Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan No one is going to ban any guns. That's hysterical paranoia from the NRA's talking points. But how about standing up agains IRRESPONSIBLE gun owners? People who drive cars don't rally around drunk drivers. They don't rally around people who spin donuts in the middle of the night or get involved in street racing. But with guns, it's different. Pro-gun people can't seem to make that separation at times like these, when someone clearly was irresponsible with a firearm. And Zimmerman surely was that. Instead, they contribute to his defense fund (up to $200K before it was shut down) because they see him as the frontline in the right to bear arms. If nothing else, it's stupid PR.
Originally Posted By DyGDisney I would ban certain guns! Maybe no one is going to, but I would be all for it if they did. I really think the far off future will either be one in which we have all destroyed eachother, or we learn to live in peace, without guns.
Originally Posted By dshyates Yes Donny, I drink and drive a car, though not at the same time. What's your point?
Originally Posted By 182 Do you ever sit a Fatal DUI crash and wonder It really makes the drinking nuts hard to take seriously ?
Originally Posted By dshyates Donny, I don't know any drunk driving advocates. But I do imagine that I would find them annoying.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer I don't think that there is any significant drinking lobby like the NRA, unless you count the Kennedy family.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>Do you ever sit a Fatal DUI crash and wonder It really makes the drinking nuts hard to take seriously ?<< Tell you what ... I'll agree to make DUI illegal if you agree to make carrying a concealed weapon illegal. ;-)
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <This is the problem with much of the NRA's positions. Rather than take a stand against irresponsible people like Zimmerman, they see any action to bring him to justice as a threat to responsible gun owners. It's that knee-jerk reaction that makes the NRA look hysterical.> This. Big time. <Well, that, and Ted Nugent types.> Bigger time! <People who drive cars don't rally around drunk drivers. They don't rally around people who spin donuts in the middle of the night or get involved in street racing.> You're on a roll, 2oony. Absolutely right. AAA doesn't defend or attempt to justify would-be macho men who drag race through residential neighborhoods. In fact, just the opposite - they condemn them. That's why AAA is not known as "car nuts," like the NRA is known as "gun nuts." I think most people can own guns responsibly, but the NRA is just absolutist and goes too far. To the point of things like opposing a ban on "cop killer bullets," which have NO purpose other than to pierce bullet-proof apparel like cops wear, because everything to them is a slippery slope. If everything is a slippery slope, it's impossible to be level-headed.
Originally Posted By ecdc Right. Donny's going for a common tactic: compare dissimilar things by superficially comparing them and claiming they're the same. Alcohol and guns, not the same thing.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving aren't against drinking in general. They aren't against driving. They are specifically against drinking AND driving in combination. The NRA, meanwhile, seems unwilling or unable to make a distinction between responsible gun owners and clowns like Zimmerman. The NRA teaches gun safety courses, certifies gun safety instructors. What Zimmerman did goes against their own gun safety experts, which is something they ought to be amplifying to their membership when incidents like this occur. It's a "teachable moment" for gun owners.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 <<And before you ask, I RARELY drink alcohol --- maybe 2 times a year at my husbands work parties, and when I do, I drink very little.>> I rarely drink during the week, maybe sometimes I'll have a beer after work if I'm cooking <<I've NEVER been drunk in my life,>> It's okay when you are but the day after is the dicey part, though I rarely get hangovers. <<and I would never drink and drive.>> When I was younger my parents always said, if you need a ride, just call, no questions asked. A few years ago I was out and ran into some old friends I hadn't seen. A few hours of cactching up it was time to go. I could have driven, but it was better that I didn't. I called my parents house, no questions asked and was picked up.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 Oh and another thing sometimes when I posted as DAR, I was a little intoxicated.
Originally Posted By DyGDisney I know it would be okay, but I don't like the feeling I get if I drink more than a little bit. I want to feel completely in control, and it bothers me if I don't. So...I don't see myself drinking until I'm drunk, but who knows!
Originally Posted By 182 I think the comparison between guns and alcohol is very fair.I carry a gun and I know many people who do who have never had a scrape with the law,so when I hear people try to demonize guns I know how wrong they are. Most people who drink would never think about banning alcohol even when you think about it the net positive in less rape-abuse-fatal DUI's and so much more but drinkers like gun owners understand that most people don't abuse those freedoms.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer I have the occasional drink, but I'm the first to speak up if I see someone getting behind the wheel when they are drunk. If I hear that a drunk was killed in a car wreck I feel sorry for his family but I don't feel terribly sorry for him. I was an EMT and I've seen the effects of alcohol - and guns - first hand. Kar2oonMan has a valid point - why isn't the NRA all about responsible gun ownership in the same way that people like me focus on responsible use of alcohol? Why don't they actively distance themselves from those who have guns primarily to enforce real or perceived authority over others through the threat of violence? When someone runs over a kid because they were driving drunk, people don't fall all over themselves to call him a hero and they don't contribute hundreds of thousands of dollars to his defense. But if you shoot a kid in a hoodie who looked wrong, you're an NRA hero. The NRA is just the right wing's version of the ACLU - they believe in the right they support so absolutely that they don't speak out against those who abuse it.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>I think the comparison between guns and alcohol is very fair.I carry a gun and I know many people who do who have never had a scrape with the law,so when I hear people try to demonize guns I know how wrong they are.<< Okay, so let's continue with your analogy, just for the sake of argument. All of the things you've described, Donny, relating to irresponsible alcohol use are crimes. DUI, spouse or child abuse, etc. So why is it that irresponsible gun ownership isn't a crime? Every time I read about some kid getting killed with their parents gun, the story inevitably concludes with, "There are no charges forthcoming, we just consider this a tragic accident." Why are you defending Zimmerman so vociferously? He, at best, was irresponsible in ignoring the dispatcher.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan He also was violating the NRA's basic gun safety rules. <a href="http://www.nrahq.org/education/guide.asp" target="_blank">http://www.nrahq.org/education/guide.asp</a> Zimmerman was not "standing his ground." He was pursuing someone (unarmed and innocent as it turned out) because he chose to ignore the dispatcher. Standing his ground would have been making the call and staying put. He didn't, because he had a loaded gun and that made him feel more powerful.
Originally Posted By 182 If Trayvon Did attack Zimmerman first and zimmerman Did reasonably believe it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself .Then moraly and legaly he was in my mind justifed. Trayvon deserved to die if he attacked a person who represented no physical threat.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Trayvon deserved to die if he attacked a person who represented no physical threat.<< Seriously dude?
Originally Posted By DyGDisney Seriously Donny -- If someone were stalking you and you were unarmed, would you feel like that person represented no physical threat? I doubt it. You'd probably be wishing you were packing that handgun of yours with the hollow whatever bullets.
