• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
* * * - - 5 votes

Gun Ownership

guns handguns massacre shooting gun control security mass shooting rights us law gun law handguns gun law

  • Please log in to reply
177 replies to this topic

Poll: life extension and guns (75 member(s) have cast votes)

Private ownership of handguns should be..

  1. outlawed (10 votes [13.33%])

    Percentage of vote: 13.33%

  2. highly restricted (12 votes [16.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 16.00%

  3. restricted somewhat (16 votes [21.33%])

    Percentage of vote: 21.33%

  4. largely unrestricted (32 votes [42.67%])

    Percentage of vote: 42.67%

  5. other (5 votes [6.67%])

    Percentage of vote: 6.67%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#91 Mind

  • Life Member, Moderator, Secretary
  • 16,202 posts
  • 2,001
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 10 February 2013 - 01:30 PM

The U.S. is different than most advanced nations. It has more deadly violence, because of the culture/media - yes - but also because it is the most diverse nation on earth without a doubt. Human beings have an evolved (and sometimes culturally programmed) sense of distrusting those who look dissimilar. Looking at the history of ethnic and sectarian atrocities/violence around the world, perhaps the U.S. is doing quite well by comparison. The U.S. has more deadly violence, thus a lot of people feel they need more protection, than citizens of other countries.

Too some extent, the weapons situation is driven from the top down. In the modern day, people might ridicule the idea of resisting the government through force, and that being a legitimate reason for gun ownership, but you must consider that the U.S. government and police forces are armed to the teeth. Police forces are not so much like the protect-and-serve-officer-friendly stuff of legend, they are more like para-military forces. Even in the very low crime, small, non-violent city I live in, the city/county police force has a armored vehicle (tank). Cost $250,000, during a time when the budget is under stress, and there is no sign of any violence that would require a tank. The U.S. military also trains with local police, flying gunships through cities. It is disturbing. So to some extent, the weaponization is driven from the top down. Don't forget that we have a stupid war on drugs in the U.S. as well, which has VERY predictably produce a lot of unnecessary deadly violence and contributed to the U.S. having the highest percentage of people in the history of the world locked up in the gulag. A sad state of affairs

So people from other countries keep these things in mind when you comment.The different levels of government in the U.S. are highly militarized, it is a very diverse society, and we have some stupid violence promoting policies in place.

Also, I am reminded about niner's comment "what are you going to do, shoot JDAMs out of the sky". It highlights another problem, which I mentioned a couple of times earlier, of corrupt police (not too common, but it does happen). If they are so heavily armed, there is very little that can be done by ordinary citizens to resist. Right now in the U.S. we have a highly trained former police officer and former solider who is on a revenge mission. Even the police are very scared - shooting into vehicles and injuring people on the slight thought that it might be their former officer. Train people to kill, arm them to the teeth, and this type of situation is more likely to happen. I wish it was different, but that is the U.S right now.
  • like x 4
  • dislike x 1

#92 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 10 February 2013 - 03:21 PM

The U.S. is different than most advanced nations. It has more deadly violence, because of the culture/media - yes - but also because it is the most diverse nation on earth without a doubt. Human beings have an evolved (and sometimes culturally programmed) sense of distrusting those who look dissimilar.


I really have to question this analysis, since the vast majority of gun violence in America is "Black on Black" or "White on White". Are we really the most diverse nation on Earth? What about Brazil? I think the biggest factor in the status of guns in today's America was the 1977 takeover of the NRA by anti-gun control extremists, converting it from a sporting organization into a political organization. America has always had a significant amount of distrust of government, although in modern times it seems to have veered into paranoia. The NRA exploits this, as well as the fear of "other".
  • like x 1
  • dislike x 1

#93 gwgaston

  • Guest
  • 526 posts
  • 58
  • Location:USA

Posted 10 February 2013 - 05:26 PM






This video asks the right questions and points out the Chicago failure,


Discloser: I'm an NRA member and have licenses to conceal carry in 37 US states. I support the 2nd amendment (and the 10th where it can be applied) as do most all my congressional constituents in SC. When they don't I become active in campaigns to vote them out.

Edited by gwgaston, 10 February 2013 - 05:27 PM.

  • like x 3
  • dislike x 2

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Advertisements help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. [] To go ad-free join as a Member.

#94 capob

  • Guest
  • 41 posts
  • 24
  • Location:us

Posted 10 February 2013 - 06:18 PM

Just as evidenced on even this forum with political issues, people are overly eager to give their unresearched (and thereby, nearly worthless) opinions on matters. Like all the people who vote because they like some politician without having looked into the background of the politiciian. There is plenty of history to look at to see the reasons and results of disarmament of citizens. There are plenty of current cases. Mexico, Chicago, Japan. If you don't know the murder rates in these countries, or gun viollence rates, and you are on here to give you opinion, you are certainly one to fall in the category of my first statement. What is evident with those three examples: Gun control does not remove guns from criminals; it removes guns from law abiding citizens. And, consequuently, there is a tendency for there to be an increase in crime rates. This tendancy can be removed, like in Japan, by having a certain type of culture. But, the US has nothing like that culture.

Like "mind" has mentioned, the US has a paramilitary police force in most areas. And, it has been established many times over in the US that police "have no duty to protect citizens". This, however, is a foolish admittance by the US system, because, as recognized internationally for quite a long time now, the duty of allegience by the citizen is dependent on the duty of protection by the sovereign (go read the Law of Nations or the books that preceded it). Many people are completely oblivious to the militiia part of the 2nd ammendment of the US const. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." In that ammendment, there is nothing about the protection of the individual against crimes by other individuals. Instead, it was thought more wise to include the greater purpose of the right to bear arms. Unfortunately, the constituution was not written under the premise that the human brain was going to be shrinking and that most people would be unable to understand anything that was not spelled out. So, I will spell it out for you: This ammendment was put there to allow for the existence of a citizen miliitia that was separate from the army and not controlled by the government; a militia for the purpose of securing a FREE state (ie, preventing tyrrranny of any sort). But, hell, the ammendment is pointless now anyways since even the people clinging on to their guns don't recognize that a bunch of unorganized (not well regulated) gun owners aren't going to win out in any long term conflict. And, if you want to reduce crime, change the culture - guns are only a stopgap measure in that regard.

But, who am I to give an opinion.
  • like x 1

#95 gwgaston

  • Guest
  • 526 posts
  • 58
  • Location:USA

Posted 10 February 2013 - 07:17 PM

I won't argue the initial purpose of the second amendment. I hope no one thinks they or a militia group would have much success against the US government. My support is for what it (regardless of original intent) affords me now... The right to bear arms. I look forward to the day its not required, but that day has not arrived yet IMHO.

Edited by gwgaston, 10 February 2013 - 07:22 PM.

  • like x 1

#96 Lister

  • Member, Moderator
  • 390 posts
  • 131
  • Location:Kelowna, Canada

Posted 11 February 2013 - 05:53 AM

You escalate, they escalate. (I’ll keep saying it until it sinks in)

Interesting how many conservative/libertarian views are being expressed here. In fact the vast majority of opinions seem to be conservative. Would be nice if we had a few more liberal views to balance out the conversation; don’t be scared liberal friends!

First off the USA is definitely not the most diverse nation in the world. It may be one of the most diverse nations in the world but not THE most diverse nation. Everywhere I look people seem to think India is the most diverse. “India is culturally, linguistically, religiously and to a certain extent, ethnically, the most diverse country in the world.” Canada is definitely big on multiculturalism and maybe more diverse than the USA. Unless you want to say that the US is abnormal in its levels of hate and fear for other cultures then it’s a poor argument to say that diversity is the source of gun violence. Though I’m sure some people would love to make that argument.

Also how criminals obtain guns and use them is of relevance but it completely side steps the most recent mass shooting at Sandy hook. The man who was responsible for the shooting wasn’t some hardened criminal; he was a severely depressed kid and he used his mom’s weapons.

We could also blame violent video games and a culture of violence but you can’t say that children equate the violence they see in video games and on TV in any way to real life violence. I tried to find it but haven’t been able to yet; there was an episode if Mythbuster I think where they found a young kid who absolutely loved violent video games and movies. They gave him a gun at a shoot range; he shot it once and ran off crying. Simulations of violence or imitations of violence don’t prepare someone for the real thing nor does it make it somehow cool or ok. There’s a HUGE distance between the two and to flat out blame that element of US culture is just a diversion. It may be one small part but there are bigger issues.

Fixing criminals or preventing criminals from getting guns is great but do you really have time to worry about such matters when non-criminals are senselessly shooting up one another? You have shootings because of road rage for god’s sake! Normal people get angry and shoot people and why?

The reason for all this is because you guys view guns as being OK. You view them as better than OK; you view them as being cool, nice things you can collect, shoot and enjoy. You build up a big stock of them and are proud of it and show it off to your friends. You expose this kind of relaxed attitude towards guns to your kids and they learn to be relaxed around guns. Then when they get stressed, depressed and suicidal they take this relaxed attitude towards guns to a theatre or a school and express their anger.

Your relaxed attitude towards guns is the problem. They are not fun interesting cool toys! They are weapons of death and its stupid how light hearted you are about them. “Oh but I lock my guns up” though you still support your friends who do not.

If you don’t want weapons bans why don’t you support more extensive background checks instead? Why don’t you support loophole closures? Are you so paranoid you feel that taking control of this tragic situation will instantly mean handing over all your guns? Talk about mental health issues!

The biggest thing here that I just can’t get over is you guys allow the government to completely strip you of your basic rights yet all you care about is your right to bear arms! I have to quote Bill Maher here; he’s a Liberal nut job just as much as Rush Lumbuagh is a nut job for the right but he has some good points.

This is about your defense budget and how you appear to the rest of the world (it’s a good example of how more guns is stupid):

Did you know that the defense budget of the United States is bigger than the defense budgets of the next 13 countries combined? Most of whom are allies and none of whom are enemies. So let me ask you: If a guy on your block was so frightened of mostly nonexistent prowlers that he spent all his resources on alarm systems and guns and cameras; so much so that he didn’t even have enough money left to maintain his home or send his kids to college, would you call him brave?

This is him talking about how guns are a replacement for Testosterone:

…Why do men collect guns? You know former Georgia Senator Zell Miller once said ‘I’ve got more guns than I need but not as many as I want.’ Well the pentagon is just Zell Miller in a larger scale with shoes on. It has more guns than it needs but not as many as it wants.

And I know some of you out there are saying ‘Oh! Now that’s some Liberal BS right there calling guns a replacement for testosterone!’ But if that’s not true how come when a man gets older his gun always gets bigger?


This is him talking about how your freedoms are gone and you don’t care:

Last month while no one was taking anyone’s gun away from anybody the senate voted overwhelmingly to reauthorize a program where they can collect data on any American citizen and hold onto it forever. They can look at your emails, your texts, your skype’s, and not a peep out of the crowed that’s always bitching about what the framers intended. In fact the answer from almost everyone seems to be ‘Oh what the hell! The airport screeners have already seen my ass anyway!”

The Facebook generation especially doesn’t seem to care that big brother knows everything about you; what books you read, what movies you watch. Your match.com account; your other match.com account when you’re feeling a little freaky and want to meet the sort of women you’re regular match.com account wouldn’t approve of.

Call me old school but I don’t want the feds Googleing what I’m Googleing. It’s bad enough when Netflix pry’s into my private life. ‘You watched the walking dead and Zombie Land; you might also like this interview with John McCain!’ I don’t want the government doing that! ‘You downloaded this article favoring the legalization of Marijuana. You might also like being incarcerated.’

Yeah both parties compete mightily to appear to be the greater champion of our freedoms but the only thing that still has bipartisan support in Washington is not giving a shit about privacy. And when you talk to the NRA types as I like to do at my local moose lodge; they actually believe that what protects their rights is not laws, or courts; it’s that they have a gun! They think that’s what keeps the government from going too far. Without guns Obama would become an emperor and force everyone to gay marry, but he can’t because a guy in Kentucky named Skeeter has a 22”.

Except that while you guys were buying guns to protect your other guns, sittin’ up on the porch there waiting for Obama’s negro army to come confiscate your weapons and go all Jango Unchained on your ass; that’s when we lost all the stuff in the bill of rights - About trials and juries and warrants. You see the red coats; they never wanted your gun! They wanted your liberty. And that’s why the founding fathers said you could have the gun dumb ass! Now the only right we have left is the gun and nothing left to using the guns to protect! We’re like a strip club with a million bouncers and no strippers!”


The point is guns aren’t effective and focusing on them is a waste of time. All it does is bring death to your children, your families and friends. It brings fear to your neighborhoods and creates unnecessary paranoia.

You already have millions of guns so why is it so bad that new purchases are restricted? Is it because there are already lots of guns and you need to protect yourself? Do I need to say it again?

You escalate; they escalate.
  • dislike x 2
  • like x 2

#97 gwgaston

  • Guest
  • 526 posts
  • 58
  • Location:USA

Posted 11 February 2013 - 02:56 PM

If you don’t want weapons bans why don’t you support more extensive background checks instead? Why don’t you support loophole closures? Are you so paranoid you feel that taking control of this tragic situation will instantly mean handing over all your guns? Talk about mental health issues!


I do support such things and by no means am I against some additional laws. I think everyone that makes the decision to own one should be better evaluated and require time at the range. Driver's Ed for guns if you will.

You, Mr. "Lister" from Canada likely have not had the misfortune of having to defend your family from a group of guys that stopped to "help" you on the side of the road, but had other things in mind. Luckily they brought knives to a gun fight. Please crawl back into your hole. Or keep ranting, if you want. Those of us that have had to use our rights to protect ourselves are deaf to your ramblings.

Edited by gwgaston, 11 February 2013 - 03:10 PM.

  • dislike x 1
  • like x 1

#98 Lister

  • Member, Moderator
  • 390 posts
  • 131
  • Location:Kelowna, Canada

Posted 12 February 2013 - 03:05 AM

I do support such things and by no means am I against some additional laws. I think everyone that makes the decision to own one should be better evaluated and require time at the range. Driver's Ed for guns if you will.

You, Mr. "Lister" from Canada likely have not had the misfortune of having to defend your family from a group of guys that stopped to "help" you on the side of the road, but had other things in mind. Luckily they brought knives to a gun fight. Please crawl back into your hole. Or keep ranting, if you want. Those of us that have had to use our rights to protect ourselves are deaf to your ramblings.


I’m not saying it’s wrong to defend yourself and I’m not saying that the US is in some way safe, and that you’re all over reacting. I’m saying you have to start somewhere. If you have two war fronts and both sides are desperately clinging to their weapons then the war continues. Do you understand?

Am I asking you to live with less “security” in order that you help start some sort of positive change in your society? Yes that’s what I’m asking. And yes I can’t possibly know how horribly unsafe it must feel to live in the states (except for when I’ve visited there) and yes I’m commenting in a similar fashion to someone here commenting on the war in Syria. This is all true but the US’s issues, at least the obvious ones are, well, obvious!

I had one critical line in that wall above, tell me I’m wrong:

The reason for all this is because you guys view guns as being OK. You view them as better than OK; you view them as being cool, nice things you can collect, shoot and enjoy. You build up a big stock of them and are proud of it and show it off to your friends. You expose this kind of relaxed attitude towards guns to your kids and they learn to be relaxed around guns. Then when they get stressed, depressed and suicidal they take this relaxed attitude towards guns to a theatre or a school and express their anger.
  • dislike x 1
  • like x 1

#99 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 12 February 2013 - 04:05 AM

This is certainly an emotional issue. I've listened to and read a lot of discussion about guns in the weeks since Newtown, and I've changed my thinking about some of it. I don't think we should try to ban assault weapons. 1) There are already thirty million of them in circulation. 2) They aren't used in crime all that much. 3) It freaks out gun owners. It will not be effective to attempt to single out the dangerously crazy people in advance and prevent them from getting guns, because most of the time, they look no different than non-violent crazy people, of which there are very very many. So what to do? I suggest the following: 1) Clamp down on gun trafficking and straw purchases. At the moment, there are loopholes that you can drive a truck through. 2) Follow New York's lead- if a person is caught carrying a gun they aren't supposed to have, they go to jail. If everyone knows that, it won't be long before there aren't so many punks on the street with guns. Obviously, people with concealed carry permits would be ok. There should be consistent nationwide rules on CC permits so that you don't have everyone going through the "Florida loophole". Those are the things I think all but extremists will be ok with. The following suggestions may get some people riled up, but I present them for discussion.

Register guns like we register cars. I anticipate pushback from those who think the government will come and get the guns if they know where the guns are. Shotguns, conventional long guns and collectables should be inexpensive or free to register. Assault weapons and handguns should cost more. License gun owners. They should know how to use their weapon safely and understand the laws regarding the use of deadly force. If a gun is lost or stolen and not reported, the owner should be held responsible if it is used in a crime.

Critique?
  • like x 2

#100 gwgaston

  • Guest
  • 526 posts
  • 58
  • Location:USA

Posted 12 February 2013 - 02:45 PM

I’m not saying it’s wrong to defend yourself and I’m not saying that the US is in some way safe, and that you’re all over reacting. I’m saying you have to start somewhere. If you have two war fronts and both sides are desperately clinging to their weapons then the war continues. Do you understand?


Yes and you are wrong. "Bad guys" carry guns regardless of whether I have one or not. Many cities that have made law-abiding citizens give them up, have seen an increase in crime It's like an advertised invitation.


Am I asking you to live with less “security” in order that you help start some sort of positive change in your society? Yes that’s what I’m asking.

.

Yes and who are you to ask anything of me? No one. Again, you are wrong, see above.



.

And yes I can’t possibly know how horribly unsafe it must feel to live in the states (except for when I’ve visited there) and yes I’m commenting in a similar fashion to someone here commenting on the war in Syria. .


Your lack of personal experience or knowledge of the subject at hand should end this now, but you amuse me.


Here's some "interesting" info (depending on your POV): We have a sheriff in South Carolina telling us to arm ourselves (ignore the source of the article if you wish, it was the first to come up when I Binged it):


Forget calling 911, says Sheriff: defend yourself with a gun instead


Concealed carry permits requests went from ~24k in 2010 to ~60k in 2012 in the state of South Carolina alone.


Nationally, gun ownership by females is on the rise. 51.5 percent for target shooting from 2001 to 2011, and by 41.8 percent for hunting during that same time frame. Estimates (although given in the article linked below as the high end, probably are a little on the low end in reality) is that there are now 17 million female gun owners. No numbers were given specifically for self-defense or conceal carry permits nationally, but (quoted from the article) Tina Wilson-Cohen, a former Secret Service agent who founded "She Can Shoot", said 90 percent of women who joined did so because "they've been a victim at one point of their life, of stalking or date rape or domestic violence, or they have just felt so vulnerable, and they want to feel competent and like they can protect themselves."


Rising Voice of Gun Ownership Is Female


i had one critical line in that wall above, tell me I’m wrong.

The reason for all this is because you guys view guns as being OK. You view them as better than OK; you view them as being cool, nice things you can collect, shoot and enjoy. You build up a big stock of them and are proud of it and show it off to your friends. You expose this kind of relaxed attitude towards guns to your kids and they learn to be relaxed around guns. Then when they get stressed, depressed and suicidal they take this relaxed attitude towards guns to a theatre or a school and express their anger.



Again. YOU ARE WRONG. And unlike you, I won't "keep saying it until it sinks in" because sensational TV watching, silver spoon, pseudo-intellectual types always think they are right, regardless of their actual knowledge or personal experience. Yes thats slightly ad hominem, sorry about that... but given what you have in bold above I felt it defined your personality well.

Outside of BB guns (and bow-n-arrows in archery class) while in the Boy Scouts, my kids have never fired a weapon of any sort. They never see my gun. That's a step forward, as when I was their age I had a 410/22 over and under with full access to it and the ammo in my room hanging from my gun rack. And while home alone (mom worked 2 jobs to support us) I was cooking up potassium nitrate and sugar for small handmade rockets. My childhood friends and I later ventured into 'pipe bombs' as a form of stump removal, and many other crazy things I won't go into here. What's different today is that we would have never thought of turning these things loose on other people.

I can't speak for all gun owners, but I have never been to a gun show. Obviously people do or they wouldn't exist. I have no friends that own more than two guns that I am aware of (outside of my conceal carrier instructor who is an ex-marine and retired policeman - he has a lot of them and is a competition shooter). And we rarely speak of them unless we happen to run into each at the sporting good store... or I point them to forum posts like this one. I own one gun. One. And it stays concealed. By definition of the law for concealed carry, I can't just "whip it out" and show it off. I can't even raise my shirt and show it to a group of "thugs" approaching me. I could go to jail for that as any type of brandishing is not allowed under the law. When the gun becomes unconcealed, I better have good reason and be able to back it up in a court of law.

This will be my last post on the subject. Please do carry on without me.


Edited by gwgaston, 12 February 2013 - 02:46 PM.

  • like x 3
  • dislike x 1

#101 gwgaston

  • Guest
  • 526 posts
  • 58
  • Location:USA

Posted 12 February 2013 - 04:31 PM

Well I said I was finished with this thread... the time frame for me to edit my previous post has been exceeded. So a new post is required by me to make a correction.

In my previous post I mentioned we had a sheriff in South Carolina telling us to arm ourselves and provided a link. That link (below) was actually about an identical suggestion from Milwaukee County Sheriff David A. Clarke, Jr.:

Forget calling 911, says Sheriff: defend yourself with a gun instead

Here are a few links for the Hoplophobic concerning the SC Sheriff Chuck White's statement:

South Carolina Sheriff: 'You Need to Protect Yourself'

Local Sheriff says "Arm Yourself" - THR

While Left Tells Assaulted Women Hush Up, SC Sheriff Empowers Saying ‘Ladies, Arm Yourselves’

Edited by gwgaston, 12 February 2013 - 04:34 PM.

  • like x 2
  • dislike x 1

#102 Turnbuckle

  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 12 February 2013 - 09:18 PM

When you look at the data, there seems to be a correlation between gun ownership and bad things--

Country.....Homicide Rate.....Incarceration Rate....Guns per 100 citizens
US 4.8 730 (No. 1) 89 (No. 1)
UK 1.2 154 6
Canada 1.6 114 31
Japan 0.4 55 <1


The incarceration rate for the US is higher than any other country in the world. No. 2 is Russia. The gun ownership rate is also the highest in the world, more than 50% higher than the No. 2 country, Yemen. And while it looks like guns and incarceration rates might be strongly connected, we also have to look at what people are in prison for. And in the US, great numbers are incarcerated for religious-based morality laws, such as for drug use. The US incarceration rate wasn't much higher than other Western countries when Nixon started his drug war. Then we began building prisons far faster than we built schools.

Edited by Turnbuckle, 12 February 2013 - 09:42 PM.

  • dislike x 1
  • like x 1

#103 Ben

  • Guest
  • 2,005 posts
  • -4
  • Location:South East

Posted 27 February 2013 - 04:50 PM

The gun ban worked great in Australia:

http://back-doc.blog...te-gun-ban.html
  • dislike x 1
  • like x 1

#104 Turnbuckle

  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 27 February 2013 - 05:34 PM

The gun ban worked great in Australia:

http://back-doc.blog...te-gun-ban.html


Looks to me the NFA made a big difference, even though it only reduced guns by 20%. In the US, the Brady Act of 1994 coincided with a big drop in murder rates.

http://qz.com/37303/...-gun-clampdown/

Attached Files

  • Attached File  afa.JPG   78.93KB   2 downloads

Edited by Turnbuckle, 27 February 2013 - 05:43 PM.


#105 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,692 posts
  • -113
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.

Posted 27 February 2013 - 06:36 PM

http://youtu.be/k5KaaVb4hFw

http://youtu.be/NyYYgLzF6zU


This video asks the right questions and points out the Chicago failure,


Discloser: I'm an NRA member and have licenses to conceal carry in 37 US states. I support the 2nd amendment (and the 10th where it can be applied) as do most all my congressional constituents in SC. When they don't I become active in campaigns to vote them out.


I am also a lifetime member of the NRA. Problems with Guns are not caused by the NRA.
  • like x 1
  • dislike x 1

#106 npcomplete

  • Guest
  • 44 posts
  • 284
  • Location:Near the Corner of P & NP

Posted 28 February 2013 - 12:36 AM

Just another NRA member checking in. I believe in the right to keep and bear arms, and that it is an individual right, as recognized by the US Supreme Court in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller. This right has been recognized and practiced as an individual right in the USA since the birth of the nation. The Supreme Court uses history, case law and other guiding principles in determining whether a given law is Constitutional or not, so any major change in law should be expected to be challenged against case law of over 200 years (stare decisis).

I do believe that owners should be responsible, and that includes both safety training and regular practice.
  • like x 1

#107 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 28 February 2013 - 01:30 AM

This video asks the right questions and points out the Chicago failure,

Discloser: I'm an NRA member and have licenses to conceal carry in 37 US states. I support the 2nd amendment (and the 10th where it can be applied) as do most all my congressional constituents in SC. When they don't I become active in campaigns to vote them out.


I am also a lifetime member of the NRA. Problems with Guns are not caused by the NRA.


I don't know how you can say that. The Chicago failure is a failure because gun runners only need to drive out to the burbs or cross a nearby state line to load up on guns which they can funnel directly into criminal hands back in the city. It will take national level laws to deal with this problem, not city-level. What does this have to do with the NRA? If we tried to implement even the least restrictive anti-gun running legislation, the NRA would scream bloody murder. I'm sorry, but an awful lot of people see the NRA as a bunch of extremists. Given their opposition to even the most reasonable legislation to address gun violence, I don't understand how they aren't a significant part of the problem.
  • like x 2
  • dislike x 1

#108 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,692 posts
  • -113
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.

Posted 28 February 2013 - 02:17 AM

This video asks the right questions and points out the Chicago failure,

Discloser: I'm an NRA member and have licenses to conceal carry in 37 US states. I support the 2nd amendment (and the 10th where it can be applied) as do most all my congressional constituents in SC. When they don't I become active in campaigns to vote them out.


I am also a lifetime member of the NRA. Problems with Guns are not caused by the NRA.


I don't know how you can say that. The Chicago failure is a failure because gun runners only need to drive out to the burbs or cross a nearby state line to load up on guns which they can funnel directly into criminal hands back in the city. It will take national level laws to deal with this problem, not city-level. What does this have to do with the NRA? If we tried to implement even the least restrictive anti-gun running legislation, the NRA would scream bloody murder. I'm sorry, but an awful lot of people see the NRA as a bunch of extremists. Given their opposition to even the most reasonable legislation to address gun violence, I don't understand how they aren't a significant part of the problem.


I can say it because it is true. Members of the NRA, along with the majority of gun owners are not engaged in the activities you describe. The majority of gun on gun crime is between blacks. Just think what could be created with a tar and brush logical approach with them.

If you don’t want to own a gun, I have no objection. In fact as a libertarian I don’t care what you do. However I do care that my civil rights are not abridged by your personal values. This is nothing but ad hominem attacks. I don’t think you know much about the NRA or “normal,” gun owners.

This being said, I have great respect for you. When I first came here you were very kind and we had a brief chat about UCSC. I want to keep; this in that spirit, friend
  • like x 2

#109 Lister

  • Member, Moderator
  • 390 posts
  • 131
  • Location:Kelowna, Canada

Posted 28 February 2013 - 03:01 AM

This video asks the right questions and points out the Chicago failure,

Discloser: I'm an NRA member and have licenses to conceal carry in 37 US states. I support the 2nd amendment (and the 10th where it can be applied) as do most all my congressional constituents in SC. When they don't I become active in campaigns to vote them out.


I am also a lifetime member of the NRA. Problems with Guns are not caused by the NRA.


I don't know how you can say that. The Chicago failure is a failure because gun runners only need to drive out to the burbs or cross a nearby state line to load up on guns which they can funnel directly into criminal hands back in the city. It will take national level laws to deal with this problem, not city-level. What does this have to do with the NRA? If we tried to implement even the least restrictive anti-gun running legislation, the NRA would scream bloody murder. I'm sorry, but an awful lot of people see the NRA as a bunch of extremists. Given their opposition to even the most reasonable legislation to address gun violence, I don't understand how they aren't a significant part of the problem.


I can say it because it is true. Members of the NRA, along with the majority of gun owners are not engaged in the activities you describe. The majority of gun on gun crime is between blacks. Just think what could be created with a tar and brush logical approach with them.

If you don’t want to own a gun, I have no objection. In fact as a libertarian I don’t care what you do. However I do care that my civil rights are not abridged by your personal values.


*Eliminates the irrelevant bits of above quote*

We have quite a showing of NRA members here hey? What’s with longevity enthusiast also owning guns? I guess that has something to do with you wanting to defend yourself from an untimely death at the hands of a criminal? I feel like a yummy looking stag walking into a cave full of hungry wolves…

So to shadow: I’m curious about your thoughts regarding the influence of the gun industry at the NRA? What do you think about the influence of those who make the guns Americans buy?

It seems like a very popular theme down there to use money to spin favorable messages. Politicians do it, the government does it, and private corporations do it. The way I see it, this is a huge reason for a lot of the strongly held opinions that exist in the states. It’s not just that you’re proud; it’s that interested groups are spending billions to build and maintain their version of the truth to twist opinion in their favor.

Does this method of “Truth Molding” affect the NRA?
  • dislike x 2

#110 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 28 February 2013 - 04:41 AM

I don't know how you can say that. The Chicago failure is a failure because gun runners only need to drive out to the burbs or cross a nearby state line to load up on guns which they can funnel directly into criminal hands back in the city. It will take national level laws to deal with this problem, not city-level. What does this have to do with the NRA? If we tried to implement even the least restrictive anti-gun running legislation, the NRA would scream bloody murder. I'm sorry, but an awful lot of people see the NRA as a bunch of extremists. Given their opposition to even the most reasonable legislation to address gun violence, I don't understand how they aren't a significant part of the problem.


I can say it because it is true. Members of the NRA, along with the majority of gun owners are not engaged in the activities you describe. The majority of gun on gun crime is between blacks. Just think what could be created with a tar and brush logical approach with them.

If you don’t want to own a gun, I have no objection. In fact as a libertarian I don’t care what you do. However I do care that my civil rights are not abridged by your personal values. This is nothing but ad hominem attacks. I don’t think you know much about the NRA or “normal,” gun owners.


I know that members of the NRA are not involved in the vast majority of gun violence. Actually, I'm pretty familiar with gun owners. I used to hunt a little bit, even. I don't hate guns, and I don't want to take your civil rights (or constitutional rights, as the case may be). I'm assuming that you don't count driving across the state line, buying a trunkfull of handguns and selling them to gang bangers among your rights. I'd like to make that process more difficult and more likely to result in prosecution. I'm pretty sure that the NRA wants it to stay as easy as it's always been, or else they wouldn't oppose virtually every effort made to tighten it up. That's how they are a part of the problem. That is not an ad hominem attack. I am criticizing their policy position. When I said that a lot of people see the NRA as a bunch of extremists, I meant the leadership of the NRA, not the members. Sorry I wasn't more clear about that. Speaking as a person who appreciates guns and doesn't want to take away the rights of legitimate gun owners, I think that Wayne LaPierre is an extremist. If that is ad hominem, so be it. Gotta call a spade a spade.

Edited by niner, 28 February 2013 - 04:42 AM.


#111 rwac

  • Member
  • 4,764 posts
  • 60
  • Location:Dimension X

Posted 28 February 2013 - 05:47 AM

We have quite a showing of NRA members here hey? What’s with longevity enthusiast also owning guns? I guess that has something to do with you wanting to defend yourself from an untimely death at the hands of a criminal? I feel like a yummy looking stag walking into a cave full of hungry wolves…
...
It seems like a very popular theme down there to use money to spin favorable messages. Politicians do it, the government does it, and private corporations do it. The way I see it, this is a huge reason for a lot of the strongly held opinions that exist in the states. It’s not just that you’re proud; it’s that interested groups are spending billions to build and maintain their version of the truth to twist opinion in their favor.


Well, if you live long enough, there's bound to be some sort of breakdown, disorder, riots etc. Why should someone have to rely on the government for that long?

You know, it wasn't that long ago that firearms were fairly unrestricted in Canada, and indeed, the entire anglosphere. And spin, spin isn't nearly as useful as you think, otherwise guns would have been banned long ago, what with all the anti-gun messaging in the media.
  • like x 2

#112 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,692 posts
  • -113
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.

Posted 28 February 2013 - 08:44 PM

I don't know how you can say that. The Chicago failure is a failure because gun runners only need to drive out to the burbs or cross a nearby state line to load up on guns which they can funnel directly into criminal hands back in the city. It will take national level laws to deal with this problem, not city-level. What does this have to do with the NRA? If we tried to implement even the least restrictive anti-gun running legislation, the NRA would scream bloody murder. I'm sorry, but an awful lot of people see the NRA as a bunch of extremists. Given their opposition to even the most reasonable legislation to address gun violence, I don't understand how they aren't a significant part of the problem.


I can say it because it is true. Members of the NRA, along with the majority of gun owners are not engaged in the activities you describe. The majority of gun on gun crime is between blacks. Just think what could be created with a tar and brush logical approach with them.

If you don’t want to own a gun, I have no objection. In fact as a libertarian I don’t care what you do. However I do care that my civil rights are not abridged by your personal values. This is nothing but ad hominem attacks. I don’t think you know much about the NRA or “normal,” gun owners.


I know that members of the NRA are not involved in the vast majority of gun violence. Actually, I'm pretty familiar with gun owners. I used to hunt a little bit, even. I don't hate guns, and I don't want to take your civil rights (or constitutional rights, as the case may be). I'm assuming that you don't count driving across the state line, buying a trunkfull of handguns and selling them to gang bangers among your rights. I'd like to make that process more difficult and more likely to result in prosecution. I'm pretty sure that the NRA wants it to stay as easy as it's always been, or else they wouldn't oppose virtually every effort made to tighten it up. That's how they are a part of the problem. That is not an ad hominem attack. I am criticizing their policy position. When I said that a lot of people see the NRA as a bunch of extremists, I meant the leadership of the NRA, not the members. Sorry I wasn't more clear about that. Speaking as a person who appreciates guns and doesn't want to take away the rights of legitimate gun owners, I think that Wayne LaPierre is an extremist. If that is ad hominem, so be it. Gotta call a spade a spade.


You are talking about Chicago a town with among the strictest gun laws in the US. It is good to see you are not (well kind of) blaming the NRA for that. You would be right to assume most gun owners are against committing crimes with Guns. Most car drivers are against drunk driving and I don’t hear AA A members called extremists as if we are calling a spade a spade.

What those with controlling instincts want to do is control everything, especially other people. Most gun laws being proposed are aimed, not at criminals but at law abiding citizens and their civil rights. Enforce the laws already on the books and most of the problems will be helped. Resist the temptation to just keep creating more and more laws until we are all in a dictatorship of law. The chains of dictators can be made by excessive law which are enforced on the law abiding. We have all the laws we need to bring about sanity in Chicago.
  • like x 1

#113 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 28 February 2013 - 09:13 PM

You are talking about Chicago a town with among the strictest gun laws in the US. It is good to see you are not (well kind of) blaming the NRA for that. You would be right to assume most gun owners are against committing crimes with Guns. Most car drivers are against drunk driving and I don’t hear AA A members called extremists as if we are calling a spade a spade.

What those with controlling instincts want to do is control everything, especially other people. Most gun laws being proposed are aimed, not at criminals but at law abiding citizens and their civil rights. Enforce the laws already on the books and most of the problems will be helped. Resist the temptation to just keep creating more and more laws until we are all in a dictatorship of law. The chains of dictators can be made by excessive law which are enforced on the law abiding. We have all the laws we need to bring about sanity in Chicago.


Twice now I've talked about how all the laws in the world are not going to keep guns off the streets of Chicago if the area surrounding Chicago allows uncontrolled sales of huge numbers of guns to straw purchasers. Do we at least agree on this?
  • dislike x 1

#114 rwac

  • Member
  • 4,764 posts
  • 60
  • Location:Dimension X

Posted 28 February 2013 - 09:59 PM

Twice now I've talked about how all the laws in the world are not going to keep guns off the streets of Chicago if the area surrounding Chicago allows uncontrolled sales of huge numbers of guns to straw purchasers. Do we at least agree on this?


So the question is, why should the rest of the country have to help enforce the foolish laws Chicago has chosen to pass? Perhaps they should have thought of enforceability and practicality before choosing to pass such laws?
  • like x 3

#115 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 28 February 2013 - 10:31 PM

Twice now I've talked about how all the laws in the world are not going to keep guns off the streets of Chicago if the area surrounding Chicago allows uncontrolled sales of huge numbers of guns to straw purchasers. Do we at least agree on this?


So the question is, why should the rest of the country have to help enforce the foolish laws Chicago has chosen to pass? Perhaps they should have thought of enforceability and practicality before choosing to pass such laws?


To be honest, I don't think that's the question. It's not about Chicago, it's about everywhere that has a crime problem- more or less every big city in the country. But it is about some of us being inconvenienced (how many people would need to buy a dozen handguns a month?) for the greater good. I'm inconvenienced every day of the year for the benefit of others. (I pay taxes) That's the price of living in a society. We all pay a huge economic cost for all those guns and the mayhem that's done with them. I don't really like paying those costs. Hell, if it was up to me, I'd call in a freakin' airstrike on some parts of Philly. (kind of like our old mayor, Wilson Goode did, but on a much larger scale). Anyway, we live in a society, so sometimes we have to put up with stuff we don't like.
  • dislike x 1

#116 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,692 posts
  • -113
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.

Posted 28 February 2013 - 10:54 PM

Lister: We have quite a showing of NRA members here hey? What’s with longevity enthusiast also owning guns? I guess that has something to do with you wanting to defend yourself from an untimely death at the hands of a criminal? I feel like a yummy looking stag walking into a cave full of hungry wolves…

So to shadow: I’m curious about your thoughts regarding the influence of the gun industry at the NRA? What do you think about the influence of those who make the guns Americans buy?

It seems like a very popular theme down there to use money to spin favorable messages. Politicians do it, the government does it, and private corporations do it. The way I see it, this is a huge reason for a lot of the strongly held opinions that exist in the states. It’s not just that you’re proud; it’s that interested groups are spending billions to build and maintain their version of the truth to twist opinion in their favor.

Does this method of “Truth Molding” affect the NRA?


What is inconsistent with a longevity enthusiast owning a gun? You tell me. Strange feelings. Are you the stag or the wolves? What would you do, stab the wolves with your sharp horns?

I have never seen the gun lobby at the NRA. Where did you get this information? Obviously, gun makers sell guns as is true with tens of thousands of products. If you don’t want to buy a gun, don’t. That is what I do.

I think Canadians spin people also. What are you trying to say? Join the human race.

Anyone that has a view they financially support, molds public opinion. It is called freedom. Do you support Life Extension? Are you “Molding the truth?” Yes, the NRA advocates the truth of the second amendment down here.
  • like x 1

#117 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,692 posts
  • -113
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.

Posted 28 February 2013 - 11:17 PM

Niner: Twice now I've talked about how all the laws in the world are not going to keep guns off the streets of Chicago if the area surrounding Chicago allows uncontrolled sales of huge numbers of guns to straw purchasers. Do we at least agree on this?


I don’t have the stats on that so I don’t know if this question has merit or not. What percentage of Guns in Chicago come from sales such as this. We can agree, if it is against the law, it should be enforced. I suspect it is already illegal to sell guns to criminals in Chicago, whether they came across a state line or not. Maybe they are getting guns from Canada. If they can’t stop dope, maybe they can’t stop guns

Edited by shadowhawk, 28 February 2013 - 11:18 PM.

  • like x 1

#118 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 01 March 2013 - 02:27 AM

Niner: Twice now I've talked about how all the laws in the world are not going to keep guns off the streets of Chicago if the area surrounding Chicago allows uncontrolled sales of huge numbers of guns to straw purchasers. Do we at least agree on this?


I don’t have the stats on that so I don’t know if this question has merit or not. What percentage of Guns in Chicago come from sales such as this. We can agree, if it is against the law, it should be enforced. I suspect it is already illegal to sell guns to criminals in Chicago, whether they came across a state line or not. Maybe they are getting guns from Canada. If they can’t stop dope, maybe they can’t stop guns


I think if you look into it, you'll find that straw purchasers are a huge problem in Chicago and other high crime areas. No doubt it is illegal to sell guns to criminals, but it's very hard to enforce laws like that. Having a suburban gun shop ten miles outside of the city where a straw purchaser can buy a crate of pistols creates a situation ripe for abuse, and it's a simple choke point where the flow of guns to criminals could be cut off. Do you really think guns are coming in from Canada?

#119 Lister

  • Member, Moderator
  • 390 posts
  • 131
  • Location:Kelowna, Canada

Posted 01 March 2013 - 04:43 AM

You know, it wasn't that long ago that firearms were fairly unrestricted in Canada, and indeed, the entire anglosphere. And spin, spin isn't nearly as useful as you think, otherwise guns would have been banned long ago, what with all the anti-gun messaging in the media.


That's true. It's also true that not that long ago guns we're pretty small, ineffective, had poor aim and limited capacity. And it's also true that it wasn't that long ago that murder was common place and carrying a gun was required as you were defending yourself with it sometimes daily. I would like to think we're a tad more civil these days. Perhaps the vast majority of the US is still uncivilized?

As far as the Government goes it seems pretty clear that one of the biggest driving factors of tyrannical governments and violent times are an overall level of national need. That would be little to no food, low access to education, and an overall lack of order. Whether people own guns or not could easily be slipped in there as being a contributing factor whether it really is or not. Power needs support to exist as power without people is nothing. Why would the US population support a Nazi style takeover if they have no need of it? What does Billy Bob’s 20 guns in Wisconsin have to do with national need?

Shadow, the NRA pushed for the restriction of research by the CDC into gun violence on the basis that gun ownership isn’t a disease. Maybe they’re right, but why do they even care? If the NRA is right about gun ownership then no amount of research into the FACTS will matter because the facts will only continue to prove the NRA right.

It just seems like it’s all about paranoia, plus distrust, plus a rejection of all authority to an extremely immature level. Many gun owners (not all) seem to hate to be told what to do exactly like 13 year olds. “You can’t tell me what to do” they may say, or “who are you to tell me what to do?” In the end they don’t care about what’s true, they just don’t want to be bossed around. It’s childish; it ends up screwing everyone else over and ensuring that guns are a necessity.

Then you have gun manufacturers who are taking all these lovely facts about gun owners straight to the bank. Sure there is spin everywhere but the level of spin, abuse of ignorance, and fear is insane in the US. Speaking as a business guy I watch you guys (mostly on the right) tow corporate created talking points and think “Jesus, I should really get down there and start abusing these peoples ignorance along all these big corporations! I could make millions so easily!”

It’s almost like watching a wife get abused by her husband and then watching her defend him to the point of killing off anyone who would try and stop the abuse.
  • dislike x 1

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Advertisements help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. [] To go ad-free join as a Member.

#120 rwac

  • Member
  • 4,764 posts
  • 60
  • Location:Dimension X

Posted 01 March 2013 - 06:20 AM

You know, it wasn't that long ago that firearms were fairly unrestricted in Canada, and indeed, the entire anglosphere. And spin, spin isn't nearly as useful as you think, otherwise guns would have been banned long ago, what with all the anti-gun messaging in the media.


That's true. It's also true that not that long ago guns we're pretty small, ineffective, had poor aim and limited capacity.


There have been automatic handguns for well over a 100 years. Yes, they even had high capacity and good accuracy. Nothing that new really in the small arms field.

It just seems like it’s all about paranoia, plus distrust, plus a rejection of all authority to an extremely immature level. Many gun owners (not all) seem to hate to be told what to do exactly like 13 year olds. “You can’t tell me what to do” they may say, or “who are you to tell me what to do?” In the end they don’t care about what’s true, they just don’t want to be bossed around. It’s childish; it ends up screwing everyone else over and ensuring that guns are a necessity.

The distrust is justified. The government usually messes up everything it touches. Guns are not a necessity, there are plenty of quite peaceful well armed areas.

Then you have gun manufacturers who are taking all these lovely facts about gun owners straight to the bank. Sure there is spin everywhere but the level of spin, abuse of ignorance, and fear is insane in the US. Speaking as a business guy I watch you guys (mostly on the right) tow corporate created talking points and think “Jesus, I should really get down there and start abusing these peoples ignorance along all these big corporations! I could make millions so easily!”


The US is ground zero for the spin war. I presume the left-wing talking points are approximately the same in Canada and the US, hence you don't see it for what it is, spin. And if you seriously think you can make money off it, come on down!
  • like x 1





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: guns, handguns, massacre, shooting, gun control, security, mass shooting, rights, us law, gun law, handguns, gun law

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users