Opinions/Discussions on Guns

[phork]

Two firefighters shot dead in upstate New York - CNN.com

Merry Christmas.

 

[brandonnash]

We have 132,000 schools (public and private) in this country at this time. We either take 132,000 police off the streets or hire, train and maintain additional police. Aside from the cost of training these new recruits, this will require an annual outlay of close to 7 billion dollars for the police alone. The total cost will be closer to 10 billion per year, or 100 billion per decade. (Note, this is how the current budget costs are being framed in the fiscal cliff discussions.)
For all you tea party folks, this means we cut out 100 billion dollars from somewhere, say mental health or perhaps childhood immunization programs.

Are we next going to place armed guards in nursery schools? How about day-care? If not, why not? Do we not care about children under five? Are we going to send armed guards on school field trips? How about churches, movie theaters, concerts, political rallies, etc. How about on school buses?
How about military bases (Fort Hood, for example)
Do we just want to "keep safe" school aged children while in the classroom? What about me? If I slip up and leave my AK-47 at home and I need it to defend myself, what is going to happen to me?
Who payes for this police state? If we just stop supporting the 47% sucking on hind-tit there would be plenty of money. Dump social security, Medicare, Medicaid, NIH, FDA, most federal cabinet departments, like energy, education, HEW, etc. They just make regulations that prevent jobs anyway.
You get the idea.
After all we need the 100 round 'clips' for our assault guns. Those deer are hard to bring down.
As some of you might guess, I am for reasonable gun control.

Are you considered a fiscal conservative now?

 

[irish1958]

Are you considered a fiscal conservative now?

Of course. Never give any money to any organization that has more then you. I am all for conserving whatever fiscal I have.

 

[woolybug25]

Of course. Never give any money to any organization that has more then you. I am all for conserving whatever fiscal I have.

So don't give to any charitable organization that isn't selling lemonade or doing a bake sale?

That's dumb.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Actually, Irish1958 is one of the smartest posters on the site. And his point is quite brilliant. The NRA is a fully funded branch of the marketing arm of Freedom Arms, etc.

But if you look at membership not the face of an organization: Most NRA members believe guns ownership should be limited, more than it is today. The average NRA member sits closer to the beliefs of those that want meaningful control, not those that want unlimited access. This is consistent sentiment since the '90's.

Something that sets Irish and I apart from the foolish posters that want to turn our elementary schools into an armed camp, is something like this George HW Bush was a lifetime member of the NRA:

Dear Mr. Washington,

I was outraged when, even in the wake of the Oklahoma City tragedy, Mr. Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of N.R.A., defended his attack on federal agents as "jack-booted thugs." To attack Secret Service agents or A.T.F. people or any government law enforcement people as "wearing Nazi bucket helmets and black storm trooper uniforms" wanting to "attack law abiding citizens" is a vicious slander on good people.

Al Whicher, who served on my [ United States Secret Service ] detail when I was Vice President and President, was killed in Oklahoma City. He was no Nazi. He was a kind man, a loving parent, a man dedicated to serving his country -- and serve it well he did.

In 1993, I attended the wake for A.T.F. agent Steve Willis, another dedicated officer who did his duty. I can assure you that this honorable man, killed by weird cultists, was no Nazi.

ohn Magaw, who used to head the U.S.S.S. and now heads A.T.F., is one of the most principled, decent men I have ever known. He would be the last to condone the kind of illegal behavior your ugly letter charges. The same is true for the F.B.I.'s able Director Louis Freeh. I appointed Mr. Freeh to the Federal Bench. His integrity and honor are beyond question.

Both John Magaw and Judge Freeh were in office when I was President. They both now serve in the current administration. They both have badges. Neither of them would ever give the government's "go ahead to harass, intimidate, even murder law abiding citizens." (Your words)

I am a gun owner and an avid hunter. Over the years I have agreed with most of N.R.A.'s objectives, particularly your educational and training efforts, and your fundamental stance in favor of owning guns.

However, your broadside against Federal agents deeply offends my own sense of decency and honor; and it offends my concept of service to country. It indirectly slanders a wide array of government law enforcement officials, who are out there, day and night, laying their lives on the line for all of us.

You have not repudiated Mr. LaPierre's unwarranted attack. Therefore, I resign as a Life Member of N.R.A., said resignation to be effective upon your receipt of this letter. Please remove my name from your membership list. Sincerely,

[ signed ] George Bush

 

[woolybug25]

Actually, Irish1958 is one of the smartest posters on the site. And his point is quite brilliant. The NRA is a fully funded branch of the marketing arm of Freedom Arms, etc.

As you know, Bogs. I am on your team in this fight. But I totally disagree that there aren't merits to giving your money to organizations. I think NRA is a terrible organization that has very little to do with "protecting rights" and more to do with being a united front against any and all gun legislation whatsoever. Despite whether those fights disenfranchise their own members.

That being said, a blanket statement that no one should give money to organizations with more money then themselves (as Irish1958 suggested) is foolish. Groups like Trout Unlimited and World Wildlife Fund have massive amounts of money, which are needed to be able to do their job and serve their members. The world runs on money, change happens with money. The strength in organizations capable of actually making change on any subject lies in it's members, and in turn, their dues.

I would argue that it is bad policy in giving money to an organization with less money than yourself. They would be no more powerful than you if they have less money.

Am I missing something?

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Guns kept the Japanese out the USA, minus pearl harbor.

Actually, that is not true.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

As you know, Bogs. I am on your team in this fight. But I totally disagree that there aren't merits to giving your money to organizations. I think NRA is a terrible organization that has very little to do with "protecting rights" and more to do with being a united front against any and all gun legislation whatsoever. Despite whether those fights disenfranchise their own members.

That being said, a blanket statement that no one should give money to organizations with more money then themselves (as Irish1958 suggested) is foolish. Groups like Trout Unlimited and World Wildlife Fund have massive amounts of money, which are needed to be able to do their job and serve their members. The world runs on money, change happens with money. The strength in organizations capable of actually making change on any subject lies in it's members, and in turn, their dues.

I would argue that it is bad policy in giving money to an organization with less money than yourself. They would be no more powerful than you if they have less money.

Am I missing something?

Hey dude, add a little hyperbole to your Christmas spirit! WWF and a couple other organizations that you mentioned are poorer than you, I, or Irish1958. (Tá sé ina bastaird saibhir d'aois!) Some of the SuperPACs (Republican) in particular raised a third of a billion dollars in no time, huge chunks at a time. The NRA is more on the SuperPAC side. Just to lay out the land . . . Nollaig Shona!

 

[irish1958]

Actually, my list of contributions this year include the Catholic Church, the University of Notre Dame, the University of Cincinnati Medical School, St. Louis University, the Boy Scouts, the Girl Scouts, the local public grade school, the local middle school, the local high school, the Muscular Dystrophy Society ( in memory of one patient I lost and one I took care of for 35 years and who subsequently died after I retired from pediatric practice), Good Will Industries, the Salvation Army, St. Paul's Episcopal Church, Planned Parenthood and the Carmel Clay Public Library.
I will list three on my taxes; the rest were not large, but necessary.
I did not support either political party nor the NRA.
I also GLADLY paid 25% federal and 5% Indiana taxes and am willing to pay more if it will get us out of this fiscal mess.
This is the greatest country ever and it sickens me to see the ignorant and vicious attacks on our decent and dedicated public servants, as it did GHB.
I am sorry if my attempt at humor mislead anyone. I am a fiscal conservative in the sense that I want my taxes and contributions to do some good and not be waisted on some pie-in-the-sky scheme to arm the world against psycopaths.

 

[woolybug25]

Actually, my list of contributions this year include the Catholic Church, the University of Notre Dame, the University of Cincinnati Medical School, St. Louis University, the Boy Scouts, the Girl Scouts, the local public grade school, the local middle school, the local high school, the Muscular Dystrophy Society ( in memory of one patient I lost and one I took care of for 35 years and who subsequently died after I retired from pediatric practice), Good Will Industries, the Salvation Army, St. Paul's Episcopal Church, Planned Parenthood and the Carmel Clay Public Library.
I will list three on my taxes; the rest were not large, but necessary.
I did not support either political party nor the NRA.
I also GLADLY paid 25% federal and 5% Indiana taxes and am willing to pay more if it will get us out of this fiscal mess.
This is the greatest country ever and it sickens me to see the ignorant and vicious attacks on our decent and dedicated public servants, as it did GHB.
I am sorry if my attempt at humor mislead anyone. I am a fiscal conservative in the sense that I want my taxes and contributions to do some good and not be waisted on some pie-in-the-sky scheme to arm the world against psycopaths.

I think I just misunderstood what you meant by "with more money than you". My bad.

Unless of course... you have more money than the Catholic Church. In which case, can I borrow some money?

Merry Christmas, dude.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

After the Webster, New York attack, where two firefighters were ambushed and killed with a Bushmaster .223, by a man convicted of manslaughter in the hammer, clubbing death of his grandmother, who served just less than 20 years:

Yet the National Rifle Association (NRA) will likely stand in the way, given its long history of blocking even the most minimal restrictions on gun owners. Here are six times when the NRA has been on the wrong side of what should be uncontroversial gun rules:


1. Wanted people on the terrorist watch list to be legally able to acquire guns. Inasmuch as it makes sense to have a secret “terrorism watch list,” one would think a primary reason would be to prevent people who might commit terrorism from accessing the weapons that one uses to do so. Yet people on the watch list are still allowed to by guns: in 2010 alone, at least 247 people suspected of involvement with terrorism bought guns legally. While 71 percent of NRA membesr support closing the so-called “terror gap,” the NRA claims efforts to close the loophole are plots by “politicians who hate the Second Amendment.”

2. Opposed required background checks on every gun sale. Forty percent of all gun sales legally take place without background checks on the purchaser, because federal law doesn’t require them for so-called “private” gun sales at places like gun shows. Eighty percent of gun crimes involve guns purchased in this fashion. NRA members recognize how dangerous this law is; 69 percent of them support a “proposal requiring all gun sellers at gun shows to conduct criminal background checks of the people buying guns.” Yet the NRA opposes any effort to close this loophole, calling it “a stepping stone for gun control advocates seeking to ban all private sales, even among family and friends.”

3. Lobbied to allow warlords to get arms on the international market. The U.N. Arms Trade Treaty is a small step towards the regulation of the massive international weapons trade, aimed at keeping guns out of the hands of murderous insurgents and terrorists. It contains zero restrictions on domestic gun markets. Yet the NRA has vigorously opposed the ATT, calling it an “attack on our Second Amendment freedoms” by “global gun grabbers.”

4. Wanted to prevent the public from accessing information about where guns come from. Though there’s a federal database that traces sales of guns used in crimes, you’ll never know what’s in there. That’s because NRA has helped muscle through the so-called “Tiahrt Amendments” (named after sponsor, former Rep. Todd Tiahrt [R-KS]) to the federal gun code, which prevent the public, journalists, academic researchers, some police officers, and people suing the gun industry from accessing crucially valuable data. The Tiahrt Amendments were passed over the objection of federal and local law enforcement.

5. Pushed to keep guns in bars. Guns and drunk people don’t mix well. Yet when the Tennessee legislature was considering banning guns in establishments that make most of their money from booze, an NRA lobbyist was given a rare opportunity to address the state GOP caucus opposing the bill. It died.

6) Supported forcing all business owners to allow guns on their property. Many business owners are understandably nervous about permitting people to bring loaded guns to work. Yet the NRA has pushed legislation in a number of states that would force businesses to allow employees to bring guns to work provided they leave them in their cars.

Interestingly, there’s not much for politicians to gain from pandering to the NRA’s gun maximalism: Despite consistent political rhetoric to the contrary, the lobby isn’t nearly as powerful as one might think.

And the beat goes on . . .

 

[Downinthebend]

The terror list doesn't seem like a constitutional reason to deprive someone of their rights (including their life) without a trial, IMO.

 

[Irish#1]

Not arm more people, put people who more than likely are already armed by profession in schools. Policemen or private security officers. These would already have guns. Although I am not against arming school staff if budget restraints would not allow for a full time guard.

At this point it is the only option that makes sense. Connecticut already had the harsh control laws like everyone seems to think is the great fixer of gun crime. The criminals will break those laws just as the psycho did in Connecticut. Make it so when a gunman is deciding he wants to enters a school with the intent if killing people that he will more than likely hit opposition he would normally not have.

Does it make sense? School districts all over the country are closing schools, laying off teachers and trying to find revenue for the huge budget shortfalls. Where will this money come from? Where I live the school district wanted to raise taxes to pay for busing. They tried to call the reisdents bluff by telling them they would have to stop offering bus services and would sell to a bus service who would charge. The residents voted against the increase and instead of paying $50 a month for the child to ride the bus, the parents drove their kids to school. Drop off times were over 30 mins and the school district ended up with a black eye. Parents won't want to raise taxes to add a security guard or school cop to the payroll.

 

[Martibhoy]

As a Scot on the outside looking in, i find it very hard to understand the whole gun issue.

The free access to guns, scares the **** out of me. With the amount of non-certifiable, nut jobs in Scotland, i shudder to think how many Dunblanes, we would have had.

The power of the gun lobby, the fact that war has become a massive global business, not just the states, scares the bejesus out of me.

The US has no more nut jobs than anyone else. You just have thousands of nut jobs who have easy access to weapons that should only be used on a battlefield.

Happy Holidays.

 

[GoIrish41]

As a Scot on the outside looking in, i find it very hard to understand the whole gun issue.

The free access to guns, scares the **** out of me. With the amount of non-certifiable, nut jobs in Scotland, i shudder to think how many Dunblanes, we would have had.

The power of the gun lobby, the fact that war has become a massive global business, not just the states, scares the bejesus out of me.

The US has no more nut jobs than anyone else. You just have thousands of nut jobs who have easy access to weapons that should only be used on a battlefield.

Happy Holidays.

Great post from an outsider looking in Martibhoy. I appreciate your perspective on the issue, and I'm with you. This scares the **** out of me too.

 

[phork]

Great post from an outsider looking in Martibhoy. I appreciate your perspective on the issue, and I'm with you. This scares the **** out of me too.

He'll be told to shutup and that he cant tell the US what to do with its guns.

 

[GoIrish41]

He'll be told to shutup and that he cant tell the US what to do with its guns.

Obviously. So, I'm glad I caught him before he is ripped for meddling to let him know not all of the country is gun crazy.

 

[chicago51]

Obviously. So, I'm glad I caught him before he is ripped for meddling to let him know not all of the country is gun crazy.

I think a solid majority of the country is not gun crazy. The gun crazy folks though tend to be very loud.

 

[GoIrish41]

I think a solid majority of the country is not gun crazy. The gun crazy folks though tend to be very loud.

some of them are on this thread from time to time.

 

[Martibhoy]

Great post from an outsider looking in Martibhoy. I appreciate your perspective on the issue, and I'm with you. This scares the **** out of me too.

Thank you.

Ach, i've been to the states many times and love the place.

I'm sure the board can handle an outsiders opinion.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

The terror list doesn't seem like a constitutional reason to deprive someone of their rights (including their life) without a trial, IMO.

???????

 

[Downinthebend]

???????

If all that is needed for someone to be deprived of their life (or various rights) is a little suspicion by the executive branch, can't you see the problem with that?

Abdulrahman al-Aulaqi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Bogtrotter07]

If all that is needed for someone to be deprived of their life (or various rights) is a little suspicion by the executive branch, can't you see the problem with that?

Abdulrahman al-Aulaqi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(ABDULRAHMAN_AL-AULAQI WASN'T ON THE LIST TRYING TO GET A GUN!)

Once again bring up the exception, or something totally off point. There were over 247 who were not that Abdulrahman_al-Aulaqi who were allowed to purchase guns. That is stupid. If you want to start a mechanism for wrongly accused to get off the list, I am all in favor. But if you want to argue to be stupid, because you made, or might make a mistake, screw it.

(Remember, these are all people who were in the US.)

 

[chicago51]

(ABDULRAHMAN_AL-AULAQI WASN'T ON THE LIST TRYING TO GET A GUN!)

Once again bring up the exception, or something totally off point. There were over 247 who were not that Abdulrahman_al-Aulaqi who were allowed to purchase guns. That is stupid. If you want to start a mechanism for wrongly accused to get off the list, I am all in favor. But if you want to argue to be stupid, because you made, or might make a mistake, screw it.

(Remember, these are all people who were in the US.)

Exactly. We do license people to drive. To drive you have to complete a test. I say same thing with guns.

Yes I know folks will say driving is not in the constitution. Neither is guns. The term "bear arms" does not have to mean everyone must be allowed to own a gun.

 

[GoIrish41]

Exactly. We do license people to drive. To drive you have to complete a test. I say same thing with guns.

Yes I know folks will say driving is not in the constitution. Neither is guns. The term "bear arms" does not have to mean everyone must be allowed to own a gun.

You can hardly get a new job anymore without having a background check conducted. You can't buy a car without credit reporting agencies releasing volumes of information that they have gathered over your entire life to the dealership. You can't be a little league coach without having a background check conducted first. There are hundreds of things that you can't do without Big Brother or similar organizations watching. I read an article recently that suggested 40 percent of all guns purchased in this country do not require a background check. Doesn't make much sense to me.

I'm all for having to pass a test. I also believe their should be a psychological test. At a minimum there needs to be a criminal background check. The guy who killed the firemen in NY was convicted and recenly got out of prison for clubbing his grandmother to death. How is that dude able to get access to a gun?

 

[brandonnash]

He wasn't able to own them legally. A gun law that states felons can't own guns. How is it that a gun law doesn't work? Seems to be the end all of gun problems in the minds of most as of late.

 

[kmoose]

He wasn't able to own them legally. A gun law that states felons can't own guns. How is it that a gun law doesn't work? Seems to be the end all of gun problems in the minds of most as of late.

Here's what almost no politician will tell you.......... the law isn't in place to prevent the felon from obtaining a gun. The list that isn't maintained because of reporting and information sharing issues is designed to keep guns out of the hands of felons. The law is there so that law enforcement can legally remove his guns, if they have cause to discover them. Without the laws, cops could not confiscate a felon's guns, if they happened to come across them.

 

[no.1IrishFan]

You can hardly get a new job anymore without having a background check conducted. You can't buy a car without credit reporting agencies releasing volumes of information that they have gathered over your entire life to the dealership. You can't be a little league coach without having a background check conducted first. There are hundreds of things that you can't do without Big Brother or similar organizations watching. I read an article recently that suggested 40 percent of all guns purchased in this country do not require a background check. Doesn't make much sense to me.

I'm all having to pass a test. I also believe their should be a psychological test. At a minimum there needs to be a criminal background check. The guy who killed the firemen in NY was convicted and recenly got out of prison for clubbing his grandmother to death. How is that dude able to get access to a gun?

Illegaly.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

2. Opposed required background checks on every gun sale. Forty percent of all gun sales legally take place without background checks on the purchaser, because federal law doesn’t require them for so-called “private” gun sales at places like gun shows. Eighty percent of gun crimes involve guns purchased in this fashion. NRA members recognize how dangerous this law is; 69 percent of them support a “proposal requiring all gun sellers at gun shows to conduct criminal background checks of the people buying guns.” Yet the NRA opposes any effort to close this loophole, calling it “a stepping stone for gun control advocates seeking to ban all private sales, even among family and friends.”

From post 791

 

[no.1IrishFan]

From post 791

This is a change I've wanted to see made for a long time. But, if a person convicted of a felony or violent misdimenor goes to a gun show and purchases a firearm, even though a background check is not required, they have still broken the law and obtained the firearm illegally. This is just another example of how criminals do not obey laws.

If that person is found to be in possession of said firearm they will promptly be escorted to their local county jail.

Background checks must be made mandatory.