CDZ A Week of Gun Violence Does Nothing to Change the N.R.A.’s Message

[kaz]

The government taking the property of people who haven't been convicted of a crime is a flagrant violation of due process and I say that repeatedly. The War on Drugs is a Constitutional abomination and anyone who supports what they do and thinks they are a "Constitutionalist" is a liar

I give you credit for being principly consistent, at least in the specific regard noted above. That too is more than I can say for most posters on here. It may well be that you and I just have differing principles. I don't know for sure if that's totally so or just somewhat so. Even so, adhering to a given principle at all its levels of scope is to be commended.

Thank you, but as for your qualification, "at least in the specific regard noted above," I challenge you to ever find me inconsistent on that

To be honest, I don't have any recollection of much else that you've written on here. I can only remark about what I have seen and recall, and what I've seen and recall is what I remarked about.

Here you go:

What is a small government libertarian?

I say specifically what government should be allowed to do. If you see anything that you have another solution for then let me know

 

[OldLady]

Why should it,if anything it proves how dangerous life can be.
Gun crazies want to disarm the people.what kind of logic is that?

Yes, taking guns from law abiding citizens is like targeting the drug war on people who don't do drugs and drunk driving programs on people who don't drink. Fact and logic, liberals take to them like fish take to cameras and fire flies

But in order to keep drugs from addicts, doctors have severely limited pain prescriptions to ALL patients. And doctors and pharmacies share pain prescription information on all patients to catch those abusing them. And to limit drunk drivers, all drivers can be stopped and tested, bars can be held liable for serving to someone already three sheets to the wind, regardless of whether they're driving. To limit gun violence, perhaps guns need to be limited for all. Fair? Maybe not. Who told you life is fair? I said limited, not completely gone, btw.

It IS limited.

The fact that there are mountains of gun control laws on the books seems to be utterly ignored every time gun control is brought up.

300 million guns is not limited, imo.

 

[kaz]

Why should it,if anything it proves how dangerous life can be.
Gun crazies want to disarm the people.what kind of logic is that?

Yes, taking guns from law abiding citizens is like targeting the drug war on people who don't do drugs and drunk driving programs on people who don't drink. Fact and logic, liberals take to them like fish take to cameras and fire flies

But in order to keep drugs from addicts, doctors have severely limited pain prescriptions to ALL patients. And doctors and pharmacies share pain prescription information on all patients to catch those abusing them. And to limit drunk drivers, all drivers can be stopped and tested, bars can be held liable for serving to someone already three sheets to the wind, regardless of whether they're driving. To limit gun violence, perhaps guns need to be limited for all. Fair? Maybe not. Who told you life is fair? I said limited, not completely gone, btw.

It IS limited.

The fact that there are mountains of gun control laws on the books seems to be utterly ignored every time gun control is brought up.

300 million guns is not limited, imo.

And focusing on the small number of crimes committed by legal guns while ignoring the vast number committed by illegal ones is ineffective, imo

 

[OldLady]

In the language of today’s National Rifle Association, “an armed society is a polite society.” The aphorism, borrowed from the science-fiction author Robert Heinlein, is the inspiration for one of the N.R.A.’s most popular T-shirts, which bears the word “coexist,” spelled out in brightly colored ammo cartridges and guns. To promote the shirt ($17.99), the N.R.A. store says that Heinlein’s quote “emphasizes the independent, tolerant nature of gun owners in a fun and thought-provoking way.”

A Week of Gun Violence Does Nothing to Change the N.R.A.’s Message - The New Yorker

Wow, a week of showing how much danger we are in walking down the street didn't convince us that we should give up our protection? That's just stunning, isn't it?

You know, in my thread on how you propose we actually keep guns from criminals, you never did present an actual idea how we accomplish that. Have you come up with one?

Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?

Unless you're a black gun owner or a cop, the past week didn't demonstrate any danger in walking down the street--not anymore than usual, anyway.

Here's how it works. You need to read the discussion and respond to the point in context. Also, which of these were legal gun owners just in Chicago?

Weekend Violence

It's hard to respond when you keep changing your "point" as it suits you. However, I stand by my post. Your reference to the "past week" not convincing us to give up self protection via gun is crystal clear. I was pointing out that cops and black men with guns in their pocket are the only ones who were affected anymore than usual in the past week.

In order to get certain guns from the hands of criminals, they need to be out of circulation generally. Most are illegal but they began their lives as newly minted guns from a factory somewhere and were originally sold shiny and new in some store. That is a start.

 

[kaz]

Most are illegal but they began their lives as newly minted guns from a factory somewhere and were originally sold shiny and new in some store. That is a start.

Why is that? You're going to make 300 million guns disappear?

And it's hard to take this seriously from someone who thinks we should keep our borders open to anyone who wants to cross them ... carrying whatever they want to carry. Including ... guns ...

We can't keep pot away from high schoolers. But we're going to keep guns away from criminals, yeah.

So no, your plan to keep guns from honest citizens isn't a "start," it's a red herring

 

[OldLady]

Why should it,if anything it proves how dangerous life can be.
Gun crazies want to disarm the people.what kind of logic is that?

Yes, taking guns from law abiding citizens is like targeting the drug war on people who don't do drugs and drunk driving programs on people who don't drink. Fact and logic, liberals take to them like fish take to cameras and fire flies

But in order to keep drugs from addicts, doctors have severely limited pain prescriptions to ALL patients. And doctors and pharmacies share pain prescription information on all patients to catch those abusing them. And to limit drunk drivers, all drivers can be stopped and tested, bars can be held liable for serving to someone already three sheets to the wind, regardless of whether they're driving. To limit gun violence, perhaps guns need to be limited for all. Fair? Maybe not. Who told you life is fair? I said limited, not completely gone, btw.

And so people buy drugs ... illegally. My point. You may have heard about that, it's been in the news ...

No. The point is actually that many addicts began by being prescribed opiates for a bonafide medical issue. Then they got hooked and tried "doctor shopping" and emergency room jumping to get more as their need increased. And when that no longer worked, they switched to heroin. Focusing on the root of the problem, where it started, will hopefully save the upcoming generation from a similar fate. To me, it makes equal sense that if the root of the illegal gun problem--guns in circulation--were addressed, it would help keep them from the wrong hands by the sheer weight of the numbers.

 

[martybegan]

The government taking the property of people who haven't been convicted of a crime is a flagrant violation of due process and I say that repeatedly. The War on Drugs is a Constitutional abomination and anyone who supports what they do and thinks they are a "Constitutionalist" is a liar

I give you credit for being principly consistent, at least in the specific regard noted above. That too is more than I can say for most posters on here. It may well be that you and I just have differing principles. I don't know for sure if that's totally so or just somewhat so. Even so, adhering to a given principle at all its levels of scope is to be commended.

Thank you, but as for your qualification, "at least in the specific regard noted above," I challenge you to ever find me inconsistent on that

To be honest, I don't have any recollection of much else that you've written on here. I can only remark about what I have seen and recall, and what I've seen and recall is what I remarked about.

Here you go:

What is a small government libertarian?

I say specifically what government should be allowed to do. If you see anything that you have another solution for then let me know

To your link I want to add my version of it, which adds federalism to the equation, along with strict constructionism

For example, with your abortion viewpoint, I don't really care if people have them, even though i think they are wrong when it comes to use as birth control. However I do not see how the Federal Courts can stop Alabama or Mississippi from banning the procedure.

 

[OldLady]

Why should it,if anything it proves how dangerous life can be.
Gun crazies want to disarm the people.what kind of logic is that?

Yes, taking guns from law abiding citizens is like targeting the drug war on people who don't do drugs and drunk driving programs on people who don't drink. Fact and logic, liberals take to them like fish take to cameras and fire flies

But in order to keep drugs from addicts, doctors have severely limited pain prescriptions to ALL patients. And doctors and pharmacies share pain prescription information on all patients to catch those abusing them. And to limit drunk drivers, all drivers can be stopped and tested, bars can be held liable for serving to someone already three sheets to the wind, regardless of whether they're driving. To limit gun violence, perhaps guns need to be limited for all. Fair? Maybe not. Who told you life is fair? I said limited, not completely gone, btw.

The problem is that we simply don't trust you to stop at limited.

In all of the cases above except the painkiller one, there is no prior restraint. you have to do something bad before you can be punished for them.

And the idea of making it very very hard for people to get painkillers because some abuse them leads to people suffering for no reason other than the laziness of those out there trying to enforce the law.

Government has plenty of existing laws out there to combat gun crimes, and the ownership of guns by those who should not have them. I suggest they use those laws already existing before bringing up more laws, especially "shotgun" effect laws that attempt to solve a problem by punishing everyone, and not just those who want to break/actually break the law.

I agree wholeheartedly that we should be enforcing the laws with vigor. I don't know what the problem is, but if it's anything like around here, cops are pretty busy just putting out the local fires with more and more limited manpower. We've had a bad economy, ya know? Don't know if that might have something to do with it.

And you're right, Marty, you wouldn't want to trust ME about stopping at "limited." I'd like to go Australia on you folks. But semiautomatic weapons and replaceable magazines will be a suitable compromise. I know many gun owners, including in my own family, and I understand that there are many responsible gun owners out there who respect the sanctity of human life and do not misuse their killing machine. I can actually agree that we have a right to choose self protection, but America has gone way overboard. It's as much the fault of the firearm manufacturers and their greed as it is individuals. They've had one of the best marketing campaigns out there for years--better than tobacco in its day.

 

[OldLady]

I keep reading posts that say we already have lots and lots of gun laws and we don't need any more. The new gun laws that I have heard about are laws that loosen the restrictions on carrying guns openly or concealed in public places. I haven't heard about gun laws which restrict ownership. Are such laws now being passed?

Cali has a recent one where concerned citizens can report a gun owner displaying erratic behavior or homicidal/suicidal ideation and have the gun taken away while the cops investigate. It could help.

 

[2aguy]

Where is the NRA in condemning the killing of an innocent CC permit holder?

Doesn't apply to carrying while black?

they put out a statement....look it up....and where do you have link showing he was an actual permit holder......the last I saw the county had no record of him......

 

[2aguy]

Where is the NRA in condemning the killing of an innocent CC permit holder?

Doesn't apply to carrying while black?

We don't know exactly what happened.....but if he reached when he wasn't supposed to....and he was a possible suspect in the eyes of the cop considering the BOLO that had been put out...then race had nothing to do with it....

You think this cop just shot this man because he was black? Is that what you think?

 

[OldLady]

Why should it,if anything it proves how dangerous life can be.
Gun crazies want to disarm the people.what kind of logic is that?

Yes, taking guns from law abiding citizens is like targeting the drug war on people who don't do drugs and drunk driving programs on people who don't drink. Fact and logic, liberals take to them like fish take to cameras and fire flies

But in order to keep drugs from addicts, doctors have severely limited pain prescriptions to ALL patients. And doctors and pharmacies share pain prescription information on all patients to catch those abusing them. And to limit drunk drivers, all drivers can be stopped and tested, bars can be held liable for serving to someone already three sheets to the wind, regardless of whether they're driving. To limit gun violence, perhaps guns need to be limited for all. Fair? Maybe not. Who told you life is fair? I said limited, not completely gone, btw.

access to guns is already limited.....

And doctors and pharmacies share pain prescription information on all patients to catch those abusing them.

that is what you call Felons.....they are already prohibited from buying, owning or carrying guns...and just like drug addicts, they get people to buy their drugs/guns for them...or they steal their drugs/guns....

And to limit drunk drivers, all drivers can be stopped and tested,

If you are stopped by police and found to have an illegal gun...you can be arrested...already, under current law....

bars can be held liable for serving to someone already three sheets to the wind,

If you are found to be a straw buyer...someone using their clean record to buy guns for criminals, you can already be arrested...I have linked to these stories in other threads over the last year...

Guns are already limited......you cannot use a gun to commit a crime, if you do you go to jail. If you are felon caught with a gun, you go to jail......if you are dangerously mentally ill, you are not allowed to have a gun at all......

You guys keep acting like guns are just given away to criminals and the dangerously mentally ill, they simply do what people intent on doing bad things do....they get around your gun laws.....so you want more gun laws, which they also get around....

The French have every single gun law you want...to the point they do not have gun stores, they do not have gun shows and fully automatic rifles are completely illegal....and criminals and terrorists in France get the guns easily........

You guys focus all of your energy on normal, law abiding gun owners when we know that to solve the problem...you actually need to focus on criminals.....

If you really want to stop gun violence...put a 30 year sentence on gun crime..by actual criminals...not the law abiding gun owner who didn't realize that being a legal gun owner in New York made him a criminal if he crossed the border into New Jersey.....

We have had these conversations so many times before that you already know I support enforcing existing gun laws. Guns, however, are not "limited" when Americans have amassed 300,000,000 of them. I have seen you explain away the fact that European countries with strict gun laws have many fewer gun deaths than the U.S. by citing their "cultures." It is also possible that the limited availability of guns makes gun violence less easy to commit.

 

[2aguy]

Why should it,if anything it proves how dangerous life can be.
Gun crazies want to disarm the people.what kind of logic is that?

Yes, taking guns from law abiding citizens is like targeting the drug war on people who don't do drugs and drunk driving programs on people who don't drink. Fact and logic, liberals take to them like fish take to cameras and fire flies

But in order to keep drugs from addicts, doctors have severely limited pain prescriptions to ALL patients. And doctors and pharmacies share pain prescription information on all patients to catch those abusing them. And to limit drunk drivers, all drivers can be stopped and tested, bars can be held liable for serving to someone already three sheets to the wind, regardless of whether they're driving. To limit gun violence, perhaps guns need to be limited for all. Fair? Maybe not. Who told you life is fair? I said limited, not completely gone, btw.

The problem is that we simply don't trust you to stop at limited.

In all of the cases above except the painkiller one, there is no prior restraint. you have to do something bad before you can be punished for them.

And the idea of making it very very hard for people to get painkillers because some abuse them leads to people suffering for no reason other than the laziness of those out there trying to enforce the law.

Government has plenty of existing laws out there to combat gun crimes, and the ownership of guns by those who should not have them. I suggest they use those laws already existing before bringing up more laws, especially "shotgun" effect laws that attempt to solve a problem by punishing everyone, and not just those who want to break/actually break the law.

I agree wholeheartedly that we should be enforcing the laws with vigor. I don't know what the problem is, but if it's anything like around here, cops are pretty busy just putting out the local fires with more and more limited manpower. We've had a bad economy, ya know? Don't know if that might have something to do with it.

And you're right, Marty, you wouldn't want to trust ME about stopping at "limited." I'd like to go Australia on you folks. But semiautomatic weapons and replaceable magazines will be a suitable compromise. I know many gun owners, including in my own family, and I understand that there are many responsible gun owners out there who respect the sanctity of human life and do not misuse their killing machine. I can actually agree that we have a right to choose self protection, but America has gone way overboard. It's as much the fault of the firearm manufacturers and their greed as it is individuals. They've had one of the best marketing campaigns out there for years--better than tobacco in its day.

So you want law abiding citizens to only have revolvers? That is where you set the limit..right? 5 shot or 6 shot?

and I understand that there are many responsible gun owners out there who respect the sanctity of human life and do not misuse their killing machine.

Wrong.......not many the owners of 356,991,876 guns in private hands....vs. less than 8,124 gun murders....that isn't many that is not what you would call a majority...that is what you would call almost all gun owners....

Where exactly have you seen any advertising for the gun industry....? it wasn't until this year that I actually heard gun makers advertising on the local radio stations...so how effective has their adverstising been?

 

[2aguy]

Why should it,if anything it proves how dangerous life can be.
Gun crazies want to disarm the people.what kind of logic is that?

Yes, taking guns from law abiding citizens is like targeting the drug war on people who don't do drugs and drunk driving programs on people who don't drink. Fact and logic, liberals take to them like fish take to cameras and fire flies

But in order to keep drugs from addicts, doctors have severely limited pain prescriptions to ALL patients. And doctors and pharmacies share pain prescription information on all patients to catch those abusing them. And to limit drunk drivers, all drivers can be stopped and tested, bars can be held liable for serving to someone already three sheets to the wind, regardless of whether they're driving. To limit gun violence, perhaps guns need to be limited for all. Fair? Maybe not. Who told you life is fair? I said limited, not completely gone, btw.

access to guns is already limited.....

And doctors and pharmacies share pain prescription information on all patients to catch those abusing them.

that is what you call Felons.....they are already prohibited from buying, owning or carrying guns...and just like drug addicts, they get people to buy their drugs/guns for them...or they steal their drugs/guns....

And to limit drunk drivers, all drivers can be stopped and tested,

If you are stopped by police and found to have an illegal gun...you can be arrested...already, under current law....

bars can be held liable for serving to someone already three sheets to the wind,

If you are found to be a straw buyer...someone using their clean record to buy guns for criminals, you can already be arrested...I have linked to these stories in other threads over the last year...

Guns are already limited......you cannot use a gun to commit a crime, if you do you go to jail. If you are felon caught with a gun, you go to jail......if you are dangerously mentally ill, you are not allowed to have a gun at all......

You guys keep acting like guns are just given away to criminals and the dangerously mentally ill, they simply do what people intent on doing bad things do....they get around your gun laws.....so you want more gun laws, which they also get around....

The French have every single gun law you want...to the point they do not have gun stores, they do not have gun shows and fully automatic rifles are completely illegal....and criminals and terrorists in France get the guns easily........

You guys focus all of your energy on normal, law abiding gun owners when we know that to solve the problem...you actually need to focus on criminals.....

If you really want to stop gun violence...put a 30 year sentence on gun crime..by actual criminals...not the law abiding gun owner who didn't realize that being a legal gun owner in New York made him a criminal if he crossed the border into New Jersey.....

We have had these conversations so many times before that you already know I support enforcing existing gun laws. Guns, however, are not "limited" when Americans have amassed 300,000,000 of them. I have seen you explain away the fact that European countries with strict gun laws have many fewer gun deaths than the U.S. by citing their "cultures." It is also possible that the limited availability of guns makes gun violence less easy to commit.

And you know that Britain confiscated guns....their gun crime rate stayed the same....in fact it went up 4% last year.....

Nothing you believe about guns is true, you just don't like guns.

 

[2aguy]

I keep reading posts that say we already have lots and lots of gun laws and we don't need any more. The new gun laws that I have heard about are laws that loosen the restrictions on carrying guns openly or concealed in public places. I haven't heard about gun laws which restrict ownership. Are such laws now being passed?

Cali has a recent one where concerned citizens can report a gun owner displaying erratic behavior or homicidal/suicidal ideation and have the gun taken away while the cops investigate. It could help.

You mean like the co workers of the Orlando shooter.....on the FBI radar for 10 months, with 3 actual interviews, and an undercover agent.....like that....?

 

[2aguy]

Where is the NRA in condemning the killing of an innocent CC permit holder?

It remains to be seen what happened doesn't it?

Try walking up to a cop and tell him you're armed with a permit then reach behind your back and see what happens

NRA has been advocating more people carrying guns

Here we have a citizen exercising his second amendment rights and is gunned down in a trivial traffic stop

Why aren't they standing up for the gun owner?

They don't know exactly what happened twit. No one does yet.

 

[2aguy]

Where is the NRA in condemning the killing of an innocent CC permit holder?

Doesn't apply to carrying while black?

They are still trying to figure out what happened, and have said they are looking at the case with particular interest.

Why is there a need to respond RIGHT NOW NOW NOW when it comes to these things?

Just because the MSM has gone with a 15 minute news cycle, doesn't mean the rest of us have to.

This is the world the NRA has been dreaming about

More armed citizens. Will they side with BLM?

Nice loaded statement at the front there.....

The NRA supports legally armed citizens, and the legal use of firearms.

Again, they will take a position when all the facts come out.

I hear crickets...

The same gun supporters who rallied around Cliven Bundy are strangely silent when it comes to the shooting of a legal black gun owner

Nope....we don't know what happened.......it is funny.....you guys all support the Baton Rouge guy as a guy with a gun.......the only guy carrying a concealed gun that you guys seem to support......and it is funny that he is a felon who was carrying the gun illegally........the only people you seem to think should have guns....

 

[OldLady]

Where is the NRA in condemning the killing of an innocent CC permit holder?

Doesn't apply to carrying while black?

they put out a statement....look it up....and where do you have link showing he was an actual permit holder......the last I saw the county had no record of him......

Actually, the last I heard is that it is illegal to make public who has a concealed carry permit in that area. Looks like it will come down to who we want to believe.

 

[2aguy]

I honestly think that most of the leaders don't know, and the rank and file definitely don't know. Its similar to the Tea Party, Occupy Wall Street and other non-hierarchical protests. It starts with "WE ARE ANGRY ABOUT SOMETHING", gains momentum, but stagnates when they actually have to define what they are angry about, and more importantly, what to do about it.

When protest doesn't morph into viable solutions, stagnation happens, or dissolution.

You saw it in the stagnation of the tea party, and the dissolution of Occupy Wall Street.

The anger is politics is out of control. The Trump crowd is even angry at those of us they should be wooing.

I'm not finding being informed I'm stupid for believing in capitalism, free markets and free trade a convincing draw to Trump

The Trump thing is a similar backlash, except it has a single leader, i.e. Trump. But again, the organization is a loose one, and thus the anger really isn't on a single target, and Trump is not doing anything to focus it.

Yes, that's what I'm saying. The Trump crowd is angry at everyone, even those of us who they should want to be with them.

My argument against Trump is his anti-capitalist, anti-free trade rhetoric. Instead of convincing me that he is actually for those things, they are telling me I'm stupid for believing in capitalism and free trade. All that tells me about Trump is that I'm right in why I don't support him

They are still trying to figure out what happened, and have said they are looking at the case with particular interest.

Why is there a need to respond RIGHT NOW NOW NOW when it comes to these things?

Just because the MSM has gone with a 15 minute news cycle, doesn't mean the rest of us have to.

This is the world the NRA has been dreaming about

More armed citizens. Will they side with BLM?

Nice loaded statement at the front there.....

The NRA supports legally armed citizens, and the legal use of firearms.

Again, they will take a position when all the facts come out.

I hear crickets...

The same gun supporters who rallied around Cliven Bundy are strangely silent when it comes to the shooting of a legal black gun owner

Two entirely different situations that really don't relate to each other. One is a one on one traffic stop confrontation and the other is a political standoff with firearms. One has an officer claiming the guy went for his gun, the other is a bunch of people where all sides know they are armed, and there is a political dispute.

and in the end has the NRA said the government shouldn't prosecute anyone who actually broke a law?

When you have a white second amendment nut taking up arms against law enforcement you get rousing NRA support

A legal black CC holder gets gunned down and there is silence....Don't black gun owners matter?

This guy should have been arrested....I do believe they ended up shooting one of these guys later.......you probably jumped for joy.....

 

[2aguy]

Where is the NRA in condemning the killing of an innocent CC permit holder?

Doesn't apply to carrying while black?

they put out a statement....look it up....and where do you have link showing he was an actual permit holder......the last I saw the county had no record of him......

Actually, the last I heard is that it is illegal to make public who has a concealed carry permit in that area. Looks like it will come down to who we want to believe.

he's dead...it doesn't matter anymore.......