I tried to use the muzzle loading argument a while ago, and the pro-gun guy said, "If you want to ban techological advances, then you'd have to limit the First Amendment to the spoken word and old method printing. Radio, Television, telephones, and the Internet statements wouldn't be protected by the First Amendment." I dislike guns and think we should just have an amendment to eliminate the Second one, but, unfortunately, the muzzle loading argument doesn't work. OccamBut "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" does. Everyone who wants to own a gun should be an active member of the National Guard and receive training every year, or multiple times a year, with no age limit. In fact, it should be ramped up and the members should be ready to be called up for active duty at any time for all security threats. Can't do it? Not qualified? Disabled? No gun! It should work like this: HOHENFELS, Germany (2/10/14) - Approximately 30 Maryland and Virginia National Guard Soldiers from the Fort Belvoir, Va.-based 29th Infantry Division conducted a three-week mission Jan. 12 to Feb. 2, 2014, at the Joint Multinational Readiness Center in Hohenfels, Germany. Lois
I tried to use the muzzle loading argument a while ago, and the pro-gun guy said, "If you want to ban techological advances, then you'd have to limit the First Amendment to the spoken word and old method printing. Radio, Television, telephones, and the Internet statements wouldn't be protected by the First Amendment." I dislike guns and think we should just have an amendment to eliminate the Second one, but, unfortunately, the muzzle loading argument doesn't work. OccamBut "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" does. Everyone who wants to own a gun should be an active member of the National Guard and receive training every year, or multiple times a year, with no age limit. In fact, it should be ramped up and the members should be ready to be called up for active duty at any time for all security threats. Can't do it? Not qualified? Disabled? No gun! It should work like this: HOHENFELS, Germany (2/10/14) - Approximately 30 Maryland and Virginia National Guard Soldiers from the Fort Belvoir, Va.-based 29th Infantry Division conducted a three-week mission Jan. 12 to Feb. 2, 2014, at the Joint Multinational Readiness Center in Hohenfels, Germany. Lois I use that argument also. I add that even in the military there are no guns allowed in the barracks and you can't carry them when off-duty. Even when we were in a combat zone.
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court (Scalia), in a Second Amendment case involving the city of Washington, D.C. went to great lengths to separate the two parts of the amendment referring to militia and gun ownership. I think he was wrong, but we’re stuck with that interpretation until a later court comes up with a different opinion.
Occam
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court (Scalia), in a Second Amendment case involving the city of Washington, D.C. went to great lengths to separate the two parts of the amendment referring to militia and gun ownership. I think he was wrong, but we're stuck with that interpretation until a later court comes up with a different opinion. OccamYes, the founding fathers only put that in to be ornery. Tney apparently didn't really mean it. Lois
But "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" does. Everyone who wants to own a gun should be an active member of the National Guard and receive training every year, or multiple times a year, with no age limit. In fact, it should be ramped up and the members should be ready to be called up for active duty at any time for all security threats. Can't do it? Not qualified? Disabled? No gun! It should work like this: HOHENFELS, Germany (2/10/14) - Approximately 30 Maryland and Virginia National Guard Soldiers from the Fort Belvoir, Va.-based 29th Infantry Division conducted a three-week mission Jan. 12 to Feb. 2, 2014, at the Joint Multinational Readiness Center in Hohenfels, Germany. LoisI love that idea, want to see membership in the NRA drop to next to nothing when people actually have to put their lives on the line in the actual spirit of the Amendment.
I love that idea, want to see membership in the NRA drop to next to nothing when people actually have to put their lives on the line in the actual spirit of the Amendment.And it seems that the ones with the loudest mouths e.g. The far right wing shock jocks like Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, O'Reilly and their ilk had never put their lives on the line for this country. Not one of them ever wore the uniform or went into harms way to protect the Second Amendment. Those who consistently whine about protecting their right to tote an automatic weapon or own a gun with multiple round magazines have never witnessed its devestating effects. Those are really only known by combat vets and the police, state and local. Ask them what it feels like to be shot, or shot at by one of those weapons. Cap't Jack
While the NRA doesn’t release membership data, it’s likely many members are in fact former military, and current first responders.
While the NRA doesn't release membership data, it's likely many members are in fact former military, and current first responders."Former" doesn't count. The Second amendment was referring to the currnet need for a militia, not one made up of people who haven't been in the military for decades, or at all, most of whom don't know how to shoot straight. Gun owners may identify with the military--and why not? It supports killing people with guns, and isn't that the point? I would bet that a large percentage of NRA types were never in the military and those who were never did much more with a gun than basic training and know they will never be called upon to join armed forces--and that's a very good thing. Lois
While the NRA doesn't release membership data, it's likely many members are in fact former military, and current first responders."Former" doesn't count. LoisIt does.
While the NRA doesn't release membership data, it's likely many members are in fact former military, and current first responders.The Second amendment was referring to the currnet need for a militia, not one made up of people who haven't been in the military for decades, or at all, most of whom don't know how to shoot straight. Gun owners may identify with the military--and why not? It supports killing people with guns, and isn't that the point? I would bet that a large percentage of NRA types were never in the military and those who were never did much more with a gun than basic training and know they will never be called upon to join armed forces--and that's a very good thing. LoisAbsurd. You have rarely contributed anything worthwhile in your time as a member here Lois, and this is why. Pavlovian rants are all you're good for.
Isn’t it funny that we have a wide variety of views. I feel that Lois is one of the best members at contributing and that you are almost always a waste of time while my son thinks you are moderately decent. :lol:
Occam
The NRA is one of the most powerful lobbying groups for the gun industry and a cash cow for some of its leadership.
If you’re a transparency fan like me, you appreciate knowing what kind of skin public people have in the game during episodes like this. So what did the NRA pay Lapierre to say that the best way to stop school shootings is to have the government put every mentally ill person in the nation on a watch list and arm school personnel to defend schools like banks? Just under a million bucks.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/11/nra-gun-control-firearms-industry-ties_n_2434142.html
Throughout its 142-year history, the National Rifle Association has portrayed itself as an advocate for the individual gun owner’s Second Amendment rights. In turn, the NRA relied on those gun owners, especially its 4 million or so members, to pressure lawmakers into carrying out its anti-gun control agenda. In the last two decades, however, the deep-pocketed NRA has increasingly relied on the support of another constituency: the $12-billion-a-year gun industry, made up of manufacturers and sellers of firearms, ammunition and related wares. That alliance was sealed in 2005, when Congress, after heavy NRA lobbying, approved a measure that gave gunmakers and gun distributors broad, and unprecedented, immunity from a wave of liability lawsuits related to gun violence in America’s cities.To a large degree what's driving firearms policy in the US isn't concern for citizens rights, it's about profit. Straw purchases are a major source of guns used in crime in the US and according to gun industry whistleblowers it's well known that a few bad apples are responsible but the guns keep flowing. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html
Ask a cop on the beat how criminals get guns and you're likely to hear this hard boiled response: "They steal them." But this street wisdom is wrong, according to one frustrated Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) agent who is tired of battling this popular misconception. An expert on crime gun patterns, ATF agent Jay Wachtel says that most guns used in crimes are not stolen out of private gun owners' homes and cars. "Stolen guns account for only about 10% to 15% of guns used in crimes," Wachtel said. Because when they want guns they want them immediately the wait is usually too long for a weapon to be stolen and find its way to a criminal. In fact, there are a number of sources that allow guns to fall into the wrong hands, with gun thefts at the bottom of the list. Wachtel says one of the most common ways criminals get guns is through straw purchase sales. A straw purchase occurs when someone who may not legally acquire a firearm, or who wants to do so anonymously, has a companion buy it on their behalf. According to a 1994 ATF study on "Sources of Crime Guns in Southern California," many straw purchases are conducted in an openly "suggestive" manner where two people walk into a gun store, one selects a firearm, and then the other uses identification for the purchase and pays for the gun. Or, several underage people walk into a store and an adult with them makes the purchases. Both of these are illegal activities.So the situation isn't that nothing can be done to cut down on the most dangerous guns out in public hands, it's that very powerful special interests are protecting their interests. The NRA was originally created to teach firearm safety and proficiency, it should go back to that role and stop using its legacy and membership to support the worst aspects of the 2nd Amendment which all too often places guns into the the hands of people who shouldn't have them.
Guns, I grew up with guns hanging in the back window of the truck. My dad’s one room school house had a gun rack in the class room. We never had to fear neighbors or people with guns when I grew up. And even today I do not fear the neighbors having guns. The only fear I have is the government having guns.
For many years I was against the NRA and the fight for military type weapons. To me that was wrong. But today I am thankful for the NRA and their policies.
The biggest problem with guns is the U.S. government is the biggest buyer of guns and the government has been helping create drug cartels in Mexico and other countries. For these actions of the government and the government lying and cover-ups it has forced me to agree with the NRA.
The first step to gun control is to take the guns away from the police and government workers.
Sorry, I worded that wrong, I said police and as anyone with half a brain can see that with the fire power and uniform getup and the way they act, they are a military units. The police are a thing of the past. The military enforcement units that with overwhelming fire power can control by force and intimidate the public.
I have to ask myself what and who controls the government. Is it the industrialist and bankers? Is it the congressmen? Is it the political parties?
We all know the United States controls many countries and we make them pass gun control laws. Yet, there is nothing those people in those other countries can do about it. We supply guns to their police and armies that control the people.
Do we want to end up in the same situation that we put the populations of other countries into?
We have a government that has murdered U.S. citizens without a trial and justified this by using secret courts and secret judges. Until we get rid of the secrets courts and have a country that is ruled by laws and we have no secret laws. Until we have transparency and truth in government we better dam well keep our guns.
The NRA is one of the most powerful lobbying groups for the gun industry and a cash cow for some of its leadership. http://www.forbes.com/sites/danbigman/2012/12/21/what-the-nras-wayne-lapierre-gets-paid-to-defend-guns/Eh, this sounds pretty much like a straw man argument. (Not necessarily by you Fuzzy Logic.) Is anyone claiming that the main source of black market guns, are guns stolen from law abiding citizens? The straw purchase thing is an example of something that can't really be enforced, but also can't be gotten rid of - so it's meaningless to complain about how bad it is. It does not change the fact that people can do bad stuff with legal, or illegal guns if they want, no matter what. Slightly OT, but the ATF is maybe not the most reliable gov. agency to trust with this stuff.If you’re a transparency fan like me, you appreciate knowing what kind of skin public people have in the game during episodes like this. So what did the NRA pay Lapierre to say that the best way to stop school shootings is to have the government put every mentally ill person in the nation on a watch list and arm school personnel to defend schools like banks? Just under a million bucks.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/11/nra-gun-control-firearms-industry-ties_n_2434142.htmlThroughout its 142-year history, the National Rifle Association has portrayed itself as an advocate for the individual gun owner’s Second Amendment rights. In turn, the NRA relied on those gun owners, especially its 4 million or so members, to pressure lawmakers into carrying out its anti-gun control agenda. In the last two decades, however, the deep-pocketed NRA has increasingly relied on the support of another constituency: the $12-billion-a-year gun industry, made up of manufacturers and sellers of firearms, ammunition and related wares. That alliance was sealed in 2005, when Congress, after heavy NRA lobbying, approved a measure that gave gunmakers and gun distributors broad, and unprecedented, immunity from a wave of liability lawsuits related to gun violence in America’s cities.To a large degree what's driving firearms policy in the US isn't concern for citizens rights, it's about profit. Straw purchases are a major source of guns used in crime in the US and according to gun industry whistleblowers it's well known that a few bad apples are responsible but the guns keep flowing. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.htmlAsk a cop on the beat how criminals get guns and you're likely to hear this hard boiled response: "They steal them." But this street wisdom is wrong, according to one frustrated Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) agent who is tired of battling this popular misconception. An expert on crime gun patterns, ATF agent Jay Wachtel says that most guns used in crimes are not stolen out of private gun owners' homes and cars. "Stolen guns account for only about 10% to 15% of guns used in crimes," Wachtel said. Because when they want guns they want them immediately the wait is usually too long for a weapon to be stolen and find its way to a criminal. In fact, there are a number of sources that allow guns to fall into the wrong hands, with gun thefts at the bottom of the list. Wachtel says one of the most common ways criminals get guns is through straw purchase sales. A straw purchase occurs when someone who may not legally acquire a firearm, or who wants to do so anonymously, has a companion buy it on their behalf. According to a 1994 ATF study on "Sources of Crime Guns in Southern California," many straw purchases are conducted in an openly "suggestive" manner where two people walk into a gun store, one selects a firearm, and then the other uses identification for the purchase and pays for the gun. Or, several underage people walk into a store and an adult with them makes the purchases. Both of these are illegal activities.So the situation isn't that nothing can be done to cut down on the most dangerous guns out in public hands, it's that very powerful special interests are protecting their interests. The NRA was originally created to teach firearm safety and proficiency, it should go back to that role and stop using its legacy and membership to support the worst aspects of the 2nd Amendment which all too often places guns into the the hands of people who shouldn't have them.
Eh, this sounds pretty much like a straw man argument. (Not necessarily by you Fuzzy Logic.) Is anyone claiming that the main source of black market guns, are guns stolen from law abiding citizens? The straw purchase thing is an example of something that can't really be enforced, but also can't be gotten rid of - so it's meaningless to complain about how bad it is. It does not change the fact that people can do bad stuff with legal, or illegal guns if they want, no matter what. Slightly OT, but the ATF is maybe not the most reliable gov. agency to trust with this stuff.If it's a small percentage of gun dealers creating most of the problem as I understand it to be, then cracking down on that one segment could have a significant effect. The problem is they're a source of a lot of revenue for gun makers, so by backing the NRA and its approach right now Americans could be making themselves less not more safe. And why not get active to make the political process work instead of getting ready for armed insurrection. My step-dad is a lifelong member of the NRA, but he's also active in working for honest elections in Washington State and federally and opposes things like electronic voting machines with no paper receipt. The are serious problems with government everywhere in the world, but Americans have a strong democratic foundation.
The NRA is one of the most powerful lobbying groups for the gun industry and a cash cow for some of its leadership. http://www.forbes.com/sites/danbigman/2012/12/21/what-the-nras-wayne-lapierre-gets-paid-to-defend-guns/Eh, this sounds pretty much like a straw man argument. (Not necessarily by you Fuzzy Logic.) Is anyone claiming that the main source of black market guns, are guns stolen from law abiding citizens? The straw purchase thing is an example of something that can't really be enforced, but also can't be gotten rid of - so it's meaningless to complain about how bad it is. It does not change the fact that people can do bad stuff with legal, or illegal guns if they want, no matter what. Slightly OT, but the ATF is maybe not the most reliable gov. agency to trust with this stuff. " It does not change the fact that people can do bad stuff with legal, or illegal guns if they want, no matter what." But for some strange reason they don't do those things nearly so often in places like England or most of Europe or even across the border in Canada. People must have different natures in most parts of the civilized world. Isn't that odd? LoisIf you’re a transparency fan like me, you appreciate knowing what kind of skin public people have in the game during episodes like this. So what did the NRA pay Lapierre to say that the best way to stop school shootings is to have the government put every mentally ill person in the nation on a watch list and arm school personnel to defend schools like banks? Just under a million bucks.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/11/nra-gun-control-firearms-industry-ties_n_2434142.htmlThroughout its 142-year history, the National Rifle Association has portrayed itself as an advocate for the individual gun owner’s Second Amendment rights. In turn, the NRA relied on those gun owners, especially its 4 million or so members, to pressure lawmakers into carrying out its anti-gun control agenda. In the last two decades, however, the deep-pocketed NRA has increasingly relied on the support of another constituency: the $12-billion-a-year gun industry, made up of manufacturers and sellers of firearms, ammunition and related wares. That alliance was sealed in 2005, when Congress, after heavy NRA lobbying, approved a measure that gave gunmakers and gun distributors broad, and unprecedented, immunity from a wave of liability lawsuits related to gun violence in America’s cities.To a large degree what's driving firearms policy in the US isn't concern for citizens rights, it's about profit. Straw purchases are a major source of guns used in crime in the US and according to gun industry whistleblowers it's well known that a few bad apples are responsible but the guns keep flowing. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.htmlAsk a cop on the beat how criminals get guns and you're likely to hear this hard boiled response: "They steal them." But this street wisdom is wrong, according to one frustrated Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) agent who is tired of battling this popular misconception. An expert on crime gun patterns, ATF agent Jay Wachtel says that most guns used in crimes are not stolen out of private gun owners' homes and cars. "Stolen guns account for only about 10% to 15% of guns used in crimes," Wachtel said. Because when they want guns they want them immediately the wait is usually too long for a weapon to be stolen and find its way to a criminal. In fact, there are a number of sources that allow guns to fall into the wrong hands, with gun thefts at the bottom of the list. Wachtel says one of the most common ways criminals get guns is through straw purchase sales. A straw purchase occurs when someone who may not legally acquire a firearm, or who wants to do so anonymously, has a companion buy it on their behalf. According to a 1994 ATF study on "Sources of Crime Guns in Southern California," many straw purchases are conducted in an openly "suggestive" manner where two people walk into a gun store, one selects a firearm, and then the other uses identification for the purchase and pays for the gun. Or, several underage people walk into a store and an adult with them makes the purchases. Both of these are illegal activities.So the situation isn't that nothing can be done to cut down on the most dangerous guns out in public hands, it's that very powerful special interests are protecting their interests. The NRA was originally created to teach firearm safety and proficiency, it should go back to that role and stop using its legacy and membership to support the worst aspects of the 2nd Amendment which all too often places guns into the the hands of people who shouldn't have them.
The possibility of varying levels of violent behavior in first world countries, is something that's been discussed before on this forum. FWIW, I think Americans are actually more violent then north-west Europeans and Canadians in general. Canada has relatively high gun ownership, but not much gun violence. The reason for this (besides less violent population) might be that Canadians are more conscientious then Americans, and that's why their gun regulation is effective." It does not change the fact that people can do bad stuff with legal, or illegal guns if they want, no matter what."But for some strange reason they don't do those things nearly so often in places like England or most of Europe or even across the border in Canada. People must have different natures in most parts of the civilized world. Isn't that odd? Lois
The possibility of varying levels of violent behavior in first world countries, is something that's been discussed before on this forum. FWIW, I think Americans are actually more violent then north-west Europeans and Canadians in general. Canada has relatively high gun ownership, but not much gun violence. The reason for this (besides less violent population) might be that Canadians are more conscientious then Americans, and that's why their gun regulation is effective. Yes, and they don't have a 2nd Amendment to contend with, so they can pass reasonable gun laws and enforce them. Lois" It does not change the fact that people can do bad stuff with legal, or illegal guns if they want, no matter what."But for some strange reason they don't do those things nearly so often in places like England or most of Europe or even across the border in Canada. People must have different natures in most parts of the civilized world. Isn't that odd? Lois
The possibility of varying levels of violent behavior in first world countries, is something that's been discussed before on this forum. FWIW, I think Americans are actually more violent then north-west Europeans and Canadians in general. Canada has relatively high gun ownership, but not much gun violence. The reason for this (besides less violent population) might be that Canadians are more conscientious then Americans, and that's why their gun regulation is effective. What do you supppose is the reason for that? Canada and the US are similar in their ethnic make-up, immigration, their form of government, standard of living, communications, etc. What would cause one country to be so much more violent than the other? That's the question to be asked and answered." It does not change the fact that people can do bad stuff with legal, or illegal guns if they want, no matter what."But for some strange reason they don't do those things nearly so often in places like England or most of Europe or even across the border in Canada. People must have different natures in most parts of the civilized world. Isn't that odd? Lois