At least we can have swords....for now. Those only belong on the battlefield
Anyone who wants access to these military weapons can have it. All they have to do is join the "well regulated militia" (see the US Constitution, 2nd Amendment) also known as the National Guard, or any of the other branches of the Armed Forces of the United States. That's where these weapons belong, not among the general population.
So, what's the deal with whether it has a pistol grip or common grip? Attitude?
At least we can have swords....for now. Those only belong on the battlefield
Anyone who wants access to these military weapons can have it. All they have to do is join the "well regulated militia" (see the US Constitution, 2nd Amendment) also known as the National Guard, or any of the other branches of the Armed Forces of the United States. That's where these weapons belong, not among the general population.
So, what's the deal with whether it has a pistol grip or common grip? Attitude?
The sword argument is a straw man and a red herring all rolled into one. Not going to comment further. However, I will say that I believe the men who run the NRA are cowards. I base this statement on the ad they released today that was "aimed" squarely at the President's children. These men are sick and have no morals, no dignity, and no shame. The are cowardly bullies, and it is time for middle America to stand up to them.
The sword argument is a straw man and a red herring all rolled into one. Not going to comment further. However, I will say that I believe the men who run the NRA are cowards. I base this statement on the ad they released today that was "aimed" squarely at the President's children. These men are sick and have no morals, no dignity, and no shame. The are cowardly bullies, and it is time for middle America to stand up to them.
I think a change is commin.
Those are great pictures, BTW.
Change, huh?Leaders of the Democratic-led Senate expect to begin debate in two weeks, though some bills may not even get a vote in the Republican-run House of Representatives.
House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, released only a brief statement from an aide.
“House committees of jurisdiction will review these recommendations. And if the Senate passes a bill, we will also take a look at that,” spokesman Michael Steel said.
Some Republicans struck a conciliatory tone, suggesting that school safety and mental health services might be addressed, but other expressed blunt opposition.
“President Obama is targeting the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens instead of seriously addressing the real underlying causes of such violence,” said Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, who’s a rising star in his party and possible 2016 presidential candidate. “Rolling back responsible citizens’ rights is not the proper response to tragedies committed by criminals and the mentally ill.”
Freshman Rep. Steve Stockman, R-Texas, said he’d “seek legislation barring funds to enforce the orders. I will seek legislation to cut White House funding should the president issue and enforce such orders. I will support legal efforts to overturn the orders in court.”
The sword argument is a straw man and a red herring all rolled into one. Not going to comment further. However, I will say that I believe the men who run the NRA are cowards. I base this statement on the ad they released today that was "aimed" squarely at the President's children. These men are sick and have no morals, no dignity, and no shame. The are cowardly bullies, and it is time for middle America to stand up to them.
I think a change is commin.
Those are great pictures, BTW.
Change, huh?Leaders of the Democratic-led Senate expect to begin debate in two weeks, though some bills may not even get a vote in the Republican-run House of Representatives.
House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, released only a brief statement from an aide.
“House committees of jurisdiction will review these recommendations. And if the Senate passes a bill, we will also take a look at that,” spokesman Michael Steel said.
Some Republicans struck a conciliatory tone, suggesting that school safety and mental health services might be addressed, but other expressed blunt opposition.
“President Obama is targeting the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens instead of seriously addressing the real underlying causes of such violence,” said Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, who’s a rising star in his party and possible 2016 presidential candidate. “Rolling back responsible citizens’ rights is not the proper response to tragedies committed by criminals and the mentally ill.”
Freshman Rep. Steve Stockman, R-Texas, said he’d “seek legislation barring funds to enforce the orders. I will seek legislation to cut White House funding should the president issue and enforce such orders. I will support legal efforts to overturn the orders in court.”
We shall see. This boat aint gonna turn quick, but it's gonna turn, I believe.
The sword argument is a straw man and a red herring all rolled into one. Not going to comment further. However, I will say that I believe the men who run the NRA are cowards. I base this statement on the ad they released today that was "aimed" squarely at the President's children. These men are sick and have no morals, no dignity, and no shame. The are cowardly bullies, and it is time for middle America to stand up to them.
I think a change is commin.
Those are great pictures, BTW.
Change, huh?Leaders of the Democratic-led Senate expect to begin debate in two weeks, though some bills may not even get a vote in the Republican-run House of Representatives.
House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, released only a brief statement from an aide.
“House committees of jurisdiction will review these recommendations. And if the Senate passes a bill, we will also take a look at that,” spokesman Michael Steel said.
Some Republicans struck a conciliatory tone, suggesting that school safety and mental health services might be addressed, but other expressed blunt opposition.
“President Obama is targeting the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens instead of seriously addressing the real underlying causes of such violence,” said Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, who’s a rising star in his party and possible 2016 presidential candidate. “Rolling back responsible citizens’ rights is not the proper response to tragedies committed by criminals and the mentally ill.”
Freshman Rep. Steve Stockman, R-Texas, said he’d “seek legislation barring funds to enforce the orders. I will seek legislation to cut White House funding should the president issue and enforce such orders. I will support legal efforts to overturn the orders in court.”
I would hope that Boehner does exactly what Herr Harry Reid does. Put it on his desk and let it fall into the trash bin.
The sword argument is a straw man and a red herring all rolled into one. Not going to comment further. However, I will say that I believe the men who run the NRA are cowards. I base this statement on the ad they released today that was "aimed" squarely at the President's children. These men are sick and have no morals, no dignity, and no shame. The are cowardly bullies, and it is time for middle America to stand up to them.
I think a change is commin.
Those are great pictures, BTW.
Change, huh?Leaders of the Democratic-led Senate expect to begin debate in two weeks, though some bills may not even get a vote in the Republican-run House of Representatives.
House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, released only a brief statement from an aide.
“House committees of jurisdiction will review these recommendations. And if the Senate passes a bill, we will also take a look at that,” spokesman Michael Steel said.
Some Republicans struck a conciliatory tone, suggesting that school safety and mental health services might be addressed, but other expressed blunt opposition.
“President Obama is targeting the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens instead of seriously addressing the real underlying causes of such violence,” said Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, who’s a rising star in his party and possible 2016 presidential candidate. “Rolling back responsible citizens’ rights is not the proper response to tragedies committed by criminals and the mentally ill.”
Freshman Rep. Steve Stockman, R-Texas, said he’d “seek legislation barring funds to enforce the orders. I will seek legislation to cut White House funding should the president issue and enforce such orders. I will support legal efforts to overturn the orders in court.”
i think the republicans are walking a thin line here if they dig in on this issue. It could come back to bite them in the 14 congressional races. If the economy starts to turn around even the slightest, this could turn into a hot button issue if another event happens closer to election day.
Pardon the pun, but they are playing with fire.
Give a little on this issue to appease the masses or risk having a democratic controlled congress and a democratic president enact what they really want to enact where ammo is restricted, handguns are limited to revolvers only, and they start to try and collect those "assault weapons" everyone wants to cling to.
The sword argument is a straw man and a red herring all rolled into one. Not going to comment further. However, I will say that I believe the men who run the NRA are cowards. I base this statement on the ad they released today that was "aimed" squarely at the President's children. These men are sick and have no morals, no dignity, and no shame. The are cowardly bullies, and it is time for middle America to stand up to them.
I think a change is commin.
Those are great pictures, BTW.
Change, huh?Leaders of the Democratic-led Senate expect to begin debate in two weeks, though some bills may not even get a vote in the Republican-run House of Representatives.
House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, released only a brief statement from an aide.
“House committees of jurisdiction will review these recommendations. And if the Senate passes a bill, we will also take a look at that,” spokesman Michael Steel said.
Some Republicans struck a conciliatory tone, suggesting that school safety and mental health services might be addressed, but other expressed blunt opposition.
“President Obama is targeting the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens instead of seriously addressing the real underlying causes of such violence,” said Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, who’s a rising star in his party and possible 2016 presidential candidate. “Rolling back responsible citizens’ rights is not the proper response to tragedies committed by criminals and the mentally ill.”
Freshman Rep. Steve Stockman, R-Texas, said he’d “seek legislation barring funds to enforce the orders. I will seek legislation to cut White House funding should the president issue and enforce such orders. I will support legal efforts to overturn the orders in court.”
i think the republicans are walking a thin line here if they dig in on this issue. It could come back to bite them in the 14 congressional races. If the economy starts to turn around even the slightest, this could turn into a hot button issue if another event happens closer to election day.
Pardon the pun, but they are playing with fire.
Give a little on this issue to appease the masses or risk having a democratic controlled congress and a democratic president enact what they really want to enact where ammo is restricted, handguns are limited to revolvers only, and they start to try and collect those "assault weapons" everyone wants to cling to.
You sound like a politician. Just kidding. LOL. What about following your principles and now worry about getting re-elected? Besides, it was probably your principles that got you elected in the first place.
The sword argument is a straw man and a red herring all rolled into one. Not going to comment further. However, I will say that I believe the men who run the NRA are cowards. I base this statement on the ad they released today that was "aimed" squarely at the President's children. These men are sick and have no morals, no dignity, and no shame. The are cowardly bullies, and it is time for middle America to stand up to them.
I think a change is commin.
Those are great pictures, BTW.
Change, huh?Leaders of the Democratic-led Senate expect to begin debate in two weeks, though some bills may not even get a vote in the Republican-run House of Representatives.
House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, released only a brief statement from an aide.
“House committees of jurisdiction will review these recommendations. And if the Senate passes a bill, we will also take a look at that,” spokesman Michael Steel said.
Some Republicans struck a conciliatory tone, suggesting that school safety and mental health services might be addressed, but other expressed blunt opposition.
“President Obama is targeting the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens instead of seriously addressing the real underlying causes of such violence,” said Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, who’s a rising star in his party and possible 2016 presidential candidate. “Rolling back responsible citizens’ rights is not the proper response to tragedies committed by criminals and the mentally ill.”
Freshman Rep. Steve Stockman, R-Texas, said he’d “seek legislation barring funds to enforce the orders. I will seek legislation to cut White House funding should the president issue and enforce such orders. I will support legal efforts to overturn the orders in court.”
i think the republicans are walking a thin line here if they dig in on this issue. It could come back to bite them in the 14 congressional races. If the economy starts to turn around even the slightest, this could turn into a hot button issue if another event happens closer to election day.
Pardon the pun, but they are playing with fire.
Give a little on this issue to appease the masses or risk having a democratic controlled congress and a democratic president enact what they really want to enact where ammo is restricted, handguns are limited to revolvers only, and they start to try and collect those "assault weapons" everyone wants to cling to.
Personally, I think Newtown might well be a Rosa Parks moment. Enough is Enough.
If the Conservatives don't wake up to the reality of this moment, their Guns Over People Party may just get swamped in '14. It's not a matter of "appeasment". It's a matter of the majority will of the American people finally standing up to the sick SOB's that are running the NRA and stopping them from turning the USA into a battlefield where nobody is safe. As for that bit about restricting ammo and limiting handguns to revolvers and the confiscation of weapons - that's just unfounded paranoia - fed by the good ole boys over at the NRA.
BTW - today there are three more dead from a school shooting in Hazzard KY. Two were killed initially, and one wounded. Today the wounded died. This shooting followed another one at a school in St. Louis where 2 were killed. Enough is Enough.
The sword argument is a straw man and a red herring all rolled into one. Not going to comment further. However, I will say that I believe the men who run the NRA are cowards. I base this statement on the ad they released today that was "aimed" squarely at the President's children. These men are sick and have no morals, no dignity, and no shame. The are cowardly bullies, and it is time for middle America to stand up to them.
I think a change is commin.
Those are great pictures, BTW.
Change, huh?Leaders of the Democratic-led Senate expect to begin debate in two weeks, though some bills may not even get a vote in the Republican-run House of Representatives.
House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, released only a brief statement from an aide.
“House committees of jurisdiction will review these recommendations. And if the Senate passes a bill, we will also take a look at that,” spokesman Michael Steel said.
Some Republicans struck a conciliatory tone, suggesting that school safety and mental health services might be addressed, but other expressed blunt opposition.
“President Obama is targeting the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens instead of seriously addressing the real underlying causes of such violence,” said Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, who’s a rising star in his party and possible 2016 presidential candidate. “Rolling back responsible citizens’ rights is not the proper response to tragedies committed by criminals and the mentally ill.”
Freshman Rep. Steve Stockman, R-Texas, said he’d “seek legislation barring funds to enforce the orders. I will seek legislation to cut White House funding should the president issue and enforce such orders. I will support legal efforts to overturn the orders in court.”
i think the republicans are walking a thin line here if they dig in on this issue. It could come back to bite them in the 14 congressional races. If the economy starts to turn around even the slightest, this could turn into a hot button issue if another event happens closer to election day.
Pardon the pun, but they are playing with fire.
Give a little on this issue to appease the masses or risk having a democratic controlled congress and a democratic president enact what they really want to enact where ammo is restricted, handguns are limited to revolvers only, and they start to try and collect those "assault weapons" everyone wants to cling to.
You sound like a politician. Just kidding. LOL. What about following your principles and now worry about getting re-elected? Besides, it was probably your principles that got you elected in the first place.
At some point compromise needs to take over. Right now the country is so divided because people are sticking to their principles a little too much. Neither side is willing to move slightly to the center for fear of alienating their bases.
Sometimes you have to work across the aisle when the public is asking for reform and believe it or not the public for the most part is asking for reform. The only part of the public that isn't asking for reform are those that have a strong pro-feeling on guns which at this point are in the minority.
No one on the reform side is saying that all guns need to go, no one is saying we need to regulate ammo, no one is saying get rid of hunting rifles, shotguns, revolvers, hell even semi-automatic handguns (which if used properly can probably take out as many people as assault rifles).....the general public is just saying what is the point of people being able to buy a gun that was specifically designed for high volume killing/military use at their corner gun shop with minimal background checks and sometimes with no background checks (gun shows)
I don't see that as bending your principles. I see that as being level headed and listening to the public.
Let's just take this one little right. Not much. No harm. And you think they'll stop???????? Look up tyranny in wiki. Did you read what they want to do? Register all weapons. Re-register every 5 years. No private sales. No leaving weapons to your children when you die. Say that again????? Yes. Give them an inch and they will take a yard. Oh, and listening to the public?? Hello. Have you visited a Cabellas or other sporting store lately. The public is speaking loud and clear.
The sword argument is a straw man and a red herring all rolled into one. Not going to comment further. However, I will say that I believe the men who run the NRA are cowards. I base this statement on the ad they released today that was "aimed" squarely at the President's children. These men are sick and have no morals, no dignity, and no shame. The are cowardly bullies, and it is time for middle America to stand up to them.
I think a change is commin.
Those are great pictures, BTW.
Change, huh?Leaders of the Democratic-led Senate expect to begin debate in two weeks, though some bills may not even get a vote in the Republican-run House of Representatives.
House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, released only a brief statement from an aide.
“House committees of jurisdiction will review these recommendations. And if the Senate passes a bill, we will also take a look at that,” spokesman Michael Steel said.
Some Republicans struck a conciliatory tone, suggesting that school safety and mental health services might be addressed, but other expressed blunt opposition.
“President Obama is targeting the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens instead of seriously addressing the real underlying causes of such violence,” said Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, who’s a rising star in his party and possible 2016 presidential candidate. “Rolling back responsible citizens’ rights is not the proper response to tragedies committed by criminals and the mentally ill.”
Freshman Rep. Steve Stockman, R-Texas, said he’d “seek legislation barring funds to enforce the orders. I will seek legislation to cut White House funding should the president issue and enforce such orders. I will support legal efforts to overturn the orders in court.”
i think the republicans are walking a thin line here if they dig in on this issue. It could come back to bite them in the 14 congressional races. If the economy starts to turn around even the slightest, this could turn into a hot button issue if another event happens closer to election day.
Pardon the pun, but they are playing with fire.
Give a little on this issue to appease the masses or risk having a democratic controlled congress and a democratic president enact what they really want to enact where ammo is restricted, handguns are limited to revolvers only, and they start to try and collect those "assault weapons" everyone wants to cling to.
You sound like a politician. Just kidding. LOL. What about following your principles and now worry about getting re-elected? Besides, it was probably your principles that got you elected in the first place.
At some point compromise needs to take over. Right now the country is so divided because people are sticking to their principles a little too much. Neither side is willing to move slightly to the center for fear of alienating their bases.
Sometimes you have to work across the aisle when the public is asking for reform and believe it or not the public for the most part is asking for reform. The only part of the public that isn't asking for reform are those that have a strong pro-feeling on guns which at this point are in the minority.
No one on the reform side is saying that all guns need to go, no one is saying we need to regulate ammo, no one is saying get rid of hunting rifles, shotguns, revolvers, hell even semi-automatic handguns (which if used properly can probably take out as many people as assault rifles).....the general public is just saying what is the point of people being able to buy a gun that was specifically designed for high volume killing/military use at their corner gun shop with minimal background checks and sometimes with no background checks (gun shows)
I don't see that as bending your principles. I see that as being level headed and listening to the public.
That's all true, and rational, and reasonable, and level headed. Unfortunately, the TeaPublicans have thrown out all their "moderates". Those who don't see compromise and reason and pragmatism as a form of treason to ideology were purged. All you have to do is listen to Rand Paul, and you see how extream the TeaPublicans have become. This is a party that still wants the US to default on their obligations. It is a party that is mostly owned by the NRA, a party that views compromise as an obscenity. How in the world can you expect this party to behave rationally and pragmatically for the best interests of the Nation as a whole, when the only thing they can see is their idiology and their hatred of President Obama?
Let's just take this one little right. Not much. No harm. And you think they'll stop???????? Look up tyranny in wiki. Did you read what they want to do? Register all weapons. Re-register every 5 years. No private sales. No leaving weapons to your children when you die. Say that again????? Yes. Give them an inch and they will take a yard. Oh, and listening to the public?? Hello. Have you visited a Cabellas or other sporting store lately. The public is speaking loud and clear.
You are doing exactly what you feel the left is doing.....being overly reactionary. I understand the idea that you give an inch and they take a mile, but at some point you have to trust the leaders of the country and the representatives of your party to not allow that to happen. Believe me, if it does, in 3 years the country will speak its mind and elect a leader that isn't going to unilaterally take away our rights. That is the beauty of the american system.
From everything i've read the main things that the dems want to push through is capping the amount of ammo that each gun can shoot legally without reloading, making a class of weapons with defined specs called assault rifles and banning the sale of those weapons, making anyone who has that specific class of gun reregister because they will be grandfathered in, but not allowing those guns to pass from generation to generation so you have a realistic timeframe where these types of weapons will be out of the public's hands.
To me that is not too much to ask. Again, no one is stopping you from the hundreds of weapons that don't fall in this category, no one is capping the amount of ammo you can have, they are just trying to get weapons that were originally intended for fully trained military personel our of the hands of the general public.
I fully support anyone's right to these weapons if they are willing to go the extra mile to prove they are not a danger with these types of weapons. Create a process by which the general public are allowed to have these weapons and use the Swiss model if you want. Mandatory training and 10 years of follow up. Hell i even think that is a little overboard. I would be more than willing to structure it like a drivers license, but to have it the way it is now is just crazy to me.
The amount of the general public that shops at a Cabellas or other sporting goods stores is a minority. If these gun measures were put to a public vote they would pass by a 60-40 margin at the very least. Probably closer to 70-30.
Again, this is coming from someone who doesn't own a gun, but is more than happy to go to a range and shoot with a friend who is. Someone who has been hunting. Someone who is pretty level headed and isn't being reactionary and painting everyone who supports gun rights as some crazy right wing gun nuts. Just your regular every day joe parent from middle america. So please don't think of me as a left wing liberal like some others in this thread.
BTW - today there are three more dead from a school shooting in Hazzard KY. Two were killed initially, and one wounded. Today the wounded died. This shooting followed another one at a school in St. Louis where 2 were killed. Enough is Enough.
I thought assault rifles designed for the battlefield were the root of these mass shootings, not handguns like were used in these crimes? The guy in St Louis already had firearms violations on his record. Maybe the existing laws should be enforced?
I do agree with you completely: A) current gun law is a mess. we need to ensure people are well trained and educated in gun safety. C) protections must be used to keep weapons out of the hands those that wish to do harm, whether that is by better enforcing current protections, or even adding to them to make sure every gun owner is checked or even possibly licensed.
That being said, the constant railing against the NRA and its leadership grows tiresome. I agree with some of their stances. I disagree with others. I am not a member. Believe it or not, most of us are actual, rational members of society who disagree with you another rational member. It is possible for people to come different conclusions based on the same data sets. To pretend that all who oppose gun bans are either blinded by propoganda or in the pockets of the industry is intellectually dishonest and every bit as farcical as my blunderbuss axe. (Side note, I totally want to own a blunderbuss axe now for home defence, if only to make a Bond-esque pun about axing the intruder to leave, or he will regret this blunder(buss). Ok, back on topic) Yes, the NRA has made some very distasteful remarks in the wake of these criminal acts. Their stance on entertainment in particular pisses me off. But so have anti gun groups. So have religous groups. So have atheists. People say stupid things. People say distasteful things. People can be wrong. Doesn't mean they can't be right on other issues, or even have hints of truth within their statements.
The same as above regarding your statements regarding the Republican party. You and I both know there are some that truly hate Obama and vote against his policies because of it... but it isn't the main force of the party. Same way there are some that love Obama and vote for everything he says without question because of it... but they aren't the main force of Democrats. I disagree with a lot of Obama's policy plans, but think some of it is very good. I actually think he is a pretty cool guy. I think my best friend is a pretty cool guy too, even though we disagree on just about everything political. Please stop trotting out the tired argument that the only reason Republicans vote they way they do is some sort of secret hate. If it was true, we are doomed anyway, because reasonable arguments will never resolve such a thing no matter what.
Finally, I agree completely their is too much partisan grandstanding in DC. We have had this talk many times, so I won't rehash it much, other than to restate my belief that Congretional Cocktail Hour should be brought back. Yes, compromise should be the goal. But sometimes compromise is not possible, which brings me to
brianetz1:
beatnic:
Let's just take this one little right. Not much. No harm. And you think they'll stop???????? Look up tyranny in wiki. Did you read what they want to do? Register all weapons. Re-register every 5 years. No private sales. No leaving weapons to your children when you die. Say that again????? Yes. Give them an inch and they will take a yard. Oh, and listening to the public?? Hello. Have you visited a Cabellas or other sporting store lately. The public is speaking loud and clear.
You are doing exactly what you feel the left is doing.....being overly reactionary. I understand the idea that you give an inch and they take a mile, but at some point you have to trust the leaders of the country and the representatives of your party to not allow that to happen. Believe me, if it does, in 3 years the country will speak its mind and elect a leader that isn't going to unilaterally take away our rights. That is the beauty of the american system.
From everything i've read the main things that the dems want to push through is capping the amount of ammo that each gun can shoot legally without reloading, making a class of weapons with defined specs called assault rifles and banning the sale of those weapons, making anyone who has that specific class of gun reregister because they will be grandfathered in, but not allowing those guns to pass from generation to generation so you have a realistic timeframe where these types of weapons will be out of the public's hands.
To me that is not too much to ask. Again, no one is stopping you from the hundreds of weapons that don't fall in this category, no one is capping the amount of ammo you can have, they are just trying to get weapons that were originally intended for fully trained military personel our of the hands of the general public.
I fully support anyone's right to these weapons if they are willing to go the extra mile to prove they are not a danger with these types of weapons. Create a process by which the general public are allowed to have these weapons and use the Swiss model if you want. Mandatory training and 10 years of follow up. Hell i even think that is a little overboard. I would be more than willing to structure it like a drivers license, but to have it the way it is now is just crazy to me.
The amount of the general public that shops at a Cabellas or other sporting goods stores is a minority. If these gun measures were put to a public vote they would pass by a 60-40 margin at the very least. Probably closer to 70-30.
Again, this is coming from someone who doesn't own a gun, but is more than happy to go to a range and shoot with a friend who is. Someone who has been hunting. Someone who is pretty level headed and isn't being reactionary and painting everyone who supports gun rights as some crazy right wing gun nuts. Just your regular every day joe parent from middle america. So please don't think of me as a left wing liberal like some others in this thread.
I do trust my elected officials. But I will still speak my mind to them, to let them know where I stand on an issue. If I don't, how will they know how to represent me? I encourage you to do the same. Too often, the only people contacting their reps are the fringes of both sides, which is how we end up with such a polarized congress. However, I think you would be suprised at how slim the margin is for people who wish to ban weapons of any type, and it is continuing to go down. Many more support licensing and expansion of background checks. I am sure there is some compromise that may be reached, but we must be careful in this to avoid the golden mean fallacy which both sides like to trot out. If you don't want to read the link, essentially just because their can be a compromise, or an answer between different views, doesn't mean it is right. We see it all the time from both sides of the aisle. Hell, I know I have been guilty of it from time to time.
X: "I want to punch you in the face" Y: "No" X:"How about just in the gut then? It isn't nearly as bad, but more than not punching you." Y:"Again, no" X:"See, America, Y is unreasonable and unwilling to compromise, even after we gave up so much."
Sometimes, one side has it completely right, and on the issue of gun bans, it truly is binary. We first take assault weapons (which I still maintain is a meaningless term). People keep killing with a different tool... or even the same tools, why follow one gun law if you are going to murder someone anyway. We then take those tools away... so on and so forth. We are addressing a symptom, tools being misused, instead of a cause, why is our culture more prone to violence?
To get back to the Swiss, yes, they are different. They have mandatory service to legally obtain the issued weapons. Government issued ammo is tightly controlled and private ammo is not. Rifles are only allowed in certain areas. And yet, we can compare to Sandy Hook. Rifles weren't allowed there, yet the shooter brought one. The shooter did not legally own a gun, yet he stole one. The shooter stole privately owned ammo to load his weapon. Every step of the tragedy was done by a criminal committing crimes. Why will adding new crimes he has to commit slow him down? What we need to ask is why are the Swiss less prone to break their laws to use their weapons. I have seen a bunch of discussion on this. Some say it is strong nationalism, a desire not to shame their country. Others believe it is the likelyhood of encountering those that would respond force for force. Still others think it might be a heritage of personal responsibility and neutrality. Whatever it is, it surely isn't a dearth of weapons or people trained in their use.
I do agree completely that we should have mandatory firearms safety training, not only for owners, but everyone in the US. It is silly to me that we teach our children safety around so many things, but many people have only the barest of awareness of how to safely handle a weapon. Also, I agree we need to make sure that we don't block dialogue on the basis of ideology, but instead fully eloquate our beliefs and reasons for holding them. Something I oft do a poor job of, as my words often fail me. I blame it on too much coding. What we cannot and must not do is allow either side to mistake an emotional reaction to terrible events such as those in Newtown as a proper basis for policy, or, even worse in my mind, exploit this fervor to force their ideology upon an bereaved public. Whether it is gun bans now, PIPA/SOPA and the like awhile back, or the Patriot Act (which I still think is evidence of how much our elected officials can fail us who sent them).
To sum up, we need to move on this. It is obvious there are failings in our system, and we can do better. But we must go slow, we must study the issue. We must learn the 'whys' of this and other such tragedies. We must not now, nor ever, allow desire to do something, to protect ourselves, our families, our friends cause us to rush out changes without proper study. It is our duty when we find ourselves with such a problem, to truly look and find why these things happen, and how we can stop it without punishing those that have done no wrong.
Finally, pistol sword cane. ...I am loving these image searches.
Just face it folks..... crazy people will find ways to kill no matter what your new laws do. Now if you can get the media to quit sensationalizing the crazies like heroes then you might get somewhere.
This from Democrats. This isn't just Tea Party folks that many of you like to ridicule and call names.
Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska) told the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner that he’s not eager to pass new gun control legislation.
“I think they’ve got a long haul here … There are some of us who just fundamentally believe in a Second Amendment right,” he said. “To be frank, I feel like it’s going to be hard for any of these pieces of legislation to pass at this point.”
Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) told a local television station that he opposed the proposals.
"While I appreciate the president's efforts to keep Americans safe, I believe the place to start is to enforce the laws on the books. That being said, I will continue to look for areas of common ground, including funding for law enforcement in schools, implementing tracking systems for the mentally ill and criminals, and addressing violence in the media. Most importantly, I will be talking with my constituents in Arkansas as I vote on these issues in the future," Pryor said.
Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) indicated he was hesitant about supporting new legislation.
“Enforcing the laws we already have on the books is good first step, and it's clear more needs to be done to address access to mental health care,” he said in a Wednesday statement. “Before passing new laws, we need a thoughtful debate that respects responsible, law-abiding gun owners in Montana instead of a one-size-fits all directives from Washington."
Sen. Tim Johnson (D-S.D.) said on Tuesday, before the proposals came out, that he didn’t want to see a “one-size-fits-all” approach.
“We in South Dakota have far fewer problems with guns than they do in New York or New Jersey, and it makes common sense to not have one size fits all,” he said in a Tuesday news conference in South Dakota. "I believe in the Second Amendment, and I'm a hunter myself, but I think something should be done — but what, I don't know.”
Sen. Kay Hagan (D-N.C.) was cautious regarding whether or not she supported the proposals, though she said she would look at the proposals with “an open mind.”
“We need to ensure that there are laws in place to prevent a tragedy like Sandy Hook from ever happening again. First and foremost, that will require a serious commonsense debate in Congress that looks at access to guns, access to mental health care and violent video games,” she said in a statement to The Hill. “While respecting the rights of responsible gun owners, I am committed to working with my Republican and Democratic colleagues toward a comprehensive approach that ensures our communities are safe.
“As I have said, I will look at any proposal with an open mind, including the President’s proposals to make schools safer and grant law enforcement additional tools to prosecute gun crime,” she continued.
Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) similarly didn’t take a concrete stance on Obama’s proposals, though she sounded slightly more open to new legislation.
“My record of support for the Second Amendment is strong. In Louisiana and many places across the country, hunting, target shooting and gun collecting are time-honored sports and popular hobbies,” she said in a statement to reporters after Obama rolled out his proposals.
“That said, last month's tragedy in Newtown, Conn., has become all too familiar. We must find a way to balance our Second Amendment rights with the challenges of mental illness, criminal behavior and the safety of our schools and communities. We must also enforce the rules already on the books. Even some of the most respected law enforcement leaders in our country are calling for commonsense reforms because of this terrible violence in our communities.”
“This isn’t a Republican or a Democratic issue,” she continued. “It’s an American issue. And the American people expect us to come together and act. The safety of our children, our communities and our nation depend on it. I look forward to reviewing the proposals put forth by the administration and will give them my serious consideration as they are brought for debate in the Senate.”
Comments
I think a change is commin.
Those are great pictures, BTW.
Pardon the pun, but they are playing with fire.
Give a little on this issue to appease the masses or risk having a democratic controlled congress and a democratic president enact what they really want to enact where ammo is restricted, handguns are limited to revolvers only, and they start to try and collect those "assault weapons" everyone wants to cling to.
If the Conservatives don't wake up to the reality of this moment, their Guns Over People Party may just get swamped in '14. It's not a matter of "appeasment". It's a matter of the majority will of the American people finally standing up to the sick SOB's that are running the NRA and stopping them from turning the USA into a battlefield where nobody is safe. As for that bit about restricting ammo and limiting handguns to revolvers and the confiscation of weapons - that's just unfounded paranoia - fed by the good ole boys over at the NRA.
BTW - today there are three more dead from a school shooting in Hazzard KY. Two were killed initially, and one wounded. Today the wounded died. This shooting followed another one at a school in St. Louis where 2 were killed. Enough is Enough.
Sometimes you have to work across the aisle when the public is asking for reform and believe it or not the public for the most part is asking for reform. The only part of the public that isn't asking for reform are those that have a strong pro-feeling on guns which at this point are in the minority.
No one on the reform side is saying that all guns need to go, no one is saying we need to regulate ammo, no one is saying get rid of hunting rifles, shotguns, revolvers, hell even semi-automatic handguns (which if used properly can probably take out as many people as assault rifles).....the general public is just saying what is the point of people being able to buy a gun that was specifically designed for high volume killing/military use at their corner gun shop with minimal background checks and sometimes with no background checks (gun shows)
I don't see that as bending your principles. I see that as being level headed and listening to the public.
From everything i've read the main things that the dems want to push through is capping the amount of ammo that each gun can shoot legally without reloading, making a class of weapons with defined specs called assault rifles and banning the sale of those weapons, making anyone who has that specific class of gun reregister because they will be grandfathered in, but not allowing those guns to pass from generation to generation so you have a realistic timeframe where these types of weapons will be out of the public's hands.
To me that is not too much to ask. Again, no one is stopping you from the hundreds of weapons that don't fall in this category, no one is capping the amount of ammo you can have, they are just trying to get weapons that were originally intended for fully trained military personel our of the hands of the general public.
I fully support anyone's right to these weapons if they are willing to go the extra mile to prove they are not a danger with these types of weapons. Create a process by which the general public are allowed to have these weapons and use the Swiss model if you want. Mandatory training and 10 years of follow up. Hell i even think that is a little overboard. I would be more than willing to structure it like a drivers license, but to have it the way it is now is just crazy to me.
The amount of the general public that shops at a Cabellas or other sporting goods stores is a minority. If these gun measures were put to a public vote they would pass by a 60-40 margin at the very least. Probably closer to 70-30.
Again, this is coming from someone who doesn't own a gun, but is more than happy to go to a range and shoot with a friend who is. Someone who has been hunting. Someone who is pretty level headed and isn't being reactionary and painting everyone who supports gun rights as some crazy right wing gun nuts. Just your regular every day joe parent from middle america. So please don't think of me as a left wing liberal like some others in this thread.
I do agree with you completely:
A) current gun law is a mess.
C) protections must be used to keep weapons out of the hands those that wish to do harm, whether that is by better enforcing current protections, or even adding to them to make sure every gun owner is checked or even possibly licensed.
That being said, the constant railing against the NRA and its leadership grows tiresome. I agree with some of their stances. I disagree with others. I am not a member. Believe it or not, most of us are actual, rational members of society who disagree with you another rational member. It is possible for people to come different conclusions based on the same data sets. To pretend that all who oppose gun bans are either blinded by propoganda or in the pockets of the industry is intellectually dishonest and every bit as farcical as my blunderbuss axe. (Side note, I totally want to own a blunderbuss axe now for home defence, if only to make a Bond-esque pun about axing the intruder to leave, or he will regret this blunder(buss). Ok, back on topic) Yes, the NRA has made some very distasteful remarks in the wake of these criminal acts. Their stance on entertainment in particular pisses me off. But so have anti gun groups. So have religous groups. So have atheists. People say stupid things. People say distasteful things. People can be wrong. Doesn't mean they can't be right on other issues, or even have hints of truth within their statements.
The same as above regarding your statements regarding the Republican party. You and I both know there are some that truly hate Obama and vote against his policies because of it... but it isn't the main force of the party. Same way there are some that love Obama and vote for everything he says without question because of it... but they aren't the main force of Democrats. I disagree with a lot of Obama's policy plans, but think some of it is very good. I actually think he is a pretty cool guy. I think my best friend is a pretty cool guy too, even though we disagree on just about everything political. Please stop trotting out the tired argument that the only reason Republicans vote they way they do is some sort of secret hate. If it was true, we are doomed anyway, because reasonable arguments will never resolve such a thing no matter what.
Finally, I agree completely their is too much partisan grandstanding in DC. We have had this talk many times, so I won't rehash it much, other than to restate my belief that Congretional Cocktail Hour should be brought back. Yes, compromise should be the goal. But sometimes compromise is not possible, which brings me to
I do trust my elected officials. But I will still speak my mind to them, to let them know where I stand on an issue. If I don't, how will they know how to represent me? I encourage you to do the same. Too often, the only people contacting their reps are the fringes of both sides, which is how we end up with such a polarized congress. However, I think you would be suprised at how slim the margin is for people who wish to ban weapons of any type, and it is continuing to go down. Many more support licensing and expansion of background checks. I am sure there is some compromise that may be reached, but we must be careful in this to avoid the golden mean fallacy which both sides like to trot out. If you don't want to read the link, essentially just because their can be a compromise, or an answer between different views, doesn't mean it is right. We see it all the time from both sides of the aisle. Hell, I know I have been guilty of it from time to time.
X: "I want to punch you in the face"
Y: "No"
X:"How about just in the gut then? It isn't nearly as bad, but more than not punching you."
Y:"Again, no"
X:"See, America, Y is unreasonable and unwilling to compromise, even after we gave up so much."
Sometimes, one side has it completely right, and on the issue of gun bans, it truly is binary. We first take assault weapons (which I still maintain is a meaningless term). People keep killing with a different tool... or even the same tools, why follow one gun law if you are going to murder someone anyway. We then take those tools away... so on and so forth. We are addressing a symptom, tools being misused, instead of a cause, why is our culture more prone to violence?
To get back to the Swiss, yes, they are different. They have mandatory service to legally obtain the issued weapons. Government issued ammo is tightly controlled and private ammo is not. Rifles are only allowed in certain areas. And yet, we can compare to Sandy Hook. Rifles weren't allowed there, yet the shooter brought one. The shooter did not legally own a gun, yet he stole one. The shooter stole privately owned ammo to load his weapon. Every step of the tragedy was done by a criminal committing crimes. Why will adding new crimes he has to commit slow him down? What we need to ask is why are the Swiss less prone to break their laws to use their weapons. I have seen a bunch of discussion on this. Some say it is strong nationalism, a desire not to shame their country. Others believe it is the likelyhood of encountering those that would respond force for force. Still others think it might be a heritage of personal responsibility and neutrality. Whatever it is, it surely isn't a dearth of weapons or people trained in their use.
I do agree completely that we should have mandatory firearms safety training, not only for owners, but everyone in the US. It is silly to me that we teach our children safety around so many things, but many people have only the barest of awareness of how to safely handle a weapon. Also, I agree we need to make sure that we don't block dialogue on the basis of ideology, but instead fully eloquate our beliefs and reasons for holding them. Something I oft do a poor job of, as my words often fail me. I blame it on too much coding. What we cannot and must not do is allow either side to mistake an emotional reaction to terrible events such as those in Newtown as a proper basis for policy, or, even worse in my mind, exploit this fervor to force their ideology upon an bereaved public. Whether it is gun bans now, PIPA/SOPA and the like awhile back, or the Patriot Act (which I still think is evidence of how much our elected officials can fail us who sent them).
To sum up, we need to move on this. It is obvious there are failings in our system, and we can do better. But we must go slow, we must study the issue. We must learn the 'whys' of this and other such tragedies. We must not now, nor ever, allow desire to do something, to protect ourselves, our families, our friends cause us to rush out changes without proper study. It is our duty when we find ourselves with such a problem, to truly look and find why these things happen, and how we can stop it without punishing those that have done no wrong.
Finally, pistol sword cane. ...I am loving these image searches.
Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska) told the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner that he’s not eager to pass new gun control legislation.
“I think they’ve got a long haul here … There are some of us who just fundamentally believe in a Second Amendment right,” he said. “To be frank, I feel like it’s going to be hard for any of these pieces of legislation to pass at this point.”
Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) told a local television station that he opposed the proposals. "While I appreciate the president's efforts to keep Americans safe, I believe the place to start is to enforce the laws on the books. That being said, I will continue to look for areas of common ground, including funding for law enforcement in schools, implementing tracking systems for the mentally ill and criminals, and addressing violence in the media. Most importantly, I will be talking with my constituents in Arkansas as I vote on these issues in the future," Pryor said.
Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) indicated he was hesitant about supporting new legislation. “Enforcing the laws we already have on the books is good first step, and it's clear more needs to be done to address access to mental health care,” he said in a Wednesday statement. “Before passing new laws, we need a thoughtful debate that respects responsible, law-abiding gun owners in Montana instead of a one-size-fits all directives from Washington."
Sen. Tim Johnson (D-S.D.) said on Tuesday, before the proposals came out, that he didn’t want to see a “one-size-fits-all” approach.
“We in South Dakota have far fewer problems with guns than they do in New York or New Jersey, and it makes common sense to not have one size fits all,” he said in a Tuesday news conference in South Dakota. "I believe in the Second Amendment, and I'm a hunter myself, but I think something should be done — but what, I don't know.”
Sen. Kay Hagan (D-N.C.) was cautious regarding whether or not she supported the proposals, though she said she would look at the proposals with “an open mind.”
“We need to ensure that there are laws in place to prevent a tragedy like Sandy Hook from ever happening again. First and foremost, that will require a serious commonsense debate in Congress that looks at access to guns, access to mental health care and violent video games,” she said in a statement to The Hill. “While respecting the rights of responsible gun owners, I am committed to working with my Republican and Democratic colleagues toward a comprehensive approach that ensures our communities are safe. “As I have said, I will look at any proposal with an open mind, including the President’s proposals to make schools safer and grant law enforcement additional tools to prosecute gun crime,” she continued.
Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) similarly didn’t take a concrete stance on Obama’s proposals, though she sounded slightly more open to new legislation. “My record of support for the Second Amendment is strong. In Louisiana and many places across the country, hunting, target shooting and gun collecting are time-honored sports and popular hobbies,” she said in a statement to reporters after Obama rolled out his proposals. “That said, last month's tragedy in Newtown, Conn., has become all too familiar. We must find a way to balance our Second Amendment rights with the challenges of mental illness, criminal behavior and the safety of our schools and communities. We must also enforce the rules already on the books. Even some of the most respected law enforcement leaders in our country are calling for commonsense reforms because of this terrible violence in our communities.” “This isn’t a Republican or a Democratic issue,” she continued. “It’s an American issue. And the American people expect us to come together and act. The safety of our children, our communities and our nation depend on it. I look forward to reviewing the proposals put forth by the administration and will give them my serious consideration as they are brought for debate in the Senate.”