Anyone in the NRA?

whygohome

I'm not part of the NRA. I am perfectly happy with the size of my penis and don't need to make up for it in any way.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Guns are necessary because the government is just waiting for for you to put aside your arms so they can become tyrannical.

Guns are fun.

People try to get you so you better be ready with a gun.

For clarification, are these the three biggest reasons why there should not be legislation restricting ownership of assault rifles and handguns as well as demanding thorough background checks prior to receiving licenses?

whygohome

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Guns are necessary because the government is just waiting for for you to put aside your arms so they can become tyrannical.

Guns are fun.

People try to get you so you better be ready with a gun.

For clarification, are these the three biggest reasons why there should not be legislation restricting ownership of assault rifles and handguns as well as demanding thorough background checks prior to receiving licenses?

You're spot on. That's the Right-wing logic for ya!!!

goingtoverona

crap i knew i was forgetting something, another reason i own guns is because i have a very small penis. owning guns does something to me to make me forget about my extremely small penis. so i guess i should say thanks guns, for making life a little easier.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

goingtoverona wrote:

crap i knew i was forgetting something, another reason i own guns is because i have a very small penis. owning guns does something to me to make me forget about my extremely small penis. so i guess i should say thanks guns, for making life a little easier.

So add this to my list of 3 reasons?

CJMST3K

Here's my 2 cents on this... and I would give my full 99 cents on this, but I can see there are a number of people here who are set on blaming the guns and not the people who use them.

I'm a vegetarian. Not for health. Its for ethical reasons. Its so I don't hurt anything. People and animals... we're all the same. We all experience the same level of pain. We're all equally deserving of being here. No one should be harmed. That is how I live my life, and it guides every moment of my life.

When I was a teenager I was captain of the rifle team in high school. It takes patience, breathing control, concentration to put a hole in the center of a 2" circle from 50' away consistently, when using no scope and not able to lean on anything. The closest thing I can compare it to anything is yoga. Now I'm 37 and I enjoy shooting at the range still, for the same reasons.

For someone to blindly point fingers saying "you did this" and "you did this" is unfortunate and misguided.

I didn't do this. I don't even eat marshmallows for the harm required to make them.

Guns in the hands of a person who is determined to do harm, like today, is horrible.
Guns in the hands of someone in the position to stop someone like this can save the day.


Here is a story from another fatal Elementary School attack earlier today. No firearms were involved.
http://articles.cnn.com/2010-03-23/worl ... s=PM:WORLD

peacefrompaul

Maybe it's time for the 28th amendment

SatansFuton

I don't really think there's any point in looking who to blame. Except for, as others have said, the dickhead who did this. I've already had a cousin tell me today that the blood was on MY hands as an American, even though I've never owned a gun. I cancelled his visit for February... because fuck him.

I can kind of see both sides of the argument on guns, but as somebody with no interest in guns I vote with and tend to agree more with the gun control peeps. But I think that tighter gun control would just lead to a larger black market. It will get some guns off the streets, but the responsible people who would turn in their guns are likely not the types of people to do terrible things like what happened today. If by some miracle we did manage to pass a law making all guns illegal and everybody had to turn them in, the criminals would still have them, and the "responsible" gun owners wouldn't.

Not everybody in the NRA wants to shoot somebody. Many people are collectors. Kind of a strange thing to collect in my mind, but everybody has their thing. Some people collect cars (which are responsible for their share of accidental deaths), baseball cards, etc. And some collect guns. Do they need them? No. Do you need your white Backspacer? No. Your white Backspacer isn't going to kill anybody, but likely the average responsible gun owner isn't going to either. I know it's apples and oranges, but the point is just that people have their own hobbies. I've seen shows with these people on History Channel. Collectors don't really want to kill anybody, they seem to just admire the craftsmanship of these machines, similar to a car buff I guess. Some people just like to shoot at targets, because they get some fun release or sense of danger firing a gun.

At the end of the day I think safety takes precedence over hobbies, but then this starts up the whole debate over protecting yourself and your family. I have personally chosen not to protect myself with a gun, but who am I really to tell somebody they shouldn't be able to protect theirs? If I had kids I might think differently of the whole thing, or I might not, I don't know.

It would be nice if all the guns just disappeared, but people would just find another way to kill somebody. And if tighter gun laws are enforced, people will still find a way to get guns. Just like the War On Drugs didn't work, I don't think a War On Guns would either. If people want something bad enough, they'll get it. And people like Douchey McGee up there in Connecticut, who make plans to kill dozens of people, don't give a shit whether or not it's illegal to obtain a gun. We're talking about a man with a mind for murder, child murder, laws don't mean shit to somebody like that. And if he hadn't been able to get a gun, he probably just would have pulled something like that crazy fuck in China today who stabbed (not fatally from last I read) 22 kids, or drive his car through the playground.

It's a very complicated issue, and I honestly don't know what to do. But what I do believe is that without guns, we still have murderers, and they'll kill you another way. There is SOME truth to the old saying "Guns Don't Kill People, People Kill People", however that's not an excuse to do nothing and leave gun laws the way they are. I just don't see how you fix it, without fixing people. Because the guns are just a symptom, the problem is people. Get rid of the guns and there's still knives, bombs, bows/crossbows, poison, fire, etc. Not to mention things like cars, planes, and other objects with a non-lethal purpose that can be used to kill. Look at that son of a bitch from years back with his "Killdozer", although I think he miraculously managed to not kill anybody. The point is, if somebody is motivated, they'll find a way.

Tighter gun control seems like it only solves the problem of crimes of passion. Which we should go ahead and solve probably, but I think people are worried about the larger black market. It COULD be bad. Look at all the crime and shit that sprung up around Prohibition. If you take a large industry and hand it to the black market, it's no good. But we can cross that bridge when we come to it, and we should at least try to do it, and not put it off just because it could lead to other problems. But aside from crimes of passion, the maniacs will still be out there. All of these massacres we hear about on the news are usually thought and planned out. I don't know if this dickhead thought his out or not.

That's my 2 cents (or 2000 cents) on the matter. It's a sticky situation and not so black and white. Gun Control vs Right To Bear Arms, it's a raging debate for sure. The only thing I'm sure of is that my cousin can freeze his nuts off up in Thunder Bay this February.

fear4freedom

Do you think the OP was a little unfair and misguided and ignorant?

What if I said this " Kid was so anti-gun, he went on a rampage shooting to kill 27 people including himself all just to get gun control passed". Thats right, this kid did this just to prove a point that guns kill people! His only motive was to get stricter gun laws. Cant waste a good crisis...especially if we manufacture it!

If you take guns away from the good people....the bad people will still get them!

catefrances

fear4freedom wrote:

Do you think the OP was a little unfair and misguided and ignorant?

What if I said this " Kid was so anti-gun, he went on a rampage shooting to kill 27 people including himself all just to get gun control passed". Thats right, this kid did this just to prove a point that guns kill people! His only motive was to get stricter gun laws. Cant waste a good crisis...especially if we manufacture it!

If you take guns away from the good people....the bad people will still get them!

if that was the kids intention then hes more misguided then we thoght considering no matter how many of these shootings happen nothing changes re: gun control laws.

Thorns2010

Oh we can't ban guns because we need to stop the evil Government. Really? Really? People honestly think that having a small arsenal of weapons is going to stop the military of the United States if it went rouge on the citizens of the US??

The other thing that amuses me when people talk about the Bill of Rights and the Amendments, is that they act as if they are set in stone, and can not be changed. The beauty of the US Constitution and how it was set up to run the government is that it is allowed to be changed.

For those who are saying we can't ban guns, the bad guys will get us. Do yourself a favor and read up about the Port Arthur massacre in Australia in 1996. And how after it, the government realized gun control was an issue. Guns for the most part now are banned, and guess what??? The evil scary 'bad' guys aren't going door to door armed with guns robbing everyone! Imagine that?

This is a complete and utter disgrace that gun violence is allowed to continue time and time again in America, but no we can't do anything about it because some piece of paper over 220 years old says so.

catefrances

Thorns2010 wrote:

...
For those who are saying we can't ban guns, the bad guys will get us. Do yourself a favor and read up about the Port Arthur massacre in Australia in 1996. And how after it, the government realized gun control was an issue. Guns for the most part now are banned, and guess what??? The evil scary 'bad' guys aren't going door to door armed with guns robbing everyone! Imagine that?...

different culture.

Thorns2010

catefrances wrote:

Thorns2010 wrote:

...
For those who are saying we can't ban guns, the bad guys will get us. Do yourself a favor and read up about the Port Arthur massacre in Australia in 1996. And how after it, the government realized gun control was an issue. Guns for the most part now are banned, and guess what??? The evil scary 'bad' guys aren't going door to door armed with guns robbing everyone! Imagine that?...

different culture.

I was born and raised in America and I now live in Australia and yes it is a bit different, but I wouldn't say drastically. And if its worked here, there is no reason similar forms of the gun restrictions in Australia couldn't work in America.

catefrances

Thorns2010 wrote:

catefrances wrote:

Thorns2010 wrote:

...
For those who are saying we can't ban guns, the bad guys will get us. Do yourself a favor and read up about the Port Arthur massacre in Australia in 1996. And how after it, the government realized gun control was an issue. Guns for the most part now are banned, and guess what??? The evil scary 'bad' guys aren't going door to door armed with guns robbing everyone! Imagine that?...

different culture.

I was born and raised in America and I now live in Australia and yes it is a bit different, but I wouldn't say drastically. And if its worked here, there is no reason similar forms of the gun restrictions in Australia couldn't work in America.

we didnt have to deal with a bill of rights for starters. the govt just told us to hand in our weapons.

Johnny Abruzzo

unsung wrote:

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

Take a look in the mirror.

When you hear about these mass shootings that happen all the time, just remember...

THIS IS YOUR FAULT!

Machine guns were banned, and the NRA's cronies allowed the law to expire. Now look at what's happening, all the fucking time.

I didn't read every reply but machine guns are still banned. You are confused and are arguing with emotion instead of logic. It's ok, my GF does it quite often too.

Fine. Assault weapons.

As I said, assault weapons, semiautomatic weapons increase the severity. Changing the frequency is another, much more difficult problem.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/human_nature/2012/12/connecticut_school_shooting_semi_automatic_weapons_and_other_high_speed.html

Johnny Abruzzo

unsung wrote:

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

Take a look in the mirror.

When you hear about these mass shootings that happen all the time, just remember...

THIS IS YOUR FAULT!

Machine guns were banned, and the NRA's cronies allowed the law to expire. Now look at what's happening, all the fucking time.

I didn't read every reply but machine guns are still banned. You are confused and are arguing with emotion instead of logic. It's ok, my GF does it quite often too.

Maybe my verbiage was mixed up but this is common sense, not emotion. Nobody needs assault weapons to hunt or defend their home.

Your remark strikes me as sexist btw.

pjradio

The New Yorker...Adam Gopnik:

"And it has happened again, bang, like clockwork, one might say: Twenty dead children—babies, really—in a kindergarten in a prosperous town in Connecticut. And a mother screaming. And twenty families told that their grade-schooler had died. After the Aurora killings, I did a few debates with advocates for the child-killing lobby—sorry, the gun lobby—and, without exception and with a mad vehemence, they told the same old lies: it doesn’t happen here more often than elsewhere (yes, it does); more people are protected by guns than killed by them (no, they aren’t—that’s a flat-out fabrication); guns don’t kill people, people do; and all the other perverted lies that people who can only be called knowing accessories to murder continue to repeat, people who are in their own way every bit as twisted and crazy as the killers whom they defend. (That they are often the same people who pretend outrage at the loss of a single embryo only makes the craziness still crazier.)

So let’s state the plain facts one more time, so that they can’t be mistaken: Gun massacres have happened many times in many countries, and in every other country, gun laws have been tightened to reflect the tragedy and the tragic knowledge of its citizens afterward. In every other country, gun massacres have subsequently become rare. In America alone, gun massacres, most often of children, happen with hideous regularity, and they happen with hideous regularity because guns are hideously and regularly available.
The people who fight and lobby and legislate to make guns regularly available are complicit in the murder of those children. They have made a clear moral choice: that the comfort and emotional reassurance they take from the possession of guns, placed in the balance even against the routine murder of innocent children, is of supreme value. Whatever satisfaction gun owners take from their guns—we know for certain that there is no prudential value in them—is more important than children’s lives. Give them credit: life is making moral choices, and that’s a moral choice, clearly made.

All of that is a truth, plain and simple, and recognized throughout the world. At some point, this truth may become so bloody obvious that we will know it, too. Meanwhile, congratulate yourself on living in the child-gun-massacre capital of the known universe.".....discuss

SatansFuton

pjradio wrote:

The New Yorker...Adam Gopnik:

"And it has happened again, bang, like clockwork, one might say: Twenty dead children—babies, really—in a kindergarten in a prosperous town in Connecticut. And a mother screaming. And twenty families told that their grade-schooler had died. After the Aurora killings, I did a few debates with advocates for the child-killing lobby—sorry, the gun lobby—and, without exception and with a mad vehemence, they told the same old lies: it doesn’t happen here more often than elsewhere (yes, it does); more people are protected by guns than killed by them (no, they aren’t—that’s a flat-out fabrication); guns don’t kill people, people do; and all the other perverted lies that people who can only be called knowing accessories to murder continue to repeat, people who are in their own way every bit as twisted and crazy as the killers whom they defend. (That they are often the same people who pretend outrage at the loss of a single embryo only makes the craziness still crazier.)

So let’s state the plain facts one more time, so that they can’t be mistaken: Gun massacres have happened many times in many countries, and in every other country, gun laws have been tightened to reflect the tragedy and the tragic knowledge of its citizens afterward. In every other country, gun massacres have subsequently become rare. In America alone, gun massacres, most often of children, happen with hideous regularity, and they happen with hideous regularity because guns are hideously and regularly available.
The people who fight and lobby and legislate to make guns regularly available are complicit in the murder of those children. They have made a clear moral choice: that the comfort and emotional reassurance they take from the possession of guns, placed in the balance even against the routine murder of innocent children, is of supreme value. Whatever satisfaction gun owners take from their guns—we know for certain that there is no prudential value in them—is more important than children’s lives. Give them credit: life is making moral choices, and that’s a moral choice, clearly made.

All of that is a truth, plain and simple, and recognized throughout the world. At some point, this truth may become so bloody obvious that we will know it, too. Meanwhile, congratulate yourself on living in the child-gun-massacre capital of the known universe.".....discuss

Interesting, and he made some excellent points, but I don't really care for the way he went about it. As with so many other things in this country, it's hard for two sides to come to the table and discuss something like this reasonably with this type of discourse.

Calling somebody a murderer or accomplice to murder is not really a productive way to discuss the topic. And calling a gun owner an accomplice to this is about as fair as if guns were outlawed and somebody blamed the death of their child who they couldn't protect on gun control advocates.

If this guy really wants to change minds, he might stop and think that when you insult people and accuse them of things they're going to put up a wall and shut you out. Even if you're right you'll be wrong to them.

Like I said, good points, but a little over the top.

pjradio

SatansFuton wrote:

good points, but a little over the top.

agree, but thought it should be put out there

SatansFuton

pjradio wrote:

SatansFuton wrote:

good points, but a little over the top.

agree, but thought it should be put out there

I hear ya.