News:

Welcome to our site!

Main Menu

NRA's enemies list.

Started by Brian37, February 14, 2013, 10:39:53 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Brian37

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"
Quote from: "Brian37"Legalities be damned.

The bottom line is that sane people don 't mind others owning guns. But to ignore the amount of gun death is BAT FUCKING SHIT INSANE!

The only reason we have this problem is because of MONEY, and an industry that does not give one fuck about who they sell to or the amount they sell.

I absolutely agree.

I'm a member on a music forum which has an exceptionally large number of gun-owning conservative guys who'd probably drive you up the damned wall.  I've had this discussion with them too, and I find it startling that they find 9,000 gun murders per year acceptable, and reject even the principle of smart guns.  

But the fact of the matter is that they will either accept smart guns, or they will see the 2A eliminated entirely, eventually.  The tides of sentiment will naturally assure that mass murders stick in the memory while the good guy drawing on a mall-shooter gets buried in the mists of time.  

That alone assures that, unless action is taken to restrict unauthorized use, and taken to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally disturbed, then what they fear most -- the general outlawing of firearms for all but a few private citizens -- will happen.

It is not just mentally disturbed and this isn't just about mass shootings. EVERY SINGLE DAY, on average 32 people die from everything, suicide, family murder, and gang violence, because of guns.

Most of this is caused by economic distress and an industry that does not care about the amount of guns in the hands of a climate of economically unstable society.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers." Obama
Poetry By Brian37 Like my poetry on Facebook Under BrianJames Rational Poet and also at twitter under Brianrrs37

Johan

Quote from: "Brian37"So unless you are willing to try to take my vote away from me, then I would suggest you defend the system we have and accept that power shifts over time and WE get to decide what OUR laws are, not just you and not just what you want.
Oh what a nice world it would be if only that were true. I'm glad there are those who still believe its true though. I wish I could also believe, but I can't. Fool me once and all that.
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false and by the rulers as useful

Mathias

Quote from: "buttfinger"
Quote from: "Mathias"worse, have a feeling of exhilaration when hunting prey.
This is a physiological reaction to endorphins released as part of an evolutionary "strategy" to make on a more effective hunter.  It needs no justification: it just is.

I know a lot of people (including me) that don't have this physiological reaction. I feel like a coward pointing a gun to kill another being that I would not be harming or threatening. Not to mention that the technology involved in this weaponry has 0% of my participation in any part of the manufacture of the same.
 But my brain also produces moral "endorphins" like "empathy" and "altruism", essential "substances" in human evolution.
"There is no logic in the existence of any god".
Myself.

Mathias

Quote from: "buttfinger"
Quote from: "Mathias"It's easier to say that I believe in god than killing an animal for hobby. I'll never understand you, americans ...
I only kill for food.  your argument is a strawman.


I don't know what "strawman" (nothing in translators) means but I supose that is a falacy, right?

When the person kills for food, there's no arguments against it. But if you enjoy to kill or don't need this food to survive, my ignorance remains.
"There is no logic in the existence of any god".
Myself.

Mathias

Quote from: "asshat"
Quote from: "Brian37"
Quote from: "Mathias"I think there's nothing more banal and involuted that shoot a living creature for fun, except aliens, zombies and matchbox. I Would be proud to be on this list

I think hunting is a part of our evolutionary experience in finding resources. It makes less sense now that technology and farming allow us to raise animals without hunting them. But if these hunters insist on it, just don't call it a sport, sports have level neutral rules and fields of play both sides have the opportunity to use. Hunting is not a sport, it is a trap, it is a trick. So if people  hunt, eat it, kill it quickly and as painlessly as possible and don't call it a sport.

But yea I agree, a grown man or women who thinks they are cleaver tricking an unarmed animal knowing the animal doesn't have the same ability, why would you get joy out of that? That would be like  a jock bully beating up a nerd to show off to the other jocks. It is just a childish form of narcissism.
YOu obviously have never hunted if that what you think it is.  Any true sportsman (hunter) will give the advantage to the animal by tracking it down.  Getting in a treestand is not being a true sportsman as you remove all the advatnages the animal has.


What do you call a hunter or sportsman, even giving advantages, I still call it cowardice. Especially because these benefits are part of a strategy that is taken into consideration by the hunter, so he does not suffer almost no threat, unless losing the prey. That is, I can compare the advantages given to the prey with David and Goliath, and we all know that no god interfere, right? ;)
"There is no logic in the existence of any god".
Myself.

Alaric I

Quote from: "Mathias"
Quote from: "buttfinger"
Quote from: "Mathias"It's easier to say that I believe in god than killing an animal for hobby. I'll never understand you, americans ...
I only kill for food.  your argument is a strawman.


I don't know what "strawman" (nothing in translators) means but I supose that is a falacy, right?

When the person kills for food, there's no arguments against it. But if you enjoy to kill or don't need this food to survive, my ignorance remains.

Straw man means to replace the argument with a similar argument that does not represent the original argument and refuting that without addressing the original point (not saying you did, I did read the entire thread here so I can't say you did or did not commit a strawman).

I wonder what your qualifications of "does not need this food to survive" is.  I can certainly go buy meat at the grocery store, but hunted meat is healthier for you and, although there is a pretty sizeable start up cost; costs less than buying meat at the store.  So I am unsure of your argument here.

Mathias

Quote from: "asshat"
Quote from: "Mathias"buttfinger,

I agree with the second part of your arguments. Regarding the first, the animals do not need the man for kill old and/or sick animals. because there are several younger males, predators and nature disasters that do that. Instead using rifles and traps, cravenly appealing to the best instrument for adaptation in this planet, the intelligence.
Taking off the cultural part that perseveres in the habit of hunting, I still think an involuted act. Anyone "infected" by civilization should have aversion to hunt for fun.

You need to look into hunting laws.  People hunting for fun are usually poachers that allow the carcass to rot.  What is the point in that?  These are sick dillusional people that need to be shot before they up their prey.  Hunting is fun, but it should be done for hte meat.  I can go out and get one deer and one elk and feed my family for an entire year.  You however will spend thousands of dollars a year on burgers alone.


I know there are laws that allow hunting, but I don't have to agree with that, just as there are laws (at least here in Brazil) that prevent the taxation of religious institutions, for example. Clear that to kill an elk or deer and provide your family, saving money for other amenities, there is nothing wrong, but I doubt that is as economical as well. I wonder if these species are not endangered and there hunting for all those who want to hunt, without unbalancing the ecosystem of the region.
But as soon as I prefer to have a family and spend a lot of money to keep it, I'd rather pay for a good steak, instead killing, skinning, make mincemeat, etc.. an animal.
"There is no logic in the existence of any god".
Myself.

Mathias

Quote from: "stromboli"Those who haven't hunted do not know what is involved. You are stalking an animal that can smell and hear you more than two hundred yards before you see it. It is knowledgeable of humans, knowing that smells like gun oil and human sweat spell danger. It is also naturally colored to blend in with surroundings and can move with great speed when alerted. Go and scout an area prior to the hunt. You will see plenty of game. Go back for the hunt, the game will all be gone.

And yet, it is not you who is being hunted. It's exactly this feelling in this game of cat and mouse that I don't understand, because the real goal is, from my point of view, coward.

QuoteOut west you are talking about distances of hundreds of yards, where you can be seen from one ridge to another, wearing necessary hunter orange and smelling like a carnivore because you are a meat eater. consider the fact that in Utah and Idaho, where I have hunted, hunting success runs typically from 10/25% assuming a good year with lots of game.

Consider the fact that they don't run more than a bullet and the sensation to kill a animal is for some people, something that is not good.

QuoteYou are also restricted on what you can hunt according to area and the dictates of the fish and game people. Areas that are low in animal numbers are restricted. Only areas that meet guidelines are open to hunting. In many cases you have to apply for a specific license by draws, paying extra for the opportunity.

It means nothing since I have to kill with a technology and intelligence that animals will never be prepared to compete. An addendum, fishing is boring, boring as hell!! :)

QuoteIt isn't that easy. You should also know that the money spent for licenses and draws also pays for the game management done during the year. As I said previously, hunters pay more and do more than any other group to fund the care of wildlife.

You Could donate or compete (involving awards), striking prey with paintballs to keep the wildlife.
"There is no logic in the existence of any god".
Myself.

Alaric I

Quote from: "Mathias"I know there are laws that allow hunting, but I don't have to agree with that, just as there are laws (at least here in Brazil) that prevent the taxation of religious institutions, for example. Clear that to kill an elk or deer and provide your family, saving money for other amenities, there is nothing wrong, but I doubt that is as economical as well.

Not 100% sure what you are trying to say here (sorry, language barrier) but it sounds as if you are asking if hunting is economical.  It is quite economical, hamburger meat here is averaged at around $1.15 per pound (2.25 Brazilian Real per pound).  I can get two animals butchered for around $80, factor in my ammo at around $12, the license for $30, and I have a years worth of meat for $122. This is way less than you would pay at the grocery store.

 
QuoteI wonder if these species are not endangered and there hunting for all those who want to hunt, without unbalancing the ecosystem of the region.

Not at all, in fact hunting is keeping the numers from exploding.  The Dept of Fish and Game are there to regualte it.  If a species is low or balanced than they remove hunting rights for that species.  If they are high then they limit the number you can get.

[qiote]But as soon as I prefer to have a family and spend a lot of money to keep it, I'd rather pay for a good steak, instead killing, skinning, make mincemeat, etc.. an animal.[/quote]

This is your choice and completely fine with me, however if you have seen how they treat animals in captivity vs how hunters treat them, you might change your mind.

Bibliofagus

Nukes don't kill people. People with nukes kill people.
So there's no reason at all whatsoever to ban nukes.

[spoil:2v8vwdul]Hmmm. That appears to mean we should ban people.
Fuck.[/spoil:2v8vwdul]
Quote from: \"the_antithesis\"Faith says, "I believe this and I don\'t care what you say, I cannot possibly be wrong." Faith is an act of pride.

Quote from: \"AllPurposeAtheist\"The moral high ground was dug up and made into a walmart apparently today.

Tornadoes caused: 2, maybe 3.

Alaric I

Quote from: "Bibliofagus"Nukes don't kill people. People with nukes kill people.
So there's no reason at all whatsoever to ban nukes.


I think this is one of the most inconstrued sayings ever.  It is poorly written and one that people love to use.  Sure, bad unscrupulous people kill people, but the gun helps.  There definitely needs to be better regulation, but I don't see any reason to ban guns.  It seems to me that legislators see bad things happen and go to extremes in the name of safety.  There are many dangerous things out there have ligitimate purposes, yet when used in dangerous manners we don't go off half cocked crying for them to be banned.

Hakurei Reimu

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"
Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"Disabling a gun's security only requires the KNOWLEDGE of a gunsmith, not the LICENSE of a gunsmith. And not even the complete knowledge of a gunsmith, just a subset of it.

Your objection was that standard gun care involves turning guns over to gunsmiths, who must be licensed if they are operating a business.  
No, it wasn't. It was a subargument about the knowledge about how to hack a smart gun would eventually disseminate. Part of that argument is realizing that gunsmiths would have backdoors into the smart guns for maintenance purposes, backdoors which will eventually be compromised.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Additionally, without knowing what the security system is, it may well be that it can be limited (digitally) to licensed gunsmiths.
Why do you assume that the security system and its details will remain hidden forever? Are you expecting all licensed gunsmiths to remain on the good side of the law forever, and be able to —without fail— keep that information 100% secure at all times, when that's never happened before?

You keep concentrating on the technological aspect of smart guns, when the weakest link is and will always be the hairless apes that operate them.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"
Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"The electrical impulse can be delivered by a dumb circuit just as easily as by the factory issue IC OS.

Not if the signal contains information.
Well, I now believe you when you say that you don't have any technical expertese of the problem.

There's a fundamental flaw in your thinking, in that all levels and stages within the firing electronics are going to perform this verification. This is not the case. Between the chemical reaction that fires the bullet down the barrel and the electical signal to fire, there is an elementary electical element called a transducer. A transducer turns electrical energy into a physical action (or vice versa, but we'll get to that). It will not do any sort of decoding of the signal, because it is the energy of the electical pulse that is being transformed. A hot wire igniter would trigger the chemical reaction through Ohmic heating; a solenoid would trigger the reaction by turning into an electromagnet and slamming an iron core carrying a pin into the primer.

At no point in the transducer does any analysis take place of the signal. So if you can get rid of everything upstream of the tranducer and replace it with a dumb circuit that delivers the required electrical pulse to the transducer, then the gun will fire.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"
Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"It is also rare that an electronic device cannot be restored to factory settings by some means, and once that happens, the gun is the criminal's as if they bought it themselves.

Can that not be designed into the system?  Is that an technical  impossibility?
Yes, but that means that the gun will have to be sent back to the manufacturer for refurbishing if you make that mistake. Even if the manufacturer provides that service free of charge, that's still a few weeks you're not going to have your gun. It's an inconvenience that many gun owners aren't going to stand for.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"
Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"And a gun is such a huge advantage in that regard that they'll likely own one outright or go get one through hacking one themselves, through the black market of hacked smart guns, or foreign non-smart guns.

So, if criminals are so desperate to get guns, do you think they'll be deterred by another law?  I don't.  Fact is, if someone has already decided to break the laws against robbery, rape, or murder, I don't think they'll be put off by a law forbidding the possession of a weapon.  Recent recidivism stats don't parse out how many recidivists went back in for a FiP charge, but in 1998 about one in three went back to prison for FiP[/urll]  (Forgive the lack of formatting, it's a gov't archive and not a current page).  Clearly, even after having done hard time, felons were not too worried about getting a gun.  Furthermore, according to the same report, about 70% of those guns were sourced outside licensed dealers -- either family members, or street dealers.
No amount of want or determination will create a gun or bullets out of thin air. That's why you don't yet have your magic smart guns that fulfill all of your wants and needs — because such things can only come through research and then manufacturing of the weapons and ammunition.

We wouldn't have so many gun problems if we weren't flush with guns. We're flush with guns because so many people want them that it is profitable for arms manufacturers to sell them to civilians, and it is legal to sell them to civilians. An effective gun law is actually directed against the manufacturers, not individuals. If it is illegal for civilians to own assault rifles, then their manufacturers cannot net much profit for providing them to civilians, because they couldn't provide them legally, and at the same time exposes them to legal peril for distributing guns illegally. The result is those assault rifles will never be made in quantity to be used to commit all those crimes. Anti-gun laws keep guns out of circulation by keeping them from being made in the first place.

With smart guns, the guns still exist in approximately the same quantity as the dumb guns, they're just muzzled in a special way. So what happens when people find ways to take those muzzles off? Then you're back to the same problem with dumb guns.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"So, the answer of passing a law outlawing this or that type of gun will have the least impact on the demographic we most want to affect.

That is why I think we have to seek technological answers.
That's the other thing: seeking a technological answer for what is actually a human problem, and furthermore seeking a future, speculative technological answer to solve a present, exant human problem. You see the problem I'm having with this?

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Of course, and that's another reason the research needs to get done.  As far as battery strength goes, why cannot some of the kinetic energy that is produced by the act of firing be harnessed and routed back into a rechargeable battery?
Because all batteries lose their charge over time, and rechargable batteries have a recharge limit on top of having a lesser energy density. I don't know of a single battery type that will take pulsed recharging well.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Again, I think research will put paid to your pessimism.  Moore's law made computers cheaper and far more effective  than anyone dared envision when the IC was invented.  In 1903 we made the first powered flight, achieving 12 seconds of flight at a speed of seven miles an hour for a distance of 120 feet.  Sixty-three years later, we sent three men 240,000 miles to the moon at a speed of 18,000 miles per hour.
Moore's law is starting to bump up against hard physical limits as we speak. One of the more important ones is that capacitance and heat production is becoming an issue in ICs. Also, Moore's law does not apply outside of computers. We got those men to the moon by strapping them to a big-ass rocket over a tenth of a kilometer tall, because no smaller rocket could do the task.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"I do not mind the additional expenses imposed on gun owners for smart guns, myself.  I think society has a right to act for the safety of all its members while at the same time preserving the rights that are ensconced in our Constitution.  I understand that they aren't (and now it's my turn for the ghastly pun) a magic bullet that will solve firearms crime.  But they would certainly do much more than any more hypothetical laws, with the added benefit of doing no violence to the Constitution.
The problem with your smart guns solution is that, so far, it's a bullet that's entirely mythical. You're putting forward ideas that even my meager knowledge of electrical engineering and electronics say "definitely impossible," such as your "coded signal to the transducer" malarky. You are putting forward technological solutions when all of them require humans to act, at various times, like perfect machines or complete drooling imbiciles when they quite manifestly are neither.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"
Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"So, no. Smart guns will not make gun crime impossible, because criminals will find their way around the security. The principle good of smart guns is to prevent misfirings (rather than bad targets) and being killed with one's own gun.

I never did argue that they would render firearms crime "impossible".  Please don't impute arguments to me which I haven't made.
Then you need to avoid such statements like the following:

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"It's particularly so for me, because the extremists on both sides of the issue refuse to consider that there may well be a solution that can satisfy the demands of both camps, in the form of smart guns.
Last time I checked, the bringing of gun violence way down is part of the anti-gun camp, and that won't happen without a severe curtailment of gun violence.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Thanks for the civil tone of discussion here, too.  I appreciate good, hard questions offered without drama.
Yep.
Warning: Don't Tease The Miko!
(she bites!)
Spinny Miko Avatar shamelessly ripped off from Iosys' Neko Miko Reimu

WitchSabrina

Quote from: "Brian37"I would have supported the old NRA, the one that started out as a non profit educational gun safety organization. But it is nothing more than a corporate lobbyist for gun makers and uses fear and bigotry to gin up fear to keep gun sales up.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/06/opinion/a ... enemy-list

http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/02/11/nra-scru ... ll-exists/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/1 ... 63766.html

Seems however now that the fucking cowards have been called out they have removed it.

Oh and Ben and Jerry's ice cream was on the list. This commie is going to go out and buy some Ben and Jerry's and support A PRIVATE BUSINESS, what the fuck am I thinking?

Other groups on the list, just about every Hollywood star. But the AMA, NURSES organizations, black organizations,  just about every Jewish group, and the YWCA. And several private sector businesses.

WHY DID YOU TAKE YOUR LIST DOWN NRA? FUCKING COWARDS!


Brian - I've sworn off NRA stuff for awhile due to just a complete lack of energy towards following something that's gonna turn around and shoot the shit outta me. (no not literally)  I'm just too tired of the gun/anti-gun talk.  I'm convinced the NRA is a machine, well-oiled, well funded machine.  When you find the head of the monster let me know.
I am currently experiencing life at several WTFs per hour.

Alaric I

Quote from: "WitchSabrina"
Quote from: "Brian37"I would have supported the old NRA, the one that started out as a non profit educational gun safety organization. But it is nothing more than a corporate lobbyist for gun makers and uses fear and bigotry to gin up fear to keep gun sales up.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/06/opinion/a ... enemy-list

http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/02/11/nra-scru ... ll-exists/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/1 ... 63766.html

Seems however now that the fucking cowards have been called out they have removed it.

Oh and Ben and Jerry's ice cream was on the list. This commie is going to go out and buy some Ben and Jerry's and support A PRIVATE BUSINESS, what the fuck am I thinking?

Other groups on the list, just about every Hollywood star. But the AMA, NURSES organizations, black organizations,  just about every Jewish group, and the YWCA. And several private sector businesses.

WHY DID YOU TAKE YOUR LIST DOWN NRA? FUCKING COWARDS!


Brian - I've sworn off NRA stuff for awhile due to just a complete lack of energy towards following something that's gonna turn around and shoot the shit outta me. (no not literally)  I'm just too tired of the gun/anti-gun talk.  I'm convinced the NRA is a machine, well-oiled, well funded machine.  When you find the head of the monster let me know.


This is very true.  The NRA was a good concept that turned very poor over the years.

Mathias

Quote from: "Alaric I"Straw man means to replace the argument with a similar argument that does not represent the original argument and refuting that without addressing the original point (not saying you did, I did read the entire thread here so I can't say you did or did not commit a strawman).

I wonder what your qualifications of "does not need this food to survive" is.  I can certainly go buy meat at the grocery store, but hunted meat is healthier for you and, although there is a pretty sizeable start up cost; costs less than buying meat at the store.  So I am unsure of your argument here.


Thanks for the explanation, and it's a falacy like I presumed.

I know  that's healthier, the same way that drinking water from an iceberg or sowing and harvesting fruits and vegetables, and I doubt that anyone who hunts like that. I'm talking about people who like to kill or do without using hunting for food. But I doubt it's as cheap as many here claim.
"There is no logic in the existence of any god".
Myself.