On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 22:24:20 -0400, Wayne B
wrote:

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 18:06:37 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

Right, but that has nothing to do with the point. The point is that
the NRA is being more obnoxious than usual with these calls to the
people Newtown.

========

"The people Newtown" can just hang up like everyone else. If it were
up to me, all RoboCalls would be outlawed. At least with a real
person you can patiently explain how they just broke the law by
calling someone on the "Do Not Call" list.

Yes, they can. That again isn't the point. The point is that the NRA
doesn't give a **** about people. They care about their benefactors,
the gun manufacturers.

====

I guess there's a reason why they don't call themselves the National
People's Association. There's no question that the NRA is over the
top on some issues but they're up against some stiff opposition, and
there are multiple sides to every position. In many respects the
whole thing comes down to modern urban America vs old time rural
America - two totally different cultures and points of view on a lot
of different issues. As a kid I had one grandmother who lived miles
down a country road in a very rural area. She always kept a shotgun
behind the kitchen door and knew how to use it. It would have taken
an hour for any law enforcement agency to get there if they could even
find it.

I don't see multiple sides to the position of reducing gun violence.
Study after study has shown and country after country has demonstrated
that fewer guns means fewer deaths.

No reasonable "rural" person cares about whether or not his gun is
registered. Most people are in favor of it. We're not talking about
shotguns. We're talking about assault weapons, as you know.

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 21:32:20 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

I don't see multiple sides to the position of reducing gun violence.
Study after study has shown and country after country has demonstrated
that fewer guns means fewer deaths.

====

Carried to its logical end point, your view leads to the inescapable
conclusion that eliminating all guns would eliminate all gun deaths.

Since there are way too many people who would be all too happy to
press for eliminating all guns, the NRA serves as an effective
counterpoint to that line of reasoning. I think that if you actually
knew any rural gun owners, you'd find that they are almost universally
opposed to *any* increased gun control measures, mostly because they
don't trust you city/suburban folks or the type of government that you
advocate.

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 21:32:20 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

I don't see multiple sides to the position of reducing gun violence.
Study after study has shown and country after country has demonstrated
that fewer guns means fewer deaths.

====

Carried to its logical end point, your view leads to the inescapable
conclusion that eliminating all guns would eliminate all gun deaths.


That's unconstitutional. 2nd Amendment.
But you can support selling guns to criminals and nutjobs if you wish.
1st Amendment.
Learn about the law before you pipe up.

Since there are way too many people who would be all too happy to
press for eliminating all guns, the NRA serves as an effective
counterpoint to that line of reasoning. I think that if you actually
knew any rural gun owners, you'd find that they are almost universally
opposed to *any* increased gun control measures, mostly because they
don't trust you city/suburban folks or the type of government that you
advocate.

"Rural" is 1/6 of the U.S. population. And you can't speak for them.
And what's with this "don't trust you city/suburban folks."
You're a city-slicker, so that's YOU, pal.

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 01:27:34 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

"Rural" is 1/6 of the U.S. population. And you can't speak for them.

About 95% of the land area however.

And what's with this "don't trust you city/suburban folks."
You're a city-slicker, so that's YOU, pal.

Not really. I grew up in a rural area where just about everyone
owned guns. Where I am now there are 10,000 acre cattle ranches just
a few miles from town.

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 08:31:49 -0400, Wayne B
wrote:

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 01:27:34 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

"Rural" is 1/6 of the U.S. population. And you can't speak for them.

About 95% of the land area however.

And what's with this "don't trust you city/suburban folks."
You're a city-slicker, so that's YOU, pal.

Not really. I grew up in a rural area where just about everyone
owned guns. Where I am now there are 10,000 acre cattle ranches just
a few miles from town.

Which is 1/6 of the population, thus they are in the extreme minority.

"Wayne B" wrote in message
...

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 21:32:20 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

I don't see multiple sides to the position of reducing gun violence.
Study after study has shown and country after country has
demonstrated
that fewer guns means fewer deaths.

====

Carried to its logical end point, your view leads to the inescapable
conclusion that eliminating all guns would eliminate all gun deaths.

Since there are way too many people who would be all too happy to
press for eliminating all guns, the NRA serves as an effective
counterpoint to that line of reasoning. I think that if you actually
knew any rural gun owners, you'd find that they are almost universally
opposed to *any* increased gun control measures, mostly because they
don't trust you city/suburban folks or the type of government that you
advocate.

----------------------------------------

Yup. Sorta like imposing your religion onto others.

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 06:49:57 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:



"Wayne B" wrote in message
.. .

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 21:32:20 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

I don't see multiple sides to the position of reducing gun violence.
Study after study has shown and country after country has
demonstrated
that fewer guns means fewer deaths.

====

Carried to its logical end point, your view leads to the inescapable
conclusion that eliminating all guns would eliminate all gun deaths.

Since there are way too many people who would be all too happy to
press for eliminating all guns, the NRA serves as an effective
counterpoint to that line of reasoning. I think that if you actually
knew any rural gun owners, you'd find that they are almost universally
opposed to *any* increased gun control measures, mostly because they
don't trust you city/suburban folks or the type of government that you
advocate.

----------------------------------------

Yup. Sorta like imposing your religion onto others.


Not even close. Sounds like a democracy to me. Nice try though.

In article , says...

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 06:49:57 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:



"Wayne B" wrote in message
.. .

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 21:32:20 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

I don't see multiple sides to the position of reducing gun violence.
Study after study has shown and country after country has
demonstrated
that fewer guns means fewer deaths.

====

Carried to its logical end point, your view leads to the inescapable
conclusion that eliminating all guns would eliminate all gun deaths.

Since there are way too many people who would be all too happy to
press for eliminating all guns, the NRA serves as an effective
counterpoint to that line of reasoning. I think that if you actually
knew any rural gun owners, you'd find that they are almost universally
opposed to *any* increased gun control measures, mostly because they
don't trust you city/suburban folks or the type of government that you
advocate.

----------------------------------------

Yup. Sorta like imposing your religion onto others.


Not even close. Sounds like a democracy to me. Nice try though.

Read some DeToqueville

On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 10:23:16 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article , says...

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 06:49:57 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:



"Wayne B" wrote in message
.. .

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 21:32:20 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

I don't see multiple sides to the position of reducing gun violence.
Study after study has shown and country after country has
demonstrated
that fewer guns means fewer deaths.

====

Carried to its logical end point, your view leads to the inescapable
conclusion that eliminating all guns would eliminate all gun deaths.

Since there are way too many people who would be all too happy to
press for eliminating all guns, the NRA serves as an effective
counterpoint to that line of reasoning. I think that if you actually
knew any rural gun owners, you'd find that they are almost universally
opposed to *any* increased gun control measures, mostly because they
don't trust you city/suburban folks or the type of government that you
advocate.

----------------------------------------

Yup. Sorta like imposing your religion onto others.


Not even close. Sounds like a democracy to me. Nice try though.

Read some DeToqueville

You have no idea what legislative power is or the obligation of the
population has to support those less fortunately. So, next time you
pull **** out of your ass, kindly do it in private.

On 3/30/13 12:38 PM, Urin Asshole wrote:
On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 10:23:16 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article , says...

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 06:49:57 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:



"Wayne B" wrote in message
...

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 21:32:20 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

I don't see multiple sides to the position of reducing gun violence.
Study after study has shown and country after country has
demonstrated
that fewer guns means fewer deaths.

====

Carried to its logical end point, your view leads to the inescapable
conclusion that eliminating all guns would eliminate all gun deaths.

Since there are way too many people who would be all too happy to
press for eliminating all guns, the NRA serves as an effective
counterpoint to that line of reasoning. I think that if you actually
knew any rural gun owners, you'd find that they are almost universally
opposed to *any* increased gun control measures, mostly because they
don't trust you city/suburban folks or the type of government that you
advocate.

----------------------------------------

Yup. Sorta like imposing your religion onto others.


Not even close. Sounds like a democracy to me. Nice try though.

Read some DeToqueville

You have no idea what legislative power is or the obligation of the
population has to support those less fortunately. So, next time you
pull **** out of your ass, kindly do it in private.



Or even what the guy's name was. It ain't DeToqueville.

It is de Tocqueville, Alexis de Tocqueville, and in usual discussion,
the reference is Tocqueville, as in "Tocqueville said, among other
things, that democracy in the United States had a fair balance of
liberty and equality, and concern for the individual as well as the
community which he lived."

If Tocqueville visited these days, he'd have a far different opinion,
thanks to the radicalization of the right.