You don't *have* to get the facts wrong to advocate for gun control- but it helps

[friendly_iconoclast]

As witness one Yvonne Abraham, columnist for the Boston Globe. From today's Globe:

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/articles/2011/09/08/of_guns_and_politicians/

Home / News / Politics
Shot through with humor
By Yvonne Abraham
Globe Columnist / September 8, 2011


...Since then, the national electorate has lurched to the right, forcing Romney into inelegant contortions to explain even positions considered firmly Republican a few years ago. Shortly after Romney signed the bill, Congress, most of which is owned by - or terrified of - the gun lobby, allowed the federal assault weapons ban to expire. That’s why Jared Loughner was able to so easily obtain the semiautomatic weapon he used to kill six people and injure a gun rights-supporting congresswoman in Arizona earlier this year...

...The rest came from New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine, Georgia, and other places that look more like the Wild West, as guns go. They were bought in states where anybody can walk into a gun show and buy any weapon desired without a background check; where there are no product safety standards for guns; where the few people who lose their gun licenses because of mental illness get them back way too easily; where massacres like the one in Arizona redouble efforts to make guns more plentiful instead of less....

Class, can we say "faith-promoting rumors"? Good, I just knew we could!

[elleng]

1. Right, like 'guns don't kill people . .. .

[friendly_iconoclast]

4. Actually, the little metal thingies that come out of them do, usually at the behest of a human.

Not that we've cleared that up, have you any comments about the OP?

[SteveM]

40. Ever considered posting in Religion? nt

[msongs]

2. 100% of all people killed by guns are killed by gun owners. if it is in your hand, you own it nt

[Katya Mullethov]

3. You took the words right out of my mouth

One cannot argue with logic like that . Gun owners are the problem , less of them is the answer !

[friendly_iconoclast]

5. We should learn from our Rwandan friends and encourage machete ownership.

Imagine how much greater a tragedy the 1994 pogrom there would have been if the victims had been shot!

[oneshooter]

8. Isn't there a fellow here that claims to carry two machetes? Strapped to his legs I believe. n/t

[SteveM]

41. Hmm. That would make good rattlesnake protection, hunting in Texas South Plains.nt

[iverglas]

13. disgusting

Absolutely disgusting. There is nothing some people won't misrepresent in order to exploit it.

http://www.trebuchet-magazine.com/index.php/site/article/establishing_conflict_in_the_ivory_coast/

The Hutu majority understandably rebelled against the ruling Tutsi minority after independence, and by this time, the divisions exacerbated and codified by the Belgians had ossified into uncrossable social and cultural frontiers. By 1990, and the publication of the “Hutu Ten Commandments” that said it was incumbent on every Hutu to “kill the cockroaches” – ie. the Tutsis – and drive them all out of Rwanda, an ideology of hate had clearly taken over. Anti-Tutsi propaganda was ubiquitous across all media. Genocide was openly discussed in cabinet meetings. Militia across the country were armed with AK47s and machetes with clear instructions to kill Tutsis. Political moderates on the Hutu side were race traitors and deserved to die. The existing system of ID cards meant that locating victims was easy.

The UN forces present in the country reported caches of weapons, and what they were intended for, in January 1994, but nothing was done. ...

http://bloodbankers.typepad.com/editorials/2004/04/the_worlds_fast.html

Subsequent research, notably by UK investigative journalist Linda Melvern, has disclosed that this genocide had been carefully organized for more than three years by its ringleaders -- with the probable knowledge of their French military advisors and Chinese and Egyptian suppliers. . According to Melvern, this clique imported half a million machetes from China -- one for every three Hutus -- as well as 85,000 tons of AK47s and grenades from Boutros-Ghali's own Egypt.

... The reluctance on the part of the US to get involved has long been attributed to the supposed influence of the October 1993 Somalia incident, when 18 US soldiers died in a messy, pointless firefight with local warlords. But since the UK, France, and China, as well as the UN Secretary General, also opposed committing any troops to the area, other factors also have to be considered -- such as the close relationships that France, China (the machete supplier), and Egypt (the AK47 supplier) had with the Hutu-led Rwandan Army.

It was those militia forces, armed with AK47s, not machetes, who oversaw the massacres: 85,000 tons of AK47s and grenades.

The same is true in the case of atrocities committed in Congo, for example -- machetes may be used but the people in charge of the operations are wielding AK47s.

Just for decoration, maybe? Or do they maybe find them effective in rounding up large numbers of people to be brutalized and/or killed?

It time you and people like you stopped spewing crap about things you either know nothing about or choose to pretend you know nothing about. No deniability for you.

[friendly_iconoclast]

17. "spewing crap about things you either know nothing about..." Like this?

The police may not investigate by requring that the individual identify themself. If they so much as ASK that the individual identify themself they are likely as not going to get sued.

The person who said that is obviously unfamiliar with Hiibel v. Nevada


Pot, meet kettle....

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[friendly_iconoclast]

22. You pointed out that the government in Rwanda had guns. Most do.

Seemed a little difficult for you to acknowledge that those doing in their neighbors were civilians armed with machetes.

Also, you are perfectly free to alert a moderator or not reply at all if you find my posts so infuriating.

[iverglas]

26. what is your expertise in this area?

I happen to have spent a great deal of time researching one particular Rwandan war criminal case and am rather intimately familiar with the details of the genocide.

What was your point here? --

the government in Rwanda had guns. Most do.

Those guns were what the agents of the genocide used. What was your point?

The Atlantic Magazine published a very good article in 2001. I'd lend you my copy, but you can read it on line. It's very long.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2001/09/bystanders-to-genocide/4571/?single_page=true

... America's best-informed Rwanda observer was not a government official but a private citizen, Alison Des Forges, a historian and a board member of Human Rights Watch, who lived in Buffalo, New York. Des Forges had been visiting Rwanda since 1963. She had received a Ph.D. from Yale in African history, specializing in Rwanda, and she could speak the Rwandan language, Kinyarwanda. Half an hour after the plane crash Des Forges got a phone call from a close friend in Kigali, the human-rights activist Monique Mujawamariya. Des Forges had been worried about Mujawamariya for weeks, because the Hutu extremist radio station, Radio Mille Collines, had branded her "a bad patriot who deserves to die." Mujawamariya had sent Human Rights Watch a chilling warning a week earlier: "For the last two weeks, all of Kigali has lived under the threat of an instantaneous, carefully prepared operation to eliminate all those who give trouble to President Habyarimana."

Now Habyarimana was dead, and Mujawamariya knew instantly that the hard-line Hutu would use the crash as a pretext to begin mass killing. "This is it," she told Des Forges on the phone. For the next twenty-four hours Des Forges called her friend's home every half hour. With each conversation Des Forges could hear the gunfire grow louder as the militia drew closer. Finally the gunmen entered Mujawamariya's home. "I don't want you to hear this," Mujawamariya said softly. "Take care of my children." She hung up the phone.

... Minutes after the phone call a UN peacekeeper attempted to hike the Prime Minister over the wall separating their compounds. When Leader heard shots fired, she urged the peacekeeper to abandon the effort. "They can see you!" she shouted. Uwilingiyimana managed to slip with her husband and children into another compound, which was occupied by the UN Development Program. But the militiamen hunted them down in the yard, where the couple surrendered. There were more shots. Leader recalls, "We heard her screaming and then, suddenly, after the gunfire the screaming stopped, and we heard people cheering." Hutu gunmen in the Presidential Guard that day systematically tracked down and eliminated Rwanda's moderate leadership.

... The consequences of the exclusive attention to foreigners were felt immediately. In the days after the plane crash some 2,000 Rwandans, including 400 children, had grouped at the Ecole Technique Officielle, under the protection of about ninety Belgian soldiers. Many of them were already suffering from machete wounds. They gathered in the classrooms and on the playing field outside the school. Rwandan government and militia forces lay in wait nearby, drinking beer and chanting, "Pawa, pawa," for "Hutu power." On April 11 the Belgians were ordered to regroup at the airport to aid the evacuation of European civilians. Knowing they were trapped, several Rwandans pursued the jeeps, shouting, "Do not abandon us!" The UN soldiers shooed them away from their vehicles and fired warning shots over their heads. When the peacekeepers had gone out through one gate, Hutu militiamen entered through another, firing machine guns and throwing grenades. Most of the 2,000 gathered there were killed. ...

You may try to fool yourself into believing that firearms were not the tools of the Rwandan genocide, but the fact, as acknowledged by every informed and honest observer, is that the genocide was only possible because of the firearms used to accomplish what is described above.

Your denial of that fact in order to exploit an actual attempted genocide for your own ends was and is disgustng.

[friendly_iconoclast]

44. DUer Euromutt has investigated war crimes in an official capacity for the UN

...and he is also familiar with the genocide in Rwanda. His take is that it was frankly too much killing for the militias
to do all on their own, and they calculated to a nicety both what they could get away with and how much collaboration they
could get from the Hutu population.

You may try to fool yourself into believing that firearms were not the tools of the Rwandan genocide, but the fact, as acknowledged by every informed and honest observer, is that the genocide was only possible because of the firearms used to accomplish what is described above.

And you can keep dancing around the fact that most of the killings were done with machetes, by civilians- but it's
still true. The firearms were a backup, but the killings were a real-life example of The Monsters Are Out On Maple Street,
writ large and bloody, or a gang initiation as directed by Pasolini.

Of course, it also helps if the people you want to butcher in wholesale lots have no means to defend themselves...

[iverglas]

45. and I don't give a flying fuck

The ones with guns took out the GOVERNMENT which was kind of basic to the exercise.

They were not a "back-up". They were the organizing tools of the genocide.

[iverglas]

38. so I'll say it again

Time the post in question was posted IN ANOTHER THREAD: 10:56 pm
Time you posted a contentless comment accusing me of not responding: 10:59 pm
Time of this post in a thread to which it is not relevant: 11:05 pm
Time of my reply to the post in question in the other thread: 11:09 pm

My reply in the other thread had been posted when I saw this post of yours in this thread.

In fact I was composing that reply when you posted this.

And on the meat of the matter, just for anyone who doesn't know what the off-topic topic is:

The person who said that is obviously unfamiliar with Hiibel v. Nevada

-- the person who said it, moi, demonstrated conclusively that the person who said ^this^ was blowing it out their gun barrel because Hiibel v. Nevada hasn't got thing one to do with what I said in that thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=459093&mesg_id=459401

In future, kindly address your remarks to me about my posts in a thread IN THAT THREAD, and refrain from engaging in baseless negative personal commentary about me ... particularly when you do so, as in this case, as pure diversionary grooming to avoid acknowledging that you have no reply.

[Union Scribe]

15. Oh, damn.

So if someone steals my car, it's THEIRS now? Possession is 10/10 of the law?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

39. How about stabbings?

If we abolished private property we could do away with laws against theft.

Saaay, that's a mighty fine computer you got there.

[X_Digger]

6. My response? "Errrrr.. no."

*sigh* I wish journalists would do more actual research before blathering on about a subject they're obviously unprepared to discuss.

[OffWithTheirHeads]

7. O.K. I have to ask, what is the point of posting this on DU?

Are you just bored? Do you actually think you are going to change any body's mind? Perhaps you just like flame bait. Frankly, I don't see the point but I have some time to kill so I'll bite.

Is the argument specious? Of course! Most of the anti gun crowd arguments are. The fact that I could walk into any gun store in California, which has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation, and bought the same Glock that Loughner used gives the lie to the argument. The 30 round mags would have only taken slightly more work because, technically, they are illegal in California but I saw them at the range all the time. In fact, every semi auto hand gun I own was purchased in California. So the argument is bullshit but I ask again, what's the point of posting this here? If you are just trying to stir up shit, advocate for Ralph Nader. You will have more fun and maybe even get on the greatest page.

[friendly_iconoclast]

11. Because the column had a gobsmackingly stupid error which could and should have been caught

And here it is, with an explanation

Shortly after Romney signed the bill, Congress, most of which is owned by - or terrified of - the gun lobby, allowed the federal assault weapons ban to expire. That’s why Jared Loughner was able to so easily obtain the semiautomatic weapon he used to kill six people and injure a gun rights-supporting congresswoman in Arizona earlier this year...

Loughner used a handgun, which was not covered by the assault weapons ban- a fact that could have been noticed with
a few minutes' research online. So Abraham flunks Journalism 101 and is a) lazy, b) stupid, or c) dishonest. Take your pick...

[SteveM]

42. ...one of those 'noted, respected liberal commentators.' nt

[russ1943]

46. 18 U.S.C. § 922(v) & 18 U.S.C. § 922(w)

In your # 11 you posted "Loughner used a handgun, which was not covered by the assault weapons ban- a fact that could have been noticed with a few minutes' research online."

Didn’t he use a handgun with a “large capacity ammunition feeding device” which was also banned under the act commonly referred to as the AWB?

If he did, then your remark that he used a hand gun which was not covered by the AWB is every bit, if not more, of a gobsmackingly stupid error than the column you are criticising.

[gejohnston]

47. no and here is why

Loughner used a standard pistol (where the magazine well is in the grip). The magazine is not relevent. Handguns that were banned were basicly semi auto versions of a sub-machine guns like the Tec nine and Uzi. AWB pistols were defined as:
Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
A semi-automatic version of an automatic firearm

Loughner's gun had none of these features. Notice that none of these had anything to do with the function, just what they looked like.

[russ1943]

49. The LCAFD used was a part of the AWB.

I've read the text of the entire law. That same law had another often ignored but important characteristic. The LCAFD ban was enacted by the same law as the SAW ban. The fact is, that the large capacity ammunition feeding device which the AZ shooter actually did use, was banned under the act, commonly referred to as the AWB. Simply put that means with that magazine in place he used a LCAFD that was covered by the assault weapons ban.

[gejohnston]

53. The magazines still existed

as in could no longer be purchased new, but existing ones were still legal. To call it a ban is a misnomer.

[X_Digger]

48. Only magazines produced after the effective date were affected.

There were plenty of magazines of all sizes produced before the ban that were perfectly legal to sell during the ban.

[russ1943]

50. It was banned under the AWB.

The point is that the AZ shooter did use a magazine that was banned under the AWB.

[X_Digger]

51. Only new stock.

Please continue the semantic masturbation as long as you like, but he could have walked into any store during the ban and purchased the exact same gun and magazine. The supply of pre-ban magazines was never depleted.

The magazine would have been 20-30% more expensive, but Loughner purchased two handguns that day in November, he could definitely have afforded the premium price.

[friendly_iconoclast]

52. Loughner might have used "AWB friendly" magazines and killed more people, like the VT killer did.

Apparently, some believe that spree killers that reload are less dangerous. If you still think so, here's a simple experiment for
you:

Say out loud the phrase "One Missisippi, two Missisippi." In the time that it took you to say that, a practiced shooter can
eject an empty magazine from a gun and insert a new one. That's precisely what Seung Hui-Cho did, and so did the original
"postal" shooter did in Oklahoma a couple of decades back. Trying to ban large-capacity magazines because they're "dangerous" is a fools' crusade.

[X_Digger]

55. I find it amazing that those who think the AWB was a good thing don't actually know it's details.

I thought that the term 'pre-ban' had entered the common lexicon of everyone with more than a passing interest in the subject.

[russ1943]

56. re. #47, 48, 51 & 53

I’m aware that the AWB only affected new stock, I didn’t say otherwise. I agree that to call the so called AWB a ban is somewhat of a misnomer. Most references I’ve made to it I’ve tried to include the term “so called”. The term 'pre-ban' can mean different things to different people even relative to this subject. http://forum.pafoa.org/general-2/55401-what-does-pre-ban-mean.html

My final comment on this is simply that when a poster like # 11 stated;
“Loughner used a handgun, which was not covered by the assault weapons ban- a fact that could have been noticed with a few minutes' research online.”
I thought and posted in my # 46 that his # 11 was as much if not more, of a gobsmackingly stupid error with that statement than the column he was criticising.
I didn’t praise the column writer.
I didn’t say anything contrary to known facts about the Crime Control Act of 1994, commonly referred to as the AWB
I didn’t say the AZ shooter (I won’t use the name any more than necessary) couldn’t legally buy the firearms or the magazines banned under the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, commonly referred to as the AWB.
I am aware that there was a huge increase in production & importation (especially of the large capacity ammunition feeding devices) of the items to be covered under the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act.

I tried to point out that the Az. shooter, once he inserted the large capacity ammunition device into the firearm, did have and use what was included in the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, commonly referenced as the AWB.

Get it? I doubt it.

[X_Digger]

57. The handgun was not covered.. semantic masturbation aside.

If the ban would have had no effect on Loughner's ability to procure that handgun and that magazine (which you admit)..

Then you should agree that-

That’s why Jared Loughner was able to so easily obtain the semiautomatic weapon he used to kill six people and injure a gun rights-supporting congresswoman in Arizona earlier this year...

- is a rather stupid thing to say. Unless you want to try to hang your hat on 'easily'- which as I indicated, only means paying 20-30% more for the magazine.

[oneshooter]

54. If they were"banned" then how many were picked up and destroyed? n/t

[PavePusher]

9. Wow. That's Hoyt-worthy there. n/t

[iverglas]

10. I give up

Was there a point in your post? Were you going to state it?

[friendly_iconoclast]

12. See post #11 for details. This is climate-denial levels of derp

Not quite on a par with this, but close:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=439&topic_id=1834630

[iverglas]

14. ah, yes

and somehow that means you don't need to address everything else said in that piece, or by anyone else who has said similar things.

The world o' guns is a fine one. Argumentum ad locutorem works every time. Undoubtedly her apparent error on that fact would also serve to refute her statement that the sky is blue.

Nice piece, though. Thanks for posting it!

[friendly_iconoclast]

24. I'm perfectly willing to point out and discuss her *other* clangers

The rest came from New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine, Georgia, and other places that look more like the Wild West, as guns go.

Vermont, where there were *no* gun murders last year, as opposed to 'reasonable, common-sense' Massachusetts which had a couple of dozen?

where there are no product safety standards for guns;

Like what? A ten-round magazine limit?
Magazine safeties? Loaded-chamber indicators? Abraham does not say what "product safety standards" she is referring to.

where the few people who lose their gun licenses because of mental illness get them back way too easily;

"Too easily" Does that mean "at all" or "without a formal hearing"? Again, Abraham does not say.

[iverglas]

27. I don't see any discussion

quoted: "The rest came from New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine, Georgia, and other places that look more like the Wild West, as guns go."

Your "response": Vermont, where there were *no* gun murders last year, as opposed to 'reasonable, common-sense' Massachusetts which had a couple of dozen?

What has that got to do with where guns used in crimes elsewhere came from?

Answer: nothing.

Vermont looks like the wild west in terms of unregulated access to firearms, OBVIOUSLY. Did you actually not grasp that?

quoted: "where there are no product safety standards for guns;"

Your response: Like what? A ten-round magazine limit?
Magazine safeties? Loaded-chamber indicators? Abraham does not say what "product safety standards" she is referring to.

Why don't you ask her? How about standards that would have prevented this little incident?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x65648

Are you claiming that gun manufacturers ARE covered by consumer product safety standards?

quoted: "where the few people who lose their gun licenses because of mental illness get them back way too easily"

Your response: "Too easily" Does that mean "at all" or "without a formal hearing"? Again, Abraham does not say.

I give up. Do you know the answer? It's an opinion piece. If you disagree with the opinion, feel free to present your reasons.

[safeinOhio]

16. You don't have to get the facts right

if you are the NRA spreading lies either. Just for fun google "NRA lies".

Looks like the extremes on both sides twist the truth to push agendas.

[gejohnston]

19. That is what ideologues do.

are you surprised?

[safeinOhio]

21. Only surprised that it has to be

pointed out to one side or the other.
They seem to think who ever yells the loudest, wins.

NRA and the Brady Campaign are the two sides of the same coin.

[gejohnston]

34. I'm not surprised, but

certainly disappointed when even Rachel did the same thing with the plastic gun urban legend, along with my beef with a couple of writers for a couple of progressive sites I bitched about before.

[friendly_iconoclast]

20. Please dig a few "NRA lies" up for us, and post them.

G'wan, search the NRA's various sites and get the goods- you won't catch gun cooties, I swear.

I directly quoted and linked to the primary source of what I found. I expect you can do the same to the NRA

[safeinOhio]

23. From their mag in 2008

Obama has a secret 10 point plan to take away your guns.

The United Nations will take away your guns.

http://nrano.com/

Lies and Damn Lies by the NRA
Mother Jones
http://rising-hegemon.blogspot.com/2008/08/lies-and-damned-lies-by-nra.html

from
http://www.angrywhiteguy.com/?p=7605
So anyway the NRA called, we spoke and they played some prerecorded message from Wayne LaPierre, NRA’s president, about how the UN is trying to push a global gun ban and we need to stop it right now by getting out our checkbooks/credit cards to ensure that keeping and bearing arms, our inalienable 2nd Amendment right, as American as apple pie and the 4th of July (and jingoism and xenophobia), isn’t trampled by some foreign folks and we’re all for stopping the commies at the door. So according to the NRA I, me alone can save America for the low-low price of not $175.00, not $150.00 but today because I’m a patriotic American… I can save it for only $125.00 a year and for my $125.00 I get a sticker! Yeah!
However…. however… the NRA conveniently left out a little part about how the US can not enter into treaties without a 2/3 vote of support in the Senate, nor how any treaty or law can circumvent or undermine Constitution Rights (the Supreme Court has ruled on this in Reid v. Covert and District of Columbia v. Heller hello ObamaCare) nor how the UN (as much as I dislike them) isn’t even trying to ban guns at all and I’m sure many of the socialist at the UN would love to tell American just what and how to do something. But the reality is the UN is a joke and the next conservative congress should stop paying dues and cut all ties to them for the socialist joke they are and in an effort to reduce our debt charge them a trillion dollars a month rent in NYC.

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/10/the-rifle-associations-true-story/


Keep yelling louder about your beloved NRA and keep voting for their hero board members like Ted Nugent and Grover Norquist. I'm sure the extremist that want to keep law abiding citizens from owning guns will scream right along with you. Remember the loudest lies win.

[friendly_iconoclast]

25. I see a lot of people *talking* about the NRA, but no quotes from them

I guess you missed that part about "I directly quoted and linked to the primary source"

[safeinOhio]

28. Try the factcheck.org link

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/09/nra-targets-obama/

Has links to NRA fliers and videos they put out in 2008.

You have yell louder if you want to win.

[friendly_iconoclast]

29. Better yet, how about DU itself? You even participated in one of these:

The last one (first chronologically)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=401180#401274

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=214307#214494

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=332938#333002


Just as here, the phobia of linking to primary sources was strong then as well.
Unsurprisingly, as "The NRA says..." turned out to not be what they said on more than one occasion-
and there are actual links to the NRA site on those threads to illustrate the point.

Like I said in the OP...

[iverglas]

30. I see a lot of ducking and diving from you

Are you running for Mr. Disingenuous of 2011?

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/45451.pdf

CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
April 7, 2005
The United Nations and “Gun Control”
Marjorie Ann Browne
Specialist in International Relations
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division

... The number of comments increased during 2001 as the U.N. Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in all Its Aspects took place in New York in July. For example, an article in NewsMax.com on April 27, 2001, reporting on the position of the National Rifle Association, began in the following way:

The U.N. is after Americans’ Second Amendment gun rights — it wants gun ownership banned in the U.S., and it’s not going to stop until it gets its way.

That’s the warning from the National Rifle Association’s Wayne LaPierre, who reveals that “for the first time in the history of the world, a United Nations conference has set its sights on global disarmament — disarming citizens worldwide - including you and me.”
***
“The bottom line is that international gun banners want every gun — every single gun worldwide — to be under U.N. and government control,” warns LaPierre. “And that includes your rifle, your shotgun, your handgun, and even family heirlooms that have been handed down from generation to generation.”2

2 U.N. wants Global Gun Ban, NewsMax.com, April 27, 2001, at <http://www.newsmax.com>.
Wayne LaPierre is the Executive Vice President and Chief Executive Officer of the National
Rifle Association.

Direct quotes from the ass's mouth okay with you?

Those will be some direct quotes of LaPierre lying, I'd say. Not disagreeing on a matter of interpretation; lying.

[friendly_iconoclast]

32. Well, we naturally expect *you* to come up with the goods under pressure

Well done, btw.

Judging by the other "work" in this thread, some the other posters could use a friendly chat about their researching skills...

[safeinOhio]

33. Ducking and diving go with yelling the loudest

for the ideologues at the extremes of any issue. That be, both sides pointing and wagging fingers.

[gejohnston]

31. hearsay, how about primary sources?

Keep yelling louder about your beloved NRA and keep voting for their hero board members like Ted Nugent and Grover Norquist. I'm sure the extremist that want to keep law abiding citizens from owning guns will scream right along with you. Remember the loudest lies win.

GOA, those guys are extreme. I remember Nugent as being an archery guy, big on bow hunting. He is there because he is a has been trying to stay in the limelight, and his politics suck as much as I think his music did. We all retire and become has beens, just most of us do it with class.
Norquist at a shooting range or in the sticks? I picture that like I picture Jed Clamppet or myself at a lawn party in the Hamptons. He is there playing culture warrior to divide the rest of us.

[friendly_iconoclast]

35. It's the gun cooties, I tells ya!

Go to an NRA site, and the next thing you know you'll be belting out "Free For All" or "Wango Tango" at some dive bar on karaoke
night...

[safeinOhio]

36. Do you have a link for that?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Euromutt]

37. You promised me you wouldn't tell anyone about that!

I still suffer pangs of embarrassment every time I hear "Cat Scratch Fever"...

[SteveM]

43. In the Land of False Equivalency, a Virginal Centrist can always be found.