in their causes than the American Cancer Society is apt to achieve a cure for cancer.

By: Charlemagne

Charlemagne — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 23:42:49 +0000

Ed @ 10,
Oh really? Mind providing example(s)?

By: Ed Roberts

Ed Roberts — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 23:14:46 +0000

As to the NRA's advertisers frightening hoplophobes, the NRA is itself the largest and best funded gun control lobby in America. Every existing item of federal legislation aimed at restricting the citizenry's ownership of firearms was written and/or lobbied for by the NRA.

The NRA's main purpose is to hand over campaign contributions to republican political candidates, especially GOP incumbents with lousy records on guncontrol.

By: R. McCabe

R. McCabe — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 17:27:22 +0000

Isn't there a larger issue here towards the concept of "violence" itself? PCR seems to miss this a little maybe. Guns actually are violent by nature. If you've ever fired a powerful gun, you would never describe it as a peaceful experience. It is not by the virtue that they might cause death that makes them violent, it is the way they do it. Swimming pool violence isn't talked about because death by swimming pool is not a violent death. Anti- and pro-gun nuts aside, the issue really needs to revolve around justifiable violence. In America, we have lost nearly all moral sense of this and confuse pacifism with the opposite of immoral violence. We don't even kill our own food anymore in acts of moral violence. It is then easy to trick people into banning tools. If we understood better that violence and accidents are parts of life, then guns would not really be an issue, or just a superficial one, and you would not have people saying ridiculous things about us clinging to our guns and religion.

By: Jim

Jim — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 02:05:21 +0000

@5 -- As usual, Ray, you are correct but the anti-gun crowd can be a bit obtuse on the issue. I recall a fatuous article by Richard Reeves a decade ago in which he compared the gun deaths in Seattle and Vancouver and concluded that the vastly higher number of gun deaths in Seattle were due to more guns in the city.
I always wanted to ask him how he would explain the additional fact that there were a lot more knife deaths in Seattle. Did he think Vancouver prohibits knives too? Ditto for other kinds of death too.
It never occurs to the anti-gun crowd that it might just be the character of the people; therefore: it has to be the GUNS!

By: Mark Higdon

Mark Higdon — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 00:26:16 +0000

@5: Your point is taken, up to a point. The problem with the term "gun violence" is that use of it allows opponents to the 2nd Amendment to set the tone of the debate by coining one of its crucial terms. Similar to the prevalent use of "anti-abortion" instead of "pro-life," or "public education" instead of "coercive government schooling." Similar examples abound. Sure, most posters on this site know the actual meaning behind "gun violence." But we also know the intention behind its use. Cant counts.

By: Daniel Maxwell

Daniel Maxwell — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 21:41:40 +0000

Mr. Roberts could have saved the webspace by answering his own question: Disarmament.

By: Ray Olson

Ray Olson — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 20:34:45 +0000

Sorry, gentlemen, but I've never for a moment thought, nor do I believe much of anyone else thinks, that "gun violence" means anything other than violent human behavior in which guns are used. To pretend to believe the phrase means guns becoming animated and firing on their own initiative seems, besides silly, entirely uncalled for if all you mean to do is to effectively counter the arguments of gun-control absolutists.

Consider this a salvo in my assault against cant.