The disengenouous NRA.

[variant]

In a town hall meeting NRA spokesperson Dana Loaesch purported that the NRA supports robust background checks and measures to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill.

I don’t believe that this insane monster should have ever been able to obtain a firearm. Ever. I do not think that he should have gotten his hands on any kind of weapon. That’s number one. This individual was nuts. And I, nor the millions of people that I represent as a part of this organization that I’m here speaking for, none of us support people who are crazy, who are a danger to themselves, who are a danger to others getting their hands on a firearm. And we have been, for over 20 years—and I have been—screaming about this, which is why I’m here, because I have kids. And I’m not just fighting for my kids, I’m fighting for you. I’m fighting for you. I’m fighting for all of you. Because I don’t want anyone to ever be in this position again. I want everyone to think about this for one second, and this goes right into your question. … This madman passed a background check. How was he able to pass a background check? He was able to pass a background check because we have a system that’s flawed.

Further:

This is the eighth tragedy where we have seen numerous tips that have been reported, and red flags … In Charleston they had to say—they had to come out and say that it was a paperwork error that this individual was a prohibited possessor. In South Carolina you have to be charged with a felony and he shouldn’t have been able to purchase the firearm. The worst school shooting with the murderer in Virginia, this individual was court-ordered to undergo mental health evaluations. And he slipped through the cracks. He would have never been able to purchase if this had been known. This is what I’m talking about in terms of prevention and making sure that people who are dangerous should not have access to firearms.

Meanwhile in reality. The NRA has been fighting to limit background checks and remove the ability of law enforcement and mental health professionals from dealing with guns.

Here are the NRA's talking points on on background checks, and why they oppose expanding them:
NRA-ILA | Background Checks | NICS

They oppose new age limits on gun purchases, making sure that the teenager should have access to semiautomatic AR15's and such:
NRA opposes new age limits on gun purchases

They passed a law in Florida that made it so that mental health professionals and doctors couldn't speak to their patients about firearms.
An NRA-backed law restricting doctor-patient gun discussions has been struck down

They backed president Trumps action to overturn rules keeping people who were too mentally ill to manage their finances from owning firearms.
Trump repeals an Obama regulation keeping guns from people with certain mental health conditions

Ect

 

[Paulos23]

The NRA has gone off the deep end. They will not be happy until every person in the USA is armed and it becomes the wild west again....

 

[ThatRobGuy]

It's just a way they can talk out of both sides of their mouth...

They can say they support "robust background checks", but if they support laws that state that private sales can happen without said "robust background checks", then they really don't care about vetting gun purchases.

That's like saying "we support strong DUI prevention measure", but in the same breath saying "but police can't set up checkpoints or pull anyone over on 40% of the streets in the city, and we're going to publish a list of those streets so people who want to drive drunk know which roads to avoid on their drive home"

 

[variant]

It just sickened me to see someone stand up there and lie over and over again to try and make it everyone's fault but theirs. They are knee deep in why the background checks are so faulty. They are knee deep in why crazy people have easy access to guns.

So, they have no grounds to say that the kid was a sick individual who never should have been able to get a gun when they've done everything in their power to make sure he had one.

 

[Gigimo]

10 Surprising Facts About the NRA That You Never Hear

10 Surprising Facts About the NRA That You Never Hear

 

[mark kennedy]

It just sickened me to see someone stand up there and lie over and over again to try and make it everyone's fault but theirs. They are knee deep in why the background checks are so faulty. They are knee deep in why crazy people have easy access to guns.

So, they have no grounds to say that the kid was a sick individual who never should have been able to get a gun when they've done everything in their power to make sure he had one.

But they have alot more money then you so there...

 

[szechuan]

10 Surprising Facts About the NRA That You Never Hear

10 Surprising Facts About the NRA That You Never Hear

10. Current stance on gun Control
"More guns Obviously." - The NRA

 

[rjs330]

The Disingenuous Topic-

Once again with this topic we the the spin masters at work. Nice job!

The NRA supported the NICS Improvement act which was there to keep those with mental illnesses who are a danger to themselves or other from obtaining a firearm.

You claim Loesch said they support robust background checks yet what you quoted didn't day that. She talked about mental illness and crazy people not getting guns. Quite a bit of difference between that and robust background checks. The NRA does support dangerous mentally ill people from getting firearms.

She is absolutely correct. Dangerous people shouldn't have guns. The NRA does not support dangerous people having guns.

This topic is disingenuous.

 

[szechuan]

nvm

 

[Andrew77]

The NRA has gone off the deep end. They will not be happy until every person in the USA is armed and it becomes the wild west again....

I support this. If every single woman was armed, there would be a ton less rape going on. Guaranteed.

Over in the UK, a woman was raped on a bus... literally on a UK city bus, while everyone on the bus did nothing, because none were armed.

Quite frankly, you claim people being able to defend themselves would be the wild west, and yet things are far worse today with far fewer people being armed. You want us to be in an anarchy society, not the NRA.

 

[variant]

The Disingenuous Topic-

Once again with this topic we the the spin masters at work. Nice job!

The NRA supported the NICS Improvement act which was there to keep those with mental illnesses who are a danger to themselves or other from obtaining a firearm.

You claim Loesch said they support robust background checks yet what you quoted didn't day that. She talked about mental illness and crazy people not getting guns. Quite a bit of difference between that and robust background checks. The NRA does support dangerous mentally ill people from getting firearms.

She is absolutely correct. Dangerous people shouldn't have guns. The NRA does not support dangerous people having guns.

This topic is disingenuous.

I quoted the NRA on why they oppose background check in general, which is true. They are why the background checks don't work and their proposed changes to the background check system weaken them.

NRA opposes expanding firearm background check systems, because background checks don’t stop criminals from getting firearms, because some proposals to do so would deprive individuals of due process of law, and because NRA opposes firearm registration.

NRA-ILA | Background Checks | NICS

Any attempt to keep the mentally ill from getting firearms would require expanded background checks.

 

[Andrew77]

I quoted the NRA on why they oppose background check in general, which is true. They are why the background checks don't work and their proposed changes to the background check system weaken them.

Don't be ridiculous.

Canada had a total national licensing registration data base. After running the system for years... literally years, and spending hundreds of millions on the system... turned out they could not even provide a single... not even ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE where the background checks or the registry prevent a crime or shooting.

Not even one.

And you want to tell me that the only reason, the ONLY REASON... that our background checks didn't work is because of the NRA?

No, you are out of your mind.

When I was in school, and this was back in the 90s, I knew who to talk to, to buy a gun, drugs, and all kinds of illegal stuff. Everyone knew who to talk to. No amount of background checks can stop a teenager from getting Heroin, Pot, Smokes, Beer, or guns. You can't even stop a teenager, but you think you can stop everyone else?

No, you are only wrong, but crazy.

 

[variant]

Don't be ridiculous.

Canada had a total national licensing registration data base. After running the system for years... literally years, and spending hundreds of millions on the system... turned out they could not even provide a single... not even ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE where the background checks or the registry prevent a crime or shooting.

Not even one.

And you want to tell me that the only reason, the ONLY REASON... that our background checks didn't work is because of the NRA?

No, you are out of your mind.

When I was in school, and this was back in the 90s, I knew who to talk to, to buy a gun, drugs, and all kinds of illegal stuff. Everyone knew who to talk to. No amount of background checks can stop a teenager from getting Heroin, Pot, Smokes, Beer, or guns. You can't even stop a teenager, but you think you can stop everyone else?

No, you are only wrong, but crazy.

The NRA spokesperson said the reason for the shooting was that an "insane monster" was allowed a gun when they shouldn't have had one.

I am merely pointing out that the NRA opposes background checks that could actually do that.

Further:

Few states allow "red flags" to allow peoples guns to be taken away even temporarily from "insane monsters" and the NRA has absolutely fought against these.

Few states let courts take guns from people deemed a threat

I'm not the one talking about of both sides of my mouth, the NRA is, and if I am wrong about background checks then how is law enforcement supposed to stop "insane monsters" from getting guns and committing horrible crimes when there is no mechanism to do that?

If we (the NRA spokesperson and myself) both agree that the individual was nuts and shouldn't have been able to purchase a firearm, then why is the NRA consistently against any means of actually preventing it?

 

[Andrew77]

The NRA spokesperson said the reason for the shooting was that the crazy person was allowed a gun when they shouldn't have had one.

I am merely pointing out that the NRA opposes background checks that could actually do that.

"They are why the background checks don't work"

That's not claiming that they oppose background checks. That is specifically making the claim that if only the NRA would support it, then background checks would work.

That is a false claim. In fact, the whole reason most of us on our side of the argument oppose background checks, is specifically because they don't work. There is ZERO evidence from here, or around the world, that shows it works.

To claim that somehow "it would work! If only ... just if only that mean old NRA would stop preventing it from working it would!"

No. It would not. Period. It would not.

Again, if government laws preventing stuff worked, then Heroin wouldn't be a problem, and prescription pills would never be abused, and we wouldn't have people smuggling cigarettes.

No amount of back ground checks is going to stop this. The only thing your position will do is prevent law-abiding citizens from defending themselves from the people who are going to smuggle that AR-15, and start shooting people.

The only thing your side of this argument ever accomplishes is more people being killed.

 

[variant]

"They are why the background checks don't work"

That's not claiming that they oppose background checks. That is specifically making the claim that if only the NRA would support it, then background checks would work.

That is a false claim. In fact, the whole reason most of us on our side of the argument oppose background checks, is specifically because they don't work. There is ZERO evidence from here, or around the world, that shows it works.

To claim that somehow "it would work! If only ... just if only that mean old NRA would stop preventing it from working it would!"

No. It would not. Period. It would not.

Again, if government laws preventing stuff worked, then Heroin wouldn't be a problem, and prescription pills would never be abused, and we wouldn't have people smuggling cigarettes.

No amount of back ground checks is going to stop this. The only thing your position will do is prevent law-abiding citizens from defending themselves from the people who are going to smuggle that AR-15, and start shooting people.

The only thing your side of this argument ever accomplishes is more people being killed.

Background checks get people killed? You've got to be kidding.

That must be some great koolaid you've been drinking.

Background checks do in fact work:
Research Suggests Gun Background Checks Work, But They're Not Everything

 

[szechuan]

Background checks get people killed? You've got to be kidding.

maybe he is.
Can't trust no one man, that's why everybody needs more nukes i mean guns.

 

[Zatek]

@variant I searched your post history and I don't see you creating any threads about all the gun violence committed by people who grew up in single parent households. Many times more people die to gang members raised by unmarried mothers in one city Chicago alone, than to mentally ill people across the entire country.

Why the selective concern and outrage? Sounds like the disingenuous variant is a better thread title.

 

[szechuan]

@variant
Why the selective concern and outrage?

Concerned about Russian Bots on ChristianForums.com?

 

[variant]

@variant I searched your post history and I don't see you creating any threads about all the gun violence committed by people who grew up in single parent households. Many times more people die to gang members raised by unmarried mothers in one city Chicago alone, than to mentally ill people across the entire country.

Why the selective concern and outrage? Sounds like the disingenuous variant is a better thread title.

What on earth are you talking about?

The NRA being disingenuous about actually keeping firearms away from the mentally ill, has nothing to do with my posting history and apparent duty to be explicitly offended by gun crimes committed by kids raised in single parent households.

Your logical fallacy's are ad hominem and non-sequitur.

 

[variant]

Concerned about Russian Bots on ChristianForums.com?

Yeah I'm starting to wonder.