Guns: how much longer will it take ....

Reply Sun 12 Jun, 2022 11:31 pm
This is something I hate to say, but, here goes:

We already have over.20 million assault weapons on the streets of America. If they are banned, certain undesirable elements will start working to corral as many of them as they possibly can. The sale will be banned - the current ownership is another question altogether. Guns will go underground. Making a semi automatic weapon automatic is also not a difficult task. Any high grade machinist can easily do it. Also, nigh capacity magazines are also very plentiful. And, to make them is also a job that isn' t terribly difficult.

Believe, I wish this wasn't true - but it is. Bad guys will have the guns, but 18 year olds and crazy people won't. A person who wants to get one in a hurry won't. Cops can slowly start working on the back alley sales and big, large volume purchases. Gangs will get busted up and weapons confiscated like in the 1930's.

So, pass.the legislation to stop sales and start getting g them off the streets. Get rid of Trump and his cohorts who want autocratic, fascist government. I don't believe America can last much longer as a democracy if the Republicans get.another chance at governing. We are resilient and can overcome this surge from the Republican side in a short period of time and we can get back to a good 2/3 party system in a maybe 8 years if all will come together and wipe this terrible bligth out.
Reply Sun 12 Jun, 2022 11:36 pm
If they do succeed in banning a weapon they ought to control the sale of bullets for it.
Reply Sun 12 Jun, 2022 11:49 pm
The bullets may well fit other guns.

The common assault rifle used by the British army, the SLR uses the same ammunition as the Bren gun.
0 Replies
Reply Mon 13 Jun, 2022 02:25 pm
BillW wrote:

We already have over.20 million assault weapons on the streets of America. If they are banned, certain undesirable elements will start working to corral as many of them as they possibly can. The sale will be banned - the current ownership is another question altogether. Guns will go underground. Making a semi automatic weapon automatic is also not a difficult task. Any high grade machinist can easily do it. Also, nigh capacity magazines are also very plentiful. And, to make them is also a job that isn' t terribly difficult.

Not banning assault weapons because they would be used by criminals doesn't address the point that assault weapons should be banned for the good of the general welfare. If the argument is to arm people with assault weapons to counter criminals with assault weapons, then it doesn't make sense from a defense argument, e.g. home defense. It would just exacerbate an already bad situation because of the ridiculously high powered rounds that these weapons deliver. The home defender would be just as likely as the criminal to shoot a bystander in the next room or next house. In that regard a shotgun is a much better weapon for home defense than an assault rifle. Automatic weapons are already possessed by criminals who, by and large, use them against each other. This reasoning doesn't address the fact that assault rifles are used by otherwise law abiding citizens who skip their chains and decide to go on mass shooting rampages.

The biggest potential danger is that the present, otherwise law abiding assault weapon keeping psychos would use deadly violence in protest against the regulation.
0 Replies
Reply Thu 16 Jun, 2022 11:50 pm
The US is dying. Your society is fracturing. Your democracy is under genuine threat. And at least, fully half the country is not only too [email protected] stupid to see it, but actively participating in the destruction. The biggest miracle will be if you don’t drag the rest of us down with you.
Reply Fri 17 Jun, 2022 07:45 am
0 Replies
Below viewing threshold (view)
Reply Sat 18 Jun, 2022 01:22 am
Only the other side of the World.

It's about as wrong as you get, like everything else.

Although we both protect our children from NRA paedophile filth.
Reply Sat 18 Jun, 2022 05:23 am
izzythepush wrote:

Only the other side of the World.

It's about as wrong as you get, like everything else.

Although we both protect our children from NRA paedophile filth.

Don’t know if NRA are paedophiles, but they’ve certainly bastardised the US 2nd(?) amendment far beyond any semblance of its original intention, and should probably be kept away from children wherever possible.
Reply Sat 18 Jun, 2022 05:28 am
When Donald Trump boasted of sexually assaulting young girls McGentrix classed it as alpha male behaviour and had "grab them by the pussy" as his avatar.
0 Replies
Reply Sat 18 Jun, 2022 07:25 am
Gun Sellers’ Message to Americans: Man Up

The number of firearms in the U.S. is outpacing the country’s population, as an emboldened gun industry and its allies target buyers with rhetoric of fear, machismo and defiance.

Last November, hours after a jury acquitted Kyle Rittenhouse of two shooting deaths during antiracism protests in 2020, a Florida gun dealer created an image of him brandishing an assault rifle, with the slogan: “BE A MAN AMONG MEN.”

Mr. Rittenhouse was not yet a man when he killed two people and wounded another in Kenosha, Wis. — he was 17 — but he aspired to be like one. And the firearms industry, backed by years of research and focus groups, knows that other Americans do, too.

Gun companies have spent the last two decades scrutinizing their market and refocusing their message away from hunting toward selling handguns for personal safety, as well as military-style weapons attractive to mostly young men. The sales pitch — rooted in self-defense, machismo and an overarching sense of fear — has been remarkably successful.

Firearm sales have skyrocketed, with background checks rising from 8.5 million in 2000 to 38.9 million last year. The number of guns is outpacing the population. Women, spurred by appeals that play on fears of crime and being caught unprepared, are the fastest-growing segment of buyers.

An examination by The New York Times of firearms marketing research, along with legal and lobbying efforts by gun rights groups, finds that behind the shift in gun culture is an array of interests that share a commercial and political imperative: more guns and freer access to them. Working together, gun makers, advocates and elected officials have convinced a large swath of Americans that they should have a firearm, and eased the legal path for them to do so.

Some of the research is publicly known, but by searching court filings and online archives, The Times gained new insight into how gun companies exploit the anxiety and desires of Americans. Using Madison Avenue methods, the firearms industry has sliced and diced consumer attributes to find pressure points — self-esteem, lack of trust in others, fear of losing control — useful in selling more guns.

In a paradigm-setting 2012 ad in Maxim magazine, Bushmaster — which manufactured the rifle used in the racist massacre in Buffalo in May — declared, “Consider your man card reissued.”

Bushmaster’s “man card” slogan first appeared in Maxim magazine in 2012. A rifle sold by the company was used in the Buffalo massacre this past May.

At the National Rifle Association convention in Houston last month, a Missouri-based gun maker, Black Rain Ordnance, featured a line of “BRO” semiautomatics punning on the company’s acronym: AR-15-style guns with names like BRO-Tyrant and BRO-Predator. Dozens of other vendors had similar messages.

The recurrence of mass shootings has provided reliable opportunities for the industry and its allies. Since the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School a decade ago, gun sales have almost always risen sharply in the aftermath of major shootings, as buyers snap up firearms they worry will disappear from stores.

“Drawing attention to the concern that firearm sales could be further restricted will have a great impact on anxious buyers,” a firearms industry study from 2017 advised.

At the same time, guns rights groups have pushed an aggressive legislative and court agenda. For instance, it soon will be legal to carry a hidden firearm without a permit in half the United States.

In states where pro-gun forces do not have the backing of elected officials, they have taken up the fight in other ways. The U.S. Supreme Court will soon rule on a New York case challenging a century-old law that allows local officials great discretion over who can carry a handgun, which is widely expected to turn into another gun rights victory.

Gun makers and their supporters argue they are only responding to a public need. A rush to buy firearms often coincides with concerns about personal safety or events that could spur legal limits on gun ownership, said Mark Oliva, a spokesman for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the industry trade group.

“I don’t think that’s a marketing trick,” he said. “I think, more than anything, it’s consumer demand that’s driving the appetite for these firearms.”

Whatever the source of Americans’ sense of unease, the result is a country flooded with firearms and no end in sight.

“Fear,” said Darrell Miller, co-director of the Duke Center for Firearms Law, “is an incredibly powerful motivator.”

Anxiety Sells

Marketing firearms for personal protection is nothing new. For the better part of the last century, certain gunmakers emphasized self-defense: One of the industry’s most influential campaigns was a 1996 ad in Ladies’ Home Journal that showed a Beretta handgun on a kitchen table, with the words “Homeowner’s Insurance.”

Still, hunting accounted for a majority of advertisements in Guns magazine from the 1960s to the late 1990s, according to a survey by Palgrave Communications, an online academic journal. The study found that “the core emphasis” shifted in the 2000s to “armed self-defense,” and that the percentage of hunting-related ads had dropped to about 10 percent by 2019.

This transition was accompanied by a surge in popularity of the Glock semiautomatic handgun and AR-15-type rifle, first widely used by law enforcement and the military. That provided a built-in market among veterans and former police officers, but also kicked off an effort to woo millions of men who liked to buy gear that made them feel like soldiers and the police.

In 2009, a marketing firm hired by Remington to push its Bushmaster AR-15s settled on an ad campaign targeting civilians who “aspired” to be part of law enforcement. The first draft of the new pitch, later obtained by lawyers representing parents of children killed at Sandy Hook, exhorted buyers to use their new rifles to “Clear the Crack House,” “Ice the Perp” and “Save the Hostage.”

The company toned down the language but embraced the idea of trafficking in fears of urban crime and mass shootings, the documents showed.

Josh Sugarmann, founder of the Violence Policy Center, a gun control group that tracks firearms advertising and marketing, said the firearms industry became adept at exploiting disquieting developments to spur sales.

“If you look back, it hasn’t just revolved around mass shootings. They tailored their marketing to Katrina, Y2K, 9/11, pretty much everything,” he said. “Their goal is basically to induce a Pavlovian response: ‘If there’s a crisis, you must go get a gun.’”

Industry data shows that in 1990, an estimated 74,000 military-style rifles were manufactured for domestic sale in the U.S. That figure began to climb after expiration of the federal assault weapons ban in 2004 and reached 2.3 million in 2013, the year after Sandy Hook, when AR-style guns accounted for about a quarter of all sales revenue, according to the Firearms Retailer Survey, an annual report by the industry trade association.

Along with the rise in gun sales has been an intensifying effort by the industry to understand — and influence — the American consumer. In 2016, the trade association commissioned its first “consumer segmentation” study that developed profiles of potential gun buyers with labels like “Unarmed Aaron” and “Weaponless Wendy,” who presumably could succumb to the right sales pitch.

The newest study, produced last year, is closely held and not circulated outside the industry, but a copy was obtained by The Times. It found that typical gun owners were white men in their 40s earning about $75,000 a year with a preference for handguns. “Less than half consider themselves to be very knowledgeable about firearms,” the study found, though they felt the need to have one.

A common theme in consumer sentiment is anxiety. The 2021 study contained two new categories of buyers: “Prepared for the Worst” and “Urban Defender.” Urban Defenders worry about crime, “do not trust others around them” and are most susceptible to the argument that tighter laws could threaten their ability to purchase a gun.

Gun owners “Prepared for the Worst” tend to have the lowest incomes and are the least likely to have a full-time job. They cite “building confidence” and “empowering themselves” as reasons to learn shooting skills.

To reach these fearful consumers, the trade association offered suggestions in another of its reports. One example depicts an image of a woman in a desolate urban setting, calmly pulling a handgun from her shoulder bag as a hoodie-wearing man approaches from behind with a knife.

That marketing approach may work for Weaponless Wendy, the report advised, but such “cheesy images” should be avoided when targeting Unarmed Aaron.

“It is important for the individual protecting himself or his family to appear to be a confident person while not seeming eager, delighted, or excited to be in such a scenario,” the report said.

Beth Alcazar, a former teacher from Alabama turned firearms instructor, has translated these sentiments into practice. More than a third of her clients are women, she said, adding that fear of crime is a major motivator for first-time gun buyers.

“It comes from not wanting to be a victim and from knowing there’s evil in the world,” said Ms. Alcazar, who has published a book for women on using handguns for self-defense.

Comrades in Arms

The aggressive messaging around fear has also helped define a newer crop of gun rights groups that increasingly overshadow the more deep-pocketed, but troubled, N.R.A. These groups, supported by the industry, have adopted a raw, in-your-face advocacy of near limitless freedom to own and carry firearms. Gun Owners of America, which lists more than 30 gun-related companies as “partners,” proudly calls itself the “only no compromise gun lobby in Washington.”

Their tone has grown more extreme along with the public discourse around guns in general. The Firearms Policy Coalition, which has launched numerous court challenges to gun laws around the country, used to sell T-shirts and bumper stickers with anodyne pro-gun mottos such as “Shall Not Be Infringed.”

But today, its online store has gear emblazoned with over-the-top barbs like “F**k Gun Control,” “Abolish the ATF” and “Go and Print It,” a reference to using 3-D printers at home to make untraceable ghost guns. On social media, the coalition whips up members with warnings of an “impending GUNPOCALYPSE” wrought by weak or corrupt Washington politicians.

The image of Mr. Rittenhouse was put on Facebook by Big Daddy Unlimited, a firearms retailer in Gainesville, Fla., whose owners have said they started selling guns after the Sandy Hook massacre raised fears of new restrictions. “Be a Man Among Men” was a recruiting slogan used by the colonialist army of Rhodesia, now Zimbabwe, and has gained popularity among white nationalist groups in recent years, although it is also used outside of that context.

Tony McKnight, chief executive of Big Daddy Unlimited, said in a statement to The Times that the meme was created by a former employee who did not understand the historical significance of the phrase. “The post in question was meant to recognize justice for Kyle Rittenhouse, whose life came in danger while defending the community,” Mr. McKnight said.

Along with using heightened rhetoric, major gun rights groups have been working to roll back state-level restrictions. Their financial partners include companies such as Daniel Defense, the Georgia-based maker of the military-style rifle used in the Uvalde, Texas, school shooting in May, as well as major retailers like Brownells of Iowa, which last summer ran a promotion donating a portion of its sales to the Firearms Policy Coalition.

“Your purchases help defend our gun rights,” Pete Brownell, the company chairman, said as he announced the incentive.

A major target of gun rights expansion has been laws limiting the carrying of concealed weapons in public. More than 20 states over the past decade have moved to eliminate or loosen requirements to have a permit.

“Owning a gun that is locked up in your home is not going to help you when you are targeted in a crime,” said Michael Csencsits, an organizer with Gun Owners of America, which has pushed for the repeal of concealed-carry laws. “People buy guns because they want to carry them.”

In pressing the two-pronged campaign to sell more guns and weaken restrictions, the industry and activists have been informed by marketing research that shows an increasingly diverse pool of customers. Timothy Schmidt, president of the United States Concealed Carry Association, said the new generation of gun buyers encompasses city dwellers, suburbanites and those in rural areas.

“It’s not just the angry white male anymore,” he said “You’re seeing rising gun ownership among Blacks, among women. It’s really a different thing.”

JoAnna Anderson would seem to fit that demographic. A Black real estate agent in North Carolina, Ms. Anderson appears in a promotional video for SilencerCo, an online seller of devices that muffle the sound of a gunshot; its slogan is, “Suppress the Fear.”

In an interview with The Times, she said she carried a gun while on the job because she feared running into disgruntled residents of homes being vacated. Her first purchase was a 9-millimeter Ruger pistol, though she now has a collection of seven guns, including a military-style rifle.

“We cannot expect the government to protect us,” Ms. Anderson said, “because they haven’t.”

Nick Suplina, a senior vice president at Everytown for Gun Safety, a gun control group, said gun rights advocates tended to ignore data showing that firearms in homes often wound up hurting their owners instead of someone threatening them.

“While selling you this notion that a gun may provide security for yourself and your family, which is very appealing, they don’t tell you that owning a gun makes it two times more likely that somebody in the house will die of gun homicide or three times the likelihood they die by gun suicide,” he said.

Ascendant Gun Rights

After the mass shootings at Sandy Hook in 2012 and in Parkland, Fla., six years later, more than 30 states tightened gun laws, a successful effort pushed by well-funded groups such as Everytown, backed by Michael R. Bloomberg, the billionaire former mayor of New York City.

But the scorecard overall remains tilted toward gun rights, as states repeal concealed carry restrictions. Those victories have come amid the Republican Party’s embrace of Second Amendment absolutism and guns as central to its identity, a fervor that gun control proponents have not been able to match, said Mr. Miller of the Duke firearms law center.

“Gun rights advocates are reaping the benefits of a history of asymmetric intensity and political mobilization,” he said.

Energizing gun owners with a sense of alarm over the potential loss of rights has long been a reliable strategy of the firearms industry and its allies. Political candidates from both parties seeking the N.R.A.’s blessing traditionally would try to be seen hunting ducks or plinking at targets to reassure supporters that their gun rights would be safe.

But in the 2010s, with the rise of the Tea Party and increasingly strident opposition to President Barack Obama, Republican political messaging around guns took on a harder edge.

Christina Jeffrey, running for Congress in South Carolina, ran an ad in which she brandished an AK-47 assault rifle while asserting that gun rights were necessary “to ensure that our limited government stays limited.” In a Missouri governor’s race, Eric Greitens blasted away with a mounted machine gun while pledging to “fight Obama’s Democrat machine and their corrupt attacks.”

Eric Greitens, the former governor of Missouri, in an anti-Obama ad.

Such imagery has since become stock-in-trade. When Brian Kemp ran for governor of Georgia in 2018, one tongue-in-cheek ad showed him in a room full of firearms, leveling a shotgun near a young man interested in dating his daughter. It generated criticism, including from Shannon Watts, founder of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, who tweeted, “This recurring and uniquely American ‘joke’ is tiresome.”

Mr. Kemp responded dismissively with his own tweet: “I’m conservative, folks. Get over it!”

Groups like the Firearms Policy Coalition have filed dozens of court challenges to gun limits, and conservative judges, some appointed by former President Donald J. Trump, have delivered legal victories, including overturning a California law last month that placed an age minimum of 21 on purchases of semiautomatic rifles.

Mr. Suplina, of Everytown, disputed the idea that this was an era of gun rights expansion, citing a recent modest gun compromise in Washington and some state-level victories, including laws banning or limiting ghost guns in Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Nevada, New York and Rhode Island. At least four states — Delaware, New York, Rhode Island and Washington — have put new limits on high-capacity magazines that can hold a large amount of ammunition.

“The fight is really intense,” Mr. Suplina said. “But for the first time in any recent period, the gun safety movement is showing up, meeting them on the battlefield, as it were, and that includes state houses and also Congress.”

Still, gun supporters are feeling generally optimistic.

“We are just at the start of expanding gun rights,” said Mr. Csencsits of Gun Owners of America.

But lest its members become too complacent, Gun Owners of America has on its website a very different message about the state of things: Be afraid.

“A handgun ban coming to America?” blared a recent headline on the site. The post goes on to ask for a donation to stop “what could be the single biggest attack on our God-given rights.”

0 Replies
Region Philbis
Reply Sun 19 Jun, 2022 03:49 pm
Some red state police want gun safety... Will Republicans listen?

Sheriff Sam Cochran of Mobile County, Ala., is a conservative Republican who supports the Second Amendment and estimates he has 20 or more guns locked up in his safe.

And even he is at his wits’ end when it comes to his party’s extreme stance on guns.

Earlier this year, the Republican-controlled state legislature passed a bill eliminating the need for people to get permits to carry concealed handguns, over Cochran and other law enforcement officers’ passionate objections. After she signed it into law, Governor Kay Ivey, a Republican, touted it in an ad in which she pulled a pistol out of her purse.

“It’s, I guess I’d say, my biggest defeat in my career,” said Cochran, 67, who has been in law enforcement since he was 20. “There’s a difference between being a responsible gun owner and just a crazy gun nut.”

Cochran is one of numerous law enforcement officials in conservative states who have in recent years spoken out against loosening gun laws, finding themselves ignored by the same Republican lawmakers who loudly declare their unwavering support for police. These officers have lost battle after battle at the state level, but proponents of gun safety are hopeful that the willingness among some law enforcement to speak up will help get a new federal gun package, which is being hashed out by lawmakers in Washington, over the finish line.

“As the laws get more extreme and the proposals get more extreme, we see more active participation by sheriffs, law enforcement, at the state level,” said Mike Meade, the director of local government affairs at Everytown for Gun Safety, an advocacy group pushing for gun safety laws. “There is a common voice from law enforcement organizations at this moment that more needs to be done, that there is a desire for Congress to do something.”

In states like Nebraska, Texas, and Indiana, some police groups have clashed with Republicans over the encroachment of so-called “constitutional carry” laws that allow people to carry weapons without licenses or training, a conflict that has injected a note of public discord into the long-established alliance between law enforcement and the GOP. In Missouri, a police chief quit over a law imposing steep fines on law enforcement who help enforce some federal gun laws. And just this week in Ohio, law enforcement groups reeled as Governor Mike DeWine, a Republican, signed a bill they vociferously opposed that will allow teachers to carry guns in school with no more than 24 hours of training — a sharp reduction from the 700 hours the state previously required.

“We’re putting more guns into schools, into the hands of potentially untrained teachers,” said Gary Wolske, the president of the Ohio Fraternal Order of Police, a union there. “Maybe you should listen to the experts once in a while.”

Both sides of the gun debate have long sought to show they have police on their side, and experts say rank-and-file police officers tend to be more conservative than their leaders or chiefs on the issue. But there are many aspects of officers’ jobs that would seem to make them natural advocates for gun safety, since they patrol the streets of a nation with 400 million guns and are on the front lines of the gun violence that makes daily headlines. In Uvalde, Tex., police have faced fierce criticism for not quickly confronting the shooter, armed with an AR-style rifle and 30-round magazines, who killed 19 elementary school students there.

“When you think about the gun issue there’s so many aspects to it that affect policing,” Chuck Wexler, the executive director of the Police Executive Research Forum, a Washington-based group that researches best practices for police, said. “Police chiefs know the extent and nature of gun violence in their community. They need to speak up about that.”

But the connection between police and pro-gun rights groups like the National Rifle Association has a long history. In the early 20th century, the NRA was one of the earliest proponents of police forces being armed, said Jennifer Carlson, a sociologist at the University of Arizona who has researched police attitudes toward guns and the Second Amendment. Today, it still offers law enforcement training to become firearm instructors. It also provides line-of-duty grants of $35,000 to NRA members who are killed while serving in public law enforcement.

“It speaks to police as this highly prized ally in the gun debate,” Carlson said.

Police groups got behind gun control in the 1990s, when officers lined up behind President Bill Clinton as he signed the assault weapons ban into law. But it was a measure that came as part of a bigger package of harsh criminal penalties, including one that ballooned incarceration rates and disproportionately affected communities of color.

Law enforcement support for that law was “embedded in the racial politics of the war on crime,” Carlson said, “essentially wanting to stack the deck in their favor of not being outgunned.”

Overall, she said, most police officers have long favored gun rights over gun control. “They tend toward owning guns and identifying as conservative,” Carlson said, referring to surveys and her own research.

The bond between rank-and-file police and the Republican Party has strengthened in recent years, particularly as Democrats have called for police reform that some police groups oppose and even, in a few cases, advocated “defunding” departments altogether, in the wake of police killings of unarmed Black people and other minorities. Republicans, meanwhile, have branded themselves the pro-law enforcement party, even as both parties continue to generously fund the police.

“There’s been a general trend from law enforcement to move in a more conservative direction and that’s not unique to us,” Jim Pasco, the executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police, a large national police union representing rank-and-file officers, said. “This constant drumbeat of criticism and second guessing of law enforcement when they perform their duties — when somebody comes along and says, ‘Hey I got you 100 percent, hey I got you 1000 percent, I’ve got your back,’ ...it’s been a compelling attraction.”

That made it all the more surprising to some observers of gun politics when, late last month and again earlier this week, the FOP joined the International Association of Chiefs of Police, an organization that represents police leadership, in calling for action to address gun violence and then backing the initial compromise bill that has emerged in Washington.

“I’ve never seen them out on this issue,” said John Donohue, a law professor at Stanford who has researched gun laws. “The FOP is an organization which consistently has stood up for the rank and file. The fact that they’re taking these steps, it will at least make some of them reflect.”

Pasco, whom President Biden describes as a good friend, disputes that the move represents anything new for his organization, despite the notice it has drawn.

“Police still want the same thing. Not only do they not want the citizens to get shot, they don’t want to get shot either, by criminals with firearms,” he said.

Other police groups, including the Major Cities Chiefs Association and the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, are also calling for federal action. The proposal in Congress would expand the background check system and encourage states to adopt “red flag” laws to allow authorities to temporarily block people deemed dangerous from accessing weapons. Carlson said the measure is an illustration of the kind of gun safety measures rank and file officers are willing to support: One that gives them more options to prevent crime.

“You could kind of describe the deal as a toolbox for law enforcement,” she said.

Around the country, police officers who oppose certain gun laws are quick to say they support the Second Amendment, but their advocacy suggests there is some willingness — at least among chiefs and sheriffs — to break with the NRA and Republicans.

Research has shown states that adopt permitless carry laws see an increase in violent crime.

In Texas, leaders of police groups like Kevin Lawrence, who is the executive director of the Texas Municipal Police Association, are expecting to testify in front of the special committees of state lawmakers that Governor Greg Abbott, a Republican, has convened in response to the slaying of 19 children and 2 adults in Uvalde. Lawrence supports the idea of a red flag law for Texas, and also says he wants to “be at the table and have that conversation” about the idea of raising the age to purchase long guns to 21, from 18. (The Uvalde gunman was 18.)

“We feel like we’re pulling our hair out, trying to get folks on both sides, you know, to come together,” he said.

Lawrence was part of a failed effort by numerous police groups last year to stop his Republican-led state government from passing its own permitless carry law. Law enforcement groups complained that it could make the state more dangerous, by allowing people to carry guns without any training, and that it took away their ability to question people carrying guns.

“We never are opposed to the constitutional right of anyone to carry a weapon. ... We just also believe that it was not unreasonable to request that somebody that wants to carry a firearm goes through a basic training course,” said Chief Jimmy Perdue of the Richland Hills, Texas, Police, the president of the Texas Police Chiefs Association.

In Missouri, another permissive gun law pushed by Republican lawmakers made then-Chief Philip Dupuis of O’Fallon, Mo., so concerned that he quit his job. He worried the law in question exposed police officers to lawsuits if they helped to enforce some federal gun laws — essentially removing their qualified immunity to avoid legal repercussions, which Republicans generally consider sacrosanct.

“Local law enforcement has a role and a place in teaming up with federal agencies for drug enforcement, for immigration enforcement, and for gun laws,” he said. “It just opened liability for me and my family and we just weren’t willing to risk it.”

Some police chiefs are frustrated that a party that professes to support them has not done more when it comes to gun safety laws.

“Many people support the police, but it’s empty if the lives of the community and law enforcement don’t rise to the level which they’re considering,” said Lincoln, Neb., Police Chief Teresa Ewins, whose testified against a permitless carry bill in her state that was defeated.

Sheriff Cochran, of Mobile, Ala., has run four times as a Republican but now feels like he is on the outs with his party following the passage of permitless carry. In January, he decided not to run for reelection, citing his age and the length of his tenure.

“I said, ‘Look, I’m gonna call them out when somebody gets killed, I’m gonna call them out again for passing these laws because people are gonna die,’” he said. “Republicans haven’t really done law enforcement any favors.”

He believes the compromise in Washington is progress, albeit incremental, and hopes it’s enough to incentivize his home state to pass its own red flag law.

“The gun people are beginning to have to pay that price,” he said.
Reply Sun 19 Jun, 2022 08:49 pm
@Region Philbis,
Sheriff Sam Cochran of Mobile County, Ala., is a conservative Republican who supports the Second Amendment

Earlier this year, the Republican-controlled state legislature passed a bill eliminating the need for people to get permits to carry concealed handguns, over Cochran and other law enforcement officers’ passionate objections.

These things don't add up. He obviously doesn't support the second amendment.
Reply Sun 19 Jun, 2022 09:04 pm
Look into why the 2ndA is there in the first place. it clearly refers to militias as arms of governments, not the individual right the the gun zealot NRA and SCOttus twisted it into. Whole lot of ssensible law enforcement want fewer gun loonies on the streets,
0 Replies
Reply Sun 19 Jun, 2022 09:21 pm
Personally, as it says there's to be no infringment at all on the ability to own or bear arms, I think people should be allowed to own ICBM's.......

...even if a person would otherwise be a 'school shooter'....or psychotic...or severely paranoid schizophrenic.

...if you support the literalness of the wording, then you would have to agree. Otherwise they got it wrong, or it is open to interpretation.

But...the right to bear arms is part of a sentence, with the primary qualifier being 'A well regulated militia'. Technically, according to the structure of English sentences - you would have to be part of the militia, and you would have to be well regulated, in order to have the right to own and bear arms.
Reply Sun 19 Jun, 2022 09:39 pm
The 2nd ammendment reads as a statement of logical progression (through the eyes of the people at the time it was written), introducing the Subject, the Reason, and the outcome. Structure of English, as follows:

A well regulated Militia

Subject introduced immediatedly - a well regulated militia

being necessary to the security of a free State

Reason introduced straight away for the well regulated militia

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The outcome (of the subject and the reason)

Ie. the outcome is bound to the subject, which is also bound to the reason. The right to bear arms doesn't exist outside of 'A well regulated militia'. This is obvious to anyone who doesn't have an agenda.

Region Philbis
Reply Wed 29 Jun, 2022 04:57 pm

NYC, State of NY announce lawsuits against ghost gun retailers
0 Replies
Reply Wed 29 Jun, 2022 05:09 pm
that's what I've been saying, but interpretation is everything, is it not? I'm sure the founders did not conceive of nor would approve of the sale of automatic rifles to the willy-nilly, nor the rights of individual to walk around the streets carrying God knows what.
0 Replies
Reply Wed 29 Jun, 2022 11:04 pm
If that was the intention, they would have written "the right of the militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

But they didn't. They clearly said "the people"

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Notice the comma, a new clause.
Reply Thu 30 Jun, 2022 05:37 am
Regardless how you interpret it it doesn't rule out the regulation of said arms.

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 07/02/2022 at 04:43:19