NRA needs to be labeled a terrorlst organization.

A place for intelligent and well-thought-out discussion involving politics and associated topics. No nonsense will be tolerated at all.
User avatar
Rogue One
Administrator
Posts: 8789
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2011 10:15 pm
Car: 2011 Nissan Rogue SL
2012 Nissan Rogue SL
2012 Honda CR-V LX
2022 Honda Pilot Special Edition
Location: Florida, USA

Post

telcoman wrote:
Sun Feb 18, 2018 5:28 am
srellim234 wrote:
Fri Feb 16, 2018 2:23 pm
telco - As usual you completely ignore direct questions when asked. How about answering them before you post your next bit of propaganda? You, sir, are incredibly rude, alienating and you influence no one in a positive manner with your behavior.
Propaganda is what is being peddled on Fox and Russian trolls and being accepted by some poorly educated Americans including our incompetent president that has no leadership skills.


The N.R.A. Can Be Beat

It’s time to vote the gun lobby out of office.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/15/opin ... editorials

"Hundreds have been killed in mass shootings at a high school in Littleton, Colo., a church in Charleston, S.C., an office party in San Bernardino, Calif., a nightclub in Orlando, Fla., and elsewhere in the past 20 years. After 20 first graders and a half-dozen adults were slaughtered in Newtown, Conn., in 2012, it seemed that a line would be drawn in the sand. Enough was enough, people said. But nothing was done. People have been injured or killed in eight school shootings in the first seven weeks of 2018 alone.

Though many Americans, and some elected officials, have taken a stand to stanch the epidemic of gun violence, the National Rifle Association and its congressional servants have been an unyielding obstacle to sensible reform.
Opinion By MATTEEN MOKALLA 2:23
A G.O.P. Guide to Mass Shootings
Video
A G.O.P. Guide to Mass Shootings

The simple plan for the N.R.A's servants to follow if they want to avoid doing anything about gun violence. By MATTEEN MOKALLA on Publish Date February 16, 2018. Photo by Evan Vucci/Associated Press. Watch in Times Video »

embed

ShareTweet

But the gun lobby’s stranglehold on our elected officials does not need to continue, if candidates stand up to the lobby and voters demand that they commit themselves to the sorts of changes that a vast majority of Americans want.

With midterm elections coming up this fall, America has a chance to get that message across. Candidates must realize that reducing gun violence is a winning and moral issue. Aggressive turnout by voters who believe this can defeat the N.R.A. at the polls. Until then, the bloodshed will continue.
Continue reading the main story
Related Coverage

Suspect Confessed to Police That He Began Shooting Students ‘in the Hallways’ FEB. 15, 2018
Opinion Opinion
A G.O.P. Guide to Mass Shootings FEB. 16, 2018
graphic
Opinion Editorial
What Congress Has Accomplished Since the Sandy Hook Massacre FEB. 15, 2018
Opinion Op-Ed Contributor
The Things We Know About School Shooters FEB. 15, 2018
Opinion Contributing Op-Ed Writer
The Bad Parent Caucus FEB. 15, 2018"

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... ators.html


"Most Americans support stronger gun laws — laws that would reduce deaths. But Republicans in Congress stand in the way. They fear alienating their primary voters and the National Rifle Association.

Below are the top 10 career recipients of N.R.A. funding – through donations or spending to benefit the candidate – among both current House and Senate members, along with their statements about the Las Vegas massacre. These representatives have a lot to say about it. All the while, they refuse to do anything to avoid the next massacre."


Our current High school students are going to solve the Gun problem since we have a man/child in the White House that has no leadership skills

Telcoman
And you're not spouting propaganda?

If the gun-control activists want to keep blaming the Republicans and he NRA in response to every shooting in America, they should at least be honest about what exactly they are saying. Full on gun confiscation. That. Is. Not. Going. To. Happen. The only way to eliminate mass shootings is to remove all firearms. Banning certain weapons and/or enacting more laws (which someone hellbent on creating harm would ignore) simply won't work. Chicago alone is proof positive of that fact. The majority of Chicago homicides are the result of gun violence. According to the Chicago Tribune in the previous 365 days there have been 611 shooting homicide victims in Chicago. As of Feb. 11 there have been a total of 55 homicides this year. But committing murder, especially with a firearm is illegal, so how is this even possible? Maybe they need more laws?
Gun confiscation is not happening in the United States any time soon. But let’s suppose it did. How would it work? Australia’s program netted, at the low end, 650,000 guns, and at the high end, a million. That was approximately a fifth to a third of Australian firearms. There are about as many guns in America as there are people: 310 million of both in 2009. A fifth to a third would be between 60 and 105 million guns. To achieve in America what was done in Australia, in other words, the government would have to confiscate as many as 105 million firearms. And an American mandatory gun-confiscation program — in addition to being unconstitutional — would be extraordinarily coercive, and perhaps even violent.

There is no other way around it: The mandatory confiscation of the American citizenry’s guns would involve tens of thousands of heavily armed federal agents going door-to-door to demand of millions of Americans that they surrender their guns.


User avatar
telcoman
Posts: 5763
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 11:30 am
Car: Tesla 2022 Model Y, 2016 Q70 Bye 2012 G37S 6 MT w Nav 94444 mi bye 2006 Infiniti G35 Sedan 6 MT @171796 mi.
Location: Central NJ

Post

No one is talking about gun confiscation.

Should 18 yr old's with mental problems be allowed to purchase automatic weapons without a complete background check?
Why does anyone need a weapon designed for killing humans as a weapon of war?

Change comes slowly but it's coming beginning March 24th

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43105701

Telcoman

User avatar
telcoman
Posts: 5763
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 11:30 am
Car: Tesla 2022 Model Y, 2016 Q70 Bye 2012 G37S 6 MT w Nav 94444 mi bye 2006 Infiniti G35 Sedan 6 MT @171796 mi.
Location: Central NJ

Post

Rogue One wrote:
Sun Feb 18, 2018 6:52 am

And you're not spouting propaganda?
No propaganda here!

Survivors of deadly school shooting lash out at Trump

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/survi ... li=BBnb7Kz

The Teens Who Survived the Florida School Shooting Are Organizing a National March to Demand Gun Control

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/the-t ... li=BBnb7Kz

"Just days ago, teenagers hid in the closets of their classrooms and saw their classmates, friends and beloved teachers die when a former student opened fire with an AR-15 at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla.

Now, these teenagers, most of whom are not old enough to vote yet, are organizing a march in Washington, D.C. and in other cities around the country on March 24 to call for stricter gun control legislation to prevent yet another mass shooting — at a school or elsewhere — from happening in the United States.

“My message for the people in office is this: You’re either with us or against us,” Cameron Kasky, a junior at the high school and organizer, told CNN on Sunday morning. “We are losing our lives while the adults are playing around.”

The students will fix the problem since the elected adults cannot.

The students did the job after the Kent State shootings and this generation of students will do it again.

Telcoman

User avatar
srellim234
Posts: 2710
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2007 8:12 am
Car: 2007 silver Versa SL
hatchback w/CVT
(sold 08/2011)
2008 red Toyota Prius
(purchased 04/2016)
Location: Laughlin, NV

Post

telco - You STILL haven't responded to my questions.

User avatar
Rogue One
Administrator
Posts: 8789
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2011 10:15 pm
Car: 2011 Nissan Rogue SL
2012 Nissan Rogue SL
2012 Honda CR-V LX
2022 Honda Pilot Special Edition
Location: Florida, USA

Post

Telcoman,

1) Why are the students lashing out at Trump? If anyone deserves their ire it's the Democrats. When Obama first took office, the Dems had both houses of congress. How did they fail to solve this problem while they had full control of the government? And please don't blame it on the NRA. Let's face it, if the NRA was powerful enough to stop the Dems back then, they should easily be able to withstand a few teenagers.

2) What job did the students get done after the Kent State shootings? Can you honestly compare today's Tide pod munchers with those of the 70's?

User avatar
telcoman
Posts: 5763
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 11:30 am
Car: Tesla 2022 Model Y, 2016 Q70 Bye 2012 G37S 6 MT w Nav 94444 mi bye 2006 Infiniti G35 Sedan 6 MT @171796 mi.
Location: Central NJ

Post

Rogue One wrote:
Sun Feb 18, 2018 7:45 pm
Telcoman,

1) Why are the students lashing out at Trump? If anyone deserves their ire it's the Democrats. When Obama first took office, the Dems had both houses of congress. How did they fail to solve this problem while they had full control of the government? And please don't blame it on the NRA. Let's face it, if the NRA was powerful enough to stop the Dems back then, they should easily be able to withstand a few teenagers.
The previous republican president crashed the economy and we were losing over 800k jobs per month. Obama bailed out the auto companies saving thousands of jobs. Created the ACA. He was very busy not spending his time watching TV as Trump is doing.
Rogue One wrote:
Sun Feb 18, 2018 7:45 pm
2) What job did the students get done after the Kent State shootings? Can you honestly compare today's Tide pod munchers with those of the 70's?
I guess you are too young to remember the Kent State shooting which triggered the nationwide outpouring of college students against the
Viet-Nam war.

Now the high school students are going to tackle the slaughter of their fellow students by going after the politicians that are in the pockets of the NRA.
Might take a few years but I'm confident they will ultimately get the job done.

Telcoman

User avatar
telcoman
Posts: 5763
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 11:30 am
Car: Tesla 2022 Model Y, 2016 Q70 Bye 2012 G37S 6 MT w Nav 94444 mi bye 2006 Infiniti G35 Sedan 6 MT @171796 mi.
Location: Central NJ

Post

Rogue One wrote:
Sun Feb 18, 2018 7:45 pm
Telcoman,

1) Why are the students lashing out at Trump? If anyone deserves their ire it's the Democrats. When Obama first took office, the Dems had both houses of congress. How did they fail to solve this problem while they had full control of the government? And please don't blame it on the NRA. Let's face it, if the NRA was powerful enough to stop the Dems back then, they should easily be able to withstand a few teenagers.
Congress blocked Obama's call for new gun laws after mass shootings

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... a**-shoot/

"Obama couldn’t institute another ban without Congress, but he could still strengthen existing laws. (He had promised to "enforce the laws we’ve already got" during his re-election campaign. We rated that a Promise Kept.) He included the ban as part of a sweeping set of suggested legislation and 23 executive actions he announced in January 2013.

His plan to reduce gun violence included a focus on mental health treatment, limiting magazine sizes, strengthening background checks and restarting federal gun research that had been frozen for years. Obama issued further actions on medical histories in background checks in 2014.

"There is little more that Obama could have done on gun control," UCLA constitutional law professor Adam Winkler said. "The president's power is limited, and the NRA wrote the laws to restrict what the executive can do."

Now that Trump is POTUS let's see what he is going to do?

Most likely nothing!

Telcoman

User avatar
telcoman
Posts: 5763
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 11:30 am
Car: Tesla 2022 Model Y, 2016 Q70 Bye 2012 G37S 6 MT w Nav 94444 mi bye 2006 Infiniti G35 Sedan 6 MT @171796 mi.
Location: Central NJ

Post

The 10 Politicians That Have Received the Most Money From the NRA

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/msn/t...3pi?li=BBnbcA1

The initial hit list for the nations students to have them removed from office

"On the heels of Wednesday’s tragic school shooting in Florida, the debate over gun control is starting up again.

It’s a contentious issue, and one that many feel is complicated by the heavy spending the National Rifle Association (NRA) and other gun lobby groups invest in political races. And the longer some politicians have been in business, the more money they’ve received from the groups.

In the 2016 election, the NRA spent $11,438,118 to support Donald Trump—and another $19,756,346 to oppose Hillary Clinton. That’s over $31 million spent on one presidential race.

Presidential candidates aren’t the only ones who benefit from the NRA’s largess, though. Here’s a look at the top career recipients of NRA funding, as calculated by the Center for Responsive Politics and the New York Times.
Top 5 Senators With the Most Contributions From the NRA

John McCain (R, AZ) – $7.74 million

Richard Burr (R, NC) – $6.99 million

Roy Blunt (R, MO) – $4.55 million

Thom Tillis (R, NC) – $4.42 million

Cory Gardner (R, CO) – $3.88 million
Top 5 Representatives With the Most Contributions From the NRA

French Hill (R, AR) – $1.09 million

Ken Buck (R, CO) – $800,544

David Young (R, IA) – $707,662

Mike Simpson, (R, ID) – $385,731

Greg Gianforte (R, MT) – $344,630

Telcoman

User avatar
Rogue One
Administrator
Posts: 8789
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2011 10:15 pm
Car: 2011 Nissan Rogue SL
2012 Nissan Rogue SL
2012 Honda CR-V LX
2022 Honda Pilot Special Edition
Location: Florida, USA

Post

During an interview on CNN Republican Rep. Charlie Dent of Pennsylvania admitted the National Rifle Association (NRA) doesn’t draw its power from political donations but from the size of its membership.

Co-host Dave Briggs asked Dent if gun control measures were failing because of the NRA’s monetary contributions to Congress, and Dent said he doesn’t believe that to be true. “No I don’t think so,” Dent said Monday on CNN’s “New Day.” “I think the issue with the NRA is the NRA’s real power is in their members, more than money. That’s been my view. They have lots of members all around the country and that’s what makes them pretty strong.”
Democratic lawmakers are wanting to re-institute an assault weapons ban in the hope it will stop future school shootings. Liberal journalists and activists are busy calling the NRA a terrorlst group and arguing Republicans have blood on their hands, clearly signaling what larger forces should be blamed for the tragedy.

While it’s understandable to call for an assault weapons ban after a deranged man used an AR-15 to kill 17 people, don’t bet on it preventing future school shooters. Columbine, the most infamous school shooting in American history, took place when an assault weapons ban was in effect, yet the young killers were still able to obtain weapons due to a straw purchaser.

In the unlikely chance an assault weapons ban does pass, it likely won’t stop future school shooters from acting out on their twisted fantasies. When there is a will to kill, they’ll find the means to do it.

The Parkland school shooting is not a ringing endorsement for passing more laws when already existing regulations could have been used to stop Cruz — the federal agents in charge of enforcing those laws failed to do so. The FBI was aware that Cruz was a potential school shooter, yet they did nothing to stop him due to the agency’s failure to follow protocol. Local law enforcement had been called multiple times to handle Cruz, yet that did nothing to deter his future actions.

macgiver
Posts: 1612
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2007 10:21 am

Post

All throughout the ages persons have had "things" to beware of , things happen for a reason they say , sometimes they don't , America's historic & glorious past- How the west was won ! ( what other country has the likes of Audie Murphy ,John Wayne, ah mythic figures ) , No for what it's worth America Can't (cannot ?) give up it's guns - that just "feels" un-American . Yeh steel tubes that explode "powder" expend lead ??? :wtf2:
Wait till nukes on the hip ,dirty bomb toting phasor carrying MoFo's in the future gonna have if'n it goes that far --Guns ? :rotflmao While before we get to that day when a gun becomes analogous to what Davy used on Goliath - America don't see itself giving up ALL guns . Respect G :cool:

User avatar
telcoman
Posts: 5763
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 11:30 am
Car: Tesla 2022 Model Y, 2016 Q70 Bye 2012 G37S 6 MT w Nav 94444 mi bye 2006 Infiniti G35 Sedan 6 MT @171796 mi.
Location: Central NJ

Post

How Banks Could Control Gun Sales if Washington Won’t

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/20/how-ban ... -wont.html

Telcoman

User avatar
centralcoaster33
Posts: 2769
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2005 10:41 am
Car: 240SX #5-1997
Location: Central Coast, CA

Post

Banks have one god. Gun control could be a marketing / competition point for them. A risky move for credit companies, imho.

Some people are slower than others, but we're not all as dumb as we look. People can be educated, especially fundamental stuff like a respect for life. Society is going down a path of fear and fight or flight reaction when logic and education is the solution to many of our nations issues.

User avatar
AZhitman
Administrator
Posts: 71061
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2002 2:04 am
Car: 58 L210, 63 Bluebird RHD, 64 NL320, 65 SPL310, 66 411 RHD, 67 WRL411, 68 510 SR20, 75 280Z RB25, 77 620 SR20, 79 B310, 90 S13, 92 SE-R, 92 Silvia Qs, 98 S14.
Location: Surprise, Arizona
Contact:

Post

Ah, I remember this lunatic rant. Wonder what happened to the poor brain-damaged loon that started this thread?

Screaming at the sky doesn't help. When any of you critics decide to come up with a functional definition of "control" that will actually make a difference, post it up. I'll nominate you for the Nobel Prize.

And none of this self-fulfilling prophecy of "I would, but the evil GOP and NRA would just shoot it down." No, you're just not very smart and you suck at developing public policy.

Until you come up with a functional plan, you're just bleating incessantly at your own impotence and failure to make a meaningful impact on the world.

User avatar
srellim234
Posts: 2710
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2007 8:12 am
Car: 2007 silver Versa SL
hatchback w/CVT
(sold 08/2011)
2008 red Toyota Prius
(purchased 04/2016)
Location: Laughlin, NV

Post

AZ - A start would be to take a serious look at Australia, Germany, the UK and Japan's policies for guidance. All four countries have drastically curtailed mass shootings with stricter gun laws following mass shootings. People should pay attention to the fact that stricter gun laws don't correlate to reducing overall crime rates though. They only reduce the number of mass shootings which is what people are clamoring about here.

User avatar
AZhitman
Administrator
Posts: 71061
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2002 2:04 am
Car: 58 L210, 63 Bluebird RHD, 64 NL320, 65 SPL310, 66 411 RHD, 67 WRL411, 68 510 SR20, 75 280Z RB25, 77 620 SR20, 79 B310, 90 S13, 92 SE-R, 92 Silvia Qs, 98 S14.
Location: Surprise, Arizona
Contact:

Post

Absolutely. I don't disagree. And maybe there are areas where we can improve.

One can't do that without considering and controlling for every other factor (you can rule out Japan - they don't even cut in line or cough in public). It's a culture issue, and we can't wag our finger at youngsters and tell them how bad firearms are while buying them the latest iteration of Grand Theft Auto to play.

And to be fair, we'd have to consider Switzerland, with one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world, where the gun crime rate is so low that statistics are not even kept. And, of course, one could argue that it's much like Japan - maybe the confounding factors make Switzerland an outlier.

"Stricter gun laws" needs to be defined, which was my point... Definitive, measurable, precise, and clear. We're not getting that.

Good stuff, Mr. Steve!

User avatar
srellim234
Posts: 2710
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2007 8:12 am
Car: 2007 silver Versa SL
hatchback w/CVT
(sold 08/2011)
2008 red Toyota Prius
(purchased 04/2016)
Location: Laughlin, NV

Post

I don't see Switzerland as an outlier. Switzerland encourages gun ownership from the standpoint of maintaining a militia in case of invasion. Over the years they've seen enough stuff go on in Europe that they recognize people will need those guns to reach a place where the people's militia can assemble. Beyond that, though, they have some relatively strict laws on guns in public and the use of guns. Laws for getting AMMUNITION are extremely restrictive.

User avatar
AZhitman
Administrator
Posts: 71061
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2002 2:04 am
Car: 58 L210, 63 Bluebird RHD, 64 NL320, 65 SPL310, 66 411 RHD, 67 WRL411, 68 510 SR20, 75 280Z RB25, 77 620 SR20, 79 B310, 90 S13, 92 SE-R, 92 Silvia Qs, 98 S14.
Location: Surprise, Arizona
Contact:

Post

...and we sneak ever closer to a rational plan, with defined parameters and logical, well-understood conditions.

FWIW, CA has strict laws.

I'm wondering why some enterprising young person, say, someone seeking election, hasn't proposed implementing control measures (defined by them) in an urban area - Chicago, anyone - and tracking the outcomes.

Some will pooh-pooh this, but it's how public policy is formed. Opposition indicates an unwillingness to work within the confines of the scientific method.

User avatar
srellim234
Posts: 2710
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2007 8:12 am
Car: 2007 silver Versa SL
hatchback w/CVT
(sold 08/2011)
2008 red Toyota Prius
(purchased 04/2016)
Location: Laughlin, NV

Post

Even with the strict laws in CA it's still far too easy to exchange guns, get ammo, large magazines, etc here. They just transport them across state lines from "easier to obtain" locations. It's like the meth labs who faced stricter law enforcement in many cities so they went to rural areas where they could hide from the smaller departments who were naive or couldn't stop them.

I'm leaning toward some national steps that can be done immediately. Things like restricting access to semiauto long guns, improving the background check system for guns, background checks and limiting quantities on ammo and magazine size, etc.

I'm not convinced you can set up a decent urban experiment in a city like Chicago that will yield really valid results because of the mobility factor but it may well be worth a shot (pun intended, lol).

krimsonviper
Posts: 21055
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 11:04 pm
Car: 2010 MS3 -PAID
2010 Mazda 3i Touring -Totaled
2006 Mazda 3i Sport -Totaled
1989 S13 -Sold
1990 S13 -Sold
Location: NorCal

Post

I feel like the NRA shot themselves in the foot with the d!ck Amendment. Not allowing proper research to help understand the situation and better control it led us to where we are today. I like that I can have a weapon to protect my house, but the only form on gun I need to do that in an urban environment is a shotgun. For the rural areas I can understand a long barrell for those needing to protect their livestock, but they don't need large magazine capacities. Semi-auto, yes that's fine because I can picture an occurane where whatever is attacking the livestock might have surprised the rancher. Weapons that are designed for war need to be banned outright because the public doesn't need weapons like those. And don't tell me its to protect the people from the government, because if the government wanted to kill the public, they will roll you over like the dead body you're about to be. The NRA constatly shoots themselves in the foot by clamoring together and not being reasonable and being complete chuckleheads when it comes to reasonable gun control. Now they are going to fall to the wayside and when new laws don't work, they will have a foothold to come back and shout "failures!"

I think gun control and better mental care in the US can go along way in curtailing mass shootings. The problem isn't one or the other, but a melding of both issues. I don't care what a sane gun owner has. He's not someone I'm concerned about if he's responsible and locks his s*** up and is of sound mind. It's the ones with ill-intent that I'm concerned about and it's how easy it is for them to obtain weapons, legally and illegally that strikes me. No, you'll never stop mass shooting with nothing short of banning guns outright, but this is about lowering the possiblities which is what laws are used for. Speeding limits are everywhere, but I can't think of a single person who hasn't broken one at least once, but the fact that a new one in my neighborhood has lowered child accidents is a God-send, regardless of the fact that I have to drive slower. Gun laws similar to Canada's in terms of psychological background checks, along with background checks that search for any and all violent and sexual misconduct, and maybe even financial background checks, could produce a positive affect before gun purchases along with longer days before the purchaser could even walk away with it. Routine check ups that happen monthly, or every three to four months is something that I advocate for as well.

The only problem I can see with the implementation of my system is that there wouldn't be enough therapists available to properly screen and issues will fall through the cracks. Outcries saying that it's not working will be a huge vocal party and may the laws become repealed before it shows the good it produces.

And don't blame violence on video games. Many studies shows that there's barely any evidence that there's a correlation between the two.

Chicago is an intriguing case for gun control. There was a perfect storm in Chicago for violence to go up. Things like less police on the streets and a failing economy. If anything, they can be used as an example of how society will react if you just push ideas without looking at the big picture.

Obama had issues with the republicans day one in office and had a lot of things to tackle in the first two years in office, and the TEA party throwing everything into chaos.

I like guns. I want to own a Tommy Gun and an MP-5. I know there is a world where I can have them, but until both sides stop being radical and come to the table and talk without agendas like being re-elected or making profit, I just don't see it happnening and our political system spiraling even more out of control.

User avatar
AZhitman
Administrator
Posts: 71061
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2002 2:04 am
Car: 58 L210, 63 Bluebird RHD, 64 NL320, 65 SPL310, 66 411 RHD, 67 WRL411, 68 510 SR20, 75 280Z RB25, 77 620 SR20, 79 B310, 90 S13, 92 SE-R, 92 Silvia Qs, 98 S14.
Location: Surprise, Arizona
Contact:

Post

srellim234 wrote:
Sun Feb 25, 2018 8:02 am
Even with the strict laws in CA it's still far too easy to exchange guns, get ammo, large magazines, etc here.
I desperately want to find a way in my brain to align with 'the other side' on this issue, but that statement alone is a perfect example of why this thing is difficult.

If I were conversing with a person deserving of snark (you're not), I'd reply, "That's because laws don't stop crime."

We're busting our asses to come up with solutions to remove the tools, but ignoring the [proven far more effective] solutions of early detection, improved mental health care, early education, and cultural attitude adjustments.

And, every time I read this thread, I see the topic title and I'm reminded of the pervasive lunacy that stands in opposition to logical rational discussion. :(

User avatar
srellim234
Posts: 2710
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2007 8:12 am
Car: 2007 silver Versa SL
hatchback w/CVT
(sold 08/2011)
2008 red Toyota Prius
(purchased 04/2016)
Location: Laughlin, NV

Post

I agree we're not working hard enough on the root social causes. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't also address limiting access to certain tools. As I pointed out after that statement about it still being too easy to obtain them here, it's just too easy for them to be transported across state lines. It's going to take a federal stand and not be left up to the states as Donald Trump wants.

Look, there's no reason a private citizen needs an AR-15 or an AK-47 other than to kill people or to have it in their collection as an ego trip. Likewise there's no reason a hunter or person protecting his house has a legitimate use for a 100 round magazine or 10,000 rounds of ammo. Make people prove the need. They shouldn't get them just because they want them.

That is the low hanging fruit we can pick now as long as we don't give up on the fruit higher up in that tree that is a lot more difficult to get to.

And you're right. Laws by themselves don't stop crime. Enforcement does.

User avatar
AZhitman
Administrator
Posts: 71061
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2002 2:04 am
Car: 58 L210, 63 Bluebird RHD, 64 NL320, 65 SPL310, 66 411 RHD, 67 WRL411, 68 510 SR20, 75 280Z RB25, 77 620 SR20, 79 B310, 90 S13, 92 SE-R, 92 Silvia Qs, 98 S14.
Location: Surprise, Arizona
Contact:

Post

Assuming enforcement is the answer, let's dig in and discuss implementation (which is what I've railed about all along, and which is what the opposition misconstrues as being a 'gun nut'):

"too easy for them to be transported across state lines"

Would you suggest checkpoints? Stop and frisk? Inspections? Tons of ConLaw issues there. TONS.

"No reason a PC needs [insert buzzword here]"

Can you define for me what is different about those two specific firearms? This is important, and it's a spot where the opposition falls on its face.

If not, then you need to expand it out to any other weapon that has the same capacity for harm. Also, there's no reason a private citizen should own a car that'll do 200mph, yet here I am. And no reason a private citizen should have 15 knives in the drawer... or a weapon with a scope... or a slingshot... (see the legal slippery slope here?)

"They shouldn't get them just because they want them."

Who decides the cutoff? Who decides how much is "too much?" And again, are you suggesting door-to-door raids, inspections and seizures? What if the possessor is a federal judge, or a LEO, or a professional marksman? Why punish the 99.99% for the actions of the .01%? And further, where's the vehemence to go after the failed institutions that allowed this most recent incident (and likely others before) to happen?

With that said, I'm not necessarily opposed to all of the things you suggest.

My point is, and has always been, it's easy to spout platitudes. Draft a logical, enforceable, meaningful plan that has measurable outcomes.

Most folks who would agree with you are unwilling [or not smart enough] to do that, so they resort to thread titles like we've seen here.

User avatar
srellim234
Posts: 2710
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2007 8:12 am
Car: 2007 silver Versa SL
hatchback w/CVT
(sold 08/2011)
2008 red Toyota Prius
(purchased 04/2016)
Location: Laughlin, NV

Post

"too easy to transport across state lines."

You are completely ignoring the call for a national standard and implementation.

"Checkpoints"

With a national policy the checkpoints already exist. At the national borders.

Those specific two firearms were only pulled as examples. We should restrict any comparable arms and the ammo for same.

They shouldn't get them just because they want them.


When your 200 mph car is is involved in multiple incidents in which it kills 10 or more people and the primary reason it exists is to kill people then we'll talk about it. No one is talking about taking anything away only because they want it. The primary reason is that it is intentionally designed to kill people and it serves no useful purpose in public hands.

Slippery slope? I'm so sick of that piece of sh*t argument I'm about to barf every time I hear it, going all the way back to my high school debate days and the Domino Theory as it applied to southeast Asia. Laos, Thailand, Cambodia, the Philippines, Malaysia, Singapore, etc. did not follow that "slippery slope" argument and become communist nations BECAUSE North Vietnam won the war. Slippery slope is simply a buzzword term for refusal to accept change or compromise.

User avatar
AZhitman
Administrator
Posts: 71061
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2002 2:04 am
Car: 58 L210, 63 Bluebird RHD, 64 NL320, 65 SPL310, 66 411 RHD, 67 WRL411, 68 510 SR20, 75 280Z RB25, 77 620 SR20, 79 B310, 90 S13, 92 SE-R, 92 Silvia Qs, 98 S14.
Location: Surprise, Arizona
Contact:

Post

....and, therein lies the rub.

Just because someone doesn't jump up and down and laud an idea as groundbreaking and spectacular, it's not necessarily a refusal to accept change OR a refusal to compromise. Doesn't work that way and you know it. I've spent a lot of time in a courtroom, enough to know that every word is critiqued (and rightly so), lest we get crackpot decision-making.

Let's back up for a moment. You specifically bemoaned the ease of transporting across state lines. I asked how that would be enforced. "National borders" isn't an answer, because you didn't express concern about guns coming from CAN/MEX. Put very simply: How do you enforce transport across state lines?

I'm sorry, I'm not seeing how that ignores a call for a national standard - In fact, I don't have an issue with that per se. But "national standards" are vague 'buzzwords, which aren't defined. They're ethereal and as such, don't warrant discussion until elaborated upon. I'm in your corner 100% otherwise on that front.

The car was a poor example. Well-defended, and I concur - you're right about "No one is talking about taking anything away only because they want it."

With that said, I'm sorry my employing a 'slippery slope' argument is perceived as a "POS." I'm not about to make it personal, so barf away if you must. It's actually an oft-employed concern, even in the highest court in our land. It's got very little to do with the example you gave, however, and while you don't have to like it, it's absolutely [by definition] NOT a synonym for refusal to accept change or compromise. Sure, it's absolutely been employed by amateurs as a logical fallacy when it suggests a minor action will lead to some outlandish outcome - but that's absolutely not how I used it - and you know it.

I'll put it much more simply: Where do we draw the line? You didn't define what was so special about those two specific weapons, so I'm left to assume you don't know. "Restrict comparable arms" is vague and undefined. All I asked was WHAT about those two specific guns scares people such that they ignore what's in Grandpop's cabinet and focus on those. We're both smart enough to appreciate specificity, otherwise we're Howie, waving our arms and screaming at clouds. :)

Let's stick to applicable examples, relevant to gun control, such as the ones I offered, rather than geopolitical meanderings of those high schoolers who got a C in debate class. I think you'd have to agree that's fair.

If the measuring stick is "intentionally designed to kill people" [your words], guess what? My handgun falls in that category. So does the one that my friend, a battered spouse, carries every day in the event her lunatic ex finds her and leaves her for dead again (which, by your definition, "serves no useful purpose in public hands"). So does Grandpop's rifle, even though it's got no heat shield and a wooden stock, not black. So does the tiny pink pistol my sister carries and takes to the range on a weekly basis. It's an inconvenient truth that must be accepted before we go further. Guns are designed to kill. Animals, humans, whatever - a bullet has no conscience.

Look, we've had more guns than people in this country for 200 years. The press can drag out every oogabooga in the closet to try and shape your thinking, but these are facts. Incidents like the one we're discussing are relatively recent history - let's say three decades. What's changed? It's critical to look at that, and NOTHING is off the table, no matter how distasteful it may be to hand-wringers. I suspect there's a strong correlation to another phenomena of the last 2-3 decades: Lack of discipline. Now, whether that's linked to economics or politics or Dr. Oz or vaccines, I don't know. But it's staring us in the face. I spent quite a few years working with emotionally-disturbed kids, and by and large, their history was VERY prescient... we can't ignore that.

Regarding Chicago: If it doesn't work to control violence in a city with the strictest gun control in the country, why would it magically work anywhere else? More specifically, what exact gun control measures would have prevented the latest shooting? Multiple agencies that could and should have prevented this failed to - and yet intelligent, kind, and well-meaning people such as yourself are expending extraordinary amounts of effort to fit a square peg in a round hole.

I sense frustration in your post. There's a reason for that. It's not because you're incapable, or I'm stubborn. It's not that you're unyielding or I'm smarter. None of those are true. It's because, despite admirable and valiant best intentions, the problem is NOT THE GUNS. I've read what you said very carefully, because I respect your intellect and a contrary position. I hope you'll extend me the same courtesies.

User avatar
centralcoaster33
Posts: 2769
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2005 10:41 am
Car: 240SX #5-1997
Location: Central Coast, CA

Post

Skipping around a bit...

Need and want are parts of freedom in my opinion. As in, what kind of arms, if any, would I like to bear to protect myself and my freedom.

Arms like guns are weapons and kill living things for food, defense or offense. They are also collectors items, heirlooms and historic items, technological examples, they are used for target practice (a gratifying experience), to create a loud a** noise (race starts, scare bears), to intimidate and to feel safe, etc.

Arms such as guns are inanimate objects and are relatively easy to control. Though I understand 'Gun Control' to be more of a figurative than literal statement, it bothers me. When discussing the freedom of US citizens, I like clear and concise communication.

When one takes a militia interpretation of the second amendment, off the top of my head, that seems like it would and should include military grade arms. We're to secure a free state with pitchforks and shotguns? I understand there are other interpretations and many a forked tongue lawyer has twisted words to have new meaning. The 2nd reads pretty clear to me using defined terms. A solution may involve changing the Constitution which is not to be taken lightly.

Looking at the way other countries control access to guns is interesting and there could be pointers to glean. One should remember the many differences in nations (cultures, laws, religion, etc.). A crumby analogy is the old apples to oranges. They'e pretty different, but both are fruit, both come from trees, both have similar requirements and goals, so there's some interchangeable information.

Is there a way to deal with guns in the hands of 'crazy citizens' without taking away the rights of the 'sane citizens'? Is there a way to arm 'good guys' and not 'bad guys'? Are we even dealing with root issues or solvable problems? I'm optimistic things can be improved upon and realize there will be compromise. I hope we use our logic more than our emotion.

User avatar
AZhitman
Administrator
Posts: 71061
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2002 2:04 am
Car: 58 L210, 63 Bluebird RHD, 64 NL320, 65 SPL310, 66 411 RHD, 67 WRL411, 68 510 SR20, 75 280Z RB25, 77 620 SR20, 79 B310, 90 S13, 92 SE-R, 92 Silvia Qs, 98 S14.
Location: Surprise, Arizona
Contact:

Post

^ Beautifully stated.

BTW, https://www.atf.gov/file/11241/download is 237 pages long. I'm not about to be the guy who says, "So, we need more laws because the hundreds of existing ones weren't effective?" but that's an argument that warrants consideration. Basically, we're saying, "Thousands of times before, laws haven't worked. But these - THESE - will be different." Uh, ok.

It comes down to very simple conditions - people make a choice each day whether or not to comply or not. If we're honest, no one is perpetually compliant.

I'll share one personal example. Before I retired, I was an internal affairs investigator for the state. My duties consisted of interviewing individuals who had alleged or been accused (as well as witnesses) of a violation that may result in disciplinary action up to and including termination, and possibly referral to the state's AG for prosecution. Periodically, these interviews became tense, contentious and some resulted in me terminating the interview, leaving the room, and having the interviewee removed from the premises.

The state prohibits firearms in the facility. It's a condition of employment.

My partner was a retired combat veteran, a trained and avid marksman with a physical disability and about 10 years older than me. An extremely 'by-the-book' fellow with a disarming demeanor and a brilliant mind. I learned a ton from him. Great man.

We often discussed cases and knew full well that several people had been terminated (some embarrassingly) because of our extraordinary efforts. We knew we weren't popular folks, even with some employees who remained behind afterwards. Targets, if you will.

Did I know if he carried on the job? Nope. I never asked. But he did tell me one day, "If I ever had to use deadly force to defend myself or one of my fellow employees, my continued employment will be the last concern on my mind."

In other words, the rule was ineffective. Absent proof, there's nothing our employer could do about it. And if there was an incident that resulted in prima facie evidence of one of us carrying, a dismissal from employment wasn't a sufficient deterrent. Basically, "What are you gonna do, fire me?"

Likewise, consider if you will: A restaurant with a "no firearms" policy. If I'm concealed carrying, I walk right past that sign. You're not allowed to frisk me. The only way you'll know I'm carrying is if the s*** hits the fan. At that point, I don't care. Fine, I won't come back there again. But I'm alive, and maybe others are too. Take the stupid sign down. It's nothing more than an invitation to crime.

Words on paper mean nothing. You can pass laws until you're buried in legislation. Common sense matters. Logic matters. This isn't rocket science, so stop chugging the kool-aid.

User avatar
srellim234
Posts: 2710
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2007 8:12 am
Car: 2007 silver Versa SL
hatchback w/CVT
(sold 08/2011)
2008 red Toyota Prius
(purchased 04/2016)
Location: Laughlin, NV

Post

You're advocating no laws at all, then? I realize you're a libertarian (unlike what telco keeps proclaiming) but I don't believe anarchy is a valid option.

BTW, I'm looking at laws from those other countries before I reply to your statement in the post prior. Their guidance can help answer the questions regarding defining weapons, etc.

I can answer part, though. A national policy will take a generation for the populace to comply and I agree that some people never will. For the most part, though, people like you or your co-worker who won't aren't the ones we're concerned with. Anti- gun inheritance laws will take care of those guns eventually. That can change if we included an ongoing manner to review mental health occasionally and someone who was fine before developed issues. Better background checks, gun license renewals, longer waiting periods. required background checks on every gun transfer (private transfer or sales included), ammo or magazine purchased along with quantity limitations will go a long way to cutting the mass shooting cases. Allow people to apply for a collector's license if they want more.

The biggest problem is getting anyone in our legislature to do anything. They are only interested in saying "NO" to the opposition and hoping they collect their paycheck and lobby money longer than the guy from the other party.

User avatar
AZhitman
Administrator
Posts: 71061
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2002 2:04 am
Car: 58 L210, 63 Bluebird RHD, 64 NL320, 65 SPL310, 66 411 RHD, 67 WRL411, 68 510 SR20, 75 280Z RB25, 77 620 SR20, 79 B310, 90 S13, 92 SE-R, 92 Silvia Qs, 98 S14.
Location: Surprise, Arizona
Contact:

Post

No sir. We are a nation of laws. I'm advocating against punishing the 99.99% for the actions (or potential actions) of the .01%.

We can't even keep illegals out of the country, track the ones who overstayed their visas, or identify and treat the mentally ill we already have. Periodic assessments of gun owners (assuming they comply / show up / can be tracked by a clownshoes government) will be a challenge - no?

Even IF we wind up conducting said assessments, those people aren't under any obligation to disclose what's in the closet / nightstand. (I've interviewed mentally ill probationers. NO ONE wants that job lol). Absent some sort of door-kicking raids, ain't gonna happen, and we learn nothing. Besides, the NIMH would crush whatever agency proposes that (for the same reason in the first line of my reply here).

Same with anti-inheritance laws. No mass shootings have been conducted with a firearm handed down through a will. I get where you're headed, and I don't at all disparage it, but bro. :)

The rest? I like it. Better background checks, gun license renewals, longer waiting periods, required background checks on private transfer or sales (this one's nearly unenforceable, btw), ammo or magazine purchased, collector's license - all make sense, and should be part of a bipartisan compromise. I'd back this. Propose it, and you have a supporter.

Your last point? Spot-on.

User avatar
srellim234
Posts: 2710
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2007 8:12 am
Car: 2007 silver Versa SL
hatchback w/CVT
(sold 08/2011)
2008 red Toyota Prius
(purchased 04/2016)
Location: Laughlin, NV

Post

I don't see it as a punishment any more than registering your car or registering to vote is a punishment. I have no problem registering my guns.

You're right about our inept government and illegals; it comes back to people being unwilling to properly discuss the issue. They're unwilling to even consider anything coming from the other side. A lot could be done but that's for an entirely new thread.

Yes, people aren't going to disclose what's in the nightstand. I'm sure there are still a ton of guns in Australia that weren't and haven't been disclosed. I don't have a problem with those since they aren't seeing the light of day for the most part. They're home protection. Should they be of a different caliber than what is registered to the user, though, people will have a tough time getting new ammo for it with background checks for ammo. Use one of those in public and you have some serious explaining to do, much like your coworker here. Deal with those on a case by case basis if and when they happen.

The anti-inheritance thing is just designed to take some weapons off the streets. At minimum a gun should be tracked when it matches the deceased. Maybe instead of anti-inheritance a beneficiary receiving said gun goes through the same background check if they don't want to surrender it.

Although expensive, a buyback program is not such a bad thing either. There are a lot of guns sitting in closets that the average person who doesn't really want or know what to do with will turn in for a price. I think Australia took over 40% out of circulation with their buyback. They've recovered even more with additional amnesty periods.

I see we are not that far apart from each other on many of these issues. We're willing to discuss. I've got too many skeletons in my closet to run for Congress :blush: ? Why don't you run? :poke: :rotfl

User avatar
AZhitman
Administrator
Posts: 71061
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2002 2:04 am
Car: 58 L210, 63 Bluebird RHD, 64 NL320, 65 SPL310, 66 411 RHD, 67 WRL411, 68 510 SR20, 75 280Z RB25, 77 620 SR20, 79 B310, 90 S13, 92 SE-R, 92 Silvia Qs, 98 S14.
Location: Surprise, Arizona
Contact:

Post

All truth, brother. The only difference is our level of trust and enthusiasm in yet another gov't program.

I actually seriously considered running for public office (starting small-time, locally).

I couldn't make it through my first damn HOA board meeting without wanting to leap across the table and throttle the living piss out of someone who acts like an extra from Idiocracy.

Seriously, I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, but the older I get, the less distance I stray from my little sanctuary of common sense. :)


Return to “Politics Etc.”