How free are we in the U.S. if we can just do very normal things like go to school, attend a church, go to a local movie theater, a mall or whatever the unsuspecting place may be and be executed during one of these all-too-common shootings in America. Is that freedom? It’s not freedom for the populace who must live in fear and certainly it isn’t freedom for those dead.
I am just wondering where this proverbial line is between rights to not be subjected to mass shootings and the rights of people who “just want their guns.” Why is the NRA so powerful in politics? Who gives them so much money to earn the political sway that they have?
The gun manufacturers contribute a lot of money to the NRA, and they have used fear-mongering to convince rabid conservatives that the 2nd Amendment guarantees them the right to carry almost any type of weapon they want. This works because conservative brains operate on fear, not deep thinking.
And Democrats have completely rolled over and played dead on this issue. The NRA has been so successful they make stuff up, like “stand your ground” and the right to buy a gun from someone who has zero accountability, just by calling it a “gun show”. About the only good thing I can say is, it could be worse. But you have to start comparing us to nearly lawless countries run by war lords and paramilitaries before we start to look better.
It’s ironic that this thread has popped up again in view of the recent mass killing in Charleston, S.C. By a racist gun nut. And yet again we’ll have “the National discussion” on gun control while dancing around the sacred Second Amendment. Wayne LaPierre will issue his cliche about how this is a time for mourning and not attacking personal rights while the majority of us will clammer for tighter controls on guns. Meanwhile the weapons industry will pour money into the coffers of politicians willing to accept it who will block any bills aimed at curtailing sales to the very nuts who use violence to achieve their warped personal agendas. Who’s to blame and how do we end this wanton violence? The leadership of the NRA must bear the burden as they represent the lobby blocking any legislation designed to keep weapons out of easy reach of those committed to do us harm. But in a larger sense how is the NRA funded? Most of the money comes from the membership and not the corporations. Their contributions amount to around 14%. The leadership represents the tip of the spear while the members are the shaft so to speak. Roughly 35% of the population own the more than three hundred million weapons , and they are responsible for allowing their leaders to effectively block gun control. Unfortunately, until this lobby is countered by an effective gun control voting block the killing will continue and we’ll have yet another “National day of mourning”.
Cap’t Jack
The NRA, at least prominent member, has stopped so low as to blame the pastor of the church for voting against open carry and not allowing concealed carry in his church. That’s the answer. Arm everyone and we’ll all be safe!
And Faux News is spinning this as part of the War Against Christianity.
Scumbags.
The hits just keep on coming.
Rick Perry refers to the shooting as an “accident”].
One of Perry’s reps said the Republican presidential candidate “misspoke” when he used the word “accident”? Ya think?
The NRA, at least prominent member, has stopped so low as to blame the pastor of the church for voting against open carry and not allowing concealed carry in his church. That's the answer. Arm everyone and we'll all be safe! And Faux News is spinning this as part of the War Against Christianity. Scumbags.Regarding that NRA members comment, I like the response I read today: "If the answer is more and more weapons, then the U.S. should be the safest nation." The answer is clearly not more armed citizens...then we will just have shot-outs like the wild west. And then there is their old tired adage, "Criminals aren't law abiding citizens, so gun regulations aren't going to be regarded by them" to which my response is, that I do not think more armed citizens is going to "scare" these criminal mass shooters, they will just get smarter about it and learn to pull their gun faster and act more swiftly. I know some will hate me for saying, but guns need to just stop being sold. Period. Am I the only one that believes background checks really won't help that much? Look at the Sandyhook shooter...it was his mothers gun...she could have had a clear check...that doesn't matter when your son steals it. Just in the Charleston shooting, the dad purchased the gun...did it matter that he passed the background check, nope. He gave the gun to his son. Background checks don't guarantee anything or predict the future actions of the buyer...someone can have a clear background and be purchasing with the intent of committing a "first" crime. Furthermore, if someone purchases a gun, legally, why isn't there a law that if it is ever "stolen" or taken into the possession by someone else, they should be charged criminally? Because the fact is if you're such a good law abiding gun owner, why did you inadvertently allow your gun to come under the control of someone else? Doesn't logic say that if all these so-called "legal" gun owners are so responsible then we should have no instances of illegal gun possession?
IMO the NRA is a terrorist organization. The hell with civilized living, we need to make money.
Regarding that NRA members comment, I like the response I read today: "If the answer is more and more weapons, then the U.S. should be the safest nation." The answer is clearly not more armed citizens...then we will just have shot-outs like the wild west. And then there is their old tired adage, "Criminals aren't law abiding citizens, so gun regulations aren't going to be regarded by them" to which my response is, that I do not think more armed citizens is going to "scare" these criminal mass shooters, they will just get smarter about it and learn to pull their gun faster and act more swiftly. I know some will hate me for saying, but guns need to just stop being sold. Period. Am I the only one that believes background checks really won't help that much? Look at the Sandyhook shooter...it was his mothers gun...she could have had a clear check...that doesn't matter when your son steals it. Just in the Charleston shooting, the dad purchased the gun...did it matter that he passed the background check, nope. He gave the gun to his son. Background checks don't guarantee anything or predict the future actions of the buyer...someone can have a clear background and be purchasing with the intent of committing a "first" crime. Furthermore, if someone purchases a gun, legally, why isn't there a law that if it is ever "stolen" or taken into the possession by someone else, they should be charged criminally? Because the fact is if you're such a good law abiding gun owner, why did you inadvertently allow your gun to come under the control of someone else? Doesn't logic say that if all these so-called "legal" gun owners are so responsible then we should have no instances of illegal gun possession?You're correct that background checks don't help prevent shootings, that's not really the point of them, though. Background checks ultimately just provide a database of gun owners.
Furthermore, if someone purchases a gun, legally, why isn't there a law that if it is ever "stolen" or taken into the possession by someone else, they should be charged criminally? Because the fact is if you're such a good law abiding gun owner, why did you inadvertently allow your gun to come under the control of someone else?That would open up a huge legal can of worms.
The NRA, at least prominent member, has stopped so low as to blame the pastor of the church for voting against open carry and not allowing concealed carry in his church. That's the answer. Arm everyone and we'll all be safe! And Faux News is spinning this as part of the War Against Christianity. Scumbags.Regarding that NRA members comment, I like the response I read today: "If the answer is more and more weapons, then the U.S. should be the safest nation." The answer is clearly not more armed citizens...then we will just have shot-outs like the wild west. And then there is their old tired adage, "Criminals aren't law abiding citizens, so gun regulations aren't going to be regarded by them" to which my response is, that I do not think more armed citizens is going to "scare" these criminal mass shooters, they will just get smarter about it and learn to pull their gun faster and act more swiftly. I know some will hate me for saying, but guns need to just stop being sold. Period. Am I the only one that believes background checks really won't help that much? Look at the Sandyhook shooter...it was his mothers gun...she could have had a clear check...that doesn't matter when your son steals it. Just in the Charleston shooting, the dad purchased the gun...did it matter that he passed the background check, nope. He gave the gun to his son. Background checks don't guarantee anything or predict the future actions of the buyer...someone can have a clear background and be purchasing with the intent of committing a "first" crime. Furthermore, if someone purchases a gun, legally, why isn't there a law that if it is ever "stolen" or taken into the possession by someone else, they should be charged criminally? Because the fact is if you're such a good law abiding gun owner, why did you inadvertently allow your gun to come under the control of someone else? Doesn't logic say that if all these so-called "legal" gun owners are so responsible then we should have no instances of illegal gun possession? I agree completely. In countries where guns are strictly controlled there are very few gun-related homicides. These kinds of attacks will continue unabated in the US. Any nut can get hold of a gun and use it. The NRA is a terrorist organization, IMO. Lois
I agree completely. In countries where guns are strictly controlled there are very few gun-related homicides. These kinds of attacks will continue unabated in the US. Any nut can get hold of a gun and use it. The NRA is a terrorist organization, IMO. LoisThe real question is how many homicides are there by any means, or is the anti-gun crowd saying that if you smash someones head in with a rock, It's OK?
I agree completely. In countries where guns are strictly controlled there are very few gun-related homicides. These kinds of attacks will continue unabated in the US. Any nut can get hold of a gun and use it. The NRA is a terrorist organization, IMO. LoisThe real question is how many homicides are there by any means, or is the anti-gun crowd saying that if you smash someones head in with a rock, It's OK? Guns are OK. Rocks aren't.
I agree completely. In countries where guns are strictly controlled there are very few gun-related homicides. These kinds of attacks will continue unabated in the US. Any nut can get hold of a gun and use it. The NRA is a terrorist organization, IMO. LoisThe real question is how many homicides are there by any means, or is the anti-gun crowd saying that if you smash someones head in with a rock, It's OK? What logic are you appealing to?
I agree completely. In countries where guns are strictly controlled there are very few gun-related homicides. These kinds of attacks will continue unabated in the US. Any nut can get hold of a gun and use it. The NRA is a terrorist organization, IMO. LoisThe real question is how many homicides are there by any means, or is the anti-gun crowd saying that if you smash someones head in with a rock, It's OK? How many heads can anyone bash in with a rock in 10 seconds? Lois
Maybe this will help.
I agree completely. In countries where guns are strictly controlled there are very few gun-related homicides. These kinds of attacks will continue unabated in the US. Any nut can get hold of a gun and use it. The NRA is a terrorist organization, IMO. LoisThe real question is how many homicides are there by any means, or is the anti-gun crowd saying that if you smash someones head in with a rock, It's OK? What logic are you appealing to? Which would you prefer, if you had the choice? Garroted, stabbed, hit with a blunt object, pushed off the top of a tall building, or shot? Or perhaps there is some other method of being killed that you would prefer, Oh - I forgot being poisoned.
I agree completely. In countries where guns are strictly controlled there are very few gun-related homicides. These kinds of attacks will continue unabated in the US. Any nut can get hold of a gun and use it. The NRA is a terrorist organization, IMO. LoisThe real question is how many homicides are there by any means, or is the anti-gun crowd saying that if you smash someones head in with a rock, It's OK? How many heads can anyone bash in with a rock in 10 seconds? Lois Are the victims able to run away or are they tied down? Other than that what does it matter, and don't serial killers do it one at a time? It sounds like you would prefer the rock to the bullet.
Which would you prefer, if you had the choice? Garroted, stabbed, hit with a blunt object, pushed off the top of a tall building, or shot? Or perhaps there is some other method of being killed that you would prefer, Oh - I forgot being poisoned.We're getting way off topic here. There is no National Rock Association dedicated to protecting your right to own one. And for that matter I could bean you with an iron or a table leg but that's not the point. BTW none of these aforementioned items have a military purpose with the ability to fire multiple rounds. If Roof had a rock he might have been able to injure or kill one person, not nine. A nut with a gun is able to kill as many people as he can just by pulling a trigger, and as long as he has time to reload. I can guarantee you that you'll not find a site detailing multiple murders with a stick, rock or a rope. Cap't Jack
The point is that gun homicides in countries where guns are freely available are being compared to gun homicides in countries where guns are not available, and there is no real comparison. What really matters is that with or without guns people will find a way to kill each other, and guns in the hands of those who shouldn't have them, is not the fault of the existing gun laws or availability. Most of the anti-gun rhetoric are red herrings that do not address the cause of the problem, but try to put a band-aid on the symptom of the problem. If Roof had a rock, he would have found his victims one at a time, alone, and killed a lot more till they caught him, and would have had the whole community terrorized till that happened.Which would you prefer, if you had the choice? Garroted, stabbed, hit with a blunt object, pushed off the top of a tall building, or shot? Or perhaps there is some other method of being killed that you would prefer, Oh - I forgot being poisoned.We're getting way off topic here. There is no National Rock Association dedicated to protecting your right to own one. And for that matter I could bean you with an iron or a table leg but that's not the point. BTW none of these aforementioned items have a military purpose with the ability to fire multiple rounds. If Roof had a rock he might have been able to injure or kill one person, not nine. A nut with a gun is able to kill as many people as he can just by pulling a trigger, and as long as he has time to reload. I can guarantee you that you'll not find a site detailing multiple murders with a stick, rock or a rope. Cap't Jack
I agree completely. In countries where guns are strictly controlled there are very few gun-related homicides. These kinds of attacks will continue unabated in the US. Any nut can get hold of a gun and use it. The NRA is a terrorist organization, IMO. LoisThe real question is how many homicides are there by any means, or is the anti-gun crowd saying that if you smash someones head in with a rock, It's OK? How many heads can anyone bash in with a rock in 10 seconds? Lois Are the victims able to run away or are they tied down? Other than that what does it matter, and don't serial killers do it one at a time? It sounds like you would prefer the rock to the bullet. One gun can kill a lot of people in one fell swoop before anyone has a chance to react.. A person with a rock can't do that. How many mass murderers do you know that use rocks to kill people, even in places where guns are controlled? The US is near the top of the list for mass murders and serial murders. Why do you suppose that Western European countries with gun control have so few killings, mass, serial or individual? Just a coincidence? Nobody in those countries can think of another way to murder people? Lois