Guns

[fourto5]

Imagine this scenario: the country has abundant agricultural potential. Government officials covet the wealth in the land, businesses, and other resources of the nation. Officials make laws such that businesses and farmers cannot afford to stay in business (example: price fixes on commodoties below the cost of production. Producers stop producing, as they would have to sell their production at a loss). Officials then rage publicly against the producers, calling them criminals who are starving the nation by refusing to produce. A nation of people who are hungry, and who simply take the word of any party official who promises them many government benefits, agrees that these evil producers deserve whatever the government sees fit to do to them.
In the more benign scenario, legal methods employed simply drive the producers out of business, and then the officials are given title to those farms and businesses in quick property transfer deals.
Once the ownership has changed hands to official insiders, the price controls are lifted! Onerous government regulations are lifted or waivers are granted! NOW the businesses and farms can produce, and if the production prices are too high for the ordinary citizenry to purchase the production, the government prints lots of currency to purchase products from the insider-owned businesses.

There are Americans who find this scenario morally repugnant, and would defend all of us against it. Some may serve in military now. People need to have a strong sense of honor to be in the service.
You might want to try to predict just who the military is apt to be in your scenario. Is it a righteous one, or a gang working for pay or a bit of food for family?

[EMTP513]

That's not a fact, it's the biggest load of crap I ever heard. "Cities with the most restrictive gun laws have the most crime."
Gimme a damn break. There's no such thing as a "city with restrictive gun laws" because the loophole in the Brady Law, that's been in existence for 20 years nullifies and/or deletes any gun laws that exist.
If you can't get a gun by passing a background check, then all you have to do is travel to one of the more than 35 states that DON'T observe background checks, bring the gun back across state lines and then I guess blow away as many people as you want to, then tell everyone, "But I got my gun 'legally," ' just because you bought it in the parking lot at a gun show, making it a private sale, bypassing a background check, and slithering through the loophole in the Brady Law.
And that silly old Wayne LaPierre doesn't even like background checks. He never cared about what happened in Connecticut and lied when he said he did. Actions speak louder than words and his actions have been SCREAMing out that he never cared and did that whole "wait a week, talk on national television, care-so-much" driveling, sniveling little pissant act.

friend of Lauren Rousseau, one of the two three teachers who died at Sandy Hook

[FlakeNoir]

That's not a fact, it's the biggest load of crap I ever heard. "Cities with the most restrictive gun laws have the most crime."
Gimme a damn break. There's no such thing as a "city with restrictive gun laws" because the loophole in the Brady Law, that's been in existence for 20 years nullifies and/or deletes any gun laws that exist.
If you can't get a gun by passing a background check, then all you have to do is travel to one of the more than 35 states that DON'T observe background checks, bring the gun back across state lines and then I guess blow away as many people as you want to, then tell everyone, "But I got my gun 'legally," ' just because you bought it in the parking lot at a gun show, making it a private sale, bypassing a background check, and slithering through the loophole in the Brady Law.
And that silly old Wayne LaPierre doesn't even like background checks. He never cared about what happened in Connecticut and lied when he said he did. Actions speak louder than words and his actions have been SCREAMing out that he never cared and did that whole "wait a week, talk on national television, care-so-much" driveling, sniveling little pissant act.

friend of Lauren Rousseau, one of the two three teachers who died at Sandy Hook

I'm very sorry for your loss.

[Lily Sawyer]

I'm very sorry for your loss.

That makes two of us.
And I couldn't agree more with your post. Wayne LaPierre made me ill when he first spoke after Sandy Hook happened.

[jimson]

That's not a fact, it's the biggest load of crap I ever heard. "Cities with the most restrictive gun laws have the most crime."
Gimme a damn break. There's no such thing as a "city with restrictive gun laws" because the loophole in the Brady Law, that's been in existence for 20 years nullifies and/or deletes any gun laws that exist.
If you can't get a gun by passing a background check, then all you have to do is travel to one of the more than 35 states that DON'T observe background checks, bring the gun back across state lines and then I guess blow away as many people as you want to, then tell everyone, "But I got my gun 'legally," ' just because you bought it in the parking lot at a gun show, making it a private sale, bypassing a background check, and slithering through the loophole in the Brady Law.
And that silly old Wayne LaPierre doesn't even like background checks. He never cared about what happened in Connecticut and lied when he said he did. Actions speak louder than words and his actions have been SCREAMing out that he never cared and did that whole "wait a week, talk on national television, care-so-much" driveling, sniveling little pissant act.

friend of Lauren Rousseau, one of the two three teachers who died at Sandy Hook

Also sorry for your loss, but there are a couple of things I'd like to comment on.

All states observe background checks, there is no state where you can walk into a gun store and buy a gun with no background check. There is of course transfer of firearms between private parties and I can't really argue with those who think something needs to be done about that.

Surely a solution can be found that both sides can live with.

However, even in cities with strict gun control there is still a black market of firearms and there is no way we can magically get rid of that.

Also I have to take issue with your statement that Wayne LaPierre doesn't care about what happened in Connecticut. why would you say that? You just hate so much that you refuse to believe he's ever had children or grandchildren that he loves, just because he didn't immediately capitulate to the anti gun lobby?

It's very sad when you can be characterized as being in favor of the murder of children if you are not in favor of new restrictive gun laws. I also might interject here that The NRA is supporting legislation aimed at keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill.

Pretty much all gun rights supporters would be in favor of laws that target the people who commit these type of crimes rather than also targeting the millions of law abiding citizens who may own or want to own semi automatic firearms.

We just simply don't agree on how to address it.

One thing I can tell you is that I don't believe that anyone in their right mind reacts with anything other than sadness and dismay at such incidents but we as gun rights supporters groan even harder, knowing that the rights we believe we have are going to now fall under attack, and while I am sure that they are also saddened, people like Dianne Feinstein's eyes light up at the opportunity they have been waiting for.

She has been ready to go with this legislation for years and has just been waiting for the best chance to get it through.

I'm sorry if people don't believe I am a Stephen King fan because my first post was about this issue. If I wasn't a fan I wouldn't likely care about his essay.

I suppose I hoped that in some way he might be reminded that he also has conservatives and gun rights supporters among his fans and might consider them next time he considers taking sides in an issue and actually steer his fans into helping an organization dedicated to the total prohibition of firearm ownership in this country.

Those of you who favor restrictive gun control including bans: Can you honestly tell me that you wouldn't have some of the same feelings if he had written a pro-gun essay, donating the proceeds to the NRA?

Actually, don't bother answering, If you say no, I won't believe you anyway.

[Lily Sawyer]

Also I have to take issue with your statement that Wayne LaPierre doesn't care about what happened in Connecticut. why would you say that?

Had LaPierre given $0.02 about what happened in CT, he'd have held a press conference the day Sandy Hook happened, with a statement of sympathy (at the very least) and a request for a legislative dialogue regarding solving how it could have been avoided (ideal).

[jimson]

Had LaPierre given $0.02 about what happened in CT, he'd have held a press conference the day Sandy Hook happened, with a statement of sympathy (at the very least) and a request for a legislative dialogue regarding solving how it could have been avoided (ideal).

And he would have still been excoriated for even showing his face. I believe the only thing he could have done that would have muted criticism is to immediately come out in favor of more restrictions on firearm ownership.


While I'm sure there are some Democrats who truly believe an "assault weapons" ban will do some good, there is a whole lot more going on here than this corrupt narrative that only the anti gun Democrats care about our children.


I personally think that the whole gun issue is mostly just being used as a weapon (irony unintended) in the larger cultural and ideological war.


Why else are they pushing for something the Vice President admits will be essentially ineffective and that they know will fail in the Senate and is absolutely guaranteed to fail in the House when they could be concentrating on other measures that actually have a chance, if it's not more about demonizing the political opposition?


Harry Reid seems to be the only Democrat who gets it.


If it's all for the children, then why does the President want pediatricians to inquire about gun ownership as a danger, when they are not being urged to inquire about the much larger dangers of residential swimming pools?

[Lily Sawyer]

And he would have still been excoriated for even showing his face. I believe the only thing he could have done that would have muted criticism is to immediately come out in favor of more restrictions on firearm ownership.

In his role as the President of the NRA, LaPierre owed it to the Sandy Hook victims' families to express condolences on the day it happened. Period. I understand he waited to learn the who, what, when, why, and how of the tragedy happening, but when the rest of us learned that Lanza's mother's weapons had been used, he still didn't take an immediate stand denouncing the decision of Lanza's mother to continue to allow her son access to her weapons, even though she knew he wasn't mentally healthy. He instead waited another three days.

LaPierre's decision to remain silent for as long as he was indicates an appalling insensitivity to what happened and a refusal to become part of the solution. The very reason for his professional existence was abused and used in a way that cast extreme doubt on any justification of its existence in homes where irresponsible gun owners live. And that spoke volumes to me, both about supposedly intelligent gun owners and the NRA.

[jcj1sbcglobal]

I agree with Stephen King that there is a middle ground on the gun issue. One of my brother's would line up with your "facts" and would say that even something as limited as universal background checks would be folly. My other brothers would rather feed hungry children than stock their homes with guns. Most of your "Facts" are either incorrect or misleading. One would expect large cities with a lot of violence to have more restrictive gun laws. The question is not whether they are now non-violent because of more restrictions, but whether there are fewer deaths by gun violence because of them. Police Chiefs in all large cities say the restrictions help. The restrictions are of limited value, however, if not uniform throughout the country. Your Second Amendment "Fact" is equally flawed. It doesn't mean either thing.