BBC reporter’s sobering advice to America: ‘Break’ the NRA or your mass shootings will never stop

[kaz]

BBC reporter’s sobering advice to America: ‘Break’ the NRA or your mass shootings will never stop

Good advice.

And it's not the NRA general membership we're talking about. The NRA is no longer about "freedom" or safety or GUN sportsmanship -- it's about sales and profit.

New smart gun laws and restrictions would put a dent in retail sales.

5% of retail gun stores are responsible for 45% percent of guns on the street. The names of the stores and the owners are easily found on the internet. They conduct business in sickeningly immoral manner and get away with it under laws promoted and written by the NRA.

Imagine if the ATF could go after those Bad Apple dealers. Prices on street guns and ammo would skyrocket as the market dried up.

The NRA leadership serves the gun manufactures. Promotes sales through fear and keeping extended magazines legal.

BBC host Aaron Heslehurst advised Americans this week that they would have to “break” or “dismantle” the National Rifle Association (NRA) if they wanted the mass shootings in the United States to stop.

On Wednesday’s Morning Business Report, BBC presenter Adnan Nawaz pointed out that journalists still did not have all of the details about the shooting in San Bernardino.

“There have been more mass shootings in the United States this year that there have been days this year,” Nawaz noted. “We’re at about 330-odd days with 350+ mass shootings. And it’s becoming far too common as far as almost any sensible person including President Obama is concerned.”

Columnist Maike Currie agreed that the figures were “staggering.”

The small and paranoid minority of gun nutters is good at disrupting the conversation with all kinds of "slippery slope" and straw man logic. Slippery slope is a logical fallacy. Not an argument.

You got an argument as to why assault rifles shouldn't come with a pink slip -- make it. But slippery slop or screaming Nazi registration list doesn't cut it.

Yes, terrorists can't get guns if they are illegal, gotcha. How'd Paris work out for you?

 

[Wry Catcher]

[

Then how do you explain the fact that we didn't have these mass shootings all the time until the 1980s.

I don't recall any mass shootings before the 80s or at least not on the scale we have now.

Not everyone had guns then, we didn't have gun free zones and we also didn't have the mass shootings we have now.

So your claims are nothing but garbage. Arming more people will just get more people killed.

I am always amazed at how confused Liberals are, aren't you?

We have had mass shootings prior to the 1980s not only here in the US but all over the world.

For instance, I remember as a teenager in the 1960s when Charles Whitman sat on top of a building and shot college students at the University of Texas.

Here is a listing of them:

List of rampage killers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here is a longer list that includes the US going back over 100 years.

List of rampage killers (Americas) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not all of them are shootings but most of them are.

The thing to keep into perspective about the shootings this week in California is that California has the strictest state gun control laws in the country including the most strict assault weapons ban and that did absolutely nothing to deter the crime that was committed. Just like Chicago's strict gun laws doesn't stop the massive crimes there. Gun control only stops law abiding citizens from owing firearms and does nothing to stop criminals.

Despite it being proven over and over again that is a inconvenient truth that the Left refuses to understand.

Maybe they understand it but there agenda is not to stop crime but to disarm Americans so that there can be no opposition to the government.

"The suspects in the San Bernardino shootings used semiautomatic rifles that were legally obtained despite gun laws in California that were intended to ban assault weapons and are widely regarded as among the strictest in the country.

The rifles were variants of the popular AR-15, the semiautomatic civilian version of a military M-16. They are surprisingly easy to acquire in California, though they come with limitations aimed at curbing their ability to inflict mass damage. Semiautomatic rifles, for instance, cannot have magazines that hold more than 10 bullets or can be quickly removed.

However, such limitations can be easily, if illegally, bypassed. For instance, a 10-bullet magazine can be quickly removed by pressing the tip of a loose bullet into a recessed button, allowing for a high-capacity magazine to be inserted in its place.

This release feature — called a “bullet button” — is installed, legally, by gun manufacturers on rifles sold in California; the high-capacity magazine is illegal in the state.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/04/u...ino-shootings-were-legally-obtained.html?_r=0

Consider that there is no mention of who originally purchased the guns, how or when the killers obtained them; why the loop hole ("bullet button) exists or why such weapons should be sold when they are so easily modified.

 

[FJO]

Stupid thread, most gun owners don't even belong to the NRA. The NRA is the left's boogeyman, something to blame every shooting there is on and it's getting old.

The NRA is the one who's radicalized. Gun manufacturers own their ass and most politicians take campaign contributions from them. This carnage has to stop. The shooters fired 75 rounds, killed 14 and wounded 17. What the hell does any civilian need with a weapon which will fire that many rounds that quick?

I wonder how Muslim wives feel about their husband owning six dozen virgins for all of eternity?

Those who killed 14 and wounded more were not "civilians".

They were lower than animals, they were jihadist Muslims.

The Second Amendment allows and empowers civilians to defend themselves from Islamist terrorists and other such lo lives.

 

[Flash]

These Libtards are so naive it is pitiful.

There are all kinds of estimates but the number of about 300,000,000 firearms in the US seems to be the number that many people agree on.

If we put a 100% ban of firearms and instituted an Australia type confiscation program only a fraction of those firearms would be surrendered. Most Americans would keep their firearms hidden. I know I would. I would never turn them into the government. Only an idiot would.

There would still be at least 200,000,000 firearms in the hands of Americans.

It would take 100 years before those firearms would evaporate.

In the meantime with our unsecured borders illegal firearms and ammo would flood in to meet whatever demand there was from the criminals.

Anybody that wanted a firearm or ammo could get one just like anybody that wants illegal drugs can get them regardless of the laws.

Not much would change except law abiding citizens would not be able to defend themselves and those who are in the government would have absolute power over the people, which would make our Founding Fathers roll over in their graves.

Thank God we have the NRA to help protect our freedom and to promote firearm safety.

Piss on the stupid Libtards that are naive and convoluted in their ideals that Liberty is not important.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

[

Then how do you explain the fact that we didn't have these mass shootings all the time until the 1980s.

I don't recall any mass shootings before the 80s or at least not on the scale we have now.

Not everyone had guns then, we didn't have gun free zones and we also didn't have the mass shootings we have now.

So your claims are nothing but garbage. Arming more people will just get more people killed.

I am always amazed at how confused Liberals are, aren't you?

We have had mass shootings prior to the 1980s not only here in the US but all over the world.

For instance, I remember as a teenager in the 1960s when Charles Whitman sat on top of a building and shot college students at the University of Texas.

Here is a listing of them:

List of rampage killers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here is a longer list that includes the US going back over 100 years.

List of rampage killers (Americas) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not all of them are shootings but most of them are.

The thing to keep into perspective about the shootings this week in California is that California has the strictest state gun control laws in the country including the most strict assault weapons ban and that did absolutely nothing to deter the crime that was committed. Just like Chicago's strict gun laws doesn't stop the massive crimes there. Gun control only stops law abiding citizens from owing firearms and does nothing to stop criminals.

Despite it being proven over and over again that is a inconvenient truth that the Left refuses to understand.

Maybe they understand it but there agenda is not to stop crime but to disarm Americans so that there can be no opposition to the government.

"The suspects in the San Bernardino shootings used semiautomatic rifles that were legally obtained despite gun laws in California that were intended to ban assault weapons and are widely regarded as among the strictest in the country.

The rifles were variants of the popular AR-15, the semiautomatic civilian version of a military M-16. They are surprisingly easy to acquire in California, though they come with limitations aimed at curbing their ability to inflict mass damage. Semiautomatic rifles, for instance, cannot have magazines that hold more than 10 bullets or can be quickly removed.

However, such limitations can be easily, if illegally, bypassed. For instance, a 10-bullet magazine can be quickly removed by pressing the tip of a loose bullet into a recessed button, allowing for a high-capacity magazine to be inserted in its place.

This release feature — called a “bullet button” — is installed, legally, by gun manufacturers on rifles sold in California; the high-capacity magazine is illegal in the state.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/04/u...ino-shootings-were-legally-obtained.html?_r=0

Consider that there is no mention of who originally purchased the guns, how or when the killers obtained them; why the loop hole ("bullet button) exists or why such weapons should be sold when they are so easily modified.

ROFLMNAO!

So the problem is the magazine the Product of Leftism used to slaughter all those Democrats?

LOL!
Reader, the PROBLEM was the Muslim... whose entire religion is based on NOTHING BEYOND MASS-MURDER. That's it... that is ALL ISLAM IS: MASS-MURDER.

Left-think is the political ideology in power which is enabling Islam to find power... and it does so through, in large measure, the hiding of the fact that Islam is EXCLUSIVELY ABOUT MASS-MURDER... by blaming the murders that are committed by ISLAM on the MAGAZINES THAT ISLAM USED TO MURDER.


But.. the Left has a good reason for hiding the truth.

And that is because THE TRUTH IS, that it is THE LEFT THAT ENABLES ISLAM... thus it is the LEFT that is responsible for THE MURDERS.

 

[Flash]

[

Then how do you explain the fact that we didn't have these mass shootings all the time until the 1980s.

I don't recall any mass shootings before the 80s or at least not on the scale we have now.

Not everyone had guns then, we didn't have gun free zones and we also didn't have the mass shootings we have now.

So your claims are nothing but garbage. Arming more people will just get more people killed.

I am always amazed at how confused Liberals are, aren't you?

We have had mass shootings prior to the 1980s not only here in the US but all over the world.

For instance, I remember as a teenager in the 1960s when Charles Whitman sat on top of a building and shot college students at the University of Texas.

Here is a listing of them:

List of rampage killers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here is a longer list that includes the US going back over 100 years.

List of rampage killers (Americas) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not all of them are shootings but most of them are.

The thing to keep into perspective about the shootings this week in California is that California has the strictest state gun control laws in the country including the most strict assault weapons ban and that did absolutely nothing to deter the crime that was committed. Just like Chicago's strict gun laws doesn't stop the massive crimes there. Gun control only stops law abiding citizens from owing firearms and does nothing to stop criminals.

Despite it being proven over and over again that is a inconvenient truth that the Left refuses to understand.

Maybe they understand it but there agenda is not to stop crime but to disarm Americans so that there can be no opposition to the government.

"The suspects in the San Bernardino shootings used semiautomatic rifles that were legally obtained despite gun laws in California that were intended to ban assault weapons and are widely regarded as among the strictest in the country.

The rifles were variants of the popular AR-15, the semiautomatic civilian version of a military M-16. They are surprisingly easy to acquire in California, though they come with limitations aimed at curbing their ability to inflict mass damage. Semiautomatic rifles, for instance, cannot have magazines that hold more than 10 bullets or can be quickly removed.

However, such limitations can be easily, if illegally, bypassed. For instance, a 10-bullet magazine can be quickly removed by pressing the tip of a loose bullet into a recessed button, allowing for a high-capacity magazine to be inserted in its place.

This release feature — called a “bullet button” — is installed, legally, by gun manufacturers on rifles sold in California; the high-capacity magazine is illegal in the state.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/04/u...ino-shootings-were-legally-obtained.html?_r=0

Consider that there is no mention of who originally purchased the guns, how or when the killers obtained them; why the loop hole ("bullet button) exists or why such weapons should be sold when they are so easily modified.

You are confused once again.

How come every time you post you show us how confused you are?

The AR-15s that were used in the shootings were modified to have detachable large capacity magazines, which is illegal under Commie Kalifornia law.

Those AR-15s were not Kalifornia assault ban legal you moron. It was against the law to possess them

It was also against the law to use them in a crime but that didn't stop the Muslims, did it?

It was against the law to have the firearms transferred to the Muslim shitheads that did the shootings without a universal background check and registration but that didn't work either, did it?

Those strict Commie Kalifornia gun control laws didn't do a damn thing to stop the shitheads from killing people did they?

Another example of the failure of stupid Libtard polices.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

the common denominator of all the mass murders and shootings, it is the gun; not the mental health of the shooter nor their political or religious leanings.

Ladies and gentlemen. We are privileged to have in this very forum one of the world's leading scholars. Who else would have connected shootings with guns when it was right under our noses all along?

Who else?

M14, 2aguy, the Cleveland guy, Rabbi, you iceweasel, and the other dozen or so others who seem to forget gun violence is perpetrated by terrorists (domestic and foreign), gangsters, men and women of all colors and ethnicity, children, dads, moms, criminals and law enforcement, etc.

So what do they all have in common? A GUN!

Yet those so obsessed with their right to have a gun, seek to blame factors other than the gun for the carnage created by a diverse demographic with that single thing - having a gun in their possession - in common.

People control is difficult, we can't profile and thus become a police state, we can stick our heads in the sand and ignore a serious social problem, or we can control the proliferation of guns by holding gun owners and those who seek to own or possess them to be responsible.

We already are now. CA has the toughest gun laws in the country, and you people are still blaming the guns and the ability to get them. At the same time, you complain about the governments ability to snoop in on electronic transmissions that might have led to the feds looking into guys like this one and others such as in Boston marathon bombing.

I didn't complain about profiling, I simply pointed out the PC police have made profiling - which has always existed - non grata. It still goes on covertly, and is something we should all be wary of, but as I've posted before, Freedom and Security are complex issues and should be part of public debate on policy..

Do you claim the absolute right of privacy, based on the Second Amendment, and consider licensing and registration to be violations of your right to own guns? Does that right not apply to every citizens under the principle of equality of rights and due process of the law?

Or are some citizens more equal than others. Which seems to be the in articulated belief of callous conservatives.

For the most part, guns are registered to the owners. I can't buy a gun unless I provide identification to the dealer and he (or she) shoots a bullet for ballistic records. I'm also a CCW holder so I've been electronically fingerprinted, had to fill out forms that ask about 50 questions, and include every place I've ever lived since the age of 18.

The problem I have with more restrictive gun measures is it won't solve any problems. Our prisons are full of drug dealers and a few users, but recreational narcotics have been illegal as long as I've been alive. The people that want those narcotics get them in spite of our laws or penal system. And yet, the problem seems to grow more and more every year.

To put it another way, let's say that you and I ran this country. During this debate, I called you out for a bet. The bet is, you can have your restrictive gun laws---any kind you want for a period of three years. If those laws you enacted doesn't reduce murders and mass killings by at least 50%, then we do things my way. If they do reduce those crimes by 50% or more, we keep your laws.

I know you can't honestly answer that here, but instead, ask yourself, would you make such a bet with me?

 

[Wry Catcher]

[

Then how do you explain the fact that we didn't have these mass shootings all the time until the 1980s.

I don't recall any mass shootings before the 80s or at least not on the scale we have now.

Not everyone had guns then, we didn't have gun free zones and we also didn't have the mass shootings we have now.

So your claims are nothing but garbage. Arming more people will just get more people killed.

I am always amazed at how confused Liberals are, aren't you?

We have had mass shootings prior to the 1980s not only here in the US but all over the world.

For instance, I remember as a teenager in the 1960s when Charles Whitman sat on top of a building and shot college students at the University of Texas.

Here is a listing of them:

List of rampage killers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here is a longer list that includes the US going back over 100 years.

List of rampage killers (Americas) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not all of them are shootings but most of them are.

The thing to keep into perspective about the shootings this week in California is that California has the strictest state gun control laws in the country including the most strict assault weapons ban and that did absolutely nothing to deter the crime that was committed. Just like Chicago's strict gun laws doesn't stop the massive crimes there. Gun control only stops law abiding citizens from owing firearms and does nothing to stop criminals.

Despite it being proven over and over again that is a inconvenient truth that the Left refuses to understand.

Maybe they understand it but there agenda is not to stop crime but to disarm Americans so that there can be no opposition to the government.

"The suspects in the San Bernardino shootings used semiautomatic rifles that were legally obtained despite gun laws in California that were intended to ban assault weapons and are widely regarded as among the strictest in the country.

The rifles were variants of the popular AR-15, the semiautomatic civilian version of a military M-16. They are surprisingly easy to acquire in California, though they come with limitations aimed at curbing their ability to inflict mass damage. Semiautomatic rifles, for instance, cannot have magazines that hold more than 10 bullets or can be quickly removed.

However, such limitations can be easily, if illegally, bypassed. For instance, a 10-bullet magazine can be quickly removed by pressing the tip of a loose bullet into a recessed button, allowing for a high-capacity magazine to be inserted in its place.

This release feature — called a “bullet button” — is installed, legally, by gun manufacturers on rifles sold in California; the high-capacity magazine is illegal in the state.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/04/u...ino-shootings-were-legally-obtained.html?_r=0

Consider that there is no mention of who originally purchased the guns, how or when the killers obtained them; why the loop hole ("bullet button) exists or why such weapons should be sold when they are so easily modified.

You are confused once again.

How come every time you post you show us how confused you are?

The AR-15s that were used in the shootings were modified to have detachable large capacity magazines, which is illegal under Commie Kalifornia law.

Those AR-15s were not Kalifornia assault ban legal you moron. It was against the law to possess them

It was also against the law to use them in a crime but that didn't stop the Muslims, did it?

It was against the law to have the firearms transferred to the Muslim shitheads that did the shootings without a universal background check and registration but that didn't work either, did it?

Those strict Commie Kalifornia gun control laws didn't do a damn thing to stop the shitheads from killing people did it?

Another example of the failure of stupid Libtard polices.

Laws do not prevent crime. Licensing, registration and an accounting of ammunition sold to individuals will provide law enforcement clues as to who aided the shooters, providing probable cause to obtain and serve warrants to an entire lineage of possible co-conspirators.

BTW, bigotry and ignorance are replete in your posts, clear and convincing evidence that your opinions are based on the two emotions common to the 21st century conservative, hate and fear.

 

[Flash]

[Q

Laws do not prevent crime.

No shit Sherlock!

That is what we have been telling you uneducated low information naive Libtards but you are too damn stupid to understand it.

Licensing, registration and an accounting of ammunition sold to individuals will provide law enforcement clues as to who aided the shooters, providing probable cause to obtain and serve warrants to an entire lineage of possible co-conspirators.

Commie Kalifornia had all those those things in place and it didn't do a damn thing to stop the fucking Muslim from killing, did it?

BTW, bigotry and ignorance are replete in your posts, clear and convincing evidence that your opinions are based on the two emotions common to the 21st century conservative, hate and fear.

You stupid Libtards preach this pathetic diversity, tolerance and coexist bullshit as the fucking Muslims are killing us and you tell us that the real threat is the climate change scam so you can just go fuck yourself Moon Bat.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You are very confused Moon Bat.

The membership and expenditures of the NRA, in addition to record firearms sales, went up after Sandy Hook was because of a reasonable response to the massive anti right to keep and bear arms bullshit you dickhead Liberals were spewing after the event.

Obama with his anti Constitutional hate stupidity resulted in a significant increase in NRA membership and firearm sales. The dumb fuck!

Dickheads? Is that what you call human beings who have empathy for the parents loss, and express horror when 20 toddlers are slaughtered in their classroom? Your need to use vulgar and sexually explicit personal attacks in such a manner speaks volumes about your mental health and your character.

Liberals are not the only set to see the common denominator of all the mass murders and shootings, it is the gun; not the mental health of the shooter nor their political or religious leanings.

Seek a good therapist, I'd hate to one day read that one of the nuts who posts here one day goes postal - so many nuts, so many guns and so much hate and fear never has a good outcome.

Yeah, right. This latest tragedy had nothing to do with mental instability or religion? It was the guns fault, right?

Damn you're really very dumb! Read my post, better yet have someone who completed the 8th grade read it to you.

the common denominator of all the mass murders and shootings, it is the gun; not the mental health of the shooter nor their political or religious leanings.

correction, it's the unarmed helpless victims. Arm the victims and there won't be any mass shootings.

Then how do you explain the fact that we didn't have these mass shootings all the time until the 1980s.

I don't recall any mass shootings before the 80s or at least not on the scale we have now.

Not everyone had guns then, we didn't have gun free zones and we also didn't have the mass shootings we have now.

So your claims are nothing but garbage. Arming more people will just get more people killed.

You're talking about totally different times. Those were times before we removed God out of our society. Those were times when there was shame in going to prison. Those were times when most people were raised in a two-parent household. Those were times when we committed people that we (the court) believed to be a danger to themselves or society.

Liberalism changed all those things, and now that we have more mass murders, blame the guns.

Gun and violent crime didn't start to go down until the 90's. While there are no conclusive studies as to why this is happening, it is proportional to the states that enacted gun laws for their citizens; the right to use firearms for protection; the right to carry those firearms outside of your home legally.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

[Q

Laws do not prevent crime.

No shit Sherlock!

That is what we have been telling you uneducated low information naive Libtards but you are too damn stupid to understand it.

Licensing, registration and an accounting of ammunition sold to individuals will provide law enforcement clues as to who aided the shooters, providing probable cause to obtain and serve warrants to an entire lineage of possible co-conspirators.

Commie Kalifornia had all those those things in place and it didn't do a damn thing to stop the fucking Muslim from killing, did it?

BTW, bigotry and ignorance are replete in your posts, clear and convincing evidence that your opinions are based on the two emotions common to the 21st century conservative, hate and fear.

You stupid Libtards preach this pathetic diversity, tolerance and coexist bullshit as the fucking Muslims are killing us and you tell us that the real threat is the climate change scam so you can just go fuck yourself Moon Bat.

Deep down they know all that....they just can't bring themselves to admit it

 

[Flash]

[Q

Laws do not prevent crime.

No shit Sherlock!

That is what we have been telling you uneducated low information naive Libtards but you are too damn stupid to understand it.

Licensing, registration and an accounting of ammunition sold to individuals will provide law enforcement clues as to who aided the shooters, providing probable cause to obtain and serve warrants to an entire lineage of possible co-conspirators.

Commie Kalifornia had all those those things in place and it didn't do a damn thing to stop the fucking Muslim from killing, did it?

BTW, bigotry and ignorance are replete in your posts, clear and convincing evidence that your opinions are based on the two emotions common to the 21st century conservative, hate and fear.

You stupid Libtards preach this pathetic diversity, tolerance and coexist bullshit as the fucking Muslims are killing us and you tell us that the real threat is the climate change scam so you can just go fuck yourself Moon Bat.

Deep down they know all that....they just can't bring themselves to admit it

Who knows what these idiot Libtards think?

We know that since they are Liberals they don't have any common sense or intelligence and they are confused about many things and their morals suck so they are probably incapable of admitting their stupidity.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

... bigotry and ignorance are replete in your posts,...

The absolute COOLEST thing about the use of the word "bigotry" is that the use of the word, where such is projected upon another, is a classic demonstration of bigotry.

I never seem to get tired of watching the ignorant demonstrate that which they otherwise come to lament.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

[Q

Laws do not prevent crime.

No shit Sherlock!

That is what we have been telling you uneducated low information naive Libtards but you are too damn stupid to understand it.

Licensing, registration and an accounting of ammunition sold to individuals will provide law enforcement clues as to who aided the shooters, providing probable cause to obtain and serve warrants to an entire lineage of possible co-conspirators.

Commie Kalifornia had all those those things in place and it didn't do a damn thing to stop the fucking Muslim from killing, did it?

BTW, bigotry and ignorance are replete in your posts, clear and convincing evidence that your opinions are based on the two emotions common to the 21st century conservative, hate and fear.

You stupid Libtards preach this pathetic diversity, tolerance and coexist bullshit as the fucking Muslims are killing us and you tell us that the real threat is the climate change scam so you can just go fuck yourself Moon Bat.

Deep down they know all that....they just can't bring themselves to admit it

Who knows what these idiot Libtards think?

We know that since they are Liberals they don't have any common sense or intelligence and they are confused about many things and their morals suck so they are probably incapable of admitting their stupidity.

Their goal is a total gun ban....they are just pissing into the wind

 

[Wry Catcher]

the common denominator of all the mass murders and shootings, it is the gun; not the mental health of the shooter nor their political or religious leanings.

Ladies and gentlemen. We are privileged to have in this very forum one of the world's leading scholars. Who else would have connected shootings with guns when it was right under our noses all along?

Who else?

M14, 2aguy, the Cleveland guy, Rabbi, you iceweasel, and the other dozen or so others who seem to forget gun violence is perpetrated by terrorists (domestic and foreign), gangsters, men and women of all colors and ethnicity, children, dads, moms, criminals and law enforcement, etc.

So what do they all have in common? A GUN!

Yet those so obsessed with their right to have a gun, seek to blame factors other than the gun for the carnage created by a diverse demographic with that single thing - having a gun in their possession - in common.

People control is difficult, we can't profile and thus become a police state, we can stick our heads in the sand and ignore a serious social problem, or we can control the proliferation of guns by holding gun owners and those who seek to own or possess them to be responsible.

We already are now. CA has the toughest gun laws in the country, and you people are still blaming the guns and the ability to get them. At the same time, you complain about the governments ability to snoop in on electronic transmissions that might have led to the feds looking into guys like this one and others such as in Boston marathon bombing.

I didn't complain about profiling, I simply pointed out the PC police have made profiling - which has always existed - non grata. It still goes on covertly, and is something we should all be wary of, but as I've posted before, Freedom and Security are complex issues and should be part of public debate on policy..

Do you claim the absolute right of privacy, based on the Second Amendment, and consider licensing and registration to be violations of your right to own guns? Does that right not apply to every citizens under the principle of equality of rights and due process of the law?

Or are some citizens more equal than others. Which seems to be the in articulated belief of callous conservatives.

For the most part, guns are registered to the owners. I can't buy a gun unless I provide identification to the dealer and he (or she) shoots a bullet for ballistic records. I'm also a CCW holder so I've been electronically fingerprinted, had to fill out forms that ask about 50 questions, and include every place I've ever lived since the age of 18.

The problem I have with more restrictive gun measures is it won't solve any problems. Our prisons are full of drug dealers and a few users, but recreational narcotics have been illegal as long as I've been alive. The people that want those narcotics get them in spite of our laws or penal system. And yet, the problem seems to grow more and more every year.

To put it another way, let's say that you and I ran this country. During this debate, I called you out for a bet. The bet is, you can have your restrictive gun laws---any kind you want for a period of three years. If those laws you enacted doesn't reduce murders and mass killings by at least 50%, then we do things my way. If they do reduce those crimes by 50% or more, we keep your laws.

I know you can't honestly answer that here, but instead, ask yourself, would you make such a bet with me?

No. What I would counter with is allowing each state to establish gun control laws, or not.. And have every political subdivision of that state with a law enforcement agency, and each judicial district to report on civil findings, restraining orders and detentions; crimes, filings and adjudications of all firearm related incidents to be kept by the DOJ in DC and provided to the CDC and any University interested in studying the data.

Of course the NRA will object and lobby against anything like that.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Ladies and gentlemen. We are privileged to have in this very forum one of the world's leading scholars. Who else would have connected shootings with guns when it was right under our noses all along?

Who else?

M14, 2aguy, the Cleveland guy, Rabbi, you iceweasel, and the other dozen or so others who seem to forget gun violence is perpetrated by terrorists (domestic and foreign), gangsters, men and women of all colors and ethnicity, children, dads, moms, criminals and law enforcement, etc.

So what do they all have in common? A GUN!

Yet those so obsessed with their right to have a gun, seek to blame factors other than the gun for the carnage created by a diverse demographic with that single thing - having a gun in their possession - in common.

People control is difficult, we can't profile and thus become a police state, we can stick our heads in the sand and ignore a serious social problem, or we can control the proliferation of guns by holding gun owners and those who seek to own or possess them to be responsible.

We already are now. CA has the toughest gun laws in the country, and you people are still blaming the guns and the ability to get them. At the same time, you complain about the governments ability to snoop in on electronic transmissions that might have led to the feds looking into guys like this one and others such as in Boston marathon bombing.

I didn't complain about profiling, I simply pointed out the PC police have made profiling - which has always existed - non grata. It still goes on covertly, and is something we should all be wary of, but as I've posted before, Freedom and Security are complex issues and should be part of public debate on policy..

Do you claim the absolute right of privacy, based on the Second Amendment, and consider licensing and registration to be violations of your right to own guns? Does that right not apply to every citizens under the principle of equality of rights and due process of the law?

Or are some citizens more equal than others. Which seems to be the in articulated belief of callous conservatives.

For the most part, guns are registered to the owners. I can't buy a gun unless I provide identification to the dealer and he (or she) shoots a bullet for ballistic records. I'm also a CCW holder so I've been electronically fingerprinted, had to fill out forms that ask about 50 questions, and include every place I've ever lived since the age of 18.

The problem I have with more restrictive gun measures is it won't solve any problems. Our prisons are full of drug dealers and a few users, but recreational narcotics have been illegal as long as I've been alive. The people that want those narcotics get them in spite of our laws or penal system. And yet, the problem seems to grow more and more every year.

To put it another way, let's say that you and I ran this country. During this debate, I called you out for a bet. The bet is, you can have your restrictive gun laws---any kind you want for a period of three years. If those laws you enacted doesn't reduce murders and mass killings by at least 50%, then we do things my way. If they do reduce those crimes by 50% or more, we keep your laws.

I know you can't honestly answer that here, but instead, ask yourself, would you make such a bet with me?

No. What I would counter with is too allow each state to establish gun control laws. And have every political subdivision of that state with a law enforcement agency, and each judicial district to report on civil findings, crimes, filings and adjudications of all firearm related incidents.

Don't we pretty much have that now? The anti-gun people blame the states with liberal gun policies for the problems they have.

More importantly is that you would never wager me on more gun restrictions because you yourself know they won't produce results; just like the Brady Bill didn't do squat.

 

[Wry Catcher]

... bigotry and ignorance are replete in your posts,...

The absolute COOLEST thing about the use of the word "bigotry" is that the use of the word, where such is projected upon another, is a classic demonstration of bigotry.

I never seem to get tired of watching the ignorant demonstrate that which they otherwise come to lament.

A spin which cannot turn ^^^!


Pointing out someone, or groups of people are bigots does not necessarily demonstrate that the speaker/writer is intolerant of the bigot or group. The fact is that the more stupid conclusions posted by racists and bigots, the greater is the spread of knowledge that such opinions are based on ignorance, hate and fear, that is, emotions not reality.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Pointing out someone, or groups of people are bigots ...

Is intolerance toward their differing opinions, which is the definition of Bigotry.

It's a paradox. Which is something that is clearly well beyond your limited intellectual means.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

No. What I would counter with is allowing each state to establish gun control laws, or not.. And have every political subdivision of that state with a law enforcement agency, and each judicial district to report on civil findings, restraining orders and detentions; crimes, filings and adjudications of all firearm related incidents to be kept by the DOJ in DC and provided to the CDC and any University interested in studying the data.

Of course the NRA will object and lobby against anything like that.

All opponents of centralized government would oppose that... meaning all Americans would oppose that. And never more vehemently than where there is the SLIGHTEST possibility that such a centralized government could ever fall into the hands of Progs, who would abuse the centralized records, as a means toward deceitfully manipulating those records, so as to Fraudulently influence the ignorant.

But, in fairness to the Progs, they only do so, because such is the nature of evil... .

 

[Wry Catcher]

Pointing out someone, or groups of people are bigots ...

Is intolerance toward their differing opinions, which is the definition of Bigotry.

It's a paradox. Which is something that is clearly well beyond your limited intellectual means.

LOL, no, but keep on trying; you, trying to be serious, is hilarious. I suggest you refer to a dictionary definition of Paradox. Then try again.