Another major school shooting today ... Newtown, Conn

oralloy wrote:

Well first let's address your bad logic. You made a vague statement about "disagreeing". I merely made a supposition as to the ultimate nature of that vague statement.

In other words, you created a strawman. Thanks for the admission.

oralloy wrote:

There is no hyperbole involved, even if I couldn't come up with a specific example, since your vague statement about "disagreeing" could very well encompass such civil rights violations (especially given the long history of Second Amendment violations being couched in such vague language).

Since you think my statement is vague then it is clearly hyperbole to assume it means something so clear to you.

Since you want to argue that vague language has violated your constitutional rights, give us a clear example of that.

Cite the vague law that you think violated the Constitution.

Then explain why you think there can be restrictions on voting and speech but none on guns.

Or do you think that the US constitution allows some restrictions?

Oh, so the number of bullets a gun holds is a test of how effective the gun is at killing?

oralloy wrote:

Nonsense. The fact that some restrictions are allowed does not in any way mean that it is not outrageous to go way beyond what is allowed and commit grievous violations of people's Constitutional rights.

And there is more hyperbole from you.

What grievous violation are you referring to?

Which court has called it a grievous violation?

Courts are the ones that decide issues. They often weigh things and it might be a close call on a 5-4 vote but that is not evidence of a grievous violation.

It is evidence of a narrow disagreement about constitutional issues but no reasonable person would refer to that as a grievous violation.

Only a person interested in strawmen and hyperbole would make the statements you make.

Does the NRA Represent Gun Manufacturers or Gun Owners?
Lee Fang
December 14, 2012

Over the last four years, Congress and the Obama administration have only enacted laws that have deregulated gun use in America. It’s no secret why. As pundits love to note, the gun lobby is incredibly influential. But as we consider the potential for reform in the wake of the tragedy today, one of the first questions we should ask this time is: who does the gun lobby really represent?

The National Rifle Association portrays itself as an organization that represents “4 million members” who simply love the Second Amendment. The truth is much more murky.

In reality, the NRA is composed of half a dozen legal entities; some designed to run undisclosed attack ads in political campaigns, others to lobby and collect tens of millions in undisclosed, tax-deductible sums. This power has only been enhanced in the era of Citizens United, with large GOP donors in the last election reportedly funneling money to the NRA simply to use the group as a brand to pummel Democrats with nasty ads. (As The Huffington Post’s Peter Stone reported, even the Koch network now provides an undisclosed amount to the NRA.)

Despite the grassroots façade, there is much evidence to suggest that corporations that profit from unregulated gun use are propping up the NRA’s activities, much like how the tobacco lobby secretly funded “Smokers Rights’” fronts and libertarian anti-tax groups, or how polluters currently finance much of the climate change skepticism movement.

In a “special thanks” to their donors, the National Rifle Association Foundation lists Bushmaster Firearms Inc., the company that makes the assault rifle reportedly found with the shooter responsible for the mass murder today in Newtown, Connecticut. How much Bushmaster Firearms Inc. (a firm now known as Windham) contributes is left unsaid.

The Violence Policy Center has estimated that since 2005, gun manufacturers have contributed up to $38.9 million to the NRA. Those numbers, however, are based on publicly listed “sponsorship” levels on NRA fundraising pamphlets. The real figures could be much bigger. Like Crossroads GPS or Americans for Prosperity, or the Sierra Club for that matter, the NRA does not disclose any donor information even though it spends millions on federal elections.

And like other industry fronts, the NRA is quick to conceal its pro–gun industry policy positions as ideological commitments.

Take, for example, “The NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund.” It’s a pro–gun rights legal fund “involved in court cases establishing legal precedents in favor of gun owners.”

And who helps pick which impact-litigation cases the NRA will become involved with? Folks like James W. Porter II, a board member of the NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund, who doubles as an attorney whose private firm specializes in “areas of products liability defense of firearms manufacturers.” His last client, according to a search of the federal court docket, was Smith & Wesson Corporation.

Is the NRA working for casual gun-owners, many of whom, according to polling, support tougher restrictions on gun ownership— or is the NRA serving the gunmaker lobby— which is purely interested in policies that will promote greater gun sales and more profits? Any gun control policy debate should begin with this question.
http://www.thenation.com/blog/171776/does-nra-represent-gun-manufacturers-or-gun-owners#

July 24, 2012

NEW POLL OF NRA MEMBERS BY FRANK LUNTZ SHOWS STRONG SUPPORT FOR COMMON-SENSE GUN LAWS, EXPOSING SIGNIFICANT DIVIDE BETWEEN RANK-AND-FILE MEMBERS AND NRA LEADERSHIP

Gun Owners Believe Protecting Second Amendment Goes Hand-in-Hand with Keeping Guns Out of the Hands of Criminals

Overwhelming Support for Background Checks for All Buyers; Barring Terror Suspects from Firearm Ownership, Requiring Reporting of Lost and Stolen Guns – Measures Opposed by the NRA’s Washington Office

Mayors Against Illegal Guns today released the findings of a survey by GOP pollster Frank Luntz showing that NRA members and gun owners overwhelmingly support a variety of laws designed to keep firearms out of dangerous hands, even as the Washington gun lobby prepares to spend unprecedented millions supporting candidates who pledge to oppose any changes to U.S. gun laws. The poll also dispels the myth among many Washington pundits that there is a lack of public support for common-sense measures that would help keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people and keep Americans safe.

Among the survey’s key findings:

•87 percent of NRA members agree that support for 2nd Amendment rights goes hand-in-hand with keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.
•There is very strong support for criminal background checks: ◦74 percent support requiring criminal background checks of anyone purchasing a gun.
◦79 percent support requiring gun retailers to perform background checks on all employees – a measure recently endorsed by the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the trade association for the firearms industry.

•NRA members strongly support allowing states to set basic eligibility requirements for people who want to carry concealed, loaded guns in public places. By contrast, the NRA leadership’s top federal legislative priority – national reciprocity for concealed carry permits – would effectively eliminate these requirements by forcing every state to allow non-residents to carry concealed guns even if they would not qualify for a local permit.
•NRA members support many common state eligibility rules for concealed carrying: ◦75 percent believe concealed carry permits should only be granted to applicants who have not committed any violent misdemeanors, including assault.
◦74 percent believe permits should only be granted to applicants who have completed gun safety training.
◦68 percent believe permits should only be granted to applicants who do not have prior arrests for domestic violence.
◦63 percent believe permits should only be granted to applicants 21 years of age or older.


The NRA rank and file also supports barring people on terror watch lists from buying guns (71 percent) and believe the law should require gun owners to alert police to lost and stolen guns (65 percent).


The NRA’s Washington office strongly opposes both measures.


The Luntz findings are in line with previous research showing that Americans are nearly unanimous in their support for closing loopholes that allow dangerous people to buy firearms without a background check. A January 2011 poll conducted for Mayors Against Illegal Guns by the bipartisan polling team of Momentum Analysis and American Viewpoint found that 86 percent of Americans and 81 percent of gun owners support requiring all gun buyers to pass a background check, no matter where they buy a gun or who they but it from.


“Gun owners and NRA members overwhelmingly support common sense steps to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, even as the NRA leadership continues to oppose them,” said Mayor Bloomberg. “It’s time for those in Washington – and those running for President – to stand with gun owning citizens who are concerned about public safety, rather than influence peddling lobbyists who are obsessed with ideology. I join with NRA members in urging Washington to pass a law requiring universal background checks for all gun sales – and to take other common sense steps that will save lives.”


“This poll shows plain and simply how seriously out-of-step the leadership of the NRA is with its membership – and how, despite what previous polls say, there really is support for common sense gun laws in the U.S.,” said Mayors Against Illegal Guns Co-Chair and Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino. "The best way to honor the memory of those who senselessly lost their lives in Aurora is to make it harder for this to ever happen again. Our political leaders need to lead — and we demand they act now.”


The Luntz poll of 945 gun owners nationwide was conducted in May 2012 and was divided evenly by gun owners who were current or lapsed members of the NRA and non-NRA gun owners. The poll has a margin of error of + 3 percent.
http://e2.ma/message/p7lcb/hhkjgb

S0 a pound of gunpower in a pipe is a weapon of mass destruction as such devices had killed as many or more people then the 27 number so far given.

Barring Terror Suspects from Firearm Ownership

Constitution says I have the right to have the ones you're trying to ban.

Quote:

We arev dealing with domestic terror and, if these guys dont soon recognize it, weve been busy enmacting all sorts of freedom limiting laws to defeat "terrorists" but we are empowering and enabling these domestic terrorists just because theres a big fuckin DEATH LOBBY that serves in its favor

Quote:

Quote:

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5196720)
Frank Apisa wrote:

What is really sad is that many are saying that getting more guns into
circulation is part of the solution to the problem.

I 'll stand up for MORE GUNS.
Weak, feeble victims = more crime.

Yup...you would.

That was part of what I was saying, David.

There are people (like you) who are suggesting that getting more guns
into circulation is part of the solution to the problem.

Frank, I am 1OO% SURE that violent criminals are saddened
at the notion of their future victims acquiring more guns.

I don't have any guns here in Hawaii. I don't need one.

Quote:

Frank, I am 1OO% SURE that violent criminals are saddened
at the notion of their future victims acquiring more guns.

and you are most likely dead wrong

Yup. The 2d Amendment guarantees Oralloy and Dave the right to keep muzzle-loaders in their homes and carry them to the meeting house when necessary. And maybe a cap-and-ball single-shot pistol stuck in their belts. That's all it says.

Im a proud owner and user of guns. I often have to carry in field situiations . BUT , I am a fierce opponent of these 2nd amendment yahoos who dont see anything but serving their gun ownership without any restrictions in order to prevent things like this .
Whenever these things occur guys like ORAL, or that little mouse Dave, and usually Billy, circle their ******* wagons and start lecturing about their precious weapons.

ORAL, a musket in the midst of unarmed Eloi is a WMD you just fail to accept the concept of how the MD is accomplished. You must think a bit OOtB.

We often had discussions about whether a platoon of Marines with assault arms coulda taken on the ENtire British ARmy of 1775. In that case a big clipped semi is a WMD. The WMD doesnt just have to be able to blow a big hole in the ground, it can do the same by methodically picking off targets in mass formations.