NRA Board Member: Paddling A Child 'May Keep Me From Having To Put A Bullet In Him'
Source: TPM
By BRENDAN JAMES Published FEBRUARY 7, 2015, 1:17 PM EST
An NRA board member and leader of the Texas State Rifle Association wrote on Wednesday that disciplining a child through corporal punishment may prevent him from "having to put a bullet in him later."
Complaining of State Rep. Alma Allen's (D) bill to "prohibit the use of corporal punishment in public primary and secondary schools," NRA board member Charles Cotton took to TexasCHL Forum to vent his frustration.
"I'm sick of this woman and her 'don't touch my kid regardless what he/she did or will do again' attitude," Cotton wrote in a thread titled "HB567: Corporal punishment in schools."
"Perhaps a good paddling in school may keep me from having to put a bullet in him later," he added. Cotton did not immediately return a message left at his office seeking comment on Saturday.
-snip-
Read more: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/nra-board-member-texas-bullet-in-kid
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)"knocked upside the head with a 2x4"
dhill926
(16,953 posts)
mountain grammy
(29,035 posts)
alp227
(33,283 posts)
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)
gregcrawford
(2,382 posts)Here's the thing: I am a Liberal down to my DNA, but I'm also a Liberal who can snap-shoot the seeds out of a grape off-hand. I am a life-long gun owner and an expert marksman, but I despise Wayne LaPierre and the way he has perverted what was once a sportsman's organization devoted to responsible gun ownership. There have always been deranged fanatics that are WAY too wrapped up in their penis substitutes. I'm sure it was true back in the Stone Age when Neanderthals compared the size of their clubs; it's a guy thing. Or maybe more of an unevolved chimp thing.
It's all a function of attitude. Most people who are good with firearms and know how to handle them don't have to brandish an AR-15 in a Kroger's Supermarket to prove their manhood. That's for witless losers. But it's those clowns that get all the attention. They make me sick.
I've met more than a few assholes like this guy. They're too dirt stupid to ever understand that they're not impressing anyone but other mental defectives like themselves. But they have guns, so don't turn your back on one of 'em, 'cause they're all cowardly back-shootin' weasels.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)
NoJusticeNoPeace
(5,018 posts)in local, well regulated militias and not for personal use.
But, I dont think all gun people think like this vile piece of human garbage.
I think many in the leadership do, as you say.
Hell, Thom Hartmann is known to say he loves to go shoot guns for fun, at clay pigeons.
I like doing that also but the sound issues are too much for me even with ear protection.
Unlike some people, I would be willing to give it up if I saw the harm outweighed the fun, as it clearly does.
jmowreader
(53,194 posts)We were a nation that was so broke we had to disband the Navy for seven years. The only possible way we would have defeated the Redcoats if they came back is to get every able-bodied person in the streets with their muskets. (Also remember: a very well-trained musketman could fire three rounds per minute.)
Would the Founders have written the Second the way they did if they were writing the Constitution right now? Almost certainly not: there are a LOT of reasonable reasons to "infringe" on someone's right to have a gun. Hopefully not even the NRA thinks people in jail need to be armed - but an absolutist reading of the Second implies that they should.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)I was field stripping a 1911 while in grade school.. I grew up and can see what gunz do to our society.
Wash. state Desk Jet
(3,426 posts)Might I add a cowardly back shoot'en weasel doesn't have to own or have ever owned a gun to win the label of cowardly back shoot'en ,back stabb'en weasel. What they all have in common is what makes them all the same. All cowards are cons and all cons are liars.
haikugal
(6,476 posts)Paladin
(32,354 posts)Given how much wishful thinking is publically expressed by pro-gun militants about having the chance to put bullets in other human beings.
billh58
(6,655 posts)to be judge, jury, and executioner while "standing their ground."
Paladin
(32,354 posts)
TheCowsCameHome
(40,270 posts)...fuck Cotton and the NRA.
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)Seeing a trend here.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)
dickthegrouch
(4,528 posts)When does one ever have to put a bullet in someone?
The real answer is NEVER.
The attitude that there is any compulsion involved is the beginning of the problem.
shenmue
(38,598 posts)
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)It's all got to do with raising your kids right, raising them to respect others, and just be decent in general, etc.....and to set examples of same; which some parents fail in, and, especially, it would seem, guys like Chuck Cotton contribute to a large majority of that problem.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)In philosophy that sort of choice is called "Being on the horns of a false dilemma" because it's presented as if the two choices are the only possible ones, when in reality there are probably many others out there.
It is a huge problem on the part of those who were spanked (or worse) as children that they are now convinced that they turned out just fine, and so such punishments can't possibly be wrong. That conclusions shows an amazing inability to think through the issue.
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,477 posts)He is saying that the two choices are beat him or shoot him.
I'm glad he's not my father (and my own father was no advertisement for parenthood).
Turbineguy
(40,076 posts)But you could stab or drown the child. And there's always a baseball bat.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)spank or shoot is lacking in imagination. There's also whipping, tying to a post, locking in a small room, placing outside in sub-zero temperatures. Honestly, what are people coming to when all they can think of is shoot or spank?
Turbineguy
(40,076 posts)But of course for the NRA, the preferred method to kill a child is to use a gun.
Aristus
(72,187 posts)No surprise there...
Rocknrule
(5,697 posts)would say
BlueJazz
(25,348 posts)Makes about as much sense as that piece of human garbage. 
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)aggression, and, perhaps, a bullet.
Then again, there are always fairy tales, if one would rather look for evidence to support their position instead of question their assumption.
Vic Tree
(90 posts)What an imbecile!
calimary
(90,021 posts)Holy Cow! So it's actually a speakable option - the idea of "having to put a bullet in him later"? That such an idea even enters the discussion is astonishing, at least to me. That's even on the table? Oh, at the far far end, they say? How 'bout it really shouldn't even be in the same room! The VAST VAST majority of children are not murderous godless miscreants like in "The Omen" or something. I can't even imagine a situation with a child that's so dire that the ultimate solution is go "put a bullet in him."
Simply Stunning. Bewildering. Gob-smacking. Dumbfounding. All the "ing's."
Y'know, I keep seeing articles and essays and blogs talking about how the main two tribes on the political landscape just simply see things differently. Operate out of different sides of the brain - and I can't tell you which, because I always seem to get them mixed up. They/We just simply see things differently. I'm beginning to wonder if those articles aren't onto something.
bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)Actually, I better just not say.
jorgebob28
(22 posts)Kinda sums up their mentality, doesn't it?
groundloop
(13,849 posts)http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/multiple-people-shot-douglas-county/nj6ff/
At least 5 dead including an unspecified number of children. The shooter's sister was heard saying that her brother should never have been allowed to have a gun.
I know a homicide detective who's likely working that case, I just don't see how he can do it. He absolutely can't stand the NRA and their unabashed pimping for the gun industry.
paleotn
(22,218 posts)....this or that bullshit. Their small minds just can't wrap themselves around nuanced reality. Teach your children to be honest, responsible people. Show them that you love them and spend time with them. Be an example and role model for your kids and amazingly, you don't have to beat the shit out of them. Interestingly, my parents raised me in that manner back in the 60's and 70's. No bullets or paddles required.
Shamash
(597 posts)Sometimes it seems we believe that all the crime in this country, violent or otherwise, is committed by conservatives. I don't think there are any studies of "crime by political affiliation", but if you count an area a "liberal" based on presidential voting percentages, the 15 "most liberal" cities in the US all have higher violent crime rates than the national average. If you did the same for the 15 "most conservative" cities, only half of them are above the national average.
http://www.examiner.com/article/crime-rates-liberal-cities-shockingly-higher-than-conservative-cities" target="_blank">link
If you assume all the problem is "the other guys", the best you will ever do is to solve half the problem.
daleo
(21,317 posts)
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)What small minded right-wingers fail to understand however is that crime is higher in poverty stricken areas and poverty stricken areas in the large cities tend to vote Democratic. It is poverty that is the cause of crime however, the fact that the crime is happening in areas that vote Democratic does not mean the crimes are being committed by liberals.
Shamash
(597 posts)You're making a pretty awful argument. The implication of what you said is if poverty-stricken cities vote Democratic, then ones that are not would vote Republican. So, the net result of your argument is that there is less poverty and less crime in cities that vote Republican than those that vote Democratic. And I wager there would be a high correlation between the national voting tendencies and the party running the city government, which would further mean that Democrat-run cities would tend to be more criminal and more impoverished than Republican ones. And you're accusing me of right-wing talking points?
Neither does it mean they aren't. FYI, according to this study, 70% of convicts who vote (misdemeanors or rehabilitated felons) would vote Democratic, so presumably some of them were "liberals" when they committed their crimes.
The perils of assuming that "the other guys" are the only bad guys is the entire point of my original comment, and that sentiment is by no means a right-wing talking point.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)You put all kinds of words into my mouth that I never said and claimed it was my argument, but you are full of shit.
Poverty exists in both Democratic and Republican controlled regions, impoverished areas in large cities tend to vote Democratic while impoverished rural areas tend to vote Republican. The rural areas don't make your list of cities with the most crime because they are not cities and people are very spread out.
No one claimed that Republicans are the only criminals so I have no clue why you feel the need to debunk a claim that nobody made.
When mist of your posts on this site have either been promoting guns or railing against what you call "small minded liberals" it is pretty obvious that you are a right-winger.
Hestia
(3,818 posts)a child, they, a lot of the time, turn to crime. Unbelievably, 60% of US households still spank.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)Keep it up, gun nuts.
Tick-tock...
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)to shoot someone all the time.
How about some decent home training so that the kid won't get paddled in school?
When you teach disrespect at home, that's what you get outside the home.
Rocknrule
(5,697 posts)Remember how they reacted to Sandy Hook? "We'd rather bury our sons than bury our guns" and such.
LeftishBrit
(41,453 posts)That is one of the most terrifying remarks I've ever seen.
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)The idiot is talking about beating kids in general, so they (in his mind) don't grow up to be criminals, such that he would have to shoot them in his fantasy role as protector.
He probably would carve out an exception for his spawn.
daleo
(21,317 posts)Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)The whole "With me or against me" vibe. If you don't echo his views, you are against him, and he might have to put a bullet...
jpak
(41,780 posts)yup
truthisfreedom
(23,532 posts)Saves me from having to use my brain.
OneGrassRoot
(23,953 posts)I seriously doubt he would have used that language.
ileus
(15,396 posts)tabasco
(22,974 posts)who clearly fantasizes about shooting another person.
SICK FUCK.