NRA: Stand and Fight

| January 15, 2013

The folks at the NRA send us a link to their latest campaign Stand and Fight and this is the first of their videos in that campaign.

If the video doesn’t work, it’s also at the link. I’m on my Kindle for the rest of night. Lazy person that I am.

Category: Guns

Comments (174)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Gruntling says:

    Joe, You do realize that Lanza literally killed to get those guns, right? They weren’t easily available, he didn’t go out to the store and buy them, he murdered his mother and stole her guns. And, by that same token, I submit that had that school been protected, whether by security, armed teachers, or, well, anyone, that this atrocity could not have happened either. Furthermore, I believe that entirely too many people, yourself included, are focusing completely on the tool and not at all on the user. Why is this his mothers fault? Why does Adam Lanza seem to receive no blame for his actions? From what I see, society as a whole, or at least a large aspect of it, is being blamed for the actions of one sick-minded individual. And that is in and of itself a tragedy.

  2. Joe says:


    The common factor in so many of these incidents is guns, high powered guns. There are lots of other variables, but one common factor – guns.

  3. Joe says:


    If Joe Scarborough can change his opinion after a shattering event like that, I can change mine.

  4. Gruntling says:

    True, guns are a factor on BOTH sides (attacker and defender). However, to bring up a point that has been stated frequently: What is worse, both sides having guns, or just the attacker? The flip side of the gun violence issue is how many incidents have been prevented by an armed bystander. This blog alone has published many account of such occurences in the last few weeks, any of which could have been the next national tragedy.

  5. Ex-PH2 says:

    Corn flakes? Corn flakes??? CORN FLAKES?????

  6. Joe says:

    Well Gruntling, this site loves to post about the occasional incident where an armed citizen successfully relelled an assailant, but when you look at the big picture, we lose much more than we gain. And I will admit, even if guns were banned today, it will take several generations for them to work their way out of the system. But the children of the future will thank us for taking the risk. And if, as many contributors here maintain, ropes, cars, gas cans, knives, etc., can kill, defend yourselves with those, or maybe some numchucks. But think not only of today’s kids but those kids growing up a century in the future. In a sense, this constant paranoid fear that makes people want more and more amrmaments is a form of cowardice, cowardice towards future generations who would have to live in this heavily “armed society” that is the NRA’s wet dream..

  7. NHSparky says:

    the occasional incident

    Which, if you read the works of John Lott, runs into the hundreds of thousands, if not million-plus per year in this country alone.

    Whipping out a gun and blasting away isn’t always necessary, Joey. Quite the contrary, it is rarely necessary. Most often, incidents are stopped by either stating or showing the perpetrator that the potential victim has a weapon.

  8. NHSparky says:

    But the children of the future will thank us for taking the risk.

    If your ilk haven’t aborted them all first.

    Kum-Bah-Yah, m’lord, Kum-Bah-Yah…

  9. O-4E says:


    Most of us that post here are either military or ex-military.

    Yet YOU trust your government and your fellow man much more than we do.

    What we don’t understand is your complete willingness to give up your means of protecting yourself and your familiy. And place that sole responsibility in the hands of your government and the “hope” that your fellow man will do the right thing. Hope isn’t a method that most of us ascribe to.

  10. Gruntling says:

    NHSparky covered the statistics before I could, so I’ll just focus on the future you’re looking at.

    First, assuming you are correct that in a few generations these guns will have worked their way out of our society (a MASSIVE assumption, but I’ll get to that), then what exactly would you say to those generations who are bridging the gap betweens us? “Tough it out, it’s for the future?” The plan you are suggesting condemns several generations, mine included, to a lifetime of fear and paranoia, far far worse that the ‘heavily armed state’ you bring up.

    Second, As to defending ourselves with knives, ropes, etc. Well, what if they have a gun? No, seriously. If someone were to break into my house, or yours, with an illegal gun, and all you have is a rope and some choice language, what is the most likely outcome?

    And finally, dealing with the unlikelihood of the future you propose. You are envisioning a nation without guns, without that fear. It would be nice, yes. Peaceful. Hell, I’d love it if that could happen.
    Unfortunately, this future is almost completely impossible. Economically, the firearm industry isn’t going away. Even if it is just the military sector, there will always be some trickle-down, legal or not, that will lead to privately possessed weapons. If someones determined enough, they could probably even just make some crude ones. Besides that, smuggling from other nations, from criminal organizations, all this would continue, except that now, with very limited exceptions, no one would have any defense.

    This is getting a little too doom and gloom for me, so I’ll stop my future scenario there and look at a picture of a puppy.

  11. Joe says:

    “….and look at a picture of a puppy.” Hah! Ya got me. I think I will too.

  12. Anonymous says:

    Joe says – “this site loves to post about the occasional incident where an armed citizen successfully relelled an assailant, but when you look at the big picture, we lose much more than we gain.”

    Care to try and defend that stance Joe? Or are you just going to dance away from it?

    Specifics ol’ son, specifics.

    I ain’t gonna hold my breath.

  13. Jacobite says:

    113 above was me. 🙂

  14. Joe says:

    About 11,000 gun deaths a year. That’s my specifics.

  15. Veritas Omnia Vincit says:

    @111 Indeed there will be pain, and I doubt that guns will ever fully be eliminated as you also point out. With the price of 3d printers continuing to drop it won’t be long before a 3d printer that works with metal will be priced for the home market. The current 3d home printers make some pretty unique items.

    Once the price of the devices working metal drop, then one-off unique weapons (not necessarily safe or reliable) will be easily created, black marketed and sold to criminals. A potentially interesting outcome for a device never intended for that purpose. And these devices are infinitely hackable/programmable. We all know how honest and reliable hackers are when working with cartels or mobsters…no way those guys could be paid to produce weapons or materials…./sarc

    There is always a law of unintended consequences, whether in manufacturing processes or legal ones. I intend to not suffer the consequences of unintended outcomes and will protect myself and my family.

  16. rb325th says:

    11,000 is a lot but when you look at deaths from other causes it is not all that large. We should ban Doctors first, then cars, alcohol, hands and feet as weapons… hell let’s just make murder illegal.

    of the 11000 deaths by guns, over 500 of those were “justifiable shootings” by police and civillians. See those numbers get included in that final number as well. Accidental shootings also.

  17. O-4E says:

    @115 – Joe

    And 1.61 million abortions in the US per year. So it is ok to murder them before they are born…but not after? A-ok to crush them with forceps and tear them limb from limb while pulling them from the womb…but shooting them with a scary black rifle with a large magazine is a tragedy? And legal?

    See the silliness in the argument?

  18. Hondo says:

    He won’t, Jacobite. Because Comrade Joseph, Glorious Hero of Socialist Rock Climbing for Greater Glory Socialist Republic of Durango, cannot.

    In 2000, best estimates were that nearly 1,000,000 crimes of violence were prevented annually by the legitimate use of firearms. That is now regarded as a significant underestimate. The current best estimate of the total number of violent crimes prevented annually via legitimate firearms use or threat of same is now on the order of 2.5 million.

    Assuming 1% of those crimes of violence would result in a fatality, that’s about 25,000 lives saved by lawful use of firearms. Annually. And yes, that’s realistic – about 1 in 100 violent crimes in the US is a murder according to US crime statistics from the FBI (somewhat over 1.3 million US violent crimes in 2009, approx 13,400 murders.)

    Oh, and regarding a woman who is the target of an attempted rape? Without a weapon, she has approx a 1 in 3 chance of actually being raped. If she’s packing heat? Less than a 1 in 33 chance.

  19. Old Trooper says:

    @115: Wrong answer, Joe; that’s all deaths due to violent crime, not just guns. Why don’t you go back and look at how many rifles were used in gun deaths, eh? Of course, that would require you to pull your head out of your ass and get some fresh air.

  20. ron says:

    i’m a vietnam vet, 69-70, 199th infantry bde, HHC MP’s—that being said, i was born in montreal and emigrated here as a schoolboy. i could have gone back to canada when i got drafted, but instead i went to ft lewis, and then the nam. some of the posts these canadians are putting up here, make me sorry for my former home, if that’s the caliber of people that populate a beautiful country. in WW2 the people who wouldn’t voluntarily join the fight were called “zombies” and were not allowed to wear a canada patch on their uniform once they were conscripted. these posters here today are cut from the same cloth, and will one day possibly be known, instead, as “victims”.

  21. Ex-PH2 says:

    I have yet to run into any statistical report that says trying to talk an armed robber out of robbing you will work.

    However, there IS more than one statistical report which shows plainly that the majority of guns used in committing crimes of any sort are illegally obtained and used by criminals.

    Hmmm…crimes with guns are committed by criminals.

    Did I miss something there?

    Oh, yeah — the people who use a gun to murder someone they know — yeah, well, then they are CRIMINALS.

    Can you say criminals, Joey-boy? I know that you can!

  22. Joe says:

    As fearful as you are, I guess you all must live in crime infested areas. I am sorry about that. I lived in Pinellas County, FL for a while, that had its share of crime, but even then I have never felt as fearful as most of you seem. But I will admit I have never driven a car someone would want to hijack.

  23. O-4E says:


    I live in a small farm community. The point is…why are YOU so willing to give up your means of personal defense?

    Oh…that’s right. You have never had one. And I pray for your sake you never need one. Right now you are a victim in waiting. You have no other option. I like to have options.

  24. Joe Williams says:

    Joe the only ones scared are the anti-gun crowd.I might also add jealous of us that can handle firearms safely. I am now “Old Corps” and no longer defend myself in hand to hand fighting.What good would it do me against an gun welding thief?You use greater force than offered by the attacker.Remember seconds count right now not police minutes away.I live in country, we have to call the sheriff office. Drugged out robbers do not debate with you.I am not scared ! I am prepared and trained. I hope to be never be in that situation but Iam prepared. Oh Joey if see a spunk or possum in the daylight please pet it. Odds are it is rabid. A .22 nice now. Joe

  25. Jacobite says:

    Hondo, I had faith he would post exactly what he did. 🙂

    And Joe, thank you for making our argument for all of us. As the statistics show, you are wrong, again.

  26. OWB says:

    @ #95: Cute, but meaningless to this discussion. My weaponry (we are talking ball bats, steak knives, etc) had nothing to do with anything that happened that day. The ball bat stayed quietly where it is always stored, the steak knives remained in their block of wood on the counter, and the shotgun which I have for defense against whatever might threaten me (like bear and foxes and such) did nothing at all except collect dust.

    Your comments indicate that you don’t think I should have any of those defensive items and I would guess that it would be your desire to magically make them disappear. And somehow you twist that in your mind to have some relationship to what happened in CT? How does that work exactly?

    But the funniest thing you said was in another post where you accused we who support the US Constitution (which most of us here took an actual oath to support) of being afraid. Thanks for making my day. Pardon me because I am still giggling about that one.

    PH2 – I really, REALLY like the idea of naming a critter My Gun! I have, in fact, two chickens that need names right now – think one will be called Smith and the other one Wesson.

  27. UpNorth says:

    @#123, Joey-boy, you don’t drive a bicycle that anyone would want to hijack, either.

  28. Joe says:


    Very wrong on that point.

  29. Hondo says:

    Welcome back, Comrade Joseph (HSRCGGSRD).

    Fella, we get it that you’re OK with living on your knees vice on your feet. We get it that you’re willing to trade your freedom for the illusion of security. We get it that you tremble at the sight of a gun. We get it that you’re not willing to defend yourself, but are instead willing to literally bet your life and health that better men/women than yourself will be there to protect you when the organic fertilizer impacts the rotating air-movement device.

    However, most of the rest of US society is not so craven, nor so pathetic. And the Constitution specifically states that we do not have to be.

    Don’t want to own a firearm? Fine. Then don’t. The Second Amendment says you have the right to own one. It doesn’t make it mandatory.

    But don’t try to limit the Constitutional rights of others simply because you’re too damn afraid to exercise those same rights yourself.

    You’ve said elsewhere that you don’t like the Second Amendment, and feel it should be changed. OK, then: if you don’t like the Second Amendment as it exists, feel free to work for a Constitutional Amendment changing it.

    Just don’t hold your breath waiting for your proposed amendment to pass.

  30. Joe says:

    Yeah Hondo,

    And I recognize that you’ve been brainwashed to equate fire arms with freedom – all that NRA propaganda apparently works on some people. I get that you are willing to literally bet your life and health that some heavily armed wacko won’t shoot you in the back before you ever have a chance to draw your leetle friend.

    The 2nd amendment was not divinely inspired – read an interesting piece that said it was a bone thrown to the southern states so that they would ratify the constitution and be able to maintain their “slave patrol militias”. It’s had dire consequences (ask any of the hundreds of thousands [? millions?]of dead Americans who have been murdered by guns in this country) and like any amendment can be repealed. It took a century to end slavery in this country, if we start now maybe we can get the 2nd repealed in a few decades. That’s the direction we should go in.

  31. NHSparky says:

    Brainwashed, coming from Joe. That’s cute.

    So I guess all those guys going back to ancient Greece were brainwashed too, Joey?

    And yeah, we’ve heard that “piece” too…and it’s a piece of shit, not worth the paper it’s printed on or the bandwidth it wastes.

  32. Hondo says:

    Joe: if you believe that, you are truly a clueless fool who’s drunk the proverbial Kool-Aid.

    Why don’t you research the militia laws of the Massachusettes Bay Colony and then get back to us?

    Here’s a hint: they date to 1630. And they were universal, compulsory for free male citizens other than magestrates and ministers – and required citizens to own firearms.

  33. Hondo says:

    Addendum: as for betting my life, Joey-boy – so are you. But if push comes to shove, someone armed has at least a fighting chance. An unarmed man has zero chance.

    A “heavily armed whacko” will be armed regardless of whatever the law says about firearms ownership; ditto most criminals. Why? Because neither gives a damn about following the law, numbnuts.

  34. Ex-PH2 says:

    Oh, here we go.

    I have repeatedly stated that I have no wish to own a gun, or a weapon that fires bullets. Not once have I ever said, anywhere, that having firearms equals freedom, nor has anyone else on this board said that.

    HOWEVER….and read this carefully, Joe, because I will keep it as simple as possible, so that you can absorb it into that dorman organ you have for a brain:

    The 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution gives US citizens the RIGHT to own arms/weapons/firearms IF WE WANT TO.

    Is that simple enough for you?

    There is NO requirement that we OWN them, nor is there a guarantee that they will make us any safer with them or without them.

    However, since you dislike living in a country where you are FREE to own firearms if you CHOOSE to do so, you have been repeatedly invited to vacate your domicile here and move some place where NO CITIZEN is allowed to have any kind of weapon. There are several countries that have those laws: North Korea and Australia come to mind first.

    Probably China, too – not sure about that one, although I keep seeing that little guy with the shopping bags stopping a tank in Tiananmen Square. That was a classic.

    Intestinal fortitude is what gives you freedom.

    But you wouldn’t know about that, would you, Joey-boy?


  35. Ex-PH2 says:

    And remember, as Cloud William said: “Freedom is a Yang word. Only Yangs are allowed to use it.”

  36. O-4E says:

    You are all under the mistaken impression that Joe actually cares about what you think…

  37. DaveO says:

    #136: Ex-PH2: is that where we get the term “Damn Yangkis”?

  38. Joe says:


    “You are all under the mistaken impression that Joe actually cares about what you think…”

    The converse of that statement is definitely true.

  39. Ex-PH2 says:

    @138 – No, that was from a STar Trek Classic episode, shown in 1968.

    #137 – Shouldn’t that read: “You are all under the mistaken impression that Joe actually thinks” ?

  40. Ex-PH2 says:

    I keep forgetting that Joe and others of his ilk are charter members of the Flat Earth Society.

    If someone says the sun revolves around the Earth, then it must be so. They clip the wings of birds because they themselves can’t fly. If they see some animal or thing they don’t recognize, they step on it or poke it with a stick and run away.

  41. O-4E says:


    We have all provided our points of view which you disregard, downplay, dodge or circle around

    This issue is like discussing religion or abortion. No amount of debate or arguing is going to change beliefs.

    If you want the Constitution changed..feel free to work at it. You will expect no support from this quarter.

  42. Twist says:

    @140, Joe doesn’t think, he just emotes.

  43. Old Trooper says:

    @131: Yeah, I’ve read some of that piece you’re referring to, however, I think you aren’t interested in the truth, just your Brady Campaign brainwashing talking points that if guns didn’t exist for civilians, then everyone would live in peace and harmony. If you look back at the 2nd Amendment, it wasn’t thrown in as a truffle for the Southern States, since slavery was still legal everywhere back when the Bill of Rights was being put together. Also, do you know how long it took to get the 2nd Amendment put into the Bill of Rights? 811 days. That’s how long it took to debate it, change it, debate it some more and then get it ratified. You have absolutely no idea the reason it was the 2nd Amendment and not the 4th, 5th, or 10th. You have no idea what the 2nd Amendment means, because you have shown us that with your Brady Campaign talking points how little you know of the Constitution, Bill of Rights, or the Federalist Papers (they describe in writing the reasoning behind each Amendment). I don’t fault you, Joe, for not knowing, but I do fault you for thinking you know and then disparaging those of us that actually know.

  44. Joe says:

    The founding fathers were really smart and prescient on a lot of issues, but they weren’t demigods, and they really screwed up on the 2nd.

  45. Hondo says:

    Joe: your comment 139 above is logically incorrect, fella. O-4E’s statement is not of the form “If A, then B” – which is the only form of logical statement that has a converse (which would be “If B, then A”). Rather, O-4E’s statement is of the form “A is false”. That form of logical statement has no converse.

    Having yet another “bad logic day”, eh Joey-boy?

  46. 2/17 Air Cav says:

    Hey Joe. Shouldn’t we begin the disarming with the police–Federal, state, and local? Think about it.

  47. Old Trooper says:

    @145: That’s your opinion and you are entitled to it, however, as I have stated before, there are a few I don’t like, either; so should we just do away with all of them and start over? Before you answer, remember that that would negate all our existing laws, because they are based off that Constitution thingy.

  48. O-4E says:



    King George and his men didn’t just up and leave on their own.

    And the Militia (made up of armed citizens) and the very small Continental Army didn’t get them to leave through witty repartee.

  49. Old Trooper says:

    @149: They didn’t???? Who woulda thunk it?

  50. Hondo says:

    I really think Joey-boy would be happier if he were living elsewhere – e.g., in a country with firearms laws more to his liking.

    Well, I’d be happier anyway. (smile)