dublinirish
Everestt Gholstonson
- Messages
- 27,335
- Reaction score
- 13,096
i would presume guns/ammo sales are up too.
Quite simply these massacres are good for business.
Another Shooting
- Thread starter SonofOahu
- Start date
i would presume guns/ammo sales are up too.
Quite simply these massacres are good for business.
NorthDakota
Grandson of Loomis
- Messages
- 15,706
- Reaction score
- 6,013
I joined. I own an old bolt action. I don't donate money to any other political groups so this is my modest support for Republicans.
If at any point I feel like they have any chance of serious chance of banning anything I'll go grab 3 or 4 guns and as much ammo as possible.
Interesting article. It would be helpful to hear from those who attended if they had similar conclusions about who attended. Out of the 2 million who attended, data for samples was done for only those on at DC march and with data gathered from 1745 people. 256 people randomly selected for the sampling and their views comprised the results of the survey. The typical attendee from those 256 sampled showed predominately women (70%) with higher education (72%), ave age 49, and identifying themselves as moderate, probably reflective of the 79% as "left-leaning". The March mobilized more moderates than previous marches.
I found this surveying of attitudes interesting.
America’s Complex Relationship With Guns
An in-depth look at the attitudes and experiences of U.S. adults
(Pew)
Roughly one in five gun owners belong to the NRA. About half (48%) of gun owners are white men, 46% of gun owners live in rural areas, 41% of white gun owners do not have a bachelor's degree. Gun owners mostly cite For Protection (67%) as the reason for owning a gun with 4 in 10 (38%) keeping a loaded gun within easy reach when at home.
Generalizing based on stereotyping, it's dangerous in rural areas for less educated white men who vote Republican, especially seeing 2 million Americans exercising their 1st Amendment rights.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 19,128
- Reaction score
- 11,077
Presented without agreement or disagreement, just an interesting perspective:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Hearing Republicans say that, look, massacres of kids are very sad but we just can't limit people's basic freedoms...<br><br>...is weird if you're a trans person who's been listening to a years-long debate about whether you need to be banned from public bathrooms TO KEEP CHILDREN SAFE.</p>— Dana Simpson ✨��✨ (@MizDanaClaire) <a href="https://twitter.com/MizDanaClaire/status/964586682719748096?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 16, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Hearing Republicans say that, look, massacres of kids are very sad but we just can't limit people's basic freedoms...<br><br>...is weird if you're a trans person who's been listening to a years-long debate about whether you need to be banned from public bathrooms TO KEEP CHILDREN SAFE.</p>— Dana Simpson ✨��✨ (@MizDanaClaire) <a href="https://twitter.com/MizDanaClaire/status/964586682719748096?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 16, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
- Messages
- 37,546
- Reaction score
- 29,005
I didn't go, but I had multiple family members that did and got a decent look at the marchers from where I was working in DC. I completely disagree with MJ's characterization that it was "simply an anti Trump rally"... that statement isn't even supported by the text of the article. Trump is only mentioned once in the entire piece as a motivator for the march, and it's that he was a principal motivation for a minority of the first-time protesters.
I would say the research seems accurate on its face.
drayer54
Well-known member
- Messages
- 8,412
- Reaction score
- 5,838
Yes, it was a glorified anti-trump rally.
Gun owners helped elect Trump. Now they are being targeted by the left.
The NRA has a ton of money and people, so they are under the microscope. The irony of YOU TOOK NRA MONEY, so come support my candidate who fills his pockets with Steyer and Bloomberg money is just whatever to me.
This has more to do with electing democrats than it does people who hate guns. Although, some people do hate freedom.
I work for a state gun rights organization that is affiliated with the NRA and we've had a spike in donations and memberships. AR sales are higher, even though there is no real reason for it at the moment.
People who oppose freedom are another reason this country needs a divorce.
Gun owners helped elect Trump. Now they are being targeted by the left.
The NRA has a ton of money and people, so they are under the microscope. The irony of YOU TOOK NRA MONEY, so come support my candidate who fills his pockets with Steyer and Bloomberg money is just whatever to me.
This has more to do with electing democrats than it does people who hate guns. Although, some people do hate freedom.
I work for a state gun rights organization that is affiliated with the NRA and we've had a spike in donations and memberships. AR sales are higher, even though there is no real reason for it at the moment.
People who oppose freedom are another reason this country needs a divorce.
Last edited:
NorthDakota
Grandson of Loomis
- Messages
- 15,706
- Reaction score
- 6,013
A girl I know and her parents went to the march in NYC. They had anti Donald signs. Most of the pictures they sent were of anti Donald signs. Some digital imaging firm(i know literally nothing about that, they could be way off) says the DC match had about 1/4 of what the people claimed.
It's refreshing that enough liberals are being honest aboit their intentions now. The chick who spoke in DC, "When they give an inch, we're going to take a mile." Well... Are we now? Former Supreme Court Justice calling for a repeal of 2A. Lol okay buddy.
Good luck. You'll need it.
wizards8507
Well-known member
- Messages
- 20,660
- Reaction score
- 2,661
I don't like Laura Ingram but this is pretty funny.
DomerInHappyValley
dislikes state penn
- Messages
- 3,297
- Reaction score
- 1,694
I have no problem with a trans person using the bathroom they identify with.
But a pre op male to female has to understand using the womens restroom means it's almost a stone cold lead pipe lock the cops are going to be called and a female to male means there's a good chance someone is going to think they are looking for something else.
As the large Pew Research study shows, the NRA membership is a fraction (20%) of gun owners. NRA's official stances are sometimes at odds with the rest of gun owners and in some issues similar to those of non-gun owners.
We can see there's little difference between the two groups on preventing the mentally ill from having guns, in having background checks on private sales and at gun shows, barring people from purchasing guns who are on no-fly lists, the ease with which people can illegally purchase guns and how many instability contributes to gun violence. Both groups of gun owners and non-gun owners see owning a gun is essential for freedoms of speech, right to vote, right to privacy and freedom of religion.
As the NRA has evolved, today's NRA is strident that these will be taken away by non-gun owners or gun-owners supporting these regulations as socialists promoting a totalitarian government despite many of the above common sense proposals that have been shown to be effective in reducing homicides and danger to communities. Georgia with its lax gun laws have a higher homicide rate than NYC, whose criminals go to states with lax gun laws to purchase their weapons.
In opposing common sense gun regulations through litigation and through political contributions the extremists in NRA attract further donations from those who become convinced of their dystopian views of our society. This violent approach to dealing with those who advocate reasonable gun regulations is not only anti-Christian but becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy of more violence in our society by opposing all regulations of any guns or their accessories, any regulation of purchasing guns for "law-abiding Americans" without any background checks which would allow more criminals to purchase guns despite the fact that since the Brady Bill over a million purchases from federally-licensed gun dealers have been denied purchases and the fact that some states do not report all who have committed felonies in their state.
The animosity the NRA engenders toward other Americans and the false information it propagates sets Americans against Americans. Their members who work to defeat any regulations proudly say that mass murders are good for the gun sales and who would kill other Americans. What is important to those gun owners who remain with the NRA is a philosophy that the only way to prevent a "bad guy" from committing a crime or a homicide is a "good guy" with a gun. Who is a law-abiding citizen in a society with minimal gun regulations and background checks is simply defined after they commit a homicide or other crime after the fact. Steve Paddock, for instance, was a law-abiding prior to the Las Vegas murders. Mass murders are "good for business" for the NRA and gun sellers.
Their answers to violence are eliminating gun-free zones, free transport of guns across borders, concealed carry reciprocity, guns at schools, concerts and churches, free commerce in gun sales, and an armed militia that differs from that concept established in the Constitution. In the NRA's view, anything contrary to those positions will erode all of Americans' freedoms and result in a communist/socialist society embodied in photoshopped photos of young Americans subject to a mass murder tearing up the Constitution. With 265 million guns in America, with more than half of that - 133 million - being concentrated in the hands of just 3% of Americans, called "super owners," who have an average of 17 guns each.
Whether these extremists' views lead to a new generation rejecting them at the polls is a question to address at a later date. Sadly, we'll have another shooting of Americans which will again be proudly trumpeted by some as good for gun business with an unspoken message that gun control should be resisted by any means necessary.
We can see there's little difference between the two groups on preventing the mentally ill from having guns, in having background checks on private sales and at gun shows, barring people from purchasing guns who are on no-fly lists, the ease with which people can illegally purchase guns and how many instability contributes to gun violence. Both groups of gun owners and non-gun owners see owning a gun is essential for freedoms of speech, right to vote, right to privacy and freedom of religion.
As the NRA has evolved, today's NRA is strident that these will be taken away by non-gun owners or gun-owners supporting these regulations as socialists promoting a totalitarian government despite many of the above common sense proposals that have been shown to be effective in reducing homicides and danger to communities. Georgia with its lax gun laws have a higher homicide rate than NYC, whose criminals go to states with lax gun laws to purchase their weapons.
In opposing common sense gun regulations through litigation and through political contributions the extremists in NRA attract further donations from those who become convinced of their dystopian views of our society. This violent approach to dealing with those who advocate reasonable gun regulations is not only anti-Christian but becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy of more violence in our society by opposing all regulations of any guns or their accessories, any regulation of purchasing guns for "law-abiding Americans" without any background checks which would allow more criminals to purchase guns despite the fact that since the Brady Bill over a million purchases from federally-licensed gun dealers have been denied purchases and the fact that some states do not report all who have committed felonies in their state.
The animosity the NRA engenders toward other Americans and the false information it propagates sets Americans against Americans. Their members who work to defeat any regulations proudly say that mass murders are good for the gun sales and who would kill other Americans. What is important to those gun owners who remain with the NRA is a philosophy that the only way to prevent a "bad guy" from committing a crime or a homicide is a "good guy" with a gun. Who is a law-abiding citizen in a society with minimal gun regulations and background checks is simply defined after they commit a homicide or other crime after the fact. Steve Paddock, for instance, was a law-abiding prior to the Las Vegas murders. Mass murders are "good for business" for the NRA and gun sellers.
Their answers to violence are eliminating gun-free zones, free transport of guns across borders, concealed carry reciprocity, guns at schools, concerts and churches, free commerce in gun sales, and an armed militia that differs from that concept established in the Constitution. In the NRA's view, anything contrary to those positions will erode all of Americans' freedoms and result in a communist/socialist society embodied in photoshopped photos of young Americans subject to a mass murder tearing up the Constitution. With 265 million guns in America, with more than half of that - 133 million - being concentrated in the hands of just 3% of Americans, called "super owners," who have an average of 17 guns each.
Whether these extremists' views lead to a new generation rejecting them at the polls is a question to address at a later date. Sadly, we'll have another shooting of Americans which will again be proudly trumpeted by some as good for gun business with an unspoken message that gun control should be resisted by any means necessary.
Last edited:
Package of gun restrictions set to become law in Vermont (Burlington Free-Press)
Republican Gov. Phil Scott has a 93 percent approval rating from the National Rifle Association (NRA) and thogh Vermont may be liberal in other areas, gun control measures have previously never gained much traction. The Vermont Senate will reportedly take up two more gun-related measures next week, including removing guns from homes in cases of domestic violence or when someone is at risk of imminent harm from firearms.
The Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence graded Vermont's gun laws in 2016 as a F.
Republican Gov. Phil Scott has a 93 percent approval rating from the National Rifle Association (NRA) and thogh Vermont may be liberal in other areas, gun control measures have previously never gained much traction. The Vermont Senate will reportedly take up two more gun-related measures next week, including removing guns from homes in cases of domestic violence or when someone is at risk of imminent harm from firearms.
The Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence graded Vermont's gun laws in 2016 as a F.
Last edited:
drayer54
Well-known member
- Messages
- 8,412
- Reaction score
- 5,838
An F from Giffords Gun Control Group is great!
My state is a C and we are working towards a full F for Freedom.
The only good thing from Vermont was Magpul airlifting PMAG's to the protestors.
Yes, Vermont has had very gun-friendly laws reflected in that F from Giffords and in the 93 for the Gov from the NRA. That's sure to change with the laws they just passed. I'm sure you read the Scott's quote and the other info about how we are not as polarized as groups like the NRA would like us to believe.
Vermont passing laws that will be raising the legal age for gun purchases, expanding background checks for private gun sales and banning high-capacity magazines and rapid-fire devices known as bump stocks as well as the expected passage of bills that would allow law enforcement officers to remove guns from people considered at risk of harming themselves or others, and the other would allow firearms to be taken from people arrested or cited for domestic assault are steps forward proven to reduce gun violence. This movement in the legislature and change of attitude by the Rep. Gov was occasioned after a teenager was accused of plotting a school shooting in Vermont in the days after the murders at Parkland.
Last edited:
Polish Leppy 22
Well-known member
- Messages
- 6,594
- Reaction score
- 2,009
The maple syrup in Vermont...game changer man.
Wild Bill
Well-known member
- Messages
- 5,519
- Reaction score
- 3,267
As the large Pew Research study shows, the NRA membership is a fraction (20%) of gun owners. NRA's official stances are sometimes at odds with the rest of gun owners and in some issues similar to those of non-gun owners.
We can see there's little difference between the two groups on preventing the mentally ill from having guns, in having background checks on private sales and at gun shows, barring people from purchasing guns who are on no-fly lists, the ease with which people can illegally purchase guns and how many instability contributes to gun violence. Both groups of gun owners and non-gun owners see owning a gun is essential for freedoms of speech, right to vote, right to privacy and freedom of religion.
As the NRA has evolved, today's NRA is strident that these will be taken away by non-gun owners or gun-owners supporting these regulations as socialists promoting a totalitarian government despite many of the above common sense proposals that have been shown to be effective in reducing homicides and danger to communities. Georgia with its lax gun laws have a higher homicide rate than NYC, whose criminals go to states with lax gun laws to purchase their weapons.
Drafting legislation to prevent mentally ill people from legally buying a gun is far from common sense. Who is deemed mentally ill, and as such, unfit to own a gun? We have levels of mental issues ranging from smoking medical marijuana to cope with anxiety to a schizophrenic who is a danger to himself and others. Do we apply the same standard to all of them? Are they deemed mentally ill while they are being treated or would they be deemed rehabilitated once treated? Can they ever escape their diagnosis or will it be a burden they carry their entire life, i.e., a soldier is diagnosed with PTSD after a tour in a shithole desert, he is treated by a professional, and believes to be fully recovered.
Preventing a person on a no fly list from purchasing a gun is a violation of due process. If we're willing to sacrifice rights to decrease crime and gun violence why not employ stop and frisk police tactics across the nation?
I'd love to hear about the common sense solution to making criminals obey gun laws or laws in general.
Which one is a violent act here - opposing gun regulations, litigation, political contributions, donations of members or all the above?
I find it interesting that the same people who used the first amendment as their battering ram to shove pornography and filth down the throats of the American public are now peddling this narrative that we have a duty as Christians to disregard the second amendment and disarm one another.
I wish the societal views of gun owners and defenders of the second amendment were nothing more than figments of their imagination. Unfortunately, they're very real. Crime is rising, corporate money is financing propaganda used to chip away our first amendment rights/right of privacy, the country is politically polarized, racial tensions are high, and it is becoming increasingly clear that our ruling class elites have nothing but contempt for middle class Americans. These are all sad realities, not dystopian views.
Do you think an advocate group whose sole purpose is to protect and defend the second amendment would champion a position that restricts the second amendment? Does the ACLU champion positions that restrict first amendment rights when a solid argument can be made that certain types of speech may do more harm than good? No. They have historically defended the rights of groups and people even if they find their views to be detestable. A recent example of this is when they defended Ann Coulter's right to speak at Cal Berkley.
It's important to understand the purpose behind these groups. It's not to please everybody. It is to defend rights even if others believe them to be indefensible.
If I'm not mistaken, the data you have suggests 40% plus adult Americans have a gun in their home and 20% of these people have disagreements with the NRA, to what extent is unclear. That leaves us with roughly 60 to 100 million Americans who hold these so called extremist (or partially extremist) views. You're treading in dangerous waters when you're willing to slap an extremist label on 60 million plus people, especially when they're armed.
Last edited:
In response to bolded points,
- attributing gun violence to mental illness is ridiculous, merely an attempt to divert the issues and legal restrictions, and does pose a problem with reporting private medical information
- the no-fly list has about 16,000 people on it, but issues of due process have been raised. Should we similarly dismantle the no-fly list for those reasons? Solution?
- None of those are violent acts
- with 325 million Americans, the 40% of them that are gun owners is 130 million, and the 20% of those that are members of the NRA equals 26 million. I assume NRA members support the NRA's stated positions on legislation and litigation, although they may not and other gun owners not members may.
I included the Pew study viewpoints that compared what gun owners support as far as proposed regulations vs non-gun owners. I rely on those to determine how the NRA's stated positions vs what all gun-owners believe to determine if the NRA advocates positions that run contrary to those of all gun-owners.
SCOTUS decisions say that the 2nd Amendment can be restricted. Part of the decision in DC vs Heller with Scalia writing for the majority says:
Scalia also said:
and
In the last forty years, the NRA has almost always opposed any restriction on the 2nd Amendment and has attempted to paint themselves and other "gun rights" organizations as the last defense of all freedoms and rights. That's extremist, polarizing, not reflective of gun owners' views as a whole and indefensible legally in those areas Scalia detailed.
Last edited:
Wild Bill
Well-known member
- Messages
- 5,519
- Reaction score
- 3,267
I find it problematic that an individuals movement or travel is restricted without notice or a chance to be heard. I also understand that the government may have a compelling interest in preventing some individuals from flying, and in some cases it may be reasonable to believe that those reasons must remain classified for the program to work effectively, so it's difficult, if not impossible, to find a balance between government interests and individual rights. Whether or not the government can demonstrate that the program is effective enough to justify the restrictions is beyond me. But even if they can provide compelling evidence, it would be impossible to strike a perfect balance and an imperfect program should not be expanded further to restrict rights outside of boarding a plane.
I read it with a different breakdown but understand what you mean here. I think we both agree that it's difficult to come up with a definitive number but whether we use your numbers or mine, my point still stands - slapping on an extremist label on a large group of people, whether it's 26 million or 60 million, is problematic.
You disagree with the NRA and I disagree with the ACLU in certain instances. The point of these groups is not to find a delicate balancing act that you and I find agreeable. Their sole purpose is to defend individual rights enumerated in the first and second amendment. By their very nature, these groups who advocate for these individual rights are going to defend positions that may be struck down by a court or may not be palatable to all citizens. Critiquing certain positions they hold is fair but attempting to completely destroy or dismantle these organizations will cause more harm then good to the individual as it hands more power to the state at our expense.
Last edited:
NorthDakota
Grandson of Loomis
- Messages
- 15,706
- Reaction score
- 6,013
Yeah calling the NRA "terrorists" or "extremists" like some liberal folks are doing is bold. Even if you think they are extreme, slapping a label on people has a way of galvanizing not only them, but friends and family as well. (See: deplorables).
Handing over personal power to the state is something I'm generally not interested in. The ACLU and NRA do a great job of protecting people's rights, pretty rare that people will agree with everything an organization does. I'm sure a lot of people who have benefited from the ACLU are mad they supported due process for depriving people of gun ownership.
Thoughtful response, Bill. What limitations would you hypothetically enact on weapons in the interests of public safety?
ND, I am not labeling groups of Americans and understand that you have almost a libertarian approach to government and that the ACLU and NRA may be advocates for maintaining some of our shared freedoms. We share a Constitution with a republican form of federal government combined with states' rights. SCOTUS's decisions on gun Constitutionality have consistently reaffirmed rights to bear arms and self-defense while also reaffirming that the federal government has the right to limit interstate commerce that affects public welfare as well as protecting states' rights to regulate in certain areas. What limitations would you hypothetically enact on weapons in the interests of public safety?
ND, I am not labeling groups of Americans and understand that you have almost a libertarian approach to government and that the ACLU and NRA may be advocates for maintaining some of our shared freedoms. We share a Constitution with a republican form of federal government combined with states' rights. SCOTUS's decisions on gun Constitutionality have consistently reaffirmed rights to bear arms and self-defense while also reaffirming that the federal government has the right to limit interstate commerce that affects public welfare as well as protecting states' rights to regulate in certain areas. What limitations would you hypothetically enact on weapons in the interests of public safety?
NorthDakota
Grandson of Loomis
- Messages
- 15,706
- Reaction score
- 6,013
Yeah I feel ya. Was pointing moreso at certain celebrities, activists, and even some politicians.
Limitations, ideally I want access to whatever the military has access to. I see why people are generally not on board with that though. The potential of having artillery, rockets, etc is not exactly ideal.
Machine guns, I mean...I can see why we don't allow them to be commercially available.
I'd enforce laws already on the books. No major gun legislation is necessary in my personal opinion. Enforce the laws we have before even considering new laws.
With mass/school shootings, we've seen handguns used as well. (See: VaTech and Fort Hood). I dont think banning the sale or possession of semi-automatic rifles would be remotely effective.
Last edited:
ACamp1900
Counting my ‘bet against ND’ winnings
- Messages
- 48,954
- Reaction score
- 11,239
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/F6XTVuUP0Ho" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>
This has been making the rounds so I'm sure some have seen it... I don't know too much about Bevin but as it pertains to just this topic the overall message is worth sharing because it articulates some misgivings I've had about the recent momentum. This is not a one prong issue but it seems that the one prong that is exclusively on, 'the wrong side' isle is getting all the attention... which is pretty transparent imo.
This has been making the rounds so I'm sure some have seen it... I don't know too much about Bevin but as it pertains to just this topic the overall message is worth sharing because it articulates some misgivings I've had about the recent momentum. This is not a one prong issue but it seems that the one prong that is exclusively on, 'the wrong side' isle is getting all the attention... which is pretty transparent imo.
C
Cackalacky
Guest
Sounds like there is a huge shooting at YouTube HQ right now.
C
Cackalacky
Guest
All I know is a single female killed/shot 3 and then herself
Bishop2b5
SEC Exchange Student
- Messages
- 8,941
- Reaction score
- 6,164
As more details have emerged it appears that this wasn't a domestic issue with a jealous woman shooting her boyfriend, but a woman who was angry at YouTube for restricting some of her videos due to content. She appears to have been a bit of an odd ball fanatic.
ulukinatme
Carr for QB 2026!
- Messages
- 31,523
- Reaction score
- 17,410
Odd ball fanatic is an understatement.
dublinirish
Everestt Gholstonson
- Messages
- 27,335
- Reaction score
- 13,096
her videos were pretty out there
