NRA

[spence]

I'm surprised nobody has remarked about the quite surreal response by the NRA given after the Newtown tragedy. Even usual conservative papers are drilling into LaPierre for being a nut case.

Why is it that the NRA can't even have an adult conversation about tho topic of gun violence without going into near apoplexy over the notion that a weapon was even at the crime scene?

The NRA has the potential here to add constructive representation to the firearm violence discussion which is going to happen this year like it or not...but this early position I think has done much to hurt their credibility and likely their membership as well.

-spence

[Bronko]

I agree and disagree. Their response was out completely out of touch and not well thought out. They need to have an adult conversation and appear unwilling to do so. On the other hand, I think you will see membership soar, along with the huge surge in handgun license applications and weapons purchases this past week. Personally, I joined a gun club after the election (before Newtown) and their applications were up 300% since Obamas re-election. Unfortunately, this event will polarize rather than unify.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

I'm surprised nobody has remarked about the quite surreal response by the NRA given after the Newtown tragedy. Even usual conservative papers are drilling into LaPierre for being a nut case. got any examples?

Why is it that the NRA can't even have an adult conversation about tho topic of gun violence (With whom, Joe Biden? pleeeeze....the President?...nope..he's off bodysurfing in Hawaii for a few weeks and at a cost of many millions for his entertainment as the country slides into economic distress, but we've got his number if we need to get in touch...right???...how about Harry Reid?...he can't pass a budget never mind have an adult conversation.....the attorney general...he's not big on conversations and they are usually 1 way and race related... )without going into near apoplexy over the notion that a weapon was even at the crime scene? tough to find a good productive conversation these days...ain't it?

The NRA has the potential here to add constructive representation to the firearm violence discussion which is going to happen this year like it or not (I'm pretty sure there's been a long ongoing discussion on the topic of firearm violence)...but this early position I think has done much to hurt their credibility and likely their membership as well. membership appears to be soaring

-spence

strictest gun laws in the nation I think...Obamaland

Since Jan. 1, Chicago police have recorded 2,364 shooting incidents and 487 homicides, 87 percent of them gun-related. Shootings have increased 12 percent this year and homicides are up 19 percent.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/nation...391_story.html

[buckman]

And the Democrats response hasn't been predictable ???
Strange we didn't hear much from the media about the Washington Mall shooting. The one where an armed civilian put a stop to a potential mass tragedy. Banning "assault weapons" is symbolic and might make you feel better bit it won't solve anything.
But then it never is about fixing the problem now is it ???
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by spence

Why is it that the NRA can't even have an adult conversation about tho topic of gun violence without going into near apoplexy over the notion that a weapon was even at the crime scene?

-spence

You mean exactly the same response as the "fingers-in-their-ear, only the police and military should have guns, ban all guns" crowd has been for the last week?

The anti-gun crowd doesn't want to have a conversation. Anything other than the NRA saying "yes we agree. Those scary black guns that are not at all 'military-style assault rifles' should be banned." will be met with cried of how the NRA wants more children to die.

Here's the #1 clue that the anti-gun crowd is operating on emotion, as opposed to reason:
They use catch phrases like "common sense", "reasonable reform" and "win-win" without any empirical support because none of the factual statistics support their emotionally-charged, irrational claims.

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

You mean exactly the same response as the "fingers-in-their-ear, only the police and military should have guns, ban all guns" crowd has been for the last week?

I've not heard anything that resembles of what you speak.

Perhaps you've been reading too much MoveOn?

-spence

[Sea Dangles]

What have you heard then Spence? I have been waiting for the response from your credible sources.(other than knocking the NRA)

[spence]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

What have you heard then Spence? I have been waiting for the response from your credible sources.(other than knocking the NRA)

Response from? Not sure I understand the question.

What I have heard is a large number of Republican voices speaking out in favor of some action. What that really means is certainly up for debate.

-spence

[spence]

Murdoch, Wash Times, NY Daily News, National Review even Michael Steel! etc... etc...

Buck, the "symbolic" argument is the same old nonsense and completely avoids the real issues of firearm violence. You can't deny that a non-assault rife would have been as deadly in the same situation combined with the other factors.

Even if mass shootings are rare, as ScottW indicates, general violence from guns is still rampant. Statistically we're keeping company with the Third World...

By Washington Mall you mean the incident in 2005?

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Murdoch, Wash Times, NY Daily News, National Review even Michael Steel! etc... etc...

-spence

you didn't actually read any of it...did you?

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

you didn't actually read any of it...did you?

Why yes, I actually did.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Why yes, I actually did.

-spence

you went from..

"Even usual conservative papers are drilling into LaPierre for being a nut case."

and then this:

"Murdoch, Wash Times, NY Daily News, National Review even Michael Steel! etc... etc..."



I asked for examples...Murdoch has long been a gun control advocate and
Steele said this...

“I don’t even know where to begin. As a supporter of the Second Amendment and a supporter of the NRA — even though I’m not a member of the NRA — I just found it very haunting and very disturbing that our country now is talking about arming our teachers and our principals in classrooms,” Steele said on MSNBC immediately after LaPierre finished his comments.

in respose to Lapierre saying this:

By PHILIP ELLIOTT, The ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON -- The nation's largest gun-rights lobby is calling for armed police officers to be posted in every American school to stop the next killer "waiting in the wings."

The National Rifle Association broke its silence Friday on last week's shooting rampage at a Connecticut elementary school that left 26 children and staff dead.

He blamed video games, movies and music videos for exposing children to a violent culture day in and day out.

LaPierre stood by remarks he made at an event Friday billed as a news conference -- though he took no questions -- in which he argued for armed guards in schools.

"If it's crazy to call for putting police and armed security in our schools to protect our children, then call me crazy," he said on Sunday.


"We're going to support an immediate appropriation before Congress to put police officers in every school," he vowed.

I guess Steele didn't listen very closely...

so what are the "conservative papers are drilling into LaPierre for being a nut case"? etc....etc....because I haven't seen it and I actually read conservative papers


I don't know how effective having security at schools will/would be, I know that it's a likely deterrent, I know that many schools already have security and those are probably the schools that most of our politician's children happen to attend... if you are a progressive democrat...just look at it as an opportunity to create another bureaucracy with new union members


...Merry Christmas to all of you!!!!

just a sidenote....Politico then took Steeles comments and titled their article on the subject to claim that Steele called Lapierre's comments "haunting and very disturbing" ....you see how it works

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

Murdoch, Wash Times, NY Daily News, National Review even Michael Steel! etc... etc...

Buck, the "symbolic" argument is the same old nonsense and completely avoids the real issues of firearm violence. You can't deny that a non-assault rife would have been as deadly in the same situation combined with the other factors.

Even if mass shootings are rare, as ScottW indicates, general violence from guns is still rampant. Statistically we're keeping company with the Third World...

By Washington Mall you mean the incident in 2005?

-spence

I meant the Oregon mall sorry. But I understand why that didn't pop into your head.
Spence there can be meaningful debate... As soon as they realize banning guns doesn't work.
Heavily penalizing gun violence does work. Something the NRA has worked hard for.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Fly Rod]

A very horrific tragedy...lets hope it never happens again

Spence:La Pierre mentions to put cops in schools and you and your progressive party call him a nut case...where was your group when Bill Clinton mentioned putting cops in schools...he even appropriated monies to do it..."cops never placed.'...

News media reports that an automatic weapon was used...now your president keeps saying he wants to band automatic weapons scaring the mis informed public....it is hard to get a permit for an automatic weapon....need a class 3 license....weapon used not an automatic...just as much damage would have been done with a Klock

What R cops going to do at the school...it will provide a falsehood of being safe....there was an armed guard at the columbine tradegy...a cop will not be alert for 8 hrs....they R not alert doing road duty...we expect them to sit for 8 hrs.reading a news paper and or take a break to urinate or smoke break...if correct the guard at columbine took a break at the time of that shooting spree.

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

I meant the Oregon mall sorry. But I understand why that didn't pop into your head.
Spence there can be meaningful debate... As soon as they realize banning guns doesn't work.
Heavily penalizing gun violence does work. Something the NRA has worked hard for.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I can understand how it's easy to confuse shootings, there's been so many in recent memory. It's also probably a stretch to claim the incident was stopped by a concealed carry. He said he didn't shoot because there was another person he could have hit. To say the shooter just happened to see his handgun and decided to kill himself instead is taking a giant leap of faith...

I'm not saying that people are going to stop wanting firearms, I'm stating that the banner of the NRA as the protector of the Second Amendment will continue to be tarnished if they can't engage in a reasonable debate.

Aside from some papers there have been a number of Republicans rethinking their position on how we regulate guns.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I can understand how it's easy to confuse shootings, there's been so many in recent memory. It's also probably a stretch to claim the incident was stopped by a concealed carry. He said he didn't shoot because there was another person he could have hit. To say the shooter just happened to see his handgun and decided to kill himself instead is taking a giant leap of faith...

I'm not saying that people are going to stop wanting firearms, I'm stating that the banner of the NRA as the protector of the Second Amendment will continue to be tarnished if they can't engage in a reasonable debate.

Aside from some papers there have been a number of Republicans rethinking their position on how we regulate guns.

-spence

Regulating guns is different than regulating people. The second amendment is not about regulating guns. It is about the right of the people to own them. If it were possible, and it may be, to regulate the manufacture of guns to only fire when used by those legally issued to own them, that would go a long way to prevent gun violence by those who steal them, borrow them, or buy them illegally.

As far as the NRA not engaging in a reasonable debate, I am sure that it believes it is being reasonable and that the anti-gunners are not. To dismiss, out of hand, statements and positions of the NRA as being unreasonable, seems unreasonable to me. To accuse them of not being able to have an adult discussion, then dismissing their suggestions without debating them, seems very unadult. Their so-called banner of the protector of the second amendment, if there is such a thing, has been well-earned. What other interest group has been influential enough, and engaged enough to fly such a banner? The NRA's position, if I understand it right, is that the goal of those who wish to further restrict gun ownership IS the repeal or re-interpretation of the Second Ammendment . The putative reason for banning what are called "assault" rifles is that they allow the user to kill larger numbers in a shorter time. I have not understood what the acceptable number of victims is before "something must be done." People have been arguing that "something must be done" about handguns for a long time. And handguns have been used to kill far more people in this country than those killed by "assault" weapons. The whole argument has long been about criminals killing people, not how many. And if you can set a precedent that some guns can be used to kill larger numbers and so must be banned, the door to banning "less" lethal guns will be opened a crack more.

I don't know where reason stands between the second ammendment and an adult or reasonable discussion about it. Arguments about what it means or what types of arms it means are like most other arguments about what portions or clauses of the Constitution "mean." That is, discussion of constitutional meaning , except by strict constructionists, are about how the Constitution can be bent or changed to fit the preference of majorities, or interest groups, or judges who feel their position to be above the law and are thus empowered to write it.

There is nothing in the unammended Constitution that gives the Federal Government the power to regulate private gun ownership. The Second Ammendment was not needed in that regard. Madison warned against such ammendments. The Constitution, as written, limited the central government to certain enumerated powers. The restriction of private gun ownership was not mentioned as a power or was not a part of any enumerated power. The Constitutions "silence" on the issue "means" that the Federal Government does not have the power. Madison warned against amendments that "gauranteed" rights which were already inherent in the Constitution because it would open the door to a discussion of those rights as being limited by the strict wording of the ammendment rather than being unlimited or unalienable against the power of the central government. Even worse, he warned that future mischief could be done to the entire body of the Constitution by the addition of a bill of rights because that bill could be construed as the limit of the people's rights rather than the people's rights being the vast majority which are left to them by limiting the government to the few enumerated powers. He reluctantly wrote the first set of ammendments so that the States, whose reprentatives vehemently wanted a bill of rights, would all agree to and accept the Constitution. What he feared has to a great extent happended. SCOTUS judges most often now only give strict scrutiny to Federal infraction of a few rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, the rest of the Constitution having been re-interpreted to mean whatever five or more judges wish it to mean. And even those rights in the Bill of Rights have become weaker, including not only the right to bear arms but also freedom of speech and religion. And the massive changes and effective negation of the Constitution have come about by "reasonable" jurisprudence.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Aside from some papers there have been a number of Republicans rethinking their position on how we regulate guns.

-spence

let's see..."...."papers" and republicans rethinking their positions, a large number of Republican voices speaking out in favor of some action, usual conservative "papers" are drilling into LaPierre for being a nut case"


just stick with vague and broad when did "papers" start drilling and (re)thinking

[basswipe]

I've been waiting for this thread.

This is truly the thread I can separate the political fanboys from those who actually have a clue and know wtf they are talking about.

Bring it on boys.I know there are two representing either side of the aisle who say equally some of the dumbest things that could be uttered on this subject.

C'mon guys don't fail me now.I need to truly be disappointed by some real stupidity.

[RIJIMMY]

you should have seen the lines at the gun counter at Cabelas last night.

[Piscator]

41-47% of a
Americans report owning a gun. Pretty high percentage.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Swimmer]

Originally Posted by spence

Why is it that the NRA can't even have an adult conversation about tho topic of gun violence without going into near apoplexy over the notion that a weapon was even at the crime scene?
-spence

Why is it that the NRA is the bad guy every time some #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^& comes into possession of a "high capacity weapon" that shoots a bullet every time you pull the trigger. Every gun shoots a bullet every time you pull the trigger. If someone shoots six people with a model 28-2 .357 magnum and then reloads with a speed loader, archaic as that sounds, some journalist would call that a semi-automatic as well. There are magazines that hold less rounds than thirty, but if your practiced, whether it holds thirty or ten rounds your going to kill a bunch of people. The NRA isn't the problem here by a long shot, but it works out great that the knee jerk reactionaries think they are because it takes the heat away from the electorate.

And by the way, several years ago in Massachusetts the Mass Teachers Assoc. had thier members do a little in the classroom polling. The teachers were instructed to have the children in the classrooms, lay thier heads down and the children were asked to raise thier hands if there was a gun in the house. 75% of the children raised thier hands. This way about twenty years ago this happened. Thats why the legislators never do anything against gun ownership. They don't want to anger a 75% majority.

[Typhoon]

The NRA needs a new spokesperson. The only person worse would be #^&#^&#^&#^& Cheney.

I donated once to the NRA and then they bombarded my house asking for money. I promptly told them to stuff it and have never donated since. I would give money to GOAL first.

[Piscator]

Originally Posted by Typhoon

I would give money to GOAL first.

X2
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Nebe]

not sure if it has been mentioned, but i would bet a coffee that the fiscal cliff talks fell apart because the GOP is bringing this issue into the debate as a bartering tool. Before the shooting, everything seemed ok and then suddenly without any explanation things fell apart.

[Piscator]

Originally Posted by Nebe

not sure if it has been mentioned, but i would bet a coffee that the fiscal cliff talks fell apart because the GOP is bringing this issue into the debate as a bartering tool. Before the shooting, everything seemed ok and then suddenly without any explanation things fell apart.

Could be but I think it's a much larger issue................
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Nebe

not sure if it has been mentioned, but i would bet a coffee that the fiscal cliff talks fell apart because the GOP is bringing this issue into the debate as a bartering tool. Before the shooting, everything seemed ok and then suddenly without any explanation things fell apart.

Or exactly the opposite. Why couldn't the Dems be saying, "Listen, we want XYZ immediate restrictions of firearms and on the flip side, we'll agree to tax cut extensions."

Then, the Dems get to come out like heroes because "See, guns are a major issue and look how quickly we are willing to fix them *and* avoid the fiscal cliff". While on the other hand, the Republicans avoid pissing off one voting base while enraging another.

Either way, whatever comes from any of this will be forgotten by most voters when the next set of elections come in two years.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by Nebe

not sure if it has been mentioned, but i would bet a coffee that the fiscal cliff talks fell apart because the GOP is bringing this issue into the debate as a bartering tool. Before the shooting, everything seemed ok and then suddenly without any explanation things fell apart.

No!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Nebe]

True.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[The Dad Fisherman]

It seems like most shooting sprees end when the shooter puts a bullet into his own head......maybe if we can just get them to start there 1st.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Nebe]

A trained shooter can change a magazine in about 3 to 5 seconds.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device