Another major school shooting today ... Newtown, Conn

@firefly,

firefly wrote:

Quote:
The same as Social Security, the "influence of the NRA" is America 's majority
of freedom-loving voters, who believe in their own, personal right of self defense.

Oh please, David, the influence of the NRA is more akin to the influence of Big Pharma--the NRA helps to protect the interests and profits of the gun manufacturers.

Plenty of "freedom-loving voters, who believe in their own, personal right of self defense," do not agree with the NRA's positions--and that includes some who belong to the NRA.

And just as the NRA solicits money to fund their lobbying and influence pedaling, it is high time that those who want to see gun violence reduced, and who want to counteract the NRA's obstructionist tactics, and domination of lawmakers, likewise organized and raised money for their own lobbying efforts.

And I do think that Kelly and Giffords are the perfect people to organize such efforts. They are not anti-gun, they are gun owners, and Giffords was always a supporter of gun rights. But they do not agree with or support the NRA, and the lobbying group they are now forming will serve to facilitate a national discussion of the issue of gun violence, and will hopefully present a counterforce to the NRA, and will hopefully become a force to help reduce gun violence without being "anti-gun".

I would think that responsible gun owners would welcome Kelly and Giffords initiating a lobbying and fund-raising effort like Americans for Responsible Solutions. Why should the NRA remain the only dominant voice of gun owners, particularly since it doesn't speak for all gun owners?

Any group with millions of members, like NRA,
must have some degree of diversity of opinion.

If gun control groups succeed, then there may well be less "gun violence"
in that law abiding victims will be helpless, UNABLE
to legally return gunfire when criminals attack;
i.e., in theory there'd be 50% less "gun violence" if only the bad guys have guns.

0 Replies

@firefly,

firefly wrote:

Oh please, David, the influence of the NRA is more akin to the influence of Big Pharma--the NRA helps to protect the interests and profits of the gun manufacturers.

Just the opposite. The gun manufactures kowtow to us.

The gun manufacturers do not actually object to letting you freedom haters violate the Constitution. But they know that if they dare to side with you, we will destroy them.

firefly wrote:

And just as the NRA solicits money to fund their lobbying and influence pedaling, it is high time that those who want to see gun violence reduced, and who want to counteract the NRA's obstructionist tactics, and domination of lawmakers, likewise organized and raised money for their own lobbying efforts.

Good luck outvoting the NRA in rural congressional districts.

firefly wrote:

And I do think that Kelly and Giffords are the perfect people to organize such efforts. They are not anti-gun, they are gun owners, and Giffords was always a supporter of gun rights. But they do not agree with or support the NRA, and the lobbying group they are now forming will serve to facilitate a national discussion of the issue of gun violence, and will hopefully present a counterforce to the NRA, and will hopefully become a force to help reduce gun violence without being "anti-gun".

Nope. If they weren't freedom haters, they wouldn't be opposing the NRA.

firefly wrote:

I would think that responsible gun owners would welcome Kelly and Giffords initiating a lobbying and fund-raising effort like Americans for Responsible Solutions.

Responsible gun owners don't tend to like it when groups try to violate their rights. And they like it even less when those groups lie to them and try to pretend they are not out to violate their rights.

firefly wrote:

Why should the NRA remain the only dominant voice of gun owners, particularly since it doesn't speak for all gun owners?

They aren't. You only think they are because you never have any idea what you are talking about.

0 Replies

From a retweet from Mia Farrow

"How did we get to the point where 85%of the children in the world that are killed with guns, are killed in the United States." Mark Kelly

Is that even vaguely true?

1 Reply

@hingehead,

hingehead wrote:

From a retweet from Mia Farrow

"How did we get to the point where 85%of the children in the world that are killed with guns, are killed in the United States." Mark Kelly

Is that even vaguely true?

no

Quote:

The most recent analysis of data from 23 industrialized nations shows that 87 percent of the
children under age 15 killed by guns in these nations lived in the United States.

http://www.childrensdefense.org/child-research-data-publications/data/protect-children-not-guns-2012.pdf
page 2

with Mia though one is never sure if it is a lie or if it is stupidity.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

maybe however in this case Mia should get a pass...the Chicago Trib was making the same claim 4 days ago in something they call an article which was written by a woman who owns a firm that makes its money by being a hired gun for political pressure groups.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-01-04/news/ct-perspec-0104-firearms-20130104_1_gun-owners-firearm-suicide-rate-strict-gun-laws

journalism ain't what it used to be.

0 Replies

http://www.demandaplan.org/

0 Replies

@Val Killmore,

You have nothing but insults. You certainly have no knowledge of history, and you certainly have no basis for your ludicrous fantasy of Americans rising up in arms agains their government. I suspect all i'll see is more insults, because you don't have anything going for you.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

It's quite clear that it is you who have deluded yourself, and seem to have missing knowledge of American history. I am correct in saying that when the battle started, it started of with the colonies not being as better trained or battle hardened, or as well equipped as the Brits.
And a what/if scenario is just that, a conjecture, and the only basis required for such a thing to happen is if government becomes tyrannical and doesn't budge to peaceful protests. Geez, it seems you have started to loose a basic understanding of the english language.

1 Reply

0 Replies

@Val Killmore,

No, you are incorrect. The colonies defended themselves in King Williams War (1690s), Queen Anne's War (the same as the War of the Spanish Succession), King George's War (the same as the War of the Austrian Succession), and in the French and Indian War. In 1745, the colonists, without outside aid, captured the great French fortress of Louisbourg (which the British promptly gave back to France in the peace negotiations) The largest army to that time assembled in North America (1758) was made up of a majority of colonists, and the colonies supplied the logistical support. The British were able to re-take Louisbourg in 1758 becaues of the aid of the colonist. In 1758, Governor Pownall of Massachusetts wrote to the Lords of Trade (who governed the colonies) that one in seven adult males in Massachusetts was serving the King by land or sea. The commanders of the forces at Boston were all veterans of the French and Indian War, as were a great many of their men. George Washington, of course, was a veteran of that war. As i've already pointed out, the equipment was identical from one army to the other.

You don't make any specific claims about the revolution, just vauge flings from your comic book vision of history. You make no specific references to people or events. That's because you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

As for you hilarious scenario about "the people" rising in arms against their government, you don't even provide a logical scenario. Fewer than half the voters even show up to vote in national elections, but you claim they'll take up arms against an allegedly tyrannical government. You provide no definition of what kind of tyranny will lead them to that extreme, nor do you canvas the issues of organization and logiscial support for your fantasy army.

Keep up the personal insults, it's all you've got.

2 Replies

@McTag,

McTag wrote:

Quote:
Anyone who talks about the NRA as if they were bad, is someone who hates the US Constitution and hates America's freedom.

Sometimes Oralloy out-does himself with his amazing claptrap.

Anyone who seeks to eliminate criticism of their ideological position hates the First (FIRST!) Amendment, and thus the Constitution, America, and air breathed by Americans.

0 Replies

King William's War

Note in particular this line from the opening paragraph:

Quote:

It was the first of six colonial wars (see the four French and Indian Wars, Father Rale's War and Father Le Loutre's War) fought between New France and New England along with their respective Native allies before Britain eventually defeated France in North America in 1763.

Queen Anne's War

King George's War

The French and Indian War

American colonists had a century and more of experience fighting their Indian neighbors, and fighting the French and their Indian allies. It amazes me that you cannot admit your ignorance to yourself, and continue to make idiotic statements which you cannot support, and which glaringly demonstrate your ignorance.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

about "the people" rising in arms against their government, you don't even provide a logical scenario

Some of the far far left anti gun crowd are talking about trying to seized all firearms in private hands and that would indeed sit off a hundred thousands Waco's at the very least.

http://www.examiner.com/article/new-york-gov-cuomo-supports-gun-confiscation

Gov. Andrew Cuomo, D-N.Y., speaking during a radio interview, stated that in implementing new gun control measures, confiscation of guns is on the table for consideration.

The governor's statement would mark the first time a major elected official has broached the subject of forced seizure of citizens' firearms. Earlier in the debate, just after the Newtown, Conn. massacre in which 20 children and six adults were killed by a crazed shooter at the Sandy Hook Elementary School, several news anchors who are known for supporting liberal causes called for gun confiscation. But no politician would go on the record to support such a thing until now.

Confiscation and seizure of the guns of law abiding citizens in America are two of the strongest terms possible to describe the new anti-gun initiative of the Obama administration and Congressional Democrats. Such a policy is foreign to the United States of America and its Constitution, which protects the gun rights of average citizens. One has visions of armed police officers going house to house demanding the weapons of the inhabitants, reminiscent of the extreme measures undertaken by tyrants such as Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Chairman Mao just prior to their campaigns of mass genocide during which disarmed citizens were murdered by the state in cold blood.

Conservatives have long warned that gun registration and gun control laws are ultimately aimed at disarming the public entirely. These protests have been met with ridicule and denials on the part of gun control advocates, who insist they would never seek to take guns and ammunition from average, law abiding citizens.

Yet so far conservatives and other gun rights activists have seen nothing but open confirmation of their prior warnings in the concrete proposals and statements by the anti-gun lobby.

2 Replies

I been rolling on the floor as the local police had begin a buy back gun program and all three collection locations are in areas that I would never dream of going into without a firearm on me.

Two of them are in black high crime areas and the other is in a low income latin area.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

You and your delusional friend Val should get a room. Provide evidence of a single instance of the "far, far left crowd" trying to take anyone's guns away. Vagues claims about what politicians say don't count. Who has tried to take anyone's guns away?

Loon

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

H2O MAN wrote:

I will boycott national & state firearm registration.

Good, then we can put your stupid ass in jail. In fact we can show you have stated an intent to violate gun laws.

2 Replies

@parados,

Your dumb ass should be locked up in accordance with the new democratic violence prevention program.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

Vagues claims about what politicians say don't count. Who has tried to take anyone's guns away?

Vagues claims???? What vagues about a public statement by a major state governor?

2 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Quote:
Vagues claims about what politicians say don't count. Who has tried to take anyone's guns away?

Vagues claims???? What vagues about a public statement by a major state governor?

A statement by a single politician is not a piece of legislation. It is a vague claim since it has no power to do anything.

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

Good, then we can put your stupid ass in jail. In fact we can show you have stated an intent to violate gun laws.

I can just see a jury of 6 or worst 12 people that would not have people on it that would not hang such a jury in a millisecond.

Not to mention the little problem of finding room in the nations prisons to locked up the millions of men and women who will cheerfully and openly tell the government to go to hell.

Your problem is that gun owners outnumber all the law enforcement agencies personal together by a hundred or more and we are not going to be disarmed.

1 Reply

Another major school shooting today ... Newtown, Conn

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know