NRA-backed task force pushes to arm teachers, school staff
A National Rifle Association-funded task force on Tuesday outlined a package of recommendations aimed at improving school safety, leaving aside the new gun controls that Congress is considering and instead advising schools to train teachers and other school personnel to carry guns to protect their students.
“I have not focused on the separate debate in Congress about firearms and how they should be handled," said former Republican Rep. Asa Hutchinson, who is heading up the National School Shield Program. The NRA has spent more than $1 million to back the task force, which was created in the wake of the Sandy Hook elementary shooting in Connecticut.
The push to change the subject away from gun control and toward increasing the presence of guns in schools comes the week before Senate Democrats are expected to consider a package of new gun laws on the floor of the upper chamber. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has said the bill would expanded background checks for gun buyers and make gun trafficking a federal crime.
Former U.S. Rep. Asa Hutchinson announces recommendations arising from the NRA's National School Shield Program, an initiative aimed at providing schools with armed guards.
While the NRA has been working with members of Congress on legislative language for such proposals, it's publicly opposed to expanding background checks. :fp:
The group has also opposed a proposed ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines, with some Republicans arguing that large and powerful weapons are necessary for self-protection.
The 225-page National School Shield report isn't offering specific recommendations for how many armed staff each school should have or the types of guns those people should carry -- though Hutchinson said the firearms could range from "sidearms, to shotguns, to AR-15s."
Hutchinson emphasized that the program should only be for those who are interested in going through 40-60 hours of firearms training.
"Let me emphasize -- this is not talking about all teachers. Teachers should teach," he said. Hutchinson also said that the idea of arming community volunteers -- an idea floated after the Newtown shooting -- wasn't workable because of liability and other issues.
Instead, the focus is on arming staff who are employed at the school. Joining Hutchinson on Tuesday was Mark Mattiolli, whose son was killed in the Newtown shootings. Other Sandy Hook parents have appeared at events on Capitol Hill and at the White House to advocate for stricter gun laws.
Mark Mattiolli, left, endorses new proposals laid out by Asa Hutchinson, right, after his announcement of the findings and recommendations of the the National School Shield Program at the National Press Club in Washington on April 2, 2013.
"As parents we send our kids off to school, and there are certain expectations and obviously at Sandy Hook those expectations weren't met," Mattiolli said. "This is recommendations for solutions. Real solutions that will make our kids safer."
Arming school personnel is the first of eight recommendations included in the plan. Among the other ideas: an online self-assessment tool that schools can use to evaluate their facilities and safety policies; changes to state laws to allow school personnel to carry guns while they're in training; increasing coordination among law enforcement agencies; encouraging states to make school safety part of their educational requirements; making the task force a permanent group; creating a pilot program to assess threats and mental health; and increasing federal funding for school safety.
Hutchinson presented the task force's findings at the National Press Club, where he was protected by at least 10 security guards, some uniformed and some in plain clothes.
"No, there's nothing I'm afraid of," he said when asked about the intense security presence. National Press Club executive director Bill McGowan said after the event that the security level was "unusual" and "definitely got our attention."
4 months after Newtown and their answer is let's arm everyone , no banning of anything no backround check no nothing and that Dad man i bet he got paid off i would have a big problem with him if my kid also got killed on that day and now hi's on the NRA SIDE ....It's a shame really those kids died in vain ..
CANBERRA (Reuters) - Former Australian Prime Minister John Howard wore a bullet proof vest under his suit when he addressed an angry crowd of gun owners in 1996, telling them he was going to ban automatic and semi-automatic weapons for the safety of all Australians.
At other rallies, effigies of his deputy prime minister Tim Fischer were hanged by opponents of gun control.
The battle for gun control in Australia, after the country's worst massacre in which 35 people were shot dead, was risky both personally and politically. Howard alienated a large part of his conservative, rural base and was almost thrown from office.
But the gun reforms made Australia a safer place, with fewer homicides and suicides, and both Howard and Fischer are now urging U.S. President Barack Obama to take his gun control campaign to the people, just as they did, to gain a consensus.
"I knew that I had to use the authority of my office to curb the possession and use of the type of weapons that killed 35 innocent people. I also knew it wouldn't be easy," Howard wrote in the New York Times earlier this year.
"Penalizing decent, law-abiding citizens because of the criminal behavior of others seemed unfair...I understood their misgivings. Yet I felt there was no alternative," wrote Howard, adding he hoped his example would contribute constructively to the U.S. gun debate.
Obama wants to ban military assault rifles and high capacity ammunition clips after a gunman killed 20 children and six adults at a school in Newtown, Connecticut, in December. But his plans appear to be losing momentum ahead of debate in the U.S. Senate this month.
BRUTAL GUN POLITICS
Six weeks after Howard won office in 1996, Martin Bryant, a psychologically disturbed man, used semi-automatic rifles to kill 35 people in Port Arthur, Tasmania.
Fischer, a Vietnam war veteran, farmer and gun owner, said the politics of gun control in Australia were brutal.
"It was a battle royal, and John Howard laid down a template that was worth defending and taking to the public square, taking to the people, and shifting the tectonic plates in the process. And the result ... 200 less coffins a year on a conservative estimate," Fischer told Reuters.
"It was the right thing to do, but people had to be persuaded of it. And this is why our friends in the United States ... should now consider seriously taking it in a big way to the public square."
In Australia, gun owners were compensated when they handed in previously legal weapons. Almost 700,000 guns were destroyed, halving the number of homes with a gun. That would be equal to taking 40 million guns out of action in the United States.
But the reforms angered many constituents of Fischer's rural-based National Party, who vented their anger two years later at the ballot box. The pro-gun One Nation party won almost one million votes and the government narrowly avoided defeat.
Australia had 13 gun massacres in the 18 years before the 1996 gun reforms, but has not suffered any mass shootings since.
Studies found a marked drop in gun-related homicides, down 59 percent, and a dramatic 65 percent drop in the rate of gun-related suicides, in the 10 years after the weapons crackdown.
But some Australian gun owners, like hunter Stephen O'Donnell, still oppose Howard's gun control laws, arguing they have simply created paperwork not made Australia safer.
O'Donnell, a license kangaroo shooter, can only use a single shell, bolt-action rifle, limiting his ability to control mobs of kangaroos and feral pests which can wreak havoc on farms.
"If I could have a semi-automatic, that would be a much more efficient way of doing it. You could take multiple targets a lot quicker," he said.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
Interesting. I am required to have insurance for my car in case I hit somebody. Why shouldn't the gun owners be required to have insurance for their firearms?
A contingent of liberal Democrats in Congress is proposing a new federal gun control idea: mandatory liability insurance for gun owners.
When New York Rep. Carolyn Maloney introduced the legislation last month with eight other Democrats, she boasted that it is “the first bill to require liability insurance of gun buyers nationwide.”
Maloney’s “Firearm Risk Protection Act” requires gun buyers to have “a qualified liability insurance policy” before they are able to legally purchase a firearm.
It also calls for the federal government to impose a fine as much as $10,000 if a gun owner doesn’t have insurance on a firearm purchased after the bill goes into effect.
“It shall be unlawful for a person who owns a firearm purchased on or after the effective date of this subsection not to be covered by a qualified liability insurance policy,” the bill text reads.
The bill would also make it a federal crime to sell a firearm to anyone without insurance.
“For too long, gun victims and society at large have borne the brunt of the costs of gun violence,” Maloney said as she introduced the legislation. “My bill would change that by shifting some of that cost back onto those who own the weapons.”
I don't think the bill is targeting someone who plans to shoot someone else. The bill is targeting the so-called responsible gun owner who believes their guns are perfectly safe and not a danger at all right up until the moment when they discover they are very wrong.
But you are right about the involvement of insurance companies. No doubt.
Use your brain and see that a country doesn't just wake up one day and find out it is Cuba or pre-1990 SOviet Union (or even current Russia).
Oh please. What kind of bat shit paranoia is that?
It is various actions over time that lead a country to that point.
No, actually it was bloody revolutions, which would would know if you went to junior high. What the fuck do they teach in your schools, cow milking and basket weaving?
Putin shuts down the media in Russia. Liberals here want to shut down Fox News.
Fox News isn't "the news," it's a propaganda wing of the Republican party. They aren't a legitimate news agency, they even say so themselves.
FINALLY!!!! another voice of reason
True. But do you ever hear of the right trying to shut down MSNBC? hmmm do ya do ya do ya? FUCK NO YOU DONT!
Once again it has to be asked....WHAT ARE YOU SO AFRAID OF??
Not a damn thing.
I'll never understand these progressive liberals that think "the government will take care of us scenario". I wouldn't trust any fucking one of them with my check book, my car, my guns, my kid, or my home etc...
Same bat-shit crazy fucking liberals in here as always. Now i'm going to check back out again to save my sanity. :wave:
Once again it has to be asked....WHAT ARE YOU SO AFRAID OF??
Not a damn thing.
I'll never understand these progressive liberals that think "the government will take care of us scenario". I wouldn't trust any fucking one of them with my check book, my car, my guns, my kid, or my home etc...
Same bat-shit crazy fucking liberals in here as always. Now i'm going to check back out again to save my sanity. :wave:
And I'll never understand the crazy belief that we need to stockpile weapons because the big, bad, evil government is coming for us.
The inner city poor of Chicago where the $25 fee is incurred can barely afford food. Now they have their RIGHT to defend themselves TAXED. Not all can afford it. The politicians effectively disarm the poor through taxation and fees and overly burdensome requirements so they can't enjoy their rights.
Do you think they should all be forced to shop for groceries at gas stations too? Because without the means of transportation that's what they are left with. Lets see, the need for quality food or the need to defend ones life.
The inner city poor of Chicago where the $25 fee is incurred can barely afford food. Now they have their RIGHT to defend themselves TAXED. Not all can afford it. The politicians effectively disarm the poor through taxation and fees and overly burdensome requirements so they can't enjoy their rights.
Do you think they should all be forced to shop for groceries at gas stations too? Because without the means of transportation that's what they are left with. Lets see, the need for quality food or the need to defend ones life.
Eh, problems for the poor, right?
I'm sorry you think that's funny.
My apologies, I did honestly think you were making a joke.
Of course it is worth pointing out that "poor" does not equal "African American" or "Latino" etc. So maybe "racist" was not the best word choice. Discriminatory maybe?
Of course it is worth pointing out that "poor" does not equal "African American" or "Latino" etc. So maybe "racist" was not the best word choice. Discriminatory maybe?
of course not.
there are more white people on welfare than any other group.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
Of course it is worth pointing out that "poor" does not equal "African American" or "Latino" etc. So maybe "racist" was not the best word choice. Discriminatory maybe?
of course not.
there are more white people on welfare than any other group.
I'll give to the discriminatory, sure. But in Chicago the majority of the poor are black and Hispanic.
This has nothing to do with welfare. My point was based on Cook County where Chicago is.
Of course it is worth pointing out that "poor" does not equal "African American" or "Latino" etc. So maybe "racist" was not the best word choice. Discriminatory maybe?
of course not.
there are more white people on welfare than any other group.
I'll give to the discriminatory, sure. But in Chicago the majority of the poor are black and Hispanic.
This has nothing to do with welfare. My point was based on Cook County where Chicago is.
But would it really be even discriminatory? Everything has a price. Some can afford guns and some cannot. You have the right bear arms, not a guarantee that you can afford arms.
We aren't supposed to infringe upon the second amendment at all, I get that argument even though I don't agree with the extreme lengths the argument is taken too. But nowhere is anyone guaranteed cheap access to anything.
Gun owners have the right to bear arms. I have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Maybe gun owners should be carrying insurance so that if their guns infringe upon my life or pursuit of happiness there is a safety net.
"Pooh-poh this if you like, since it comes from the Center for American Progress, but the group just released a big study showing that--across 10 measures like the number of firearms homicides, number of total firearm deaths (including accidents etc.), law enforcement agents killed by firearms, and so on--the deadliest states are those with the most lax gun laws.
The "top" 10: Louisiana, Alaska, Alabama, Arizona, Mississippi, South Carolina, New Mexico, Missouri, Arkansas, and Georgia.
Now I know conservatives are thinking: No way these places are deadlier than New York and other states with big cities that have very violent neighborhoods. But according to CAP, New York and New Jersey, for example, rank 46th and 47th in gun violence. The full "bottom" 10: Nebraska, Maine, Minnesota, Rhode Island, Iowa, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Hawaii. That's basically a combination of sparsely populated states and states with strong gun laws."
But would it really be even discriminatory? Everything has a price. Some can afford guns and some cannot. You have the right bear arms, not a guarantee that you can afford arms.
Depends on what side of the looking glass you are peering into. When the GOP wants ID's to vote (that cost $4), the Dems claim it's an attack on the poor and minorities.
When the Dems want a $25 fee and insurance (that would cost hundreds per year), it's for the good of everyone.
But would it really be even discriminatory? Everything has a price. Some can afford guns and some cannot. You have the right bear arms, not a guarantee that you can afford arms.
Depends on what side of the looking glass you are peering into. When the GOP wants ID's to vote (that cost $4), the Dems claim it's an attack on the poor and minorities.
When the Dems want a $25 fee and insurance (that would cost hundreds per year), it's for the good of everyone.
That I think is the best argument against this. But I don't think the ID's are a bad idea either, so...
But would it really be even discriminatory? Everything has a price. Some can afford guns and some cannot. You have the right bear arms, not a guarantee that you can afford arms.
Depends on what side of the looking glass you are peering into. When the GOP wants ID's to vote (that cost $4), the Dems claim it's an attack on the poor and minorities.
When the Dems want a $25 fee and insurance (that would cost hundreds per year), it's for the good of everyone.
That I think is the best argument against this. But I don't think the ID's are a bad idea either, so...
so...you hate minorities and the poor obviously
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Depends on what side of the looking glass you are peering into. When the GOP wants ID's to vote (that cost $4), the Dems claim it's an attack on the poor and minorities.
When the Dems want a $25 fee and insurance (that would cost hundreds per year), it's for the good of everyone.
That I think is the best argument against this. But I don't think the ID's are a bad idea either, so...
so...you hate minorities and the poor obviously
Obviously.
(I misfired thinking Unsung was making a joke earlier. Hope I am not repeating that mistake.)
(I misfired thinking Unsung was making a joke earlier. Hope I am not repeating that mistake.)
oh no, that was a joke
I don't quite understand why wanting either of those things would mean you are waging a war on the poor. Gun insurance would be an absolute boon to the insurance companies because the premiums would be through the fucking roof considering the amount of gun accidents and the amount of money people would be suing for...
still think the best solution is to allow Gun Shop owners to be held civilly and possible even criminally liable for the sale of guns used in the commission of a crime. Not sure if it would work, but certainly doesn't limit the 2nd amendment in anyway.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
I'm opting out if this one. I can't find it remotely acceptable to tax or require insurance for a RIGHT.
I'm not talking about guns being cheap so people can afford them, I'm talking about politicians increasing fees and taxing and making excessive requirements so that people can't afford to use their right.
(I misfired thinking Unsung was making a joke earlier. Hope I am not repeating that mistake.)
oh no, that was a joke
I don't quite understand why wanting either of those things would mean you are waging a war on the poor. Gun insurance would be an absolute boon to the insurance companies because the premiums would be through the fucking roof considering the amount of gun accidents and the amount of money people would be suing for...
still think the best solution is to allow Gun Shop owners to be held civilly and possible even criminally liable for the sale of guns used in the commission of a crime. Not sure if it would work, but certainly doesn't limit the 2nd amendment in anyway.
I think the owner/purchaser should be held civally and criminally liable should a weapon they own be used in the commision of a crime, UNLESS they have taken reasonable steps to ensure safe storage.
Universal backround checks are a good place to start. Make this concession and see what the results are in 5 , 10, 15 years.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Comments
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013 ... staff?lite
NRA-backed task force pushes to arm teachers, school staff
A National Rifle Association-funded task force on Tuesday outlined a package of recommendations aimed at improving school safety, leaving aside the new gun controls that Congress is considering and instead advising schools to train teachers and other school personnel to carry guns to protect their students.
“I have not focused on the separate debate in Congress about firearms and how they should be handled," said former Republican Rep. Asa Hutchinson, who is heading up the National School Shield Program. The NRA has spent more than $1 million to back the task force, which was created in the wake of the Sandy Hook elementary shooting in Connecticut.
The push to change the subject away from gun control and toward increasing the presence of guns in schools comes the week before Senate Democrats are expected to consider a package of new gun laws on the floor of the upper chamber. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has said the bill would expanded background checks for gun buyers and make gun trafficking a federal crime.
Former U.S. Rep. Asa Hutchinson announces recommendations arising from the NRA's National School Shield Program, an initiative aimed at providing schools with armed guards.
While the NRA has been working with members of Congress on legislative language for such proposals, it's publicly opposed to expanding background checks. :fp:
The group has also opposed a proposed ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines, with some Republicans arguing that large and powerful weapons are necessary for self-protection.
The 225-page National School Shield report isn't offering specific recommendations for how many armed staff each school should have or the types of guns those people should carry -- though Hutchinson said the firearms could range from "sidearms, to shotguns, to AR-15s."
Hutchinson emphasized that the program should only be for those who are interested in going through 40-60 hours of firearms training.
"Let me emphasize -- this is not talking about all teachers. Teachers should teach," he said. Hutchinson also said that the idea of arming community volunteers -- an idea floated after the Newtown shooting -- wasn't workable because of liability and other issues.
Instead, the focus is on arming staff who are employed at the school. Joining Hutchinson on Tuesday was Mark Mattiolli, whose son was killed in the Newtown shootings. Other Sandy Hook parents have appeared at events on Capitol Hill and at the White House to advocate for stricter gun laws.
Mark Mattiolli, left, endorses new proposals laid out by Asa Hutchinson, right, after his announcement of the findings and recommendations of the the National School Shield Program at the National Press Club in Washington on April 2, 2013.
"As parents we send our kids off to school, and there are certain expectations and obviously at Sandy Hook those expectations weren't met," Mattiolli said. "This is recommendations for solutions. Real solutions that will make our kids safer."
Arming school personnel is the first of eight recommendations included in the plan. Among the other ideas: an online self-assessment tool that schools can use to evaluate their facilities and safety policies; changes to state laws to allow school personnel to carry guns while they're in training; increasing coordination among law enforcement agencies; encouraging states to make school safety part of their educational requirements; making the task force a permanent group; creating a pilot program to assess threats and mental health; and increasing federal funding for school safety.
Hutchinson presented the task force's findings at the National Press Club, where he was protected by at least 10 security guards, some uniformed and some in plain clothes.
"No, there's nothing I'm afraid of," he said when asked about the intense security presence. National Press Club executive director Bill McGowan said after the event that the security level was "unusual" and "definitely got our attention."
their solution is "guns for everyone!!!!"
god forbid we actually make the tools a little more difficult to obtain.
9/10, yes that is 90% of all gun owners surveyed, support tighter background checks.
what the hell is the problem with that??
the nra is a lobbying arm for the gun manufacturers. nothing more.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
http://news.yahoo.com/australias-gun-co ... 53180.html
CANBERRA (Reuters) - Former Australian Prime Minister John Howard wore a bullet proof vest under his suit when he addressed an angry crowd of gun owners in 1996, telling them he was going to ban automatic and semi-automatic weapons for the safety of all Australians.
At other rallies, effigies of his deputy prime minister Tim Fischer were hanged by opponents of gun control.
The battle for gun control in Australia, after the country's worst massacre in which 35 people were shot dead, was risky both personally and politically. Howard alienated a large part of his conservative, rural base and was almost thrown from office.
But the gun reforms made Australia a safer place, with fewer homicides and suicides, and both Howard and Fischer are now urging U.S. President Barack Obama to take his gun control campaign to the people, just as they did, to gain a consensus.
"I knew that I had to use the authority of my office to curb the possession and use of the type of weapons that killed 35 innocent people. I also knew it wouldn't be easy," Howard wrote in the New York Times earlier this year.
"Penalizing decent, law-abiding citizens because of the criminal behavior of others seemed unfair...I understood their misgivings. Yet I felt there was no alternative," wrote Howard, adding he hoped his example would contribute constructively to the U.S. gun debate.
Obama wants to ban military assault rifles and high capacity ammunition clips after a gunman killed 20 children and six adults at a school in Newtown, Connecticut, in December. But his plans appear to be losing momentum ahead of debate in the U.S. Senate this month.
BRUTAL GUN POLITICS
Six weeks after Howard won office in 1996, Martin Bryant, a psychologically disturbed man, used semi-automatic rifles to kill 35 people in Port Arthur, Tasmania.
Fischer, a Vietnam war veteran, farmer and gun owner, said the politics of gun control in Australia were brutal.
"It was a battle royal, and John Howard laid down a template that was worth defending and taking to the public square, taking to the people, and shifting the tectonic plates in the process. And the result ... 200 less coffins a year on a conservative estimate," Fischer told Reuters.
"It was the right thing to do, but people had to be persuaded of it. And this is why our friends in the United States ... should now consider seriously taking it in a big way to the public square."
In Australia, gun owners were compensated when they handed in previously legal weapons. Almost 700,000 guns were destroyed, halving the number of homes with a gun. That would be equal to taking 40 million guns out of action in the United States.
But the reforms angered many constituents of Fischer's rural-based National Party, who vented their anger two years later at the ballot box. The pro-gun One Nation party won almost one million votes and the government narrowly avoided defeat.
Australia had 13 gun massacres in the 18 years before the 1996 gun reforms, but has not suffered any mass shootings since.
Studies found a marked drop in gun-related homicides, down 59 percent, and a dramatic 65 percent drop in the rate of gun-related suicides, in the 10 years after the weapons crackdown.
But some Australian gun owners, like hunter Stephen O'Donnell, still oppose Howard's gun control laws, arguing they have simply created paperwork not made Australia safer.
O'Donnell, a license kangaroo shooter, can only use a single shell, bolt-action rifle, limiting his ability to control mobs of kangaroos and feral pests which can wreak havoc on farms.
"If I could have a semi-automatic, that would be a much more efficient way of doing it. You could take multiple targets a lot quicker," he said.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/02/democ ... z2PPMRjiMe
A contingent of liberal Democrats in Congress is proposing a new federal gun control idea: mandatory liability insurance for gun owners.
When New York Rep. Carolyn Maloney introduced the legislation last month with eight other Democrats, she boasted that it is “the first bill to require liability insurance of gun buyers nationwide.”
Maloney’s “Firearm Risk Protection Act” requires gun buyers to have “a qualified liability insurance policy” before they are able to legally purchase a firearm.
It also calls for the federal government to impose a fine as much as $10,000 if a gun owner doesn’t have insurance on a firearm purchased after the bill goes into effect.
“It shall be unlawful for a person who owns a firearm purchased on or after the effective date of this subsection not to be covered by a qualified liability insurance policy,” the bill text reads.
The bill would also make it a federal crime to sell a firearm to anyone without insurance.
“For too long, gun victims and society at large have borne the brunt of the costs of gun violence,” Maloney said as she introduced the legislation. “My bill would change that by shifting some of that cost back onto those who own the weapons.”
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/02/democ ... z2PPo6tpv2
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
:think:
I can understand why someone who may be in bed with the insurance lobby would want to push this legislation.
But you are right about the involvement of insurance companies. No doubt.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
True. But do you ever hear of the right trying to shut down MSNBC? hmmm do ya do ya do ya? FUCK NO YOU DONT!
I'll never understand these progressive liberals that think "the government will take care of us scenario". I wouldn't trust any fucking one of them with my check book, my car, my guns, my kid, or my home etc...
Same bat-shit crazy fucking liberals in here as always. Now i'm going to check back out again to save my sanity. :wave:
And I'll never understand the crazy belief that we need to stockpile weapons because the big, bad, evil government is coming for us.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
People of all races, religions and sexual orientations should of course have the same right to be irresponsible with their stockpiled firearms.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Do you think they should all be forced to shop for groceries at gas stations too? Because without the means of transportation that's what they are left with. Lets see, the need for quality food or the need to defend ones life.
Eh, problems for the poor, right?
I'm sorry you think that's funny.
My apologies, I did honestly think you were making a joke.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
there are more white people on welfare than any other group.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
I'll give to the discriminatory, sure. But in Chicago the majority of the poor are black and Hispanic.
This has nothing to do with welfare. My point was based on Cook County where Chicago is.
But would it really be even discriminatory? Everything has a price. Some can afford guns and some cannot. You have the right bear arms, not a guarantee that you can afford arms.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Gun owners have the right to bear arms. I have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Maybe gun owners should be carrying insurance so that if their guns infringe upon my life or pursuit of happiness there is a safety net.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... tates.html
"Pooh-poh this if you like, since it comes from the Center for American Progress, but the group just released a big study showing that--across 10 measures like the number of firearms homicides, number of total firearm deaths (including accidents etc.), law enforcement agents killed by firearms, and so on--the deadliest states are those with the most lax gun laws.
The "top" 10: Louisiana, Alaska, Alabama, Arizona, Mississippi, South Carolina, New Mexico, Missouri, Arkansas, and Georgia.
Now I know conservatives are thinking: No way these places are deadlier than New York and other states with big cities that have very violent neighborhoods. But according to CAP, New York and New Jersey, for example, rank 46th and 47th in gun violence. The full "bottom" 10: Nebraska, Maine, Minnesota, Rhode Island, Iowa, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Hawaii. That's basically a combination of sparsely populated states and states with strong gun laws."
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
When the Dems want a $25 fee and insurance (that would cost hundreds per year), it's for the good of everyone.
That I think is the best argument against this. But I don't think the ID's are a bad idea either, so...
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
so...you hate minorities and the poor obviously
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Obviously.
(I misfired thinking Unsung was making a joke earlier. Hope I am not repeating that mistake.)
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
oh no, that was a joke
I don't quite understand why wanting either of those things would mean you are waging a war on the poor. Gun insurance would be an absolute boon to the insurance companies because the premiums would be through the fucking roof considering the amount of gun accidents and the amount of money people would be suing for...
still think the best solution is to allow Gun Shop owners to be held civilly and possible even criminally liable for the sale of guns used in the commission of a crime. Not sure if it would work, but certainly doesn't limit the 2nd amendment in anyway.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
I'm not talking about guns being cheap so people can afford them, I'm talking about politicians increasing fees and taxing and making excessive requirements so that people can't afford to use their right.
Universal backround checks are a good place to start. Make this concession and see what the results are in 5 , 10, 15 years.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14