Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Missn-Hitch

(1,383 posts)
Fri Jun 19, 2020, 03:45 PM Jun 2020

Please support the National African American Gun Association.

NAAGA is a small but growing organization. They welcome everyone. I think the dues were $30 per year for my wife and I. Even if you do not wish to own or learn about guns, your support would mean a lot.

Thank you for considering.

33 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Please support the National African American Gun Association. (Original Post) Missn-Hitch Jun 2020 OP
Sorry. tazkcmo Jun 2020 #1
Will do The Mouth Jun 2020 #2
Whoa. Thank you for the read. I will be diving into it. Have a good day. Missn-Hitch Jun 2020 #5
Apparently some are fine with this sarisataka Jun 2020 #16
seriously? i don't support guns beyond the absolute minimum. Who cares who's organization is samsingh Jun 2020 #3
This Might Start a Really Gun Control Laws ace3csusm Jun 2020 #4
That may be what it takes! Wouldn't it be nice if all guns were heavily regulated. BComplex Jun 2020 #6
I'm all for second amendment rights ace3csusm Jun 2020 #7
I'd go along with all of that. BComplex Jun 2020 #8
"Military style" is basically meaningless krispos42 Jun 2020 #10
Because gunz are scarey mmmm'k The Mouth Jun 2020 #11
+1 DashOneBravo Jun 2020 #14
Absolutely not true. When assault rifles were banned during Clinton, we had far fewer deaths. BComplex Jun 2020 #21
You're not being clear. What are you claiming isn't true? discntnt_irny_srcsm Jun 2020 #22
You proved his point re awb and murder rates jimmy the one Jun 2020 #23
I have the bifocals. Perhaps you're low on vitamin D. discntnt_irny_srcsm Jun 2020 #24
memories, of the way we was jimmy the one Jun 2020 #26
Your inability to answer questions speaks volumes and is an answer. n/t discntnt_irny_srcsm Jun 2020 #27
machismo bravado jimmy the one Jun 2020 #31
Oh if only we were actually discussing 'gun ownership rates' discntnt_irny_srcsm Jun 2020 #32
Quoting one's own prior statements and simply reiterating them only demonstrates friendly_iconoclast Jun 2020 #30
The fewer gun deaths were not related to the "ban". ManiacJoe Jun 2020 #25
You have been misinformed, sadly krispos42 Jun 2020 #29
So racism is ok sarisataka Jun 2020 #15
Gun control advocates here have *always* been willing to elide and defend racism... friendly_iconoclast Jun 2020 #18
Another stop and frisk proponent sarisataka Jun 2020 #28
This message was self-deleted by its author jimmy the one Jun 2020 #33
Opinions vs. facts Straw Man Jun 2020 #19
What it takes? Straw Man Jun 2020 #20
In Trump's racist America, J_William_Ryan Jun 2020 #9
Not just Black Americans. Cheers. Missn-Hitch Jun 2020 #12
Democrats own guns DashOneBravo Jun 2020 #13
Sorry, no can do jimmy the one Jun 2020 #17

tazkcmo

(7,286 posts)
1. Sorry.
Fri Jun 19, 2020, 03:48 PM
Jun 2020

My gun stance does not discriminate based on race, religion, age, sexual orientation or identification.

sarisataka

(18,220 posts)
16. Apparently some are fine with this
Sat Jun 20, 2020, 07:36 PM
Jun 2020

Gun control does have a history of supporting the end justifies the means

samsingh

(17,571 posts)
3. seriously? i don't support guns beyond the absolute minimum. Who cares who's organization is
Fri Jun 19, 2020, 03:50 PM
Jun 2020

promoting them.

ace3csusm

(969 posts)
4. This Might Start a Really Gun Control Laws
Fri Jun 19, 2020, 03:52 PM
Jun 2020

Minority with Guns could be what changes Republican minds about laws ... cant have those people running around with AR15

BComplex

(7,982 posts)
6. That may be what it takes! Wouldn't it be nice if all guns were heavily regulated.
Fri Jun 19, 2020, 04:03 PM
Jun 2020

Canada doesn't allow guns, as far as I know.

ace3csusm

(969 posts)
7. I'm all for second amendment rights
Fri Jun 19, 2020, 04:13 PM
Jun 2020

But those military style weapons need to go, also the should be regulated more...They should apply same regulations it takes to own a car.
- Yearly registration
- Insurance
- License renewal for operator
- Limit amount on amount owned etc...

I also believe Mexico heavily regulate them as well like Canda

BComplex

(7,982 posts)
8. I'd go along with all of that.
Fri Jun 19, 2020, 04:15 PM
Jun 2020

Mexico, btw, is blanketed with drug cartel gun carriers. It may be against SOME law, but the cartels are the ones running the show.

krispos42

(49,445 posts)
10. "Military style" is basically meaningless
Fri Jun 19, 2020, 05:57 PM
Jun 2020

The features you want to ban:

  • keeps losing us elections
  • doesn't save lives.
  • doesn't drive Democratic turnout
  • does drive Republican turnout
  • are an arbitrary and moving standard
  • doesn't stop mass shootings
  • doesn't lower the crime rate
  • damages our credibility
  • doesn't lower new-gun sales
  • keeps Republicans in power
  • moves the Republican agenda forward


Let's face it... those "military" features are just ergonomics. Would you be happy if your office chair had a fixed height? How about if it didn't swivel? Or recline?

I'm going to presume that, given a choice, you'd order for your office a chair that has adjustable height, that swivels, has castors, reclines, has adjustable-height armrests, and that you can adjust the backrest forwards or backwards. And I'll bet you really like that little knob under the seat that adjusts how much spring tension is being applied to the reclining backrest.

Okay, then why are you so intent on making pistol grips on a rifle or shotgun illegal? It's a more comfortable design than a traditional straight stock. I mean, jeez, we don't ban PISTOLS, even though 90% of gun homicides are done with a handgun, but you want to ban pistol grips on long guns?

And quick-adjustable buttstocks. Why? People are different sizes, they wear different amounts of clothing, and they shoot from different positions. Why is a buttstock that I can simply lengthen or shorten without tools an "assault weapon" feature?

A bayonet-mounting lug. Really? When has criminal bayonet use EVER been a factor to worry about? But it's an "assault weapon" feature.



If you boss one day got rid of all the old chairs and replaced them with new ones were of a fixed height, that didn't recline, and didn't swivel, you'd probably be pissed. Especially if the reason the boss gave was a bullshit, emotional one.

The Mouth

(3,123 posts)
11. Because gunz are scarey mmmm'k
Fri Jun 19, 2020, 06:28 PM
Jun 2020

Big, evil Black assault rifles with the shroud thingy that goes up.

Remember, Terry Mcauliff says we lose 93 million people a day to gun violence!

Those patriotic Americans who say no one needs any guns know that "...it is easier for a 12- or 13-year-old to purchase a gun, and cheaper, than it is for them to get a book."

BComplex

(7,982 posts)
21. Absolutely not true. When assault rifles were banned during Clinton, we had far fewer deaths.
Wed Jun 24, 2020, 12:11 PM
Jun 2020

Also, all the polls show that something like 65% of all Americans want gun restrictions.

discntnt_irny_srcsm

(18,470 posts)
22. You're not being clear. What are you claiming isn't true?
Wed Jun 24, 2020, 06:01 PM
Jun 2020

I infer that, when you say that "we had far fewer deaths," you mean that the death rate dropped.
Death rates by year per 100,000 of population:
Year Rate
1994 6.21
1995 5.54
1996 4.94
1997 4.54
1998 4.00
1999 3.64
2000 3.62
2001 3.52
2002 3.77
2003 3.82
2004 3.65
2005 3.85
2006 3.94
2007 3.87
2008 3.63
2009 3.37
2010 3.22
2011 3.18
As you can see the death rate continued to drop after the AWB expired in 2004.

You also say that:

"polls show that something like 65% of all Americans want gun restrictions."
Since we obviously now have gun restrictions, I infer that you mean something like Americans want more gun restrictions. Perhaps it's true that some percentage of Americans want more restrictions but what restrictions is it that should added to those we have?

jimmy the one

(2,708 posts)
23. You proved his point re awb and murder rates
Thu Jun 25, 2020, 06:41 AM
Jun 2020

dscntnt: infer that, when you say that "we had far fewer deaths," you mean that the death rate dropped.
Death rates by year per 100,000 of population:
Year Rate
1994 6.21
1995 5.54
1996 4.94
1997 4.54
1998 4.00
1999 3.64
2000 3.62
2001 3.52
2002 3.77
2003 3.82
2004 3.65
2005 3.85
2006 3.94
2007 3.87
2008 3.63
2009 3.37
2010 3.22
2011 3.18
As you can see the death rate continued to drop after the AWB expired in 2004.


Huh? What the rest of us see is that gun death rate did indeed rise after the awb expired in 2004; get bifocals.
however, since the Clinton years also saw the decrease in gun ownership rates, from 35% personal to 25%, and 45% home ownership to 35%, the drop in gun owner rate probably played a bigger role in the reduction in violent crime and murder rates.

 

discntnt_irny_srcsm

(18,470 posts)
24. I have the bifocals. Perhaps you're low on vitamin D.
Thu Jun 25, 2020, 09:59 AM
Jun 2020

No one (other than you) mentioned (without any justification or links providing actual proof) rates of ownership.

Moving on to the facts, the assault weapon ban(?) was, as usual with restrictionists, a grand misnomer. First, it was not a ban and second, the ever shifting definition of an assault weapon was then a list cosmetic and ergonomic features making these rifles neither more nor less deadly.

As it is known, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 did not ban anything other than the new sales of the ill defined rifles. The actual effect of the law was to secure the status of AR type rifles as the most popular type of rifle for new purchases to the present day.

BComplex said, "When assault rifles were banned during Clinton, we had far fewer deaths." Anyone with a passing command of English takes this to mean that the decrease in deaths was due to the 1994 law. I am curious how someone can conclude that the 1994 law is responsible for the both the 11% drop in handgun deaths (1994-1995) and the 6% drop in deaths due to all other guns (1994-1995).

Clearly the majority of the decrease in deaths was in those where a handgun was used [ https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf ] while the typical handgun was not the subject of the law under discussion. This took place even while the one year population grew by over 3 million. That is rather dramatic and unrelated to any rifle law. This same BJS link also demonstrates that, from 1994 to 1995 and 1996, the percentage of deaths due to non-handguns actually increased.

You say, "What the rest of us see is that gun death rate did indeed rise after the awb expired in 2004..." Indeed, it rose from 2004 through 2006 then began dropping again in 2007 through 2011 despite the lack of the law under discussion. What I see here is that you first disagree with me that firearm homicide rate has continued to drop in the years after 2004. I grant that the drop was not monotonic. The 2006 peak at 3.94 per hundred thousand dropped to 3.18 in 2011. Then you shift to saying that all of these decreases were more to do the prevalence of ownership than the because of the absence or presence of the law.

So where exactly do you stand on the concept behind the 1994 law? You said, "...the drop in gun owner rate probably played a bigger role in the reduction in violent crime and murder rates." I happen to think that AWB type laws lose votes and don't really affect crime.

Freedom is wonderful thing. You shifted the focus here from AR-15 type rifles (introduced by ace3csusm in post #4 and an apparent call for AWB like laws by BComplex) saying that I'm wrong to explain that firearm homicide rates continued dropping after 2004 but that all of this has to do with rate of ownership, a new topic. I also am free to point out the 2016 to 2017 drop in firearm homicides had nothing to do with dolt45 taking office. [ https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls ] This again says nothing about an AWB.

So where exactly do you stand on the concept behind the 1994 law?

jimmy the one

(2,708 posts)
26. memories, of the way we was
Fri Jun 26, 2020, 07:24 AM
Jun 2020

Not only bifocals but perhaps a memory restorer, the decline in gun ownership rates has been about for years: that you question this is either due memory loss or not keeping up with the rest of the class.

Moreover, my year old May 2019 post linked below, regarding declining gun ownership rates, was in reply to a thread STARTED BY YOU titled Ghost Guns are Everywhere, so I cannot help it if the blind refuse to see. A bit of egg on the face it seems.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=208056

May 2019: 3) ... The Pew Research Center has tracked gun ownership since 1993, and our surveys largely confirm the General Social Survey trend. In our Dec 1993 survey, 45% reported having a gun in their household; in early 1994, the GSS found 44% saying they had a gun in their home. A Jan 2013 Pew Research Center survey found 33% saying they had a gun, rifle or pistol in their home, as did 34% in the 2012 wave of {GSS}.

As far as the subsequent 4 year later drop in deaths on that chart, my challenge was that you failed to acknowledge the 3 year rise in deaths, misleading that after awb was dropped in 2004, deaths had declined as well.
I clearly stated that I thought the decline in gun ownership rates had more to do with the drop in death rate, than the awb. The awb contributed little to the overal reasoning, but was worth it as a deterrent to mass shootings. And the fact is that while the awb was in effect 1994 - 2004, the violent crime and murder rates dropped about 35 - 45%. And yes, correlation does not prove causation, well aware.


jimmy the one

(2,708 posts)
31. machismo bravado
Mon Jun 29, 2020, 06:42 AM
Jun 2020

dscntnt: Your inability to answer questions speaks volumes and is an answer. n/t

Translation: Yikes! put me foot in me mouth, I'll just post this machismo bravado, and exit, stage left.

Not fooling many dscntnt; I'm pretty sure once you saw my link, you 'suddenly' recalled seeing the decline in
gun ownership rates chart, since I posted it/them regularly a year & two back, and you replied on several occasions to my posts.

PS: readers are not obliged whatsoever to respond to specious loaded gotcha style questions, designed to elicit responses mainly for the instigators pleasure.

discntnt_irny_srcsm

(18,470 posts)
32. Oh if only we were actually discussing 'gun ownership rates'
Mon Jun 29, 2020, 07:03 AM
Jun 2020

Consider answering the question:

So where exactly do you stand on the concept behind the 1994 law?
 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
30. Quoting one's own prior statements and simply reiterating them only demonstrates
Sun Jun 28, 2020, 03:55 PM
Jun 2020

...that you still feel the same way. 'Repetition' =/= 'strength of argument'

It's not in any way a marker for their accuracy, and not essentially different than Trump's
logorrheic pronouncements on COVID-19 (or pretty much anything else, for that matter...)

ManiacJoe

(10,136 posts)
25. The fewer gun deaths were not related to the "ban".
Thu Jun 25, 2020, 07:26 PM
Jun 2020

So called "assault weapons" were still being sold, just under different model numbers and slightly different cosmetic looks. Now that the federal ban has expired, the same rifles are now sold under again new model numbers using the original cosmetics. Of course, one great feature of the AR-15 style rifles is that they are so modular, you can change the cosmetics to be just about anything you want.

The majority of Americans want more gun control because they have no idea what the current laws are and how the laws already cover most of what they want.



krispos42

(49,445 posts)
29. You have been misinformed, sadly
Sat Jun 27, 2020, 01:08 PM
Jun 2020

First of all, the 1993 Assault Weapons Ban (in effect nationally from 1994-2004) banned sales of NEW "assault weapons" per the arbitrary definition in the Act. The guns that fit the definition of "assault weapon" that were already in circulation were not affected; they were still owned by Americans. Guns are durable goods, like cars and refrigerators.

Second, gun manufacturers modified existing guns and made new ones that were almost but not quite "assault weapons". AR-15s that didn't have flash reducers on the muzzle, AK-47s that didn't have folding stocks, etc. Then they sold those instead.

Third, handguns are used in 90% of firearm murders and 50% of all murders. All rifles, "assault weapon" or not, are used in about 5% of firearm murders. So, how could the murder rate drop nearly 50% when you ban guns that are some fraction of that 5%?


Here a graph to look at:



AR-15s and AK-47s are a type of rifle whether or not they are an "assault weapon". All murders done with an AK-47 or AR-15 are part of the dark red "rifle" line. That line also includes bolt-action, lever-action, and pump-action rifles.

So again, how can the large drop in murders be driven by that dark red line bouncing along the bottom there?


Answer: it can't.


You do know that only about 400 or so people are killed annually with rifles, right? Despite the very large amount of media attention paid to murders with rifles, handguns are used about 20 times as often.

I'll put it another way: If a bell rang every time somebody was murdered with a handgun, it would ring about once an hour. If a horn blew every time somebody was murdered with a rifle, it would blow about once a day.


Now that I've disproven that tired old talking point, I'll give you the reason crime dropped in the 90's so much, and it had virtually NOTHING to do with the gun-control legislation that Clinton signed in 1993.

It's because a generation prior to that crime drop, we got two pieces of progressive legislation passed. The reasons for these laws was not crime control; it was women's rights and cleaning up pollution. The unforeseen bonus 20 years later was a sudden and sustained drop in crime.

The first piece was recognizing women's sovereignty over their bodies. The birth control pill, the IUD, and abortion legalization means that women were less likely to give birth to children in socioeconomic conditions where career criminalism was a likely outcome. Women waited until they were older and better able to take care of their kids.

The second piece was removing lead from gasoline and other consumer products. Lead poisoning makes people stupid, anti-social, and violent by affecting brain development. When cars were burning leaded gasoline, lead vapors were being inhaled by everybody, including expectant mothers, baby, and children. The more traffic the higher concentration of lead in the air and thus in the people. When lead was removed from the air in the early 70's, all the kids born after that were not being brain damaged by lead. Thus they tended to be smarter, less violent, and more social.

Twenty years later, when those kids hit adulthood, far fewer of them entered the career of violent criminal, and the crime rate dropped.

That's why the light blue line on the graph (non-gun homicides) dropped in half as well. Far fewer people were motivated to murder overall!

Even non-violent crimes dropped!




Larceny drops, motor vehicle theft drops, burglaries drop.




Now, here's a stunning piece of news for you: we can't get progressive, society-improving legislation passed if we don't have the Senate and the House and the Presidency for a prolonged period of time. And we can't get the Congress and the Presidency for a long period of time if we keep LOSING to Republicans over this issue!

The "signature" gun-control legislation that Democrats trot out every time there's a mass shooting? Won't stop mass shootings, won't cut the murder rate, but it will motivate gun-owners to vote far more than non-gun-owners.

Hell, if I was a gun maker I'd give LOADS of money to gun-control organizations because they do more to boost sales than advertising in magazines!



Interestingly, it shows that even as rifle and handgun sales increase, the homicide rate does not.


Anyway, these are the facts.

Gun control has already cost us many thousands of people. We know that deaths due to lack of healthcare would drop SHARPLY if we had Medicare for All, but guess what? Not enough progressives in the Congress. Every year we don't do this we lose far more people than are murdered with guns.

We know that big industries are polluting our air and water, causing death, illness, and deformities. Can't fix it because not enough progressives in Congress... because of the albatross of gun control around the Democratic party's neck.

Global warming is here, but we can't address it because... you guessed it! Too many Republicans! Bush wins by 537 votes in Florida, Dolt45 wins by 80,000 votes in 3 critical states... and there goes renewable energy, carbon taxes, subsidies and loans, and fuel-economy standards. But tell me how it's worth it to get AR-15s that don't have pistol grips.


Crime is a symptom of societal ills, not a hardware problem. By focusing on hardware, you're doing what the Republicans want: the illnesses festering while Democrats are a distracted minority.

sarisataka

(18,220 posts)
15. So racism is ok
Sat Jun 20, 2020, 07:31 PM
Jun 2020

as long as it leads to gun control? That is quite the end justifies the means position.

Also you may be surprised if you research Canada and guns.

 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
18. Gun control advocates here have *always* been willing to elide and defend racism...
Tue Jun 23, 2020, 04:23 PM
Jun 2020

...if it advances their cause, and occasionally they've even defended the endorsement of Republicans running against Democrats.

Michael Bloomberg got support here for his racist "stop and frisk" policies:

(small reminder of which)



Note the comments in the following threads:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10023135759

https://upload.democraticunderground.com/1017568306

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287513519

https://www.democraticunderground.com/117215365


Here's where a 'leading DU gun control advocate' urges support for Republicans running against two good
Democrats- and lied about the Pubbie's voting records while they were at it:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10141556670

"Gabby Giffords’ Gun Control Group Endorses Two Republican Senators"

(L)et's look at how the Democratic opposition stacks up.
-Tammy Duckworth, Democrat, combat vet, lost both legs in Iraq. Pro-choice, pro-ACA, supports comprehensive immigration reform with a pathway to citizenship for those in the country illegally, would admit 100,000 Syrian refugees into the United States. Rated 7% by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun control voting record.

-Katie McGinty, Democrat, has not held an elected office. Served as an environmental advisor to Vice President Al Gore and President Bill Clinton, pro-business, supports gay marriage, Affordable Care Act, she is also pro-choice. Scored 100% on CeaseFire Pennsylvania survey, Expanding state background checks to cover the private sale of long guns, Requiring background checks for ammunition sales, Requiring firearms dealers to tell the police when a customer fails a background check




https://www.democraticunderground.com/10028123984#post28

Don't vote party, vote gun violence. That's why Gabby Gifford's has endorsed two Republicans for senate. The two have consistently voted against the NRA and for her that's the most important issue for the short term.

Even if it is for only one or two election cycles, if the NRA's mythological omnipotence can be defeated and shown for being a mile deep and an inch wide it is worth it.






sarisataka

(18,220 posts)
28. Another stop and frisk proponent
Fri Jun 26, 2020, 11:27 AM
Jun 2020
Trump praises 'stop and frisk' as a 'great thing' for promoting law and order
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100213655336

Funny, those who so recently supported the policy are nowhere to be found.

Also I have never seen any posts from gun control supporters indicating if they are happy with the Republicans they cheered for, and others that Bloomberg funded, gaining control of the Senate. It has been successful for the issue as bump stocks did get banned.

As the quote you posted said "Don't vote party, vote gun violence... it is worth it."

Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #18)

Straw Man

(6,613 posts)
20. What it takes?
Wed Jun 24, 2020, 12:10 PM
Jun 2020

"Well, y'know, racism sucks and everything, but if it leads to gun control, well that's OK ..."

The irony is rich.

J_William_Ryan

(1,736 posts)
9. In Trump's racist America,
Fri Jun 19, 2020, 04:55 PM
Jun 2020

now more than ever, black Americans need to defend themselves from attack by the hateful, racist right.

DashOneBravo

(2,679 posts)
13. Democrats own guns
Fri Jun 19, 2020, 08:12 PM
Jun 2020

Last edited Fri Jun 19, 2020, 09:30 PM - Edit history (2)

Despite what a lot on DU think.

Here’s a link to your organization:

https://naaga.co/

I see one sponsor is Magpul. I have several of their AR magazines.

jimmy the one

(2,708 posts)
17. Sorry, no can do
Tue Jun 23, 2020, 07:45 AM
Jun 2020
Even if you do not wish to own or learn about guns, your support would mean a lot.

I pass. Not this year, not next year, not ever. A pro gun group is a pro gun group, specious arguments abound..
Much better ways to donate money than to a second amendment mythology.
Does NAAGA also ask people to 'remember us in your will', like the NRA does?
NRA, those - Nutty Rightwingers, Armed.
Your prerogative though, to support whatever you wish.

CBS had a brief report, said NAAGA had abut 30,000 members.

[NAAGA] is talking about endorsing candidates, which could make them a political force. But the group isn't yet ready, and plans to discuss the issue at their first national conference next year.

So I didn't spot it, who is NAAGA endorsing for president this year? gunnut trump or joe?
Who is NAAGA supporting, generally speaking, for congress this year, pro gun repubs, or pro control dems?
Should be interesting dichotomy, since what,about 90% af ams are or vote for dems, eh?
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»Please support the Nation...