February 12, 2013

This is the adult conversation I want

Liberals With Guns - Ta-Nehisi Coates - The Atlantic

And should be easy to see the difference between this and Steve Stockman inviting that idiot Ted Nugent to the SOTU speech.  I haven't seen anyone from the NRA suggest that was a bad idea.  Have you?  Does anyone here seriously think that Ted Nugent is a good representative for the responsible gun owners?



steves said...

I don't think Ted Nugent is a good ambassador for gun rights. If you frequent gun forums you will find that people either love him or dislike him and that he does not enjoy universal support.

He is on the NRA Board of Directors, along with around 30 other people. Do you think they are going to publicly denounce a Board member? I am hoping he decides to not go.

As for the article, it is a good one. I have made most of those arguments and I wonder why you discount them coming from me?

Streak said...

That is kind of the point, Steve. The NRA can't get rid of a crazy nutjob on their board? Of course they can't. And of course they can't speak out against him.

That is the point. That is the very point.

Which arguments do you think I have dismissed?

steves said...

Most of them. You just turn the focus to stuff like Ted Nugent and the NRA response to the State of the Union.

As for Ted, they can't get rid of him because he is nominated by members and voted on by the members. The NRA can't remove him. Given the sheer number of people on the board and Ted's popularity, I think he will stay.

Streak said...

Honestly that isn't an answer. I have admitted that restricting guns isn't easy. I have understood that the AWB was poorly crafted and focused on cosmetics. I understand the concerns of the responsible gun owners.

With all honesty, this sounds like a bit of "so do you." I have listened to you a bit more than you seem to have listened to me.

As, I might add, does this discussion about Ted Nugnt suggest. As I have said all along--as smitty has said--the NRA is irresponsible as an organization. And the fact that one of their board members is this fucking nutjob makes that obvious. To everyone, evidently, but you.

I have listened. I don't think you have.

Streak said...

And to be very fucking clear. I know the difference between responsible gun owners and you. I know that and don't accuse me of blurring that. Don't you suggest that I paint you all with the same brush, because I don't. I haven't, and I don't. And I have made that clear.

I am not alone, as Tony and Bob and Smitty have made clear. You are the one who dismisses my arguments but will hear them from others.

Streak said...

I apologize for my stridency. I think two points bother me. The vague sense that I am not listening to you when it seems clear that at least part of this disconnect has been your defensive response to anything I post on guns, and a need to make any criticism of gun owners a direct attack on people like you--no matter what I say to clarify.

And second. Seriously, if you can't see the problem with Ted Nugent here? This is the gun culture problem. A raving nutjob who nearly threatens the President and says unbelievably offensive things about Democratic women--cannot be criticized by the NRA because he is one of their board members. The fact that you don't see that as a problem speaks volumes.

As I have said repeatedly. I have no fear of gun owners like you. But that you can't understand our fear of people like Nugent and LaPierre is amazing to me.

steves said...

I agree that Ted Nugent is a terrible spokesperson for the gun rights movement. I won't vote for him for the Board. I don't send him money or buy his stuff. I speak out when I can against him. The fact that the gun rights movement isn't filled 100% with perfectly rational people doesn't nullify the movement. Does it?

I can't think of a single movement that doesn't contain some violent radical element (animal rights, environmental, occupy). Are you afraid of them?

Streak said...

I don't expect the gun rights movement to be 100%. That has never been the issue. But what you don't seem to acknowledge is that the gun rights people seem to have top loaded their public face with the nutjobs. The NRA can't publicly chide someone who told Obama to "suck" his gun, because he is one of their board members. That is really amazing. They can't criticize him for calling members of congress worthless bitches.

The issue here has always been the difference between the nutjobs who brandish their weapons in public and nearly threaten the country with revolution (as the NRA in Wisconsin just did, and as Nugent has essentially done several times) and those who are responsible, and sober gun owners. Like the guy in this post--who, I would note, not only rejects the idea of using guns to protect his own house, but also the idea of using them to fight the government.

The problem with the responsible side, is that they tolerate and excuse the nutjobs in many cases. And this is one of them. You have two nutjobs as the most visible faces of the NRA--the organization you say is the only one that really speaks for you as a gun owner, and there is nothing you can do about it, except say that you don't support him and that he is no different than some nutjob environmentalist.

This is the problem, Steve. a member of congress just reiterated the idea that a nutjob asshat is the face of the movement you support. And when he isn't speaking, the other nutjob LaPierre is.

steves said...

What do you want me to do about Ted? I am not sure the NRA can do much about him, though maybe the bylaws allow them to remove him somehow.

You confuse a lack of outrage with approval. That is not the case. I noticed that after Newtown, a member of the Texas Democratic Executive Committee and a Precinct Chair called for people to "shoot the NRA and anyone that defends them." The outrage was nonexistent.

I know you certainly don't advocate violent rhetoric. I am willing to bet that, while there are probably a number of anti-gun people that are ok with gun owners being killed, most people are not.

What happened in Wisconsin? The NRA made a bunch of people go out and commit a crime?

Streak said...

I am guessing that there are hardly any gun control people who want gun owners shot. I am guessing that person didn't understand irony, for one thing. I, for one, have no patience or tolerance for death threats there either. But we don't have examples (that I know of) of anti-gun people shooting people.

As for the NRA, you are correct. You can't remove him and neither can the NRA. That is the problem. He is part of that face of the gun culture that you want to just dismiss, but for many of us, it is the problem. This is the braying, in your face gun owner that drives us crazy. As is LaPierre. As are many of the Republicans who do the NRA's bidding.

The problem isn't that the NRA can't control Nugent, nor that you can't do anything about it. The problem is that he is the NRA. He is what the NRA wanted to be when he joined the board along with all the other nutjobs on that board. They are there on purpose.

No, the NRA didn't make people commit crimes (though thank you for taking me so seriously), a Wisconsin member called for another civil war or a new revolution. As many have noted, there is this huge weird disconnect where conservatives can claim to be more patriotic than me while at the same time threatening to destroy the government if they don't get their way.

And no, I don't fear that person will actually start a revolution, but this is the rhetoric of many 2nd amendment people that drives the rest of us nuts. They have their guns to protect them from evil government--which usually means exactly what the WI guy meant--that they won't respect the democratic process if it doesn't go their way.

steves said...

Uncle Ted was fucking nuts long before he jumped on the NRA/hunting bandwagon. I think Ted is all about promoting Ted, the caricature. I have no idea what the NRA really thinks about him or if they have ever made an attempt to tell him to tone it down.

I hadn't heard about the Wisconsin thing. My guess is that he wasn't the only one calling for some kind of crackpot revolution.

Streak said...

Exactly. He was nuts. Why did the NRA associate with him? That is the point. That is exactly the point. You think the guy is nuts, but the NRA public and political leadership saw him as a benefit. They may be regretting that now, but that is their public face. As is LaPierre. That is my point. That is the face of the gun culture that most of us see. That is the face promoting guns and dismissing anyone who has an issue with them.

And again, you seem to miss my point. The NRA and the nutjob right culture feeds that idea that we may have to have another American revolution. And not over torture or severe economic inequality. No, over healthcare and universal background checks.