NRA spoke up [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : NRA spoke up


OctoberRust
12-21-2012, 10:47
I don't agree with their view on video games and the first amendment. But it looks like out of my two options I will be supporting the NRA with my membership and additional money I will be donating throughout this week and more to come. I hope everyone here does as well.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12/21/nra-chief-urges-armed-guards-in-every-school-dismisses-calls-for-gun-control/

M&P15T
12-21-2012, 10:59
I gotta tell ya, I agree with the video game part.

I'm a gamer, and play on-line FPS games, and some of the kids go absolutely beserk playing them. And that's normal, healthy kids that are just playing too much.

If someone that is already mentally ill gets fixated on them? Oooooh brother, look out.

Still, I believe the biggest issue is our poorly funded and poorly equiped mental health facilities in this country. No place to put the Jared Loughners and Adam Lanzas in this country.

BWHITT
12-21-2012, 12:30
Very happy with the NRA had to say this morning. I find it utterly disturbing that our president could have easily ordered this same protection instantly for every school in the nation but instead decided to milk the media and the situation to introduce his gun control agenda. I think the NRA made the Obama administration look like an ass today.

The idea of a privet organization creating a safe school program and even providing the funding for the schools that need it is a very good idea. Too bad ore own government could not think of it… lots of schools already have their own police force and patrol the school campuses regularly. I think the small school districts are the ones that will need to most help.

I have no love for Assault rifles. If they voted banned them today I would not be upset, but I would worry about what they will ban tomorrow. Perhaps my ability to protect my family…. My pistols, they are after all used more frequently in violent crimes than any other weapon.

I hope the NRA does not have to settle for an Assault rifle ban compromise, but I feel that it could happen unless we can delay the vote long enough to let the media hype ware off.

I am a NRA member and I renew my license on a yearly basis.. looks like people have been joining the NRA at a record pace this week.

Diesel McBadass
12-21-2012, 12:45
going after video games pissed me off.

tsmo1066
12-21-2012, 12:49
I'm not 100% on board with the video game angle, but I though the School Shield initiative was brilliant. I just donated some money to the NRA to support it.

stricky
12-21-2012, 12:50
I saw it as an epic fail. Another TSA type organization running protection in our schools?

They had the national stage to come out and seem compassionate. To offer real ideas and prospects that could open healthy debate and bring some middle of the road Americans into a better understanding on the issues.

But instead they pointed fingers and are just polorizing this country even more. I don't disagree with them, just the way they did it.

micah
12-21-2012, 12:56
Wayne LaPierre made an ass out of himself. You are the CEO of the NRA. Stop deflecting. Tell us your plan for keeping guns out of the hands of guys like Jared Laughner. There were armed citizens, some well trained, at Ms Gifford's shooting. I am absolutely on-board with putting armed guards in schools, but if the NRA doesn't start advocating for adding some serious teeth to our system of keeping guns out of the hands of the wrong people, someone else will and we will not like it. Prior to it's complete transformation into a PAC, the NRA supported Reagan's '86 ban, the NFA and the GCA - and as a result, we who chose to have firearms can have just about whatever we want with a minimum of hassel compared to the rest of the world. We have it good. Please NRA, don't screw this up and continue to make yourselves - and all gun owners by proxy - look like knobs.

redbaron007
12-21-2012, 13:05
I saw it as an epic fail. Another TSA type organization running protection in our schools?

They had the national stage to come out and seem compassionate. To offer real ideas and prospects that could open healthy debate and bring some middle of the road Americans into a better understanding on the issues.

But instead they pointed fingers and are just polorizing this country even more. I don't disagree with them, just the way they did it.

And what would you have told Mr. LaPierre to say?

:wavey:

red

Caver 60
12-21-2012, 13:10
I'll be sending the NRA a donation, since I'm a lifetime member, even though I think they will 'cave' on some kind of compromise, just like they did in 68 (which happened within my lifetime).

I agree with statements about leaving our schools defenseless. But this nation is broke. Cities are laying officers off, rather than hiring more. Where is the money to pay for an officer in every school going to come from?

Allowing willing and trained, armed teachers to carry is the only logical course that I see. If congress wants to outlaw something, outlaw gun free zones.

We all know 'Assault Rifles' are not a class of semi-auto's with certain cosmetic features. The Second Amendment was created to protect our right to own 'true' assault rifles, not just semi-auto's. That right has already been essentially gutted. Now they will outlaw even semi-autos.

My federal Senator is having a staff member come to our city in a couple of weeks. You can bet I'll be there to talk to him. Watch for these kinds of meetings in your city and if possible go talk one on one. Then follow it up with a well written (not email) letter to them.

I also fully agree with the video game comment. I don't even like them for adults, let alone kids. I know I'll get crucified for that remark, but I feel strongly about it.

tsmo1066
12-21-2012, 13:14
Wayne LaPierre made an ass out of himself. You are the CEO of the NRA. Stop deflecting. Tell us your plan for keeping guns out of the hands of guys like Jared Laughner. There were armed citizens, some well trained, at Ms Gifford's shooting. I am absolutely on-board with putting armed guards in schools, but if the NRA doesn't start advocating for adding some serious teeth to our system of keeping guns out of the hands of the wrong people, someone else will and we will not like it. Prior to it's complete transformation into a PAC, the NRA supported Reagan's '86 ban, the NFA and the GCA - and as a result, we who chose to have firearms can have just about whatever we want with a minimum of hassel compared to the rest of the world. We have it good. Please NRA, don't screw this up and continue to make yourselves - and all gun owners by proxy - look like knobs.

False. The closest armed citizen at the Gifford shooting was across the street and down the block at a drug store when Laughner opened fire. The citizen ran up the street to the shooting and managed to help subdue the shooter, but he was not physically present as the massacre went down.

CHL is not a guarantee that there will ALWAYS be an armed citizen in each and every crowd, restaurant or other public venue/gathering any more than having a well-staffed police force is a guarantee that an officer will be present every time a crime is committed.

:upeyes:

redbaron007
12-21-2012, 13:17
From what I heard, I have no problems with what he said.

As a parent, I have had some concerns with my son playing online games with others; so, I joined him in playing. I was amazed at the intensity some of these folks had for the game....some seemed very integrated into the games. About 3 months ago he sold his Xbox and games because of the intensity. His words; some of these guys can't separate games from reality and didn't want to deal with them anymore. My son is 16.

I don't have anything against playing video games; but just like other vices, it has the potential to consume a person. What is the answer?......parents be involved with your kids. Will it prevent a Sandy Hook?...couldn't tell ya....this kid had deeper problems; but is sounds as if his mom was very concerned, especially if she was toying with the idea of committing him.

I'll send a donation to the NRA and the NRA-ILA next week.

:wavey:

red

philipk
12-21-2012, 13:24
Wayne LaPierre made an ass out of himself. You are the CEO of the NRA. Stop deflecting. Tell us your plan for keeping guns out of the hands of guys like Jared Laughner. There were armed citizens, some well trained, at Ms Gifford's shooting. I am absolutely on-board with putting armed guards in schools, but if the NRA doesn't start advocating for adding some serious teeth to our system of keeping guns out of the hands of the wrong people, someone else will and we will not like it. Prior to it's complete transformation into a PAC, the NRA supported Reagan's '86 ban, the NFA and the GCA - and as a result, we who chose to have firearms can have just about whatever we want with a minimum of hassel compared to the rest of the world. We have it good. Please NRA, don't screw this up and continue to make yourselves - and all gun owners by proxy - look like knobs.

I couldn't agree more. When we think Wayne LaPierre looks like an ass can you image what the antis are thinking?

I will go out an a limb and suggest a background check for all transfers of firearms including private if the following would take place.

1. An exemption for children and grandchildren.
2. No more than a $15 fee.
3. Records of transaction destroyed after three days.

This could happen if the NRA would step up to the plate and be part of the discussion.

As much as many here dislikes the 1968 Gun Control Act, if the NRA wasn't part of the negotiations we would have had full registration of all firearms in 1968.

This is a 1968 situation.

Sometimes I think we are our worst enemies.

tsmo1066
12-21-2012, 13:24
From what I heard, I have no problems with what he said.

As a parent, I have had some concerns with my son playing online games with others; so, I joined him in playing. I was amazed at the intensity some of these folks had for the game....some seemed very integrated into the games. About 3 months ago he sold his Xbox and games because of the intensity. His words; some of these guys can't separate games from reality and didn't want to deal with them anymore. My son is 16.

I don't have anything against playing video games; but just like other vices, it has the potential to consume a person. What is the answer?......parents be involved with your kids. Will it prevent a Sandy Hook?...couldn't tell ya....this kid had deeper problems; but is sounds as if his mom was very concerned, especially if she was toying with the idea of committing him.

I'll send a donation to the NRA and the NRA-ILA next week.

:wavey:

red

My son turns 16 in January and had a very similar experience. He was very into the first person shooters like HALO 3, Modern Warfare, etc., but he recently passed on HALO 4 when it came out. When I asked him why, his response was "Some of the players take that stuff WAAAY to seriously. It just isn't as fun anymore."

That being said, he still likes playing some of those games, but doesn't normally do so in "live" mode anymore.

Diesel McBadass
12-21-2012, 13:27
I enjoy many games, you can mute the losers you dont like.

Mushinto
12-21-2012, 13:29
Wayne LaPierre made an ass out of himself. ... keeping guns out of the hands ... keeping guns out of the hands ... .

Your use of that ridiculous catch phrase makes you either deluded or a propagandist.

There is no law short of a dictatorship that can "keeping guns out of the hands" of anyone. It's a pipe dream created by the gun banners and impotent police and government officials, and repeated by liberal sheep.

The evil ones can and will do their deeds with any tools they wish. Taking guns and accessories away from people who did not and would not commit these acts DOES NOTHING.

Did you hear me? IT DOES NOTHING.

EXCEPT, disarm American citizens, which is their agenda anyway.

The NRA did a great job under the circumstances. If they even attempted to compromise, they would have lost a million members before the new year.

Although I think some of those video games are evil, I am still against government regulations for them. But, W LaP did a decent job of deflecting.

philipk
12-21-2012, 13:32
Your use of that rediculous catch phrase makes you either deluded or a propagandist.

There is no law short of a dictatorship that can "keeping guns out of the hands" of anyone. It's a pipe dream created by the gun banners and impotant police and government officials, and repeated by liberal sheep.

The evil ones can and will do their deeds with any tools they wish. Taking guns and accessories away from people who didn't and wouldn't committ these acts DOES NOTHING.

Did you hear me. IT DOES NOTHING.

EXCEPT,

So should we get rid of the FFL system and all background checks?

Mushinto
12-21-2012, 13:35
So should we get rid of the FFL system and all background checks?

Fine with me.

Black&TAN
12-21-2012, 13:36
Didn't hear a call to ban Hollywood or video games, but a succinct criticism of culture in the US.

To arguable degree, focus was moved from "evil guns" to where it should be. The NRA showed empathy to recent events, and provided proactive suggestions and support to help prevent future atrocities. They avoided stepping on raw nerves, while empowering those who can most directly make a difference.

In combination with recent turns in climate, I am feeling a little more optimistic about future.

sent via Tapatalk

redbaron007
12-21-2012, 13:40
I enjoy many games, you can mute the losers you dont like.

He did do some of that, too. I think he just got tired of it....some of it was his HS buds became different people when online. :supergrin:

I think he may be wanting a different system.....he mentioned something about it coming out this Spring? :dunno:

:wavey:

red

LSUAdman
12-21-2012, 13:42
I've said it other threads, and I'll say it hear. I was happy with what I heard and what was proposed.

I was not especially pleased with the connection of video games and movies to crime, but as someone pointed out in another thread, the allusion that millions of people participate in these three things (shooting, gaming and movies) and DONT commit crimes shows how the media percieves guns as evil; but media as good. Neither are good nor evil, but can be used to further "stew" a crazy mind into action.

I love the idea of the National School Shield, and even emailed my old highschool encouraging to support the initiative.

Considering the number of people who are supporting the NRA to the two people who obviously only filtered what they wanted out of the presser, I think the NRA has pretty good support. Meanwhile Philip and Micah can just keep stiring the pot - you didnt watch the presser or read the transcript, dont even pretend like you did.

redbaron007
12-21-2012, 13:42
Your use of that ridiculous catch phrase makes you either deluded or a propagandist.

There is no law short of a dictatorship that can "keeping guns out of the hands" of anyone. It's a pipe dream created by the gun banners and impotent police and government officials, and repeated by liberal sheep.

The evil ones can and will do their deeds with any tools they wish. Taking guns and accessories away from people who did not and would not commit these acts DOES NOTHING.

Did you hear me? IT DOES NOTHING.

EXCEPT, disarm American citizens, which is their agenda anyway.

The NRA did a great job under the circumstances. If they even attempted to compromise, they would have lost a million members before the new year.

Although I think some of those video games are evil, I am still against government regulations for them. But, W LaP did a decent job of deflecting.
^^^
Very well stated!! :thumbsup:

:wavey:

red

philipk
12-21-2012, 13:42
Fine with me.

This type of thinking is the biggest long term threat to our gun rights.

I don't think the antis will succeed this time but I could be wrong.

However, with the extreme positions of the NRA our cause is lost in the long run. Maybe twenty years at most.

This past election showed two things.

1. Currently, the country is about equally divided.

2. Demographically, our country is changing. These changes will hurt the conservatives.

Implications

1. Near future, conservatives will do well in off year elections but not presidential elections.

2. Long term, conservatives will lose unless they adapt to the new realities.

A no comprise NRA is great for today but a disaster for 20 years from now. But what should I care as if I am still alive, I will be 75 in twenty years. That was the age my dad had to give up shooting due to health.

Sad for the younger gun owners.

To sum it up. Stop the bans but support STRONG background checks.

redbaron007
12-21-2012, 13:46
This type of thinking is the biggest long term threat to our gun rights.

I don't think the antis will succeed this time but I could be wrong.

However, with the extreme positions of the NRA our cause is lost in the long run. Maybe twenty years at most.

This past election showed two things.

1. Currently, the country is about equally divided.

2. Demographically, our country is changing. These changes will hurt the conservatives.

Implications

1. Near future, conservatives will do well in off year elections but not presidential elections.

2. Long term, conservatives will lose unless they adapt to the new realities.

A no comprise NRA is great for today but a disaster for 20 years from now. But what should I care as if I am still alive, I will be 75 in twenty years. That was the age my dad had to give up shooting due to health.

Sad for the younger gun owners.

To sum it up. Stop the bans but support STRONG background checks.

:wow: You got all of that out of those 3 little words?

Are you a 'my glass is half empty' person? No need to respond. :faint:

:wavey:

red

philipk
12-21-2012, 13:46
Meanwhile Philip and Micah can just keep stiring the pot - you didnt watch the presser or read the transcript, dont even pretend like you did.

I most certainly did watch the press conference.

However, I will admit my bias towards Wayne LaPierre. I have felt from day one that he makes us look bad.

Please hear my stand.

No bans.

Strong background checks.

What is wrong with that?

tsmo1066
12-21-2012, 13:47
Although I think some of those video games are evil, I am still against government regulations for them. But, W LaP did a decent job of deflecting.

I agree, and think it's important to note (for anyone out there that maybe didn't hear the news conference), that the NRA isn't calling for a ban on violent games or movies. The comments were a critique of our society, not a call for legislative action like what Obama is issuing.

redbaron007
12-21-2012, 13:47
I most certainly did watch the press conference.

However, I will admit my bias towards Wayne LaPierre. I have felt from day one that he makes us look bad.

Please hear my stand.

No bans.

NO Strong background checks.

What is wrong with that?

This is better.

:wavey:

red

Marlowe
12-21-2012, 13:49
The NRA did NOT suggest any infringement on the First Amendment...it merely criticized the entertainment industries' glorification of extreme violence. In doing so, the NRA exercised its First Amendment right, just as we are in this thread.

The NRA most certainly did not advocate that the government take any action to curtail the entertainment industry.

Whether media violence is a factor in these mass shootings is worthy of discussion and if we are going to have a "National conversation" on prevention of these mass killing events, it should be discussed. I don't think the NRA should be faulted for bringing it up. It was not throwing the First Amendment under the bus to protect the Second.

The problem I see with the NRA's proposal is that it is exclusively focused on mass shootings in schools.

When the president called for "meaningful action", he was talking about mass shootings in all venues...in his remarks, he referenced other incidents, such as the Sikh temple and Aurora, Colorado. The Newtown massacre was the catalyst, but the president's efforts, whatever they turn out to be, will not be confined to mass murder occurring in schools.

By only presenting a school security proposal, even if everyone were to endorse the idea, the NRA did not offer any solutions to the problem of mass killings in America. The NRA needs to develop a more comprehensive response to the problem of mass murder, wherever it occurs. Hopefully, it will. The NRA knows it must try shape to the agenda, on our behalf, or fall victim to it.

I say this as a Life Member of the NRA which greatly appreciates the NRA's rigorous defense of liberty.

philipk
12-21-2012, 13:50
This is better.

:wavey:

red

Then we lose.

tsmo1066
12-21-2012, 13:54
2. Demographically, our country is changing. These changes will hurt the conservatives.



It's bad for conservatives in general, but NOT gun owners in particular. The single largest growth segment in gun ownership in America over the past ten years has been among younger, single women who are purchasing firearms for self defense. One of the other leading gun ownership growth segments has been among middle class blacks.

As far as demographics go, gun ownership is growing fastest among traditionally liberal groups while it has been declining somewhat among solidly conservative segments like hunters.

philipk
12-21-2012, 13:58
It's bad for conservatives in general, but NOT gun owners in particular. The single largest growth segment in gun ownership in America over the past ten years has been among younger, single women who are purchasing firearms for self defense. One of the other leading gun ownership growth segments has been among middle class blacks.

As far as demographics go, gun ownership is growing fastest among traditionally liberal groups while it has been declining somewhat among solidly conservative segments like hunters.

Very true. However, a large majority of those young owners are like me and support strong background checks.

Sadly, a significant number of those young owners are unlike me and support bans of certain weapons.

Agonizer
12-21-2012, 14:07
I couldn't agree more. When we think Wayne LaPierre looks like an ass can you image what the antis are thinking?

I will go out an a limb and suggest a background check for all transfers of firearms including private if the following would take place.

1. An exemption for children and grandchildren.
2. No more than a $15 fee.
3. Records of transaction destroyed after three days.



And exactly how would this have stopped Adam Lanza?

Or the the theater shooter in Co., or the Gabby Giffords shooter, or the Virginia tech shooter, or for that matter, any mass shooter?


Any better Ideas?

I think you sir look like an ass.

Agonizer
12-21-2012, 14:10
double post

philipk
12-21-2012, 14:11
And exactly how would this have stopped Adam Lanza?

Or the the theater shooter in Co., or the Gabby Giffords shooter, or the Virginia tech shooter, or for that matter, any mass shooter?


Any better Ideas?

I think you sir look like an ass.

I have been waiting for that response.

It wouldn't have stopped it.

However, we ALL know that rifles of all types only account for 3% of ALL firearm murders.

The rest are handguns.

Background checks can make a difference with handguns.

Agonizer
12-21-2012, 14:14
I have been waiting for that response.

It wouldn't have stopped it.

However, we ALL know that rifles of all types only account for 3% of ALL firearm murders.

The rest are handguns.

Background checks can make a difference with handguns.


Again, how would this have stopped Adam Lanza?

philipk
12-21-2012, 14:14
I think you sir look like an ass.

I am having a hard time believing many a GT want to eliminate background checks!

We are our own worst enemies!

Agonizer
12-21-2012, 14:15
I am having a hard time believing many a GT want to eliminate background checks!

We are our own worst enemies!


I never said that.

philipk
12-21-2012, 14:17
Again, how would this have stopped Adam Lanza?

Can't you read? I said it wouldn't

Last year we had about 370 murders by rifles all types.

We also had about 11,000 murders by handguns.

Background checks could help here.

You may put your head in the sand but most of those handguns weren't stolen but legally purchases. Over half by private sales without background checks.

philipk
12-21-2012, 14:18
I never said that.

My response was written to two other posters who did say that.

stricky
12-21-2012, 14:18
Someone asked what I would have liked to have heard him say. While I actually started to write something up the passion of another author on the subject came to mind. While the words did not need to be the same the passion and reasoning stands: google "COLUMBINE STUDENT'S FATHER 12 YEARS LATER" and read what he said.

Big Dog Dad
12-21-2012, 14:18
I have been a life member of the NRA for over 40 years. Without them and their power over this sham of a government we now have, we would be like a socialist asian country when it comes to citizens owning guns. I believe there is no quick solution to a deranged killer gone wild. There have been instances in other gun-free countries when a madman has killed multiple people with knives, bombs, etc. The quick knee-jerk fix is like everything else in this country. It sells air time, newspapers, and anything else people can make a buck on. Everybody has an answer just so long as it doesn't affect their bottom dollar!

-=BDD=-

chief63
12-21-2012, 14:19
It's bad for conservatives in general, but NOT gun owners in particular. The single largest growth segment in gun ownership in America over the past ten years has been among younger, single women who are purchasing firearms for self defense. One of the other leading gun ownership growth segments has been among middle class blacks.

As far as demographics go, gun ownership is growing fastest among traditionally liberal groups while it has been declining somewhat among solidly conservative segments like hunters.

That was true in my LGS today... more women shoppers then men.

Agonizer
12-21-2012, 14:22
Can't you read? I said it wouldn't

Last year we had about 370 murders by rifles all types.

We also had about 11,000 murders by handguns.

Background checks could help here.

You may put your head in the sand but most of those handguns weren't stolen but legally purchases. Over half by private sales without background checks.

Huh?

Gabby Giffords shooter passed a background check. The Virginia Tech shooter passed a background check. The temple shooter in Oak Creek Wi. passed a background check the Co. theater shooter passed a background check, Adam Lanza's mother passed a background check.

So tell me how a background check stops mass shooters?

philipk
12-21-2012, 14:33
Huh?

Gabby Giffords shooter passed a background check. The Virginia Tech shooter passed a background check. The temple shooter in Oak Creek Wi. passed a background check the Co. theater shooter passed a background check, Adam Lanza's mother passed a background check.

So tell me how a background check stops mass shooters?

Please reread my posts, I never said it would stop mass murders.

I said it could help with the 11,000 firearm annual firearm murders. A significant number of those guns come from private sales. Please note, I didn't say gun show sales, I said private sales in general.

Foxtrotx1
12-21-2012, 14:36
My son turns 16 in January and had a very similar experience. He was very into the first person shooters like HALO 3, Modern Warfare, etc., but he recently passed on HALO 4 when it came out. When I asked him why, his response was "Some of the players take that stuff WAAAY to seriously. It just isn't as fun anymore."

That being said, he still likes playing some of those games, but doesn't normally do so in "live" mode anymore.

Sounds like typical teenage angst.

Fear Night
12-21-2012, 14:43
Tons of parents allow their children to play video games that are below the ESRB rating minimum age (also, apparently people in this thread!). Most of the games talked about have a rating of 'M' with minimum age of 17+. For people that don't know, Call of Duty Modern Warfare is rated M 17+, Halo series is also rated M 17+, Grand Theft Auto 4 M 17+. Please explain to me why you allow your younger than 17 year old kid an exception to this rating.

I think we should enforce these age limits like we enforce the drinking age. If a parent supplies alcohol to their underage child, they can be charged with a crime. The same thing should apply to video game ratings.

I've been a gamer all my life, but the violent/crime/sexual video game era didn't begin until I was already in my 20's. I can't imagine playing some of these games at 10, 12, or even 14 years old, talk about growing up too fast ...

micah
12-21-2012, 14:47
Considering the number of people who are supporting the NRA to the two people who obviously only filtered what they wanted out of the presser, I think the NRA has pretty good support. Meanwhile Philip and Micah can just keep stiring the pot - you didnt watch the presser or read the transcript, dont even pretend like you did.

You are lying. I actually pulled to the side of the road and watched it live on my phone.

micah
12-21-2012, 14:54
Huh?

Gabby Giffords shooter passed a background check. The Virginia Tech shooter passed a background check. The temple shooter in Oak Creek Wi. passed a background check the Co. theater shooter passed a background check, Adam Lanza's mother passed a background check.

So tell me how a background check stops mass shooters?

I'm all for mandetory background checks on centerfires /and/ a simple psych eval, along the lines of the the MMPI2. This wouldn't stop all murders. It wouldn't stop most murders. It would result in some would-be murderers getting stopped before they start, without preventing us sane, non-felons from owning them. Everybody wins.

philipk
12-21-2012, 15:00
I'm all for mandetory background checks on centerfires /and/ a simple psych eval, along the lines of the the MMPI2. This wouldn't stop all murders. It wouldn't stop most murders. It would result in some would-be murderers getting stopped before they start, without preventing us sane, non-felons from owning them. Everybody wins.

I agree fully with the background checks.

I am a little leery of psych tests. I remember an old episode of "Barney Miller" where the police psychologist said that anyone who want a gun was crazy including police officers.

I know that was TV but while Psych evaluations maybe a good idea. They make me nervous because who will judge them?

Still controlling access if far better than trying to ban guns.

micah
12-21-2012, 15:07
I agree fully with the background checks.

I am a little leery of psych tests. I remember an old episode of "Barney Miller" where the police psychologist said that anyone who want a gun was crazy including police officers.

I know that was TV but while Psych evaluations maybe a good idea. They make me nervous.

Still controlling access if far better than trying to ban guns.

The trick is to write the psych eval law referencing a specific test that is used commonly, not a special one for gun-buyers which could be politicized. If you have a job with any serious responsibility, you've taken an MMPI. Heck, I had to take it so I could cut the lawn outside a nuclear plant, and that was pre 9/11.

The counter-derp will be "Bu-bu-but a criminal will just answer the questions in a way that will make him look sane!" The thing is, a guy like Laughner can't make himself think sanely by an act of will. A sane psycopath could lie and perhaps pass the test, but an insane person could not. Again - imperfect, but somewhat effective and without an undue burdon on us. It's more proactive than the current system, which requires waiting until a person is involuntarily committed to act.

WarCry
12-21-2012, 15:08
Tons of parents allow their children to play video games that are below the ESRB rating minimum age (also, apparently people in this thread!). Most of the games talked about have a rating of 'M' with minimum age of 17+. For people that don't know, Call of Duty Modern Warfare is rated M 17+, Halo series is also rated M 17+, Grand Theft Auto 4 M 17+. Please explain to me why you allow your younger than 17 year old kid an exception to this rating.

I think we should enforce these age limits like we enforce the drinking age. If a parent supplies alcohol to their underage child, they can be charged with a crime. The same thing should apply to video game ratings.

I've been a gamer all my life, but the violent/crime/sexual video game era didn't begin until I was already in my 20's. I can't imagine playing some of these games at 10, 12, or even 14 years old, talk about growing up too fast ...

So you're all for bigger government, more government/police intervention in our lives, then? Because that's what you're saying.



The ratings for video games - AND MOVIES - are not legal and/or binding. They are there for informational purposes ONLY, to let parents judge what movies they want to let their kids see, or what game they want to play. Your 13 year old and my 13 year old may be in COMPLETELY different places in their maturation, and so what is okay for one may be over the top for the other.

The ratings are guides. What you're talking about is criminalizing the rating systems and making it illegal for parents to determine - rightly or wrongly - what is appropriate for their own children.

Define "Nanny State" for me, please?

OctoberRust
12-21-2012, 15:21
I gotta tell ya, I agree with the video game part.

I'm a gamer, and play on-line FPS games, and some of the kids go absolutely beserk playing them. And that's normal, healthy kids that are just playing too much.

If someone that is already mentally ill gets fixated on them? Oooooh brother, look out.

Still, I believe the biggest issue is our poorly funded and poorly equiped mental health facilities in this country. No place to put the Jared Loughners and Adam Lanzas in this country.

You can think what you want about video games, one thing stands in the way of both of our opinions though.

The first amendment is as important as the second amendment.

You and I will probably both agree the second amendment was NOT made for hunting, so can we at least agree the first amendment was not made for talking about the weather?

OctoberRust
12-21-2012, 15:34
Your use of that ridiculous catch phrase makes you either deluded or a propagandist.

There is no law short of a dictatorship that can "keeping guns out of the hands" of anyone. It's a pipe dream created by the gun banners and impotent police and government officials, and repeated by liberal sheep.

The evil ones can and will do their deeds with any tools they wish. Taking guns and accessories away from people who did not and would not commit these acts DOES NOTHING.

Did you hear me? IT DOES NOTHING.

EXCEPT, disarm American citizens, which is their agenda anyway.

The NRA did a great job under the circumstances. If they even attempted to compromise, they would have lost a million members before the new year.

Although I think some of those video games are evil, I am still against government regulations for them. But, W LaP did a decent job of deflecting.


Well said sir. I see a few DU trolls have been drawn out to this thread, glad you told them like it is.

philipk
12-21-2012, 15:46
Well said sir. I see a few DU trolls have been drawn out to this thread, glad you told them like it is.

That is what is wrong with politics in America. If you don't agree with me. I am a troll.

It doesn't matter that I have been a member here for twelve years.

It doesn't matter if by antis standards I have a mini arsenal.

It doesn't matter that I own thousands of rounds of ammo.

It doesn't matter if I own several M1 Garands.

It doesn't matter if own a Colt 6400C.

It doesn't matter if I am working the traps at my gun club twice a week.

It doesn't matter if I am against banning any more guns.

All that matters is I can agree to stronger background checks and I think that Wayne LaPierre is a bad leader of the NRA.

Therefore I am a troll.

NICE!

tsmo1066
12-21-2012, 15:56
Very true. However, a large majority of those young owners are like me and support strong background checks.

Sadly, a significant number of those young owners are unlike me and support bans of certain weapons.

That may be true NOW, but attitudes tend to change the more people learn about firearms, and today's handgun buyer is often tomorrow's recreational AR shooter or semi-auto collector. When people get firearm training and take up shooting, the myths tend to be lifted and their understanding and acceptance only goes up.

The more liberals who buy firearms and take up shooting, the better the attitude among them will be regarding firearms - even "evil assault weapons".

Fear Night
12-21-2012, 16:00
So you're all for bigger government, more government/police intervention in our lives, then? Because that's what you're saying.

The ratings for video games - AND MOVIES - are not legal and/or binding. They are there for informational purposes ONLY, to let parents judge what movies they want to let their kids see, or what game they want to play. Your 13 year old and my 13 year old may be in COMPLETELY different places in their maturation, and so what is okay for one may be over the top for the other.

The ratings are guides. What you're talking about is criminalizing the rating systems and making it illegal for parents to determine - rightly or wrongly - what is appropriate for their own children.

Define "Nanny State" for me, please?
If violent video games are really turning many of our kids into cold-hearted kindergarten murders, then yes, I support more government intervention in this rare case as a last resort.

First, parents need to be educated on the potential effects that could result from consuming such media, and take appropriate action when needed. The problem is when parents are either ignorant to the media their kids are consuming, or just simply don't care one way or another.

Marlowe
12-21-2012, 16:01
As to background checks, obviously, their purpose is to prevent a prohibited person from purchasing a firearm from an FFL.

As responsible gun owners, we should want an effective system in place to do that.

I see two immediate problems with the current system:

When you answer the "have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective question" in the negative, there is no reliable, consistent means for the NICs background check to verify that your response was truthful. That's why the Virginia Tech shooter "passed" his background check. His negative answer to that question was not truthful, but the check couldn't surface the record that would have revealed his answer to be untruthful and thus stop the transaction.

The check does a good job of surfacing criminal records, and preventing sales to prohibited persons on those grounds, but this is not the case for records bearing on the "mental defective" question.

The NRA, in its press conference, touched on a national database for the mentally ill, so, I expect, we will hear more from them on this problem.

The other problem with the current background check system is that it only occurs during a sale from an FFL (unless you are in a state like CA which requires that all sales, including private party transfers, be conducted through an FFL.).

Even if the FFL sale to the Virginia Tech shooter had been stopped by a more effective check, he could have bought a gun from a private party in Virginia with no check at all.

In my view, the NRA would be wise to recommend that all sales, including private party transfers, be conducted through an FFL. It may add a little inconvenience and additional cost to the legitimate buyer, but will prevent sales to prohibited people, and, if its effectiveness is improved, make it more difficult for a prohibited person to purchase a gun.

The public likes the idea of background checks and would overwhelmingly support this proposal. By proposing it, NRA would gain credibility with general public as an organization truly working to keep guns out of the hands of prohibited people. The NRA would also thus address the so-called gun show loop-hole, a misnomer that is really only about private party transfers at gun shows, as purchases from an FFL at a gun show require the same sales process, including the NICs check, as a sale conducted at a gun store by an FFL.

As a side benefit, private sellers of guns can sell their property and be reassured that the person purchasing that property is not prohibited from doing so. I'm in California and it's no problem, and not costly, for private buyer and seller to meet at a gun store, fill out the usual paperwork, and conduct the transaction.

Yes, it won't affect sales of guns between criminals--crooks will sell guns to each other without regard to any law. But, law abiding sellers have a strong stake in following the rules and, in so doing, being responsible. If going through an FFL is required, a law abiding seller will comply with the law.

Opposing improved and universal background checks will be seen by the general public as unreasonable and will cost the NRA, and any gun rights' advocates who oppose it, credibility with the public. Opposition to universal background checks will play very well for the Brady campaign and others who want to portray the NRA and gun rights' advocates as part of the problem, not the solution.

Either we help craft the solutions or be marginalized in the process...

Ok, I'm stepping down from my soap box now...

Louisville Glocker
12-21-2012, 16:45
I like the idea of an armed security person at every school. Where I teach (college), our administration has used local Sheriffs to provide security since I've been there. I don't like the ban on guns for faculty and staff. Hopefully, that can change.

As for my kids' schools, I think we'd have no trouble finding qualified volunteers to provide most of the hours. I'm talking trained LEO, or retired LEO, or rescue workers who get some additional training. Everyone wants their days off, but a lot of people I know would be willing to kick in a couple hours. And if more money is needed for paying non-volunteers, I'd be willing to bet that the NRA could raise that money. I'm sure just about every gun owner with a kid would be willing to pay a little.

We'll see what happens next.

On an interesting trivia note, I've actually met the second protester there. Medea Benjamin of Code Pink. I'm surprised she managed to get in. DC police know her pretty well.

P.S. I'm all for real background checks. And I'd like to see some kind of required training. I know that will piss some people here off, but that's just my opinion. Just like I don't like to see bad drivers on the road (I'd like to revoke their licenses), I don't like to see ignorant irresponsible gun owners at the range or having guns in their homes. A little education goes a long long way.

And any kind of bans are a joke. I predict no bans from Congress.

WarCry
12-21-2012, 16:49
If violent video games are really turning many of our kids into cold-hearted kindergarten murders,

I cut off your statement there.


With 10s of millions of games sold every year that are rated for Mature, over 17 audiences (Not even counting those with cartoon-style violence), the simple fact is that video games are NOT turning kids into cold-hearted killers. The number just do not, in any way, shape, or form, support that. At all.

shotgunred
12-21-2012, 17:04
I gotta tell ya, I agree with the video game part.

I'm a gamer, and play on-line FPS games, and some of the kids go absolutely beserk playing them. And that's normal, healthy kids that are just playing too much.

If someone that is already mentally ill gets fixated on them? Oooooh brother, look out.

Still, I believe the biggest issue is our poorly funded and poorly equiped mental health facilities in this country. No place to put the Jared Loughners and Adam Lanzas in this country.

I totally agree with you but I just think you left out Hollywood!

philipk
12-21-2012, 17:05
As for my kids' schools, I think we'd have no trouble finding qualified volunteers to provide most of the hours. I'm talking trained LEO, or retired LEO, or rescue workers who get some additional training. Everyone wants their days off, but a lot of people I know would be willing to kick in a couple hours.

My wife teaches in a parochial school. Many of the parents and grandparents are local police officers, both active and retired. All week there has been many on their off time at the school. Some in cruisers in the parking lot or street corner and others who were buzzed in and walked through the halls.

People will step-up when needed.

mgs
12-21-2012, 17:23
Wayne did a great job......how about the screaming witch liberal in the background. That's the class of anti-gun people. I'm screaming so I'm right mentality. We have plenty of capable adults at our school who could carry concealed. The kids do not need to know who there are....or the bad guys. I would not support any TSA type people in the school. Give them a badge and their heads blow up. End gun free zones and let society solve the issue.

shotgunred
12-21-2012, 17:25
My wife teaches in a parochial school. Many of the parents and grandparents are local police officers, both active and retired. All week there has been many on their off time at the school. Some in cruisers in the parking lot or street corner and others who were buzzed in and walked through the halls.

People will step-up when needed.

The problem is that they will be gone before march. My daughters elementary school can afford to hire teachers to teach Illegal parents English (for free) at night. They damn well can afford to hire some armed security guards.

philipk
12-21-2012, 17:37
The problem is that they will be gone before march. My daughters elementary school can afford to hire teachers to teach Illegal parents English (for free) at night. They damn well can afford to hire some armed security guards.

You are partly correct. However they have been doing this for years on a smaller scale. Just two weeks ago the police conducted an unannounced lockdown drill. The drill was announced at the public schools and every school had several problems. My wife's parochial school's unannounced visit passed!

The vast majority of local police officers with children have had them in her school. This includes the non-Catholic officers.

Btw many of the officers kids are older now but they still support the school.

*ASH*
12-21-2012, 18:03
people advocating at the government get access to all MEDICAL RECORDS ?? are you kidding me , do you really want big government getting a foot hold on this , then its all down hill from there , unreal what folks think sometimes :upeyes::upeyes:

Restless28
12-21-2012, 18:31
That is what is wrong with politics in America. If you don't agree with me. I am a troll.

It doesn't matter that I have been a member here for twelve years.

It doesn't matter if by antis standards I have a mini arsenal.

It doesn't matter that I own thousands of rounds of ammo.

It doesn't matter if I own several M1 Garands.

It doesn't matter if own a Colt 6400C.

It doesn't matter if I am working the traps at my gun club twice a week.

It doesn't matter if I am against banning any more guns.

All that matters is I can agree to stronger background checks and I think that Wayne LaPierre is a bad leader of the NRA.

Therefore I am a troll.

NICE!

Bravo, sir. It's nice to see reasonable folks stand up to the haters.

Drain You
12-21-2012, 20:23
The games I grew up on weren't very violent, got into Goldeneye when I was a teen though and shot a lot of people up in it. Never in real life.

I just stomp on every mushroom I see growing, it is like a compulsion.

redbaron007
12-22-2012, 09:39
Can't you read? I said it wouldn't

Last year we had about 370 murders by rifles all types.

We also had about 11,000 murders by handguns.

Background checks could help here.

You may put your head in the sand but most of those handguns weren't stolen but legally purchases. Over half by private sales without background checks.
So what is your point....More background checks?

Since my lawnmower can inflict tremendous harm...should I conduct a background check on the person I sell it to? You yourself stated the background checks wouldn't have helped. So why more? :dunno:

Originally Posted by philipk
Very true. However, a large majority of those young owners are like me and support strong background checks.

Sadly, a significant number of those young owners are unlike me and support bans of certain weapons.

Is this anecdotal or actually a fact? If a fact, please provide this source.

people advocating at the government get access to all MEDICAL RECORDS ?? are you kidding me , do you really want big government getting a foot hold on this , then its all down hill from there , unreal what folks think sometimes :upeyes::upeyes:

Heck Fire NO!!!! They need to keep their cotton pickin fingers off that data! But unfortunately, Obamacare opens that door!

:wavey:

red

G26S239
12-22-2012, 10:02
This type of thinking is the biggest long term threat to our gun rights.

I don't think the antis will succeed this time but I could be wrong.

However, with the extreme positions of the NRA our cause is lost in the long run. Maybe twenty years at most.

This past election showed two things.

1. Currently, the country is about equally divided.

2. Demographically, our country is changing. These changes will hurt the conservatives.

Implications

1. Near future, conservatives will do well in off year elections but not presidential elections.

2. Long term, conservatives will lose unless they adapt to the new realities.

A no comprise NRA is great for today but a disaster for 20 years from now. But what should I care as if I am still alive, I will be 75 in twenty years. That was the age my dad had to give up shooting due to health.

Sad for the younger gun owners.

To sum it up. Stop the bans but support STRONG background checks.
So draw up surrender terms and hope they don't want more? No way. Make the Brady bunch fight for every millimeter.

njl
12-22-2012, 10:05
Did anyone else who watched the entire press conference think Wayne looked like he hadn't had a good night's sleep in days?

philipk
12-22-2012, 12:30
So draw up surrender terms and hope they don't want more? No way. Make the Brady bunch fight for every millimeter.

Whoever defines the argument wins public support.

Antis

1. Emotions of parents of murdered children.
2. Majority of news outlets including FOX demanding something be done.
3. Media referring to AR15 more often as semiautomatic rifle or military style rifle than assault weapon.
4. Stories written by gun owning journalists stating there is no need for semi-automatic weapons.
5. Large number of gun owners writing in article comment sections that we don't need semiautomatic rifles for hunting.
6. Demands for better background checks on mental status.
7. Demands for background checks for private sales. Note that most articles are no longer calling it the "gun show loophole."

Pro-gun side.

1. The NRA wants more guards at schools and to arm teachers.
2. The NRA rants about video games, movies, and tv shows.
3. The comments from many on the gun boards is to get rid of FFL's, background checks, and to institute constitutional carry.

Guess which side wins with the public?

If the NRA were to define the problem as keeping guns out of the hands of the wrong people by improving mental records and requiring background checks for all gun transfers, they would give a good alternative to the antis.

WarCry
12-22-2012, 12:59
Whoever defines the argument wins public support.

Antis

1. Emotions of parents of murdered children.
2. Majority of news outlets including FOX demanding something be done.
3. Media referring to AR15 more often as semiautomatic rifle or military style rifle than assault weapon.
4. Stories written by gun owning journalists stating there is no need for semi-automatic weapons.
5. Large number of gun owners writing in article comment sections that we don't need semiautomatic rifles for hunting.
6. Demands for better background checks on mental status.
7. Demands for background checks for private sales. Note that most articles are no longer calling it the "gun show loophole."

Pro-gun side.

1. The NRA wants more guards at schools and to arm teachers.
2. The NRA rants about video games, movies, and tv shows.
3. The comments from many on the gun boards is to get rid of FFL's, background checks, and to institute constitutional carry.

Guess which side wins with the public?

If the NRA were to define the problem as keeping guns out of the hands of the wrong people by improving mental records and requiring background checks for all gun transfers, they would give a good alternative to the antis.

But there's the rub: The NRA DID say that, but that's not hte sound-bite the media has decided to run with...


Though, to be fair, the "Only way to stop a bad guy with a gun..." line WAS designed to be a sound bite.

Carrys
12-22-2012, 13:18
I heard what the NRA had to say......and I heard the President say to the public, "I've heard your pleas". Meaning he intends to do as much harm to my 2nd Amendment right as he can.

I'm a life member of the NRA and plan to send even more money now.

Of course the big head wasn't talking 'bout doing anythjing except taking away objects we all use to protect our selves with. I'm sure it never entered his mind that the govt would have more control/charge over us if we didn't posses 'em, ya think?:shocked:

If the govt is tuning into this site as I suspect they are, they need to hear me very clearly.

My body is quite busted up. Mostly due to the wounds/injuries received while in service to my Country. I also have some other maladies that cause me a lot of pain and quite the limited range of motion thruout my body. In other words.....I feel as if I'm in prison every day as it is.

Now listen carefully, the threat of jail upsets me none. I feel as if I live there most every day.

I would pay heed to that were I any govt agents who had plans of something fun at my house. Me thinks there won't be as much fun forthcoming as ya think there will.:whistling:

But it's your choice.


I've made mine.:wavey:

Fox
12-22-2012, 14:31
Wayne LaPierre made an ass out of himself. You are the CEO of the NRA. Stop deflecting. Tell us your plan for keeping guns out of the hands of guys like Jared Laughner. There were armed citizens, some well trained, at Ms Gifford's shooting. I am absolutely on-board with putting armed guards in schools, but if the NRA doesn't start advocating for adding some serious teeth to our system of keeping guns out of the hands of the wrong people, someone else will and we will not like it. Prior to it's complete transformation into a PAC, the NRA supported Reagan's '86 ban, the NFA and the GCA - and as a result, we who chose to have firearms can have just about whatever we want with a minimum of hassel compared to the rest of the world. We have it good. Please NRA, don't screw this up and continue to make yourselves - and all gun owners by proxy - look like knobs.


I hope you mail this to Wayne LaPierre. He needs the constructive criticism.

Angel
12-22-2012, 15:43
There is no law that would have prevented the shooting.

G26S239
12-22-2012, 16:04
Whoever defines the argument wins public support.

Antis

1. Emotions of parents of murdered children.
2. Majority of news outlets including FOX demanding something be done.
3. Media referring to AR15 more often as semiautomatic rifle or military style rifle than assault weapon.
4. Stories written by gun owning journalists stating there is no need for semi-automatic weapons.
5. Large number of gun owners writing in article comment sections that we don't need semiautomatic rifles for hunting.
6. Demands for better background checks on mental status.
7. Demands for background checks for private sales. Note that most articles are no longer calling it the "gun show loophole."

Pro-gun side.

1. The NRA wants more guards at schools and to arm teachers.
2. The NRA rants about video games, movies, and tv shows.
3. The comments from many on the gun boards is to get rid of FFL's, background checks, and to institute constitutional carry.

Guess which side wins with the public?

If the NRA were to define the problem as keeping guns out of the hands of the wrong people by improving mental records and requiring background checks for all gun transfers, they would give a good alternative to the antis.

Nope. Bending over and hoping that McCarthy, Schumer, Launtenburg et al will be happy with less than total capitulation is unrealistic. When the French King tried to buy off the Vikings by paying them to not sack Paris it just let them know that he was soft. They came back for more. Same principle applies.


In another thread you mentioned drawing a line in the sand. By that it appears you mean volunteer for more fingers in the keester. They will not be happy with just having us cough. If there is a hand on each shoulder it is not really a prostate exam.

jame
12-22-2012, 16:09
I think those of us that are screaming that both the NRA and the POTUS want violent video games curtailed are over generalizing.

I believe they were both referring to culture in general, not specifically games or movies, although they may have been referred to as examples of our current culture.

FireForged
12-22-2012, 16:09
Having a stance - pro or con the AWB is one thing but going all knee deep into what ailes society only gives the antis more angles to argue with you. I wish the NRA would stick to fighting for our gunrights and stop trying to justify those actions with attempts to prove that gun dont have legs.

News reports that say "The NRA blames the video game" is not helping the issue.

philipk
12-22-2012, 16:54
Nope. Bending over and hoping that McCarthy, Schumer, Launtenburg et al will be happy with less than total capitulation is unrealistic. When the French King tried to buy off the Vikings by paying them to not sack Paris it just let them know that he was soft. They came back for more. Same principle applies.


In another thread you mentioned drawing a line in the sand. By that it appears you mean volunteer for more fingers in the keester. They will not be happy with just having us cough. If there is a hand on each shoulder it is not really a prostate exam.

I am not trying to appease them. Appeasement never works.

However, sticking our head in the sand and pretending there isn't a problem doesn't work.

I have been very constant believing tightening up mental status and requiring a background check for every firearm transfer is a good idea.

It isn't appeasement. It is admitting we have a problem.

OctoberRust
12-22-2012, 17:08
That is what is wrong with politics in America. If you don't agree with me. I am a troll.

It doesn't matter that I have been a member here for twelve years.

It doesn't matter if by antis standards I have a mini arsenal.

It doesn't matter that I own thousands of rounds of ammo.

It doesn't matter if I own several M1 Garands.

It doesn't matter if own a Colt 6400C.

It doesn't matter if I am working the traps at my gun club twice a week.

It doesn't matter if I am against banning any more guns.

All that matters is I can agree to stronger background checks and I think that Wayne LaPierre is a bad leader of the NRA.

Therefore I am a troll.

NICE!


Yes, you're still a troll.

You've been here HOW long?! and you still do not understand the meaning of "shall not be infringed" ? :shocked:

You understand what the 2nd amendment was drafted for? You understand the purpose of the 2nd amendment? I really think you're with the fudds, and not freedom on this.

philipk
12-22-2012, 17:13
Yes, you're still a troll.

You've been here HOW long?! and you still do not understand the meaning of "shall not be infringed" ? :shocked:

You understand what the 2nd amendment was drafted for? You understand the purpose of the 2nd amendment? I really think you're with the fudds, and not freedom on this.

Reread the Heller vs DC decision. And after you do that come back and tell me that you understand what the Second Amendment means and I don't.

The Cliff Notes version.
The justices that voted in favor of Heller made it clear that the government could regulate firearms heavily. They went out of their way to say that. That is very rare for a Supreme Court decision.

OctoberRust
12-22-2012, 18:03
Reread the Heller vs DC decision. And after you do that come back and tell me that you understand what the Second Amendment means and I don't.

The Cliff Notes version.
The justices that voted in favor of Heller made it clear that the government could regulate firearms heavily. They went out of their way to say that. That is very rare for a Supreme Court decision.


You're going to hide behind a SCOTUS ruling? Such a cop out of you, I wouldn't expect anything less.

Should I point out other silly things the scotus has ruled? You do know how justices are elected, right?

I'll point you to the federalist papers, since you know, many of the founders wrote in that. You can see from there what the intentions of the 2nd amendment was. Oh, just to give you a hint, since you don't strike me as one to catch onto things too quickly, it's not about hunting.

philipk
12-22-2012, 18:12
You're going to hide behind a SCOTUS ruling? Such a cop out of you, I wouldn't expect anything less.

Should I point out other silly things the scotus has ruled? You do know how justices are elected, right?

I'll point you to the federalist papers, since you know, many of the founders wrote in that. You can see from there what the intentions of the 2nd amendment was. Oh, just to give you a hint, since you don't strike me as one to catch onto things too quickly, it's not about hunting.

And when did I say it was about hunting?

Heller made it clear the 2nd was a individual right. It also made it clear that Mr. Heller had a right to own a firearm for self defense.

I am being crucified by you because I suggest it would be a good idea to have background checks of all firearm transfers. You claim that is anti 2nd amendment???

We live in a constitutionally based republic.

Article III gives the Supreme Court the authority to interpret the constitution and not OctoberRust or philipk.

I defer to them.

philipk
12-22-2012, 18:14
BTW

The Federalist Papers help us to understand want took place behind the scenes and are VERY important to our history.

However, they have NO legal standing in court rulings.

G26S239
12-22-2012, 18:24
And when did I say it was about hunting?

Heller made it clear the 2nd was a individual right. It also made it clear that Mr. Heller had a right to own a firearm for self defense.

I am being crucified by you because I suggest it would be a good idea to have background checks of all firearm transfers. You claim that is anti 2nd amendment???

We live in a constitutionally based republic.

Article III gives the Supreme Court the authority to interpret the constitution and not OctoberRust or philipk.

I defer to them.
Knock off the histrionics. Having someone disagree with your pro capitulation stance does not = being crucified. What other rights are you in favor of instituting prior restraint on?

Redress of grievances?
Freedom of speech and press? It is obvious, to me anyway perhaps not to you, that using a newspaper or tv network to promulgate dialectical materialism is not only possible but actively being done. Maybe we should force toxic reporter scum to go through a background to try and minimize the flat out lies they spew?

You are already throwing the presumption of innocence under the bus by favoring having people prove they are not felons to exercise their right to bear arms.
Regarding your explicitly stated trust in the supreme court - how do you like
1. Plessy versus Fergusson
2. Dred Scott vs Sanford
3. Kelo vs New London

IndyGunFreak
12-22-2012, 18:35
Your use of that ridiculous catch phrase makes you either deluded or a propagandist.

There is no law short of a dictatorship that can "keeping guns out of the hands" of anyone. It's a pipe dream created by the gun banners and impotent police and government officials, and repeated by liberal sheep.

The evil ones can and will do their deeds with any tools they wish. Taking guns and accessories away from people who did not and would not commit these acts DOES NOTHING.

Did you hear me? IT DOES NOTHING.

EXCEPT, disarm American citizens, which is their agenda anyway.

The NRA did a great job under the circumstances. If they even attempted to compromise, they would have lost a million members before the new year.

Although I think some of those video games are evil, I am still against government regulations for them. But, W LaP did a decent job of deflecting.

I'm glad someone picked up on this other than me...

So should we get rid of the FFL system and all background checks?

Absolutely.

WarCry
12-22-2012, 18:37
Knock off the histrionics. Having someone disagree with your pro capitulation stance does not = being crucified. What other rights are you in favor of instituting prior restraint on?


Just out of curiosity, can you name any single right from the Bill of Rights that is NOT restricted or excepted in some way, shape, or form?

G26S239
12-22-2012, 18:45
Just out of curiosity, can you name any single right from the Bill of Rights that is NOT restricted or excepted in some way, shape, or form?
There is no prior restraint on freedom of the press.
There is no prior restraint on freedom of religion.

VinnieG
12-22-2012, 18:55
Our biggest problem is our society in general. It makes me sick, from kids not Gettin an *** kickin when they need it, to children's sports where they don't keep score because "everyone is a winner".
Trained and armed people I. Schools is the only thing that will help minimize the problem, not taking or banning any type of gun.
I hate to say it but our society is prally too far gone to ever save us from ourselves. It goes down hill every year with the new generations of whiney, weak kids. Kids that don't care about anything, kids that don't know what an *** kickin from their dad feels like because he didn't listen and kids that have never been hit in da mouth by someone that they shouldn't have smarted off to.
Mabe I'm wrong but I think if parents would RAISE their kids and have some discipline, things would be different. I understand that it is not all the fault of the parents, society does not allow them to raise kids how some of us were raised and its a damn shame.
I know this was a lil off topic and I apologize for my rant. I thought that Wayne did a decent job and I will continue to support him

G26S239
12-22-2012, 18:56
Just out of curiosity, can you name any single right from the Bill of Rights that is NOT restricted or excepted in some way, shape, or form?

Should I infer from that question that because there are already laws and regulations in place on firearms and ammunition that you believe we should just let the Bradyites have their way with the 2nd amendment?

OctoberRust
12-22-2012, 19:32
BTW

The Federalist Papers help us to understand want took place behind the scenes and are VERY important to our history.

However, they have NO legal standing in court rulings.


The federalist papers will help you understand the meaning of most the amendments. Since you're obviously not understanding the meaning of the 2nd amendment.

The 2nd amendment was for protection against the government, yet you're for letting the government grant permissions to the citizen? Really?!

And your whole kick on keeping the mentals away from guns? Define who is mentally fit and who is not, for a gun? By opening that regulation up, opens a whole 'nother can of worms. In fact if we do make that "stricter" I think I would call you insane, and unfit for a gun. Would there be somewhere I could suggest this as well in your world of regulating guns more, so you can see how it feels when rights infringed directly impact you? Give you a taste of your own medicine. :dunno:

Pierre!
12-22-2012, 19:33
False. The closest armed citizen at the Gifford shooting was across the street and down the block at a drug store when Laughner opened fire. The citizen ran up the street to the shooting and managed to help subdue the shooter, but he was not physically present as the massacre went down.

I'm pretty sure there was someone in the Safeway who heard the event but could not get out there in time...

That was the last word I heard on 'closest help'...

Patrick

G26S239
12-22-2012, 20:29
There is a big pile of Neville Chamberlain Peace In Our Time merde stinking up this thread. Yeah just give the antis a small taste of victory and they will go away. After all BO is a reasonable man.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gecX6ofQJHc

Let's just do a partial surrender. How can we possibly win? Better just to grovel and hope they let us keep slingshots. :upeyes:

I live in a state where the philipk's have gotten a lot of what they want in comparison to most of the rest of the country. Guess what? They aren't satisfied because we still own some guns. And philipk I refer to you like that because if you aren't a black propaganda agent for the Brady Bunch than you are a Chamberlain/Carter type.

philipk
12-22-2012, 21:10
There is a big pile of Neville Chamberlain Peace In Our Time merde stinking up this thread. Yeah just give the antis a small taste of victory and they will go away. After all BO is a reasonable man.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gecX6ofQJHc

Let's just do a partial surrender. How can we possibly win? Better just to grovel and hope they let us keep slingshots. :upeyes:

I live in a state where the philipk's have gotten a lot of what they want in comparison to most of the rest of the country. Guess what? They aren't satisfied because we still own some guns. And philipk I refer to you like that because if you aren't a black propaganda agent for the Brady Bunch than you are a Chamberlain/Carter type.

Well were I live I am the EXTREME right wing gun nut.

Where does that place you in the scheme of things?

philipk
12-22-2012, 21:12
There is a big pile of Neville Chamberlain Peace In Our Time merde stinking up this thread. Yeah just give the antis a small taste of victory and they will go away. After all BO is a reasonable man.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gecX6ofQJHc

Let's just do a partial surrender. How can we possibly win? Better just to grovel and hope they let us keep slingshots. :upeyes:

I live in a state where the philipk's have gotten a lot of what they want in comparison to most of the rest of the country. Guess what? They aren't satisfied because we still own some guns. And philipk I refer to you like that because if you aren't a black propaganda agent for the Brady Bunch than you are a Chamberlain/Carter type.

There is no Neville Chamberland in this post. We aren't giving away other people's rights.

Many of us just believe in a better society. Background checks isn't appeasement. It is common sense.

G26S239
12-22-2012, 21:14
Well were I live I am the EXTREME right wing gun nut.

Where does that place you in the scheme of things?

@ ~ 25 miles from SF, 18 from Berkeley definitely not in the majority here.

WarCry
12-22-2012, 21:54
Should I infer from that question that because there are already laws and regulations in place on firearms and ammunition that you believe we should just let the Bradyites have their way with the 2nd amendment?

You may infer whatever you want.



Doesn't make you right, but that is your prerogative.

G26S239
12-22-2012, 22:49
There is no Neville Chamberland in this post. We aren't giving away other people's rights.

Many of us just believe in a better society. Background checks isn't appeasement. It is common sense.
Of course it isn't appeasement. Let's discuss some common sense gun regulations. Here is a good link to start with http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/12/18/common-sense-gun-regulations/ these guys even like the same buzzwords that you do.

Which of these other 4 common sense steps do you like philipk?

Would you like to restore the AWB? It's just common sense.

Would you like to ban high cap magazines? More common sense.

Sniper rifle regulations? Just common sense.

Cartridge regulation and taxation? Yep common sense.

Background checks. You have already declared this to be common sense.

Are you going to declare yourself for these other 4 common sense steps philipk? Come on, fly your true colors.

You do walk like a duck and quack like a duck. At this point I will stipulate that your are not a Chamberlain. A Philby running a false flag operation is more like it.

FCastle88
12-23-2012, 00:32
From what I heard, I have no problems with what he said.

As a parent, I have had some concerns with my son playing online games with others; so, I joined him in playing. I was amazed at the intensity some of these folks had for the game....some seemed very integrated into the games. About 3 months ago he sold his Xbox and games because of the intensity. His words; some of these guys can't separate games from reality and didn't want to deal with them anymore. My son is 16.

I don't have anything against playing video games; but just like other vices, it has the potential to consume a person. What is the answer?......parents be involved with your kids. Will it prevent a Sandy Hook?...couldn't tell ya....this kid had deeper problems; but is sounds as if his mom was very concerned, especially if she was toying with the idea of committing him.

I'll send a donation to the NRA and the NRA-ILA next week.

:wavey:

red
Sure there's people who take video games too seriously, but I have yet to meet or play with someone who couldn't separate the game from reality. Most players are just blowing off steam or acting tough like people on the internet. Many of them are probably too stoned to actually do much of anything. It's most likely crazies are attracted to violent video games, not violent video games create crazies. In the past these people would be bullying younger children and torturing/killing animals, now they're living out their fantasies in video games. If anything it may be preventing a few of them from actually going on a killing spree by giving them an outlet for their aggression.

FCastle88
12-23-2012, 00:37
So should we get rid of the FFL system and all background checks?
Any prohibited person who can't get their hands on a gun illegally within a few hours isn't trying very hard. Personally I say dangerous criminals should remain locked up or killed, anyone non-dangerous enough to be released should have the same rights as anyone else. If they're too dangerous to have a gun, they're too dangerous to be out in society.