NRA

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"The risistance is backed by fact"

Funny that you didn't provide any of those facts which you claim support the resistance. As far as I know, there has never been an 'assault weapons ban' that had any teeth to it. The last one had 900 exceptions, so of course it accomplished nothing. Therefore, I can't see how there can be facts to dispute what I'm saying, because it hasn't been tried yet.

Yet you've done nothing to provide any support for your "facts". As I have asked before, "what exactly were these supposed 900 exceptions?" And how would not having those exceptions saved lives? That's gone unanswered twice now.

You keep throwing out that "900 exceptions" and "of course with those exceptions it accomplished nothing" yet continually refuse to support the claim with what the exceptions were and their effect.

I mean no disrespect Jim, but you entire argument has been "this is common sense" with no actual data to prove anything.

All I hear is extremes on this. Liberals seem to think that bans will put a stop to the deaths. You seem to be saying that bans won't stop a single person from getting their jands on what is banned.

Now you're just putting words in my mouth, since I've never once made that statement.

A great NRA bumper sticker, except it doesn't pass the common sense test. Assault weapons are a very, very small portion of the American firearms market. I'm saying that 99% of what's sold should still be legal.

Again, something that cannot be supported. Especially when you consider: The AR-15 Is The Number One Selling Rifle In The U-S | WKRG

Here's a tasty excerpt:"According the FBI, of the 199 homicides recorded in Alabama in 2010, handguns were used in 112, hands, fists or feet were used in 17, knives were used in 23....none were committed with a rifle."

Let's also consider that in just about all cases that an AR-15 is sold in a state that doesn't have an active AWB, a standard-size magazine is 20 or 30 rounds.

I'd guess demand is quite a bit higher than you'd guess, especially when considering you've already displayed a number of misunderstandings when it comes to firearms, firearm laws and availability.

[TheSpecialist]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Sure we should preach gun safety. That will doubtlessly save lives. Did you really think I was going to disagree with that?

Another way to save lives, potentially, is to remove weapons of extraordinarily high lethality that serve no legitimate purpose other than to make insecure folks feel like Rambo for a little while.

All guns can kill, even pellet guns so this is just a "feel good" liberal line to get a toe in the door...

[Piscator]

Taken from the Net:

Maybe is a law abiding citizen nearby was armed a few of these could have been prevented.....................

Worst School Massacre in US history: Bath, Michigan School Massacre. 1927. Murder accomplished with explosives. 44 victims (equal to the Columbine and Virginia Tech massacres combined).

Worst Domestic Terrorist Attack in US History: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building bombing. 4/19/95. Murder accomplished with a rental truck full of fertilizer based explosives. 168 dead (including many children in an onsite day care).

Worst Foreign based Terrorist Attack in US History: September 11, 2001 attacks on NYC, PA, Pentagon. Murder accomplished with box cutters and commercial airliners. ~3,000 people dead.

Arson, Stabbing Rampage in Seoul South Korea : 10/20/2008. 6 people dead, 5from stabbing. 7 others wounded, 4 seriously. An angry man felt people “looked down on him.”

Anti-police stabbing spree in Shanghai, China: 7/2008. 6 Police Officers stabbed to death, 4 wounded. 28 year old man angry at police attacked a police station with a knife.

Akihabara Massacre, Chiyoda City, Tokyo, Japan: 6/8/2008. 7 people killed (3 struck by car, 4 by stabbing), many more injured. Man slammed into a crowd with his car, then jumped out and began stabbing people to death.

18 year old slashes 4 to death in Sitka, Alaska, US: 3/25/2008. 4 people killed. 18 year old (old enough to purchase a rifle over the counter) kills 4 people, related to him, with a 5 inch knife.

Stabbing Spree kills 2, Tsuchiura, Japan: 3/23/2008. 2 killed, 7 wounded. Man “just wanted to kill anyone.”

Stabbing spree wounds 41, 6 seriously in Berlin Train Station: 5/26/2006. 41 wounded, 6 seriously. Thankfully no one died in this attack, but not for lack of trying on the part of the drunk 16 year old.

4 killed in stabbing spree in London, UK: 9/2004. 4 killed, 2 wounded. Mentally ill man attacks mostly older people.

6 killed over Xbox dispute in Deltona, Florida, US: 8/6/2004. 6 killed. 4 men (all old enough to legally purchase firearms) bludgeon 6 people to death with baseball bats over purloined Xbox.

Daegu subway fire, Daegu, South Korea: 2/18/2003. 198 killed, 147 injured. A 56 year old unemployed taxi driver, dissatisfied with his medical treatment, sets fire to a crowded train.

Osaka School Massacre, Osaka Japan: 6/8/2001. 8 children dead, 13 other children and 2 teachers wounded. Committed by 37 year old former janitor armed with a kitchen knife.

[Pete F.]

From elsewhere on the net
Let's say I have this cake. It is a very nice cake, with "GUN RIGHTS" written across the top in lovely floral icing. I received it from the 2nd amendment and the #^&#^&#^&#^& act of 1902.
...
Along you come and say, "Give me that cake." I say, "No, it's my cake." You say, "Let's compromise. Give me half." I respond by asking what I get out of this compromise, and you reply that I get to keep half of my cake.

Okay, we compromise. Let us call this compromise The National Firearms Act of 1934.

There I am with my half of the cake, and you walk back up and say, "Give me that cake."

I say, "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise." What do I get out of this compromise? Why, I get to keep half of what's left of the cake I already own.

So, we have your compromise -- let us call this one the Gun Control Act of 1968 -- and I'm left holding what is now just a quarter of my cake.

And I'm sitting in the corner with my quarter piece of cake, and here you come again. You want my cake. Again.

You say, "Let's compromise once more." What do I get out of this compromise? I get to keep one eighth of what's left of the cake I already own?

So, we have your compromise -- let us call this one the Machine gun ban of 1986 -- and I'm left holding what is now just an eighth of my cake.

I sit back in the corner with just my eighth of cake that I once owned outright and completely, I glance up and here you come once more.

You say nothing and just grab my cake; This time you take several bites -- we'll call this compromise the Clinton Executive Orders -- and I'm left with about a tenth of what has always been MY DAMN CAKE and you've got nine-tenths of it.

Then we compromised with the Lautenberg Act (nibble, nibble), the HUD/Smith and Wesson agreement (nibble, nibble), the Brady Law (NOM NOM NOM), the School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act (sweet tap-dancing Freyja, my finger!)

I'm left holding crumbs of what was once a large and satisfying cake, and you're standing there with most of MY CAKE, making anime eyes and whining about being "reasonable", and wondering "why we won't compromise".

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

I'm left holding crumbs of what was once a large and satisfying cake, .

A great NRA bumper sticker, except it doesn't pass the common sense test. Assault weapons are a very, very small portion of the American firearms market. I'm saying that 99% of what's sold should still be legal.

So your story is actually incredibly incorrect. In fact, the reverse is true. No one is asking you to be left with just the crumbs. What people like me are suggesting is, you give up the crumbs, and keep the vast majority of that satisfying cake.

Not willing to give up the crumbs to maybe save the life of a little child?

For what it's worth, I laughed my azz off at the sound effects - NOM NOM NOM, I kept picturing Nancy Pelosi dressed as the Cookie Monster. That was a really funny post, I guess we just disagree on how intrusive it would be to eliminate a small percentage of the guns that really cater to a fringe element of our culture.

I loved shooting weapons in the USMC, I can't deny that it's an adrenaline rush.

[Pete F.]

Here is a 2010 survey and analysis of ownership and use of Modern Sporting Rifles.
You can see the type of people who own them, what they do with them and maybe learn a little.
Of course, it is likely all right wing propaganda generated just for this purpose.

http://nssf.org/share/PDF/MSRConsumerReport2010.pdf

[scottw]

and here you go....

"Highly placed sources told CBS 2’s Marcia Kramer that Cuomo is negotiating with Assembly and Senate leaders for a package of gun control laws that would be a dramatic response to the gun violence besetting the nation, including the tragic shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.

“It’s a very divisive topic,” Cuomo said on Wednesday. “There’s a lot of energy on both sides. Some people are vehemently against’ some people think we’re out of our minds for not passing it.”

Sources told Kramer the governor and lawmakers are negotiating furiously in the hope that Cuomo can announce a deal during his speech Wednesday.

Sources said the package is expected to include:

* New restrictions on assault weapons

* Stiffer penalties for using a gun to commit a crime

* New limits on the number of bullets in a gun magazine

“Gun control is highly political, politically contentious situation. It is polarizing,” Cuomo said."

* New restrictions on assault weapons

* Stiffer penalties for using a gun to commit a crime

* New limits on the number of bullets in a gun magazine

none of these would have stopped the Sandy Hook shooter(and they won't stop the next one)..the best that you(Jim) can do is argue the merits that you might reduce body count...but that's a "might"...the nut that shot the firemen in NY had someone purchase his firearm for him...where there's a (demented)will there's a way....these measures are a joke, they will not reduce gun crimes....if you truly believe that things like this are necessary or effective you need drop the charade and move for total ban and confiscation instead of bloviating over these meaningless restrictions and penalties that "criminals" might abide by....

[nightfighter]

911 call released in Loganville home invasion - CBS Atlanta 46

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by scottw

bloviating ....

I had to google that one...

[Pete F.]

Here is a study on murders in Chicago.
It is detailed enough so that you could look at the proposed changes in gun laws and see what the effect would be.
Pretty close to nil.
https://portal.chicagopolice.org/por...ports/MA11.pdf

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Here is a study on murders in Chicago.
It is detailed enough so that you could look at the proposed changes in gun laws and see what the effect would be.
Pretty close to nil.
https://portal.chicagopolice.org/por...ports/MA11.pdf

"Pretty close to nil."

I agree. But if the difference between "nil" and "pretty close to nil" is the life of a few children, is it not worth discussing? That's all I am saying.

[Carl]

Here is another aspect of new laws and background checks:

In a letter to the president shortly after the Newtown shooting a number of mayors across the country which are part of a group called MAIG (mayors against gun violence) adressed 7 aspects to curbing gun violence. Some of the points in the letter were the normal rhetoric of banning assault rifles and high capacity magazines, but items 5 and 6 are rather revealing in my opinion.


From the letter:

5. Prosecute prohibited purchasers who attempted to buy firearms, ammunition or high capacity magazines: The justice department should vigorously prosecute felons and other prohibited purchasers who fail gun background check. In 2009, the FBI referred more than 71,000 such cases to ATF, but the US Attorneys ultimately prosecuted only 77 of them. Prosecuting these offenders is a goal broadly supported by our coalition and the National Rifle Association.

6. Required federal agencies to report records to NICS: The NICS Improvement Act of 2007 required federal agancies to submit mental health, substance abuse and other records that prohibit a person from owning a gun to NICS. However, few agencies comly. In October 2011, the FBI provided data to MAIG on reporting by 60 federal agencies. Of those 60 agencies, 52 had given zero mental health records to NICS. Although total federal agency reporting of mental health records increased by ten percent between march and October 2011, to 143579, the vast majority of those records had been submitted by one agency, the dept fo Veteran affairs. Even fewer federal agencies are reporting drug abusers. Only three agencies - the FBI, the US coast guard, and the Court Services and Offenders Supervision Agency (CSOSA), the probation and parole services agency for the Distric of Columbia - have submitted any substance abuse records, and the vast majority fo federal agencies, including the DEA, have not submitted a single substance abuse record. ..."


So,

the government should clean their own house first since they have only prosecuted 0.1 % of all failed background checks. And have actually convicted even less (very close to 0).

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Here is a study on murders in Chicago.
It is detailed enough so that you could look at the proposed changes in gun laws and see what the effect would be.
Pretty close to nil.
https://portal.chicagopolice.org/por...ports/MA11.pdf

This report tells how many assault weapons were used to commit murder in Chicago in a recent year.
Read it and tell me how effective the assault weapons ban will be?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

none of these would have stopped the Sandy Hook shooter(and they won't stop the next one)..the best that you(Jim) can do is argue the merits that you might reduce body count...but that's a "might"...the nut that shot the firemen in NY had someone purchase his firearm for him...where there's a (demented)will there's a way....these measures are a joke, they will not reduce gun crimes....if you truly believe that things like this are necessary or effective you need drop the charade and move for total ban and confiscation instead of bloviating over these meaningless restrictions and penalties that "criminals" might abide by....

"the best that you(Jim) can do is argue the merits that you might reduce body count."

I agree. All I can do is say we "might" reduce the body count, and certainly not by much, because most gun deaths are typical street crime with handguns. I never intended to suggest otherwise.

"if you truly believe that things like this are necessary or effective you need drop the charade and move for total ban "

That's probably the least rational thing I have seen you post here. It doesn't need to be one extreme or the other. I could just as easily say that if you disagree with me, you might as well move for elimination of every gun control law on the books.

A total ban would be blatantly unconstitutional.

I don't see it as a "charade". Maybe what I'm proposing can't have a meaningful impact. But it's worth talking about, that's all I'm saying.

"restrictions and penalties that "criminals" might abide by"

OK. So now you are saying that a ban on anything, has no impact whatsoever on the amount of that something that people own.

Scott, I concede that if you ban something (drugs, guns, booze) you cannot eliminate 100% of the ownership. But likewise, you cannot imply that it has zero impact on ownership either. My point was never "if we ban guns, exactly zero people will therefore own guns". You tried to refute my premise by suggesting that bans are not 100% effective. Many people in this thread have also done exactly that. It's not a valid rebuttal to what I am suggesting, because my point was never "we can eliminate 100% of the guns out there". Amazing.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"if you truly believe that things like this are necessary or effective you need drop the charade and move for total ban "

That's probably the least rational thing I have seen you post here. It doesn't need to be one extreme or the other. I could just as easily say that if you disagree with me, you might as well move for elimination of every gun control law on the books.

A total ban would be blatantly unconstitutional.

If a total ban would be blatantly unconstitutional, why are partial bans not unconsitutional? Or are they just not "blatantly" unconstitutional? Is their a spectrum, as Spence might argue, of constitutionality. Are constitutional and unconstitutional merely "one extreme or the other"? Is the Constitution to be "interpreted" by degrees? Should we determine that what is constitutional is what falls mathematically in the center of extreme opinions.? That seems to be a way to keep the Constitiution "living."

Keeping in mind the way the Constitution was originally written--it was not meant to determine actual policies per se, or to be a codex of actual civil laws by which the people would be governed, but it was a structure of government that delegated which TYPE of policy would be the responsibility of which branch of Federal Government, and that if a type of policy was not delegated to the central gvt., such policies were reserved to the states and people--keeping that in mind, would you say that "gun control" policies that restrict individual gun ownership should be responsibilities of states and their people, or of the Federal Government?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

If a total ban would be blatantly unconstitutional, why are partial bans not unconsitutional? Or are they just not "blatantly" unconstitutional? Is their a spectrum, as Spence might argue, of constitutionality. Are constitutional and unconstitutional merely "one extreme or the other"? Is the Constitution to be "interpreted" by degrees? Should we determine that what is constitutional is what falls mathematically in the center of extreme opinions.? That seems to be a way to keep the Constitiution "living."

Keeping in mind the way the Constitution was originally written--it was not meant to determine actual policies per se, or to be a codex of actual civil laws by which the people would be governed, but it was a structure of government that delegated which TYPE of policy would be the responsibility of which branch of Federal Government, and that if a type of policy was not delegated to the central gvt., such policies were reserved to the states and people--keeping that in mind, would you say that "gun control" policies that restrict individual gun ownership should be responsibilities of states and their people, or of the Federal Government?

"If a total ban would be blatantly unconstitutional, why are partial bans not unconsitutional?"

Good question. My best answer is that we had a ban in 1994, and as far as I know, it was not struck down by the Supreme Court.

"Or are they just not "blatantly" unconstitutional?"

That's part of the debate I'd like to see. As I have said repeatedly, I wouldn't support any ban that was unconstitutional. That would need to be a significant part of any considered legislation.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"the best that you(Jim) can do is argue the merits that you might reduce body count."

I agree. All I can do is say we "might" reduce the body count, and certainly not by much, because most gun deaths are typical street crime with handguns. I never intended to suggest otherwise.

Jim,
The difference is, you are one of the few on this board that I assume have seen first hand what these weapons do to a human. I think it gives you as a soldier, or a policeman a different perspective (see Gen. Stanley Mcccrystal) that the hobby shooter, might not have....

Lets start simple. Does anyone on here actually not think background checks for ALL gun sales is a good thing?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Jim,
The difference is, you are one of the few on this board that I assume have seen first hand what these weapons do to a human. I think it gives you as a soldier, or a policeman a different perspective (see Gen. Stanley Mcccrystal) that the hobby shooter, might not have....

Lets start simple. Does anyone on here actually not think background checks for ALL gun sales is a good thing?

"I think it gives you as a soldier, or a policeman a different perspective (see Gen. Stanley Mcccrystal) that the hobby shooter, might not have.... "

Maybe. But in my case, I can state for sure that long before I entered teh service, I questioned the need for some of these weapons to be available to anyone but the military and law enforcement.

"Does anyone on here actually not think background checks for ALL gun sales is a good thing?[/QUOTE]"

Using the same logic that many here have displayed...I could say that...

(1)No, I don't think that background checks are a good thing because some people who fail the background checks will still get guns illegally. Therefore, the background checks will serve no discernable purpose.

(2) No, I don't think that background checks are a good thing because you can also kill someone with a hammer, and I don't want 'Big Brother' making me submit to a background check every time I go to buy a hammer.

(3) No, I don't think that background checks are a good thing because errors in the checks will deny some law-abiding folks of their constitutional right to own a gun.

(4) No, I don't think that background checks are a good thing because in states where they have background checks, gun violence rates are still higher than 0.00000%. Therefore, background checks serve no discernable purpose whatsoever.

(5) No, I don't think that background checks are a good thing because that will make it harder for our citizenry to protect us from the totalitarian government. Because obviously, the only reason why the 82nd Airborne hasn't confiscated my house yet, is because they think I might have a gun. There's no other reason why they haven't come in, kidnapped my kids, and sold them on Craigslist.

[scottw]

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;978783

"if you truly believe that things like this are necessary or effective you need drop the charade and move for total ban "

That's probably the least rational thing I have seen you post here. It doesn't need to be one extreme or the other. I could just as easily say that if you disagree with me, you might as well move for elimination of every gun control law on the books.

[/QUOTE]

follow your own logic Jim..if banning certain rifles and magazine capacities might have reduced the number of deaths(provided he didn't opt for more handguns and perhaps the shotgun that was in the trunk or decided to be less thorough on his targets)...and you seem to support that notion...then.....banning all weapons similar to what he used and magazines might have prevented all of the deaths...no???...surely you aren't going to argue for one and reject the other

[Nebe]

Exactly.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Carl]

my mistake - MAIG stands for Mayors against Illegal Guns.

[Pete F.]

Why do people think a 223 or 5.56 round is especially lethal?
They are typically full metal jacket, not an expanding round.
No deer hunter would expect one to be useful in killing a deer, typically human size.
A full metal jacket is a round prescribed by the Geneva Convention that ideally injures a human so that they then require the help of another combatant.
Two people out of the fight rather than one.

[Nebe]

Again.. Exactly!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Piscator]

Texting is the #1 cause of automobile deaths in the US. It's illegal to text and drive in most states. Making it illegal to text and drive hasn’t helped the cause or reduced the death rate.

Maybe a federal ban outlawing cellphones would eliminate this…………………..

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Piscator

Texting is the #1 cause of automobile deaths in the US. It's illegal to text and drive in most states. Making it illegal to text and drive hasn’t helped the cause or reduced the death rate.

Maybe a federal ban outlawing cellphones would eliminate this…………………..

And maybe you could attempt to respond to what people here are actually saying, instead of putting radical jibberich words in our mouths. Did anyone here propose to ban guns entirely?

You think that a law banning high capacity magazines is comparable in scope to a law banning cell phones? Are high capacity magazines as instrumental to our collective pursuit of happiness, as cell phones are? Do you really think that?

[Piscator]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

And maybe you could attempt to respond to what people here are actually saying, instead of putting radical jibberich words in our mouths. Did anyone here propose to ban guns entirely?

You think that a law banning high capacity magazines is comparable in scope to a law banning cell phones? Are high capacity magazines as instrumental to our collective pursuit of happiness, as cell phones are? Do you really think that?

Jibberich? You spew more gibberish on this site than anyone (I must admit that many times I agree with it though )

I'm not saying a law banning high capacity magazines is comparable in scope but I am saying that cell phone texting causes more deaths than high capacity magazines.

The point I’m trying to make is that banning something or making something illegal gives people a warm and fuzzy but in reality, it hardly ever is the solution. I don’t own any high capacity weaponry, nor do I want to. I just think jumping to the “make them illegal” bandwagon is a slippery slope and really hides the true problem with our society. It’s not the guns I’m afraid of, it’s the people. We need to change the people………………….

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Piscator

Jibberich? You spew more gibberish on this site than anyone (I must admit that many times I agree with it though )

………………….

that was damn funny

[Nebe]

Jim, this new liberal approach that I see from you is quite refreshing!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Jim, this new liberal approach that I see from you is quite refreshing!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Hey, I'm no blind ideologue. I believe what my the facts and my conscience suggest that I should believe, not what anyone else tells me to believe. I have always said that I feel liberals make a better point than conservatives (to a degree) on gun control and gay marriage.

Thanks though.

[Pete F.]

Don't get how this went from banning a broad category of weapons that are not typically used in crimes to background checks.
I think they should start by using the legislation that has already been enacted. Few federal agencies submit the needed info to do background checks, few prosecutions occur for firearms violations.
More laws that are ignored helps how?
I am waiting for the law outlawing death, with the following exceptions and appropriate punishment.
Every child is in more danger of dying an early death from obesity than an "assault" rifle.