I think guns are fine and the NRA are psychos who are bad for humanity.
Totally agree. The NRA has been an incredibly destructive force to American society. Reasonable limits to gun and ammo ownership are always oppose; irrationally demonized as dangerous "first steps" on the road to total bans on all guns.
I own, and am very proficient with a 9mm. I have the right to protect myself and my family due to the will of the people, not the shameful tactics of the lunatic NRA.
1) Incredibly destructive? Yes… we see all those thousands of dead bodies laying in the streets every morning killed by out-of-control NRA members.
2) “Reasonable limits”? Perhaps Ron can explain then why many other gun groups consider the NRA to be the next thing to traitors for their willingness to sell out for so little in return.
3) Perhaps Ron can list some of these “reasonable limits” that actually, you know, WORK to keep bad guys from doing bad things. But I don’t think he can.
4) Perhaps Ron can explain all the politicians and national figures who have called for the “total ban on guns.”
5) Ron has possession of his handgun by the continued efforts of the NRA. No NRA.. no Ron bragging about his 9 mil.
Me three. I come from rural Nebraska, so almost everybody I know has at least one gun, and most are very responsible about it. But that doesn't mean reasonable restrictions on certain types of guns aren't called for, and the NRA's hysteria creates a climate where rational discussion is very difficult.
I live in Minnesota, where we have a very strange mixture of laws and societal beliefs. It's hard to tell which direction we will go. Just a few years ago the Right to Carry was passed, making it easier for most law abiding citizens to get a permit. We have Federal Ammunition and DPMS (Panther Arms) based just outside of the Twin Cities metro area.
And yet, many Minnesotans have a lot of fear toward gun ownership, and gunshops/owners in general. I think that the NRA contributes to the concerns and fears of the above mentioned, because the NRA is made up of a number of extremist, anti-"left" people. They are like PETA, only on the other side. They divide people.
The extreme rhetoric from all sides makes most of those of us in the middle feel unrepresented and annoyed with politics.
**I carry and very regularly practice shooting, tactical defense, dry fire, and take classes and read about current laws that effect me. I think it's the duty of all people that own a firearm to do so.
Perhaps you can explain then why the NRA is supporting over 60 Democrats for the House, and Democrats for the Senate. Sure seems like an extreme one-sided organization to me.
The more I read of the responses to zzron's Hub, makes me feel like I'm not alone, thanks.
True. Another problem is that the NRA supports not only opponents of gun regulations but people who are also very conservative on a host of other issues.
Yah, God forbid anyone support conservative issues. I mean what would we do if we weren't all liberal
Ralph has known for years that the NRA is a one-issue organization that supports people of all persuasions. He also knows that the NRA is supporting over 60 Dems for House this year and would-be Senators also.
Ralph likes to ignore this because it destroys his view of the universe.
Given the option, I'd bet Mr. Deeds would love to shoot a few conservative.
Nothing like a little ad hominem attack to add reason and logic to a discussion. But it's all he has to offer.
A big 10-4 on that one. I reason the only reason the NRA behaves as they do for money, hardright power, and possibly FEAR.
Hard right power, eh? That must explain the almost 70 Dems they are endorsing in the House, eh? And the Dem senators? Not to mention the hundreds of local Dems.
It's all emotions with these posters, Dear Readers. No logic, no facts, no rational reasoning. But if it makes them feeeeel goooood they'll blurt it out.
Guns are right at the heart of what it means to be American. I have the right to use deadly force to defend myself, my family, my property, and even my opinion, if someone tries to stop me from expressing it. The NRA has been very weak, retreating back into a corner, advocating gun ownership for little more than hunting and home defense.
The Right to Keep and Bear Arms means the right to walk and drive around with a deadly weapon. As for the problem of gun violence in cities, the people who run the cities need to do a better job of managing those cities, taking an armed citizenry into account. City managers would rather just get rid of the guns because cities are a lot cheaper to build and a lot easier to manage if the population doesen't have guns.
Compare Dallas, TX to New York City, NY. People in Dallas are polite; in NYC, people are rude. Because in Dallas, they can legally carry guns.
You have written possibly the most absurd post I've ever seen. You suggest that people who choose not to carry firearms are somehow less American than those who do. Guns can be legitimately used to ensure your right to express your opinion?
Thank God people who think like this are such a tiny portion of Americans.
I have to agree Ron.
Probably the first time ever.
I need a drink.
Don't laugh. Tennessee narrowly missed passing a law which would allow guns to be brought into bars. As a former bartender, I can't even begin to imagine how I'd cut off the rednecks who think they can do and say whatever they want. They still want to take their last drink out in a to go cup since liquor by the glass is fairly new here. Ignorance and guns don't go together. Put a drink into the mix and I'm moving back to the reservation.
In Arizona it is the bar owner's responsibility to post a sign in accordance with strict guidelines if he does not want customers to carry concealed weapons into his establishment.
If the sign is posted improperly, it's legal to carry your weapon in. Other businesses have to post a no weapons sign at each entrance. If five of your six entrances have postings, you can carry your gun through number six.
Well over 30 states have the same or similar law that Tennessee passed. Instead of a supposed professional "bartender" forecasting doom and gloom stories it would be nice if they actually looked at the real data and found no problems at all in the other states.
But that requires logic and reasoning. Emotional response is soooo much more satisfying.
I find the misunderstanding of one's rights and the law, regarding the right to bear arms and use of deadly force, very disturbing.
1) He didn’t “suggest”, post, list, or say such a thing. And it’s pretty “absurd” that you want to make such a contention.
3) Saying that “free speech” is at the heart of what it means to be an American would not get a single negative response. But ol’ Ron would think that means we all have to write a letter to the editor or we are “less Americans” than those that do.
4) And perhaps Ron can answer who has more “right to express opinions” – gunowning Americans or non-gun-owning subjects of a communist country.
5) When Ron said “tiny” he was actually thinking of the Founding Fathers and how few they were in comparison to the rest of the population.
Thank God people who think are such a tiny portion of America. Otherwise they'd realize that 5 tea partiers with guns won't get bum-rushed by a busload of Acorns. (Just an example.)
Then explain Sarah palin.
The best the anti-freedom people can offer is an ad hominem attack. No reason and logic... just pure emoting.
Explain Sharon Angle.
Be sure to cite your sources correctly according to MLA rules. There's a cookie waiting for you if you can accomplish this.
Sorry, son. I didn't bring up anyone named Sharon so I don't have any obligation explain her.
As this is a site for writers, I'm sure all participants are familiar with MLA format.
I think you might just barely have the right to a law suit if your opinions are suppressed, but shooting someone is a bit extreme.
Though tempting, I would agree
Wow!! You may want to reread the laws regarding 'use of deadly force'. You do NOT have the right use deadly force to protect, as you said "my property, and even my opinion".
It is your responsibility to avoid confrontation and only use 'deadly force' if the threat is unavoidable and imminent, with some exceptions.
you are wrong. in texas it is not your "duty to avoid confrontation' the law says "you do not have to take one step backwards". you can defend your life and property, neighbors life and property and anyone that asks for your assistance. now that opinion defense hmmm maybe that's sharon angles state ha ha ha yeah that's the ticket.
i agree with the right to keep and bear arms. the police depts are nothing more than a reporting agency.a generic form of self defense. they are "ALWAYS" there after the crime occurs. you can call them for a drunk thats getting out of hand on your property. but you can't call them for a home invasion or a car jacking untill it is over. in any situation that threatens your families life,safety or property you "MUST" let the threat know that he is risking the same. otherwise you're an easyout. you think they won't wanna go to jail. but often it will be gangmembers or people that think like them and prison means absolutely nothing to them. but the sound of a pump shotgun jacking back in the dark will change peoples minds and then . . . you can report it to the police. nobody necessarily hurt . . .especially you!
1) In many states you do have the right to protect "property" with deadly force. Don't be an internet lawyer unless you know what you are posting about.
2) And if they are trying to shut him up with violence?
Not sure guns have anything to do with the comparative politeness of people in Texas and New York.
you should double check thay opinion stuff. if you shoot someone in defense of your opinion, you are going to prison.
Please read my response to zzron, do you agree, or not agree. For the remaining contrubutors, I would like all of you to respond yea or nay to my response.
Oh, don't get me started!!!
No seriously, if the NRA would put the money they spend in Washington lobbyists or "Fat Cats," into educational programs instead- the second amendment would be a whole different issue.
Yes, we do have the right to carry. However, just because you have that right, doesn't mean you should hand over loaded pistols to the idiot patrol. We need to educate our kids on the differences of guns, the types of guns, the crimes that guns cause, how to operate a gun, what the law actually means, the responsibility of owning a gun, of shooting a gun, and then they need to be educated on a philosophical level which would include the pain and suffering of firing a gun and killing someone, the social aspects of firing a gun, gun safety around people, and so on............
I'm an ACLU nut myself. In that regard I'm a firm believer in peoples rights. People have a right to own and carry a gun. Now we all just need to figure out how that right fits in today's society. Instead of the NRA forcing the issue down our throats using Washington Fat Cat's as their focal point, they should using a more "friendly neighborhood" approach.
I hate the NRA. I think they as an organization border along the lines of being criminal. They bartered, stole, and bullied their way into Washington. I don't like organizations like that.
1) You are aware, are you not, that the NRA runs the largest safety education program in the world for firearms, teaching millions every year from young children to the elderly how to be safe around guns? You didn’t know that? I’m shocked.
2) Many gun owners have been advocating for school-based (unbiased) teaching about guns for decades. Many schools that had gun programs have had them shut down. But you didn’t actually know either of those, did you.
3) What other “rights” do you want to fit into society? Perhaps with the advent of terrorists who have the ability to kill multiple thousands you want the “rights” protected by the 4th, 5th, and 8th amendments to also be “figured out.”
4) Fancy that… a supposed “ACLU supporter” wants to criminalize others who merely exercise free speech. It’s a truism… find a person who dislikes guns and you’ll also find a person who dislikes free speech.
A paradox of a question! On the one hand, if someone feels threatened living in a questionable environment, or owning a weapon used to sustain a nutrictious life, or used for gamanship, why not. (note: gamnanship is not about collecting trophies and leaving the remains to rot).
On the other hand, when someone enlists, or is drafted as a soldier, they may be entwined in a movement that contradicts their sense of honor and respect, i.e. when a trust of the powers over you are not trustworthy, when one thinks soldering is like earning a trophy or hunters killing, For example: when I was in the military during the Vietnam war, I was ready and willing to bear arms and do my duty; in retrospect, history tells me luck was on my side-fear of communism taking over the world (they all appear to be falling apart), and the end result of fellow Americans chastising us for our contribution. One other negative: our guns are a large part of violence in Mexico and consideribly contributes to Mexican citizens coming to America, and if we did not have access to Mexican warlords drugs (NRA has a deaf ear to that), perhaps we Americans could curb the use of drugs.
You really, really expect us to believe that the Mexican drug lords are coming to America to buy regulated semi-auto guns at $1,000 a pop when they can buy fully automatic guns on the international market for a couple of hundred?
Not to mention the ones sold out of the back door of their own police stations and army depots.
Well, Mexico has very strict gun laws. Those laws, obviously, benefit the crimnals more than anyone else.
As for the war in southeast Asia, I owe a great debt of gratitude to the men and women who fought it because it marked a turning point for the US military. I inherited a military with a high degree of operational expertise, true professoinalism amongst the enlisted ranks, state of the art equipment, vehicles and logistics, an all-voulunteer force with pay and benefits to match, and an American public that pays a lot more attention to what the military is doing. All this made my career in the Army that much more rewarding. Thank you again for what was probably the hardest service of all.
Charleton Heston said it (paraphrase)... the only way you'll take my guns, is over my dead body! I'm with Charelton!
Read the history of nations which stripped their citizens of their guns. Read about the slaughter of millions.
Then read the attitude of the Swiss about arming their citizens.
Every citizen must own a gun and know how to use it!
As long as the safety's on there should be plenty of control. When the safety's off then it's PETA time. (People for Eating Tasty Animals)
I don't "feel". I have informed understanding. Our Constitution prohibits the government from infringing in our right to keep and bear personal arms. It's plain as day. Our nation was never meant to be ruled or governed, it was for us, as citizens to be the highest power, and to never be dependent upon anyone else for our own defense.
I'm an ACLU Liberal.
I would not consider owning a gun.
However, I am glad that some of my neighbors own guns and if it ever seemed to me that the right to own guns was being seriously threatened, I would be looking to buy one or more then.
I don't think that will ever happen. Almost all conservatives support gun ownership and enough liberals join them that I think gun ownership is quite safe for now.
I was fairly similar in my mindset years ago.
I witnessed and have been the unfortunate recipient of crimes, including assault.
I now carry and conceal.
I never again want to be limited in my ability to protect innocent people, including myself and others, against being victimized. Every time I read about others being assaulted or killed, when it could have been prevented, makes me very sad. I would sooner die defending myself and others, than be victimized with little to defend myself and others. Right this very moment I sit in a coffee shop, the same type of shop where 4 police officers were gunned down in Washington, knowing that I could and would be able to stop a gunman.
GUNS are not killers, or defenders, the ideas of the individual are.
Trigger locks a must if you have kids. A dog is the best home defense. And there not supposed to be used for killing men
I own a gun . and im in control of it. And as far as the NRA goes last time i checked they weren't part of the war machine. they hunt game.
Hehe! I'm thinking about putting a sign up to warn intruders; "Warning: Don't disturb the dog".
I've had to wake the old fella up many times. His most dangerous asset is his tail.
Yah thats just what I want to deal with if someone breaks in.. A trigger lock. And as for a dog being the best defense... While helpful, what happens if an intruder shoots the dog?
I am in favor of guns. I have had a gun or guns all my life and used only for hunting game. The weapons that are being carried on the streets today are used only for killing human beings.
Perhaps the poster can explain to us why this woman should not have been carrying a handgun...
http://www.connectmidmichigan.com/news/ … ?id=525135
People carry guns because they think they are more important than the 'other' - that feeling soon evaporates if guns get used.
People carry guns because they want to go home to wife and kids at night.
Some do. Others because they have such a small penis.
Please allow me, sir, to express my deep admiration of the appendage you are evidently able to deploy for self-defense in place of a gun. You must be very proud. I am certain every lady you know feels safer in your presence than with nearly any other man.
I admit that my own, personal penis is pitifully inadequate for self-defense purposes.
It’s odd that you think women should be left defenseless, since they are anatomically unsuited for it. That it makes them so much easier to subdue probably influences your thinking on that issue.
It’s also true that the elderly and handicapped, regardless of size, do not deserve the right to self-defense, since their wang-fu will likely be inadequate for a variety of reasons. Apparently we don’t need such human rubbish, anyway.
I admit, I’ve always found it disturbing that the police and military, being unable to find recruits of your mighty dimensions, instead must brand them as the puny weaklings they are by issuing handguns and rifles.
Congratulations to you again, and I am sure we will hear more of your exploits as you defend your self, your family, your neighbors, and your nation with your wee-wee..
I implore you to post the resulting news pictures.
Re: ron's post...
I know thousands of people who own guns and none of them ever reference male genitalia except when discussing a medical problem... but give an anti-gun person about five minutes and he's off and running about penises as if it is hardwired into his brain. It make them seem kinda "icky" if you know what I mean
And since most people really don't want to associate with "icky" people that's as good of a reason as any why more and more people every day are coming to the pro-freedom side and leaving the anti-gun side.
Thanks, Ron... you are singlehandedly worth a couple of hundred NRA commercials for us. Keep up the good work of driving those fence sitters into the pro-gun side.
Yes, but with most of your commercials running on Nickelodeon, will the audience really get the penis references?
You're really not paying attention are you. I am well armed, well trained, and unlike most NRA members, not in need of firearms to make up for personal shortcomings.
If you pay dues to the NRA, you are complicit in the weapons proliferation that claims hundreds of innocent lives each year in the U.S. The NRA, not Al Qaeda, is the most dangerous terrorist organization in existence today.
1) One of the oldest sayings on the 'net is that you can't tell if someone is a dog. Ron "Big Johnson" Montgomery is a dog. It's an old but failed trick for an anti-gun person to claim "Oh, I have lots of guns myself." It's no different from a KKK member starting a sentence with "Oh, I have a black friend but..."
2) As noted before... pure emotional rant. No logic... no reason... no thought. But saying nasty things about the NRA makes the Big Johnson feeellll gooooodddd. Gives him the shivers, it does.
You claimed that I was not a gun owner and was against gun ownership. Both claims are erroneous.
You claim to know that I am very well endowed...
OK, I have no rebuttal to that one.
1) Suuuuure you own guns. [snicker]
2) And you must be exceptionally well endowed if you can use your personal penis as a self defense tool as you implied. The rest of us just have to use guns instead.
Gun, not guns. Again no shortcomings to compensate for.
I believe that individuals have the right to own guns. I grew up in a hunting area.
But the NRA is scary and promotes things that worry me.
"But the NRA is scary and promotes things that worry me."
Like what? If the NRA scares you, I can't imagine that you really believe in the right to keep and bear arms. They are altogether too compromising as it is.
No clue as to what is actually "scary" and "worrisome" but she's read in the newspapers and heard on the TV that the NRA is scary and that is good enough for her.
Can we get back to the real reason for the 2nd amendment? It was not meant for the military (as some liberals suggest), it was not meant for hunting, and quite frankly it isn't meant for self defense, it is meant as a defense against tyranny that the people would not live in fear of, and be able to overthrow if necessary, an oppressive government.
Lastly, for the gun control advocates of the world; NEWSFLASH ! CRIMINALS DON'T FOLLOW THE LAW AS IT IS SO YOUR REGULATIONS ONLY DISARM AND HURT LAW ABIDING CITIZENS !
Remember the LA Riots after Rodney King? More guns were sold than you can possibly imagine. WHY? Because the police can't defend you.
Let me ask you something. If there is an intruder in your home and 911's average response time is 10 minutes or more...... Do you want a gun?
I say yahoo to the NRA and the 2nd amendment which guarantees us the right to bear arms. My the NRA live long.
Keep gun out of the hands of pyscko's and the like, But not honest Citizens.
Well, here's the thing. My father hunts. I know how to shoot a pistol, a rifle, a shotgun, and a bow and arrow. I don't belong to the NRA. No one in my family does.
The NRA isn't for real hunters. It's for politicians and rich people, seriously. Real hunters, country boys who hunt to eat, don't need the NRA to protect their rights. They've got rifles and shotguns.
why the hell should the government be given a monopoly on gun ownership?
That sounds REAL smart...
I think they should allow the gun nuts to have all the guns they want. Guns don't kill people, the bullets that come out of the gun kills. So, let them have all the guns they want, and stop the manufacture of all bullets, or make both guns and ammo so expensive that nobody can afford to buy them.
The problem with gun laws is that honest people will be the only ones who might obey the laws, while criminals will still be able to get their hands on any gun they want on the street.
The only reason our governement is dragging their feet on gun legislation is because it is not only getting pressure from the NRA, it is also getting pressure from the munfacturers, and distributers of weapons and ammo.
It would also look very bad, to not allow americans to carry guns that kill, while our military is all over the world using the same guns to kill foreigners in the name of war. It's never going to change, as long as people continue to believe that their safety is at risk. And, the Bush administration only made that fear worse, by fooling americans into believing that a majority of the world is out to get us.
And, thanks to him, now a majority of the world is pissed at us. And, gun manufaturers and people involved in the fear industry are making a fortune. Funny considering Cheney's and the bush families ties to the NRA. What didn't they have in their back pockets?
Approximately SEVEN BILLION bullets sold in America each YEAR.
If only TEN PERCENT of the bullets were responsible for the death of a person then that would mean that there would be at least SEVEN HUNDRED MILLION dead people happening from guns each year.
Is there? Of course not.
If only ONE PERCENT of the bullets were responsible for the death of a person then that would mean that there would be at least SEVENTY MILLION dead people happening from guns each year.
Is there? Of course not.
If only ONE TENTH OF ONE PERCENT of the bullets were responsible for the death of a person then that would mean that there would be at least SEVEN MILLION dead people happening from guns each year.
Is there? Of course not.
And if only ONE ONE HUNDETH OF ONE PERCENT of the bullets were responsible for the death of a person then that would mean that there would be at least SEVEN HUNDRED THOUSAND dead people happening from guns each year.
Is there? Of course not.
And if only ONE ONE THOUSANDTH OF ONE PERCENT of the bullets were responsible for the death of a person then that would mean that there would be at least SEVENTY THOUSAND dead people happening from guns each year.
And that's STILL far too large of a number - it's more than double the actual number who die from the use of a gun each year.
So you think that because much less than ONE ONE THOUSANDTH OF ONE PERCENT of bullets sold each year are used to harm people each year then restrictions are reasonable on the 99.999% that are in very safe hands that harm no one? Only in Bizzaro Land can such logic be defended.
My point was, it is the bullet that comes out of the gun is what kills people and small animals. Without Bullets the gun is worthless. Unless of corse you just go around hitting people with the gun.
Who cares how many bullets are made each year. They could make a zillion bullets to the 100th power. If someone dies from a single bullet out of those Zillions, something should be done about it.
I would rather have that one person who was killed by an idiot with a gun alive and with his or her family, than a billion stupid bullets and guns. To justify guns and bullets using your statistics leads one to believe that you think a lot more people should be killed with gun violence to justify pulling guns and ammo off the market.
There were over 2,000 murders using deadly weapons in the Detroit area in one year, as compared to 5 in the city of Toronto the same year. That's a pretty big deal considering that Toronto has about 6 million more people than Detroit. The same year we had 25 murders in Grand Rapids, and tons of drive by shootings.
So your statistics may be largely wrong. You might want to look into it.
1) Your point was that because .0001 percent of people misuse something then the 99.999 percent who don’t must pay a penalty for it. Bizzarro logic.
2) If one person dies from being hit in the head with a baseball bat you are going to argue that all baseball bats should be banned. If one teacher molests a student, you’re going to argue that all teachers should be banned? Bizzarro logic.
3) I’d rather have that person alive also (unless he was attacking me or my family). When you think you have the cure for evil in people’s hearts that cause them to kill other innocents then come back and let us know.
4) I’m not the one who thinks that a one one hundreth of one percent misuse of an object is “enough to pull it off the market.” You are.
5) Re: Detroit (See point 3). And in our town we have many, many more bullets per person than Detroit will ever see … and we seem to get by fine without murders committed with a gun. Perhaps it really isn’t the “gun” eh.
6) You’re welcome to attempt to show where my statistics were wrong.
Using the same logic, all alcoholic beverages should be banned so drunk drivers will not kill anyone. Then you still have accidental deaths so take away their gasoline so they can;t drive their cars. Now we're talking.
That is not the same logic - gasoline, alchohol, buses, cars have many uses and like almost everything from deep water to a bottle of bleach can kill - only a gun is created only for that purpose and carried only for that purpose by people with only that purpose in their mind when they put it in their pocket.
1) If a gun is "created" for that purpose do you think I can get my money back for my obviously defective guns? I've had some of them for decades and they simply have not killed any one yet. I still have the receipts for them.
2) You are really cold-hearted. You just don't care about someone if they are killed by any other means but a gun, eh. They don't exist for you as actual people whom others loved and cared for.
3) My pocket gun hasn't killed anyone either. And wouldn't you know it, every morning I start out the day hoping that I get to kill someone. Stupid gun. Lets me down every time.
Can't agree with that statement. I carry a gun because my job requires me to be in situations where I may encounter armed individuals who probably are not happy to see me. I do not intend to kill anyone, but if they pull a gun on me, I will shoot them twice in the chest then once in the head. It's not my goal to shoot anyone, but I'm not going to feel bad about having the tool and the training to defend myself.
The NRA thugs go way beyond this necessity. They are against all reasonable restrictions on gun ownership.
Another emotional rant. But Big Johnson is consistent.
Gee, Johnson… just try to state an "reasonable restriction on gun ownership" that
1) Criminals are guaranteed to obey
2) And that doesn’t penalize the law abiding citizen by assuming first that HE is no different from a criminal.
Are you even familiar with the legal concept of "prior restraint"?
And then let’s discuss just how corrosive it is on the high view of the "Law" that we American are supposed to have when we see politicians passing ineffective law after another based solely upon their emotions with no real regard as to whether or not these "laws" will actually accomplish anything.
William Easterly has described the willingness of those who want to recycle ideas which were always unveiled with much fanfare yet consistently failed, but they have no real explanation as to why this time is different and the ideas should succeed.
Because we point out that there is no way the gun controls ideas are going to succeed this time either, they essentially accuse us of ideological bad faith or worse. We just want to see people killed, we're paid NRA shills, we have little wee-wees, or some other common themes.
The world sees the bankruptcy of their ideas... yet they are unable to see it for themselves and blame everyone else for not supporting them.
And you don't see that so many freely available guns create the higher probability of it being a gun you are likely to face in any one day ?
I'm not for gun proliferation, the NRA is. That doesn't mean I have to be for a total ban on handguns. I'm for reasonable restrictions - requiring training is an absolute must. The sad truth is that thanks to the NRA's rampage, there are now more guns in this country than we can hope to substantially reduce to a safe level in our lifetime. The best we can do is to stop the bleeding (figuratively and literally) and put the NRA out of business ASAP. If we can stop Al Qaeda, we can stop the NRA.
Please state specifically what "training" is going to accomplish.
80 million plus gunowners with a .001 percent accident rate and you somehow think that spending hundreds of millions of dollars on "training" is somehow going to reduce that?
Explain the "reasonableness" behind that bizzarro logic.
As I posted earlier, a gun-bigot is virtually the same as a anti-first amendment bigot.
Let’s examine some of these “reasonable restrictions” that Ron must support since the NRA is opposed to them.
Washington DC totally banned handguns. Period. The NRA was against it. What is Ron’s position on this “restriction”? Does he find it reasonable, or unreasonable, just like the NRA?
Chicago totally banned handguns. Period. The NRA was against it. What is Ron’s position on this “restriction”? Does he find it reasonable, or unreasonable, just like the NRA?
A gentleman in New England is fighting for the right to own a gun. FORTY YEARS AGO he was convicted of a misdemeanor in which he got probation. The BATF recently denied his right to own a gun since the charge “could have had” a jail sentence over a year. What is Ron’s position on this “restriction”? Does he find it reasonable, or unreasonable, just like the NRA?
In Illinois a bill was recently introduced into the state senate that would totally ban any semi-auto or revolver handgun or rifle. What is Ron’s position on this “restriction”? Does he find it reasonable, or unreasonable, just like the NRA?
The city of San Francisco has an ordinance prohibiting any movie poster “showing guns in a positive light.” What is Ron’s position on this First Amendment “restriction”? Does he find it reasonable, or unreasonable, just like the NRA?
Many divorce attorneys routinely request restraining orders against a husband as a negotiation tactic, with judges routinely concurring with no proof that the husband is in any way a threat to anyone. This immediately strips the husband of any right to keep and bear firearms of any kind. What is Ron’s position on this “restriction”? Does he find it reasonable, or unreasonable, just like the NRA?
A sheriff in Iowa recently denied a request from a citizen for a CCW solely because the citizen was involved in a mainstream political philosophy that the sheriff didn’t like or agree with. What is Ron’s position on this “restriction”? Does he find it reasonable, or unreasonable, just like the NRA?
A felon, who was prohibited from owning or being around guns, was recently the victim of a home invasion from armed robbers. He managed to wrestle one of the guns away from one of the robbers and used it to defend himself and his family. He was then brought to trial for “being in possession of a gun while prohibited.” What is Ron’s position on this “restriction”? Does he find it reasonable, or unreasonable, just like the NRA?
Let’s ask Ron why he can take positions one way or another as a free citizen of the United States, but when other citizens do the same exact thing he compares them to Al Queda. Bizzarro logic at its finest.
"Let’s ask Ron why he can take positions one way or another as a free citizen of the United States, but when other citizens do the same exact thing he compares them to Al Queda."
No reason to ask its called liberal strategy.
Next your a racist, homophobe, and to top it off you want to subjugate women.
Democrat rule #1=Lie and see what happens.
I don't know what Ron would say, but lemme tackle these. I'm also a (mostly) liberal gun-owner, and I imagine many of our answers will be a lot alike.
"Washington DC totally banned handguns. Period." Shall not be infringed. DC is out of line.
"Chicago totally banned handguns. Period." Same thing.
"A gentleman in New England is fighting for the right to own a gun. FORTY YEARS AGO he was convicted of a misdemeanor in which he got probation." Did the misdemeanor involve the misuse of a gun? If not, let him keep and bear his arms.
"In Illinois a bill was recently introduced into the state senate that would totally ban any semi-auto or revolver handgun or rifle." Stupid legislation that should die in committee.
"The city of San Francisco has an ordinance prohibiting any movie poster “showing guns in a positive light.”" Not an infringement of gun rights, but of freedom of either speech, or the press, or both. Also stupid.
"Many divorce attorneys routinely request restraining orders against a husband as a negotiation tactic, with judges routinely concurring with no proof that the husband is in any way a threat to anyone. This immediately strips the husband of any right to keep and bear firearms of any kind."
A restraining order is an order to remain a certain distance away from a place or a person or both. It does not, to my knowledge, require any other behavior, and certainly does not deprive the person restrained of any property.
"A sheriff in Iowa recently denied a request from a citizen for a CCW solely because the citizen was involved in a mainstream political philosophy that the sheriff didn’t like or agree with." A person's political philosophy should have no bearing on whether a CCW is issued.
"A felon, who was prohibited from owning or being around guns, was recently the victim of a home invasion from armed robbers. He managed to wrestle one of the guns away from one of the robbers and used it to defend himself and his family. He was then brought to trial for “being in possession of a gun while prohibited.”"
Sounds like a weasely load of hooey cooked up by the defense attorney for the home invaders to me.
Lemme ask you this, though.
Where does the right to keep and bear arms stop? Should citizens be allowed to carry, say, tommy guns? M-60s? Bazookas? Mortars? Grenades and launchers for them? LAW rockets? Vulcan cannons? Sidewinder missiles? Tactical nuclear devices? Depleted uranium rounds? I mean, call me crazy, but I find it pretty reasonable to say that an ordinary citizen shouldn't be allowed to have a tac nuke. Do you disagree?
"Where does the right to keep and bear arms stop? Should citizens be allowed to carry, say, tommy guns? M-60s? Bazookas? Mortars? Grenades and launchers for them? LAW rockets? Vulcan cannons? Sidewinder missiles? Tactical nuclear devices? Depleted uranium rounds? I mean, call me crazy, but I find it pretty reasonable to say that an ordinary citizen shouldn't be allowed to have a tac nuke. Do you disagree?"
The laws are pretty clear that those types of weapons can't be owned by private citizens without the proper license.
Are you unaware of that?
"The laws are pretty clear that those types of weapons can't be owned by private citizens without the proper license."
I wasn't claiming anything to the contrary. I was asking about whether it's reasonable and proper to restrict ownership of those things. Something being legal or illegal doesn't necessarily make it reasonable and proper or unreasonable and improper.
1) You might want to look into the restraining order again.
http://www.njcsd.org/index.php?option=c … ;Itemid=58
Well, so far you batted 100 percent against what many people, including the Brady bunch, would consider “reasonable gun laws” and sided with the NRA every single time. I’d say that makes you virtually the same as an Al Queda terrorist.
And what is “wrong” with people carrying tommy guns? The semi-ban on them was cooked up as a PR stunt by the FBI that needed people on their side instead of supporting the bootleggers who were giving them the booze. You do know that it is perfectly legal in most states for citizens to own fully functional automatic rifles, don’t you.
And the issue of just what consists of “arms” is open to debate but I don’t know of any organization that is demanding the right to keep and bear nukes. To bring that up is the mark of an unserious debater.
And a “depleted uranium round” is just a harder than normal bullet… but you seem to think it is a nuke ready to go off by itself.
"You do know that it is perfectly legal in most states for citizens to own fully functional automatic rifles, don’t you."
I don't, actually. I know that it's legal in most, if not all, states to own a semiautomatic one, but I have no real knowledge about the laws on fully automatic rifles. I do know they're fun to shoot, though.
"And the issue of just what consists of “arms” is open to debate but I don’t know of any organization that is demanding the right to keep and bear nukes. To bring that up is the mark of an unserious debater. " Well, the nuke thing was pretty hyperbolic, I admit, but there are in fact those who think that "arms" means anything the Army has. I was trying to figure out where the line gets drawn. Should the people be allowed to own crew-served weapons, for example? How big? Should there be a rate of fire limitation? How fast? Asking for the sake of argument alone. I think we probably both agree that a .38 revolver, and .45 semiautomatic pistol, a .30-06 rifle (whether bolt, lever, or semi-automatic action) are all fine. But should there be a line? If so, where do we draw it?
"And a “depleted uranium round” is just a harder than normal bullet… but you seem to think it is a nuke ready to go off by itself."
Both of those statements are wrong. A depleted uranium round isn't "just" harder than a normal bullet. It's also heavier, and much much more toxic than lead. Those are the only differences between DU rounds and standard ones, but the higher toxicity is enough to cause concern for me. Do you think they should be available for civilian use? I don't, but if there's good evidence that shows the DU is no more toxic than lead (that is, good evidence that I'm wrong about DU's toxicity), then fine, sell 'em at Wal-Mart along with the bird shot.
Well… I seem to have my posting privileges back for now…
In 1934 congress pass a law requiring all fully automatics be registered with the government and a special tax be paid upon getting permission to own one. Most states allow this. A few don’t
In 1986 congress passed another law restricting ownership to those weapons that were already in existance at that time – therefore tripling and quadrupling those prices.
Depending upon whom you read there has been one or two instances since 1934 where a registered fully automatic weapon was used in a crime.
I tend to fall along the lines that if an individual soldier carries a weapon that weapon is fully available for the citizen also. Other people that I respect vary one way or another.
As for as DU, here’s a good link on it that is free from hysteria. There can be a minor toxic problem with it but with care it becomes negligible.
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/dod … 4aug98.htm
I am sure with the cost to own a weapon that fires one of these, not to mention the cost of the round itself, that we are not going to have shooters willy-nilly just firing up places with some for the fun of it.
It increases your chances of shooting back immeasurably.
But it is the same. A loaded gun lying doing nothing will do nothing. It takes a person pulling a trigger to shoot a gun.
It takes a person getting behind the wheel after having a few too many drinks to drive a car while drunk and killing someone who had nothing to do with his drinking problem anyway. If there was no gas in the car, the accident would not happen. If there was no driver, the accident would not happen.
Same result either way.
Until we start dealing with murderers and theives, murders will continue to happen. The gun is not evil nor is it murderous. The person who uses it for murder is murderous.
And a system that ensures so many guns are available is also culpable.
This reminds me of my favorite Bible story from Genesis, where Abel asked his brother, Cain, "Crikey, mate, where'd you get that Glock?"
Still haven't explained why my town, with so many guns available, doesn't seem to have the problem that certain parts of Detroit has.
1) Please provide a cite where Mr. Bush "fooled americans into believing that a majority of the world is out to get us" Give a date, a time, and a place where he said, hinted, or alleged that.
2) Would you prefer American soldiers burn their opponents to death as they did during WWII?
3)The rest of the world prefers a weaker America. Do you agree wit that?
4) Please give detail on these "ties" between the Bush and Cheney family and the NRA. And how it benefits them fiancially? Be specific.
5) Again, Dear Readers, another poster who lives and dies off from emotions. No rational thought -- no logic -- no facts. Just pure emotional ranting that makes him feeeeellll gooooodddd.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
bless·ing [bles-ing] Show IPA –noun 1. the act or words of a person who blesses. 2. a special favor, mercy, or benefit: the blessings of liberty. 3. a favor or gift bestowed by god, thereby bringing happiness. 4. the invoking of God's favor upon a person: The son was denied his father's blessing. 5. praise; devotion; worship, esp. grace said before a meal: The children took turns reciting the blessing. 6. approval or good wishes: The proposed law had the blessing of the governor.
lib·er·ty [lib-er-tee] Show IPA –noun, plural -ties. 1. freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control. 2. freedom from external or foreign rule; independence. 3. freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice. 4. freedom from captivity, confinement, or physical restraint: The prisoner soon regained his liberty. 5. permission granted to a sailor, esp. in the navy, to go ashore. 6. freedom or right to frequent or use a place: The visitors were given the liberty of the city. 7. unwarranted or impertinent freedom in action or speech, or a form or instance of it: to take liberties. 8. a female figure personifying freedom from despotism. —Idiom 9. at liberty, a. free from captivity or restraint. b. unemployed; out of work. c. free to do or be as specified: You are at liberty to leave at any time during the meeting.
I know this is a long post. The blessing of liberty mentioned in the preamble to the constitution could be read as benefits of freedom from being bound or constrained.
To take away the right to bear armns would constrain those who choose to exercise their rights according to the constitution of the United States of America.
Or more importantly "militia". Gun proliferation enthusiasts always overlook, or pathetically try to rationalize that phrase.
If someone actually does find the definition, they can't explain why personal gun ownership is necessary to arm the well regulated militia, even if you offer them sweet inducements to do so.
Well, let us ask Congress...
As you can see, Dear Readers, the Big Johnson still cannot think logically about these things.
You couldn't find the part about them bringing their own weapons to camp could you?
I'll sweeten the pot - 2 cookies.
Any type of weapon meant to insure self defense. Muskets at the time the constitution was written maybe even cannons. Guns are a weapon that insures self defense.
Have you ever seen the family guy version of the right to bare arms?
The president has actual bear arms in his office. And he says. What? Those are bear arms. I think it's pretty clear, how could you guys mess that up? It was actually pretty funny.
Only anti-gun proponents are truly pro-life.
Think about it.
According to the desires of Mighty Mom, innocent people should have be forced to surrender instead of facing down the social deviant who desires to do them harm. Got that?
If you are minding your own business and are assaulted or threatened by a violent criminal the people-control, anti-freedom crowd such as Mighty Mom wants the onus to be on you to surrender, or flee or retreat, or have your body violated, or even die -- anything EXCEPT stand your ground with a firearm.
How morally and intellectually backwards can Mighty Mom be to adopt such an indefensible position? The duty and perfect right of a law-abiding citizen is to defend themselves with deadly force if need be against criminals. That is the essence of the disagreement between the opposing sides on gun control.
Which side better protects you and your family?
Wrong. I am against guns, and I am pro-choice.
i think guns should be kept with the police force and the military
How do I feel about guns? It's fun to shoot them, and it's very satisfying when you walk out to your target and find all the holes in the black. I'm glad I have the right to carry, if I choose to. But I choose not to.
I also think that most of us put too much emphasis on our rights and not nearly enough emphasis on our responsibilities.
Owning a handgun is a great responsibility. As a gun owner, you need to take reasonable precautions to ensure that your gun does not fall into the wrong hands. If you're not in control of it, you need to ensure that nobody else will get control of it without your knowledge and consent. That means no stashing the gun in your underwear drawer: you need to keep it locked up when its not on your hip.
I'd be more happy with the NRA if they wouldn't oppose laws that requires trigger locks to be included with each handgun sale. It's perfectly analogous to a law that requires a car to have seatbelts. Nobody is being forced to wear the seatbelts, just as nobody is forced to use the trigger lock. But the belt (or lock) is darn well going to be there, so you have no excuse if you don't use it and go flying through the windshield (or your kid gets hold of your gun and accidentally shoots the dog).
Rights come with proportionate responsibilities.
NRA never opposed that. They oppose forcing people to have trigger locks on their guns inside the home.
There are so many mis-truths floating around about what the NRA supposedly did or didn't do that it's no wonder so many people have a sour attitude about them.
"NRA never opposed that."
Really? What will you do if I can dig up proof to the contrary?
It's possible that I'm misremembering, and I may have a hard time digging up such an obscure point of reference, so I'm forced to temporarily concede the point. But I'm pretty sure I remember the NRA going on record as being against a requirement for a trigger lock to come with every gun.
I could be wrong also... so go for it...
But this is what you may find...
NRA AGREES TO ANTI-GUN TRIGGER LOCK BILL SB-167 VOTE MAY HAPPEN EVENING OF 6 DECEMBER (PEARL HARBOR DAY PRESENT)
HARRISBURG, 6 December 1999, Senate sources confirmed that NRA agreed to the
trigger lock and many other anti-gun features of SB-167 if they get passage
of a bill to save gun manufacturers the cost of defending against frivolous
lawsuits from cities.
The Pennsylvania Senate will suspend rules and may combine and pass these
bills tonight (6 Dec)!
NRA and Republican leadership believe that combining anti-gun and pro-gun
provisions in the same bill will provide protection for lawmakers. The same
tactic was used with Special Act 17 of 1995 which was endorsed by the NRA
and by HCI's Sarah Brady.
Legislators who vote for SB-167 will discover that many grass roots
sportsmen's groups will count SB-167 as a serious anti-gun rights vote -
just as they did with Act 17.
Ah, you've just given me the evidence that I needed. The NRA agreed to the trigger lock requirement IF they could get protection for gun manufacturers from lawsuits by cities.
That tells me that the NRA originally opposed the trigger lock requirement, but compromised their opposition to achieve a goal they thought was more important.
I think it was the right thing to do: a city suing a gun manufacturer that has broken no laws is silly. Opposing a requirement for trigger locks to come with guns is silly. Two silly things didn't happen. Win-win.
The NRA aren't all bad. And I get the philosophy of demanding more than is reasonable (like, say, a private citizen should be allowed to have depleted uranium rounds) in order to negotiate down to something reasonable.
So I was right, eh. The topic was not why the NRA did what it did, the topic was what did the NRA do.
Oppose trigger locks is what they did. Please pay attention. Just because they recanted later for political reasons doesn't mean they didn't do it in the first place.
Even NRA thugs begin to understand after a few well placed swats to the head.
1) There has been no evidence produced that the NRA ever "opposed" trigger locks. Pay attention.
2) There has been no evidence produced that the NRA ever "recanted" on that topic. Pay attention.
3) Speaking of being swatted on the head, that could perhaps account for your inability to pay attention.
"So I was right, eh. "
No, you were wrong. You said the NRA never opposed trigger locks.
I said I remembered the NRA going on record as opposing trigger locks. I was half right; I didn't know that they'd recanted.
The NRA did oppose trigger locks. They don't anymore, but they did at one time. They also did change their mind. Why they stopped opposing trigger locks isn't important, I agree, but the fact that they stopped opposing them tells us that they were opposing them for a while there.
1) And YOU have never, ever once produced ANY evidence that they did oppose trigger locks. You are basing that upon some pretty big assumptions... but absolutely no evidence at all.
2) Go ahead and show us they changed their mind. I showed you that they didn't oppose it. And somehow you think that proves you are right? Bizzarro logic.
"And YOU have never, ever once produced ANY evidence that they did oppose trigger locks."
No, you did that for me. But just to make certain sure, i went and did some googling myself, and found the rest of the post that you're (erroneously) using as 'proof' that the NRA never opposed trigger locks.
Here's the rest of it, with the relevatn bits in italics:
The NRA officially opposes trigger locks because the NRA Board of Directors knows that trigger locks make loaded handguns much more dangerous - trigger locks bypass the safety of the trigger guard and increase the likelihood of an unintentional discharge. NRA-ILA produced an excellent video tape proving that trigger locks are dangerous. Trigger locks also render a gun useless for self defense.
On 27 September in the Pennsylvania House Republican Caucus it was announced that the NRA had agreed that trigger locks be mandatory with every firearm sold. The PSA asked NRA for the details of this House deal and NRA vehemently claimed that no such agreement had been made. The following week, legislators advised the PSA and the Allegheny County Sportsmen's League that Republican leadership was unhappy with NRA's attempt to renegotiate the language of the trigger lock deal.
In November SB-167 was amended in the House to include the anti-gun trigger lock provision. NRA has four registered lobbyists in Pennsylvania, none were present.
Meanwhile, that same week, the Senate passed a bill that may keep cities
from suing gun manufacturers.
The rest of that post seems to indicate that the NRA denies agreeing to the trigger lock provision at one point, so it's possible that they didn't even stop opposing it after all.
You didn't show us that they didn't oppose it. You showed us that they stopped opposing it. You can't stop opposing something without opposing it first. That's how logic works, mate. It's like the old trick question, "Have you stopped cheating on your wife?" If you say yes, it shows that you once were cheating on her, but that you've stopped doing so. If you say no, it might mean one of two things. One, you are currently cheating on your wife, or two, you never started, so you can't have stopped.
Dang, i should start charging for all these free logic lessons.
Here's another thing, by the way.
Even if the correct application of logic to your original non-proof won't convince you, this ought to:
Now, let's go to Wayne LaPierre's speech on May 1, 1999 at the annual meeting of members in Denver, Colorado. Wayne made this statement:
"We support and encourage the distribution, development and use of safety locks, trigger locks..........."
Yes, you read it right! For years, the NRA has stood against, and opposed trigger locks. But....that was then, this is now.
That's from here.
The rate of firearm deaths in the United States (14.24 per 100,000) exceeds that of its economic counterparts (1.76) eightfold and that of UMI countries (9.69) by a factor of 1.5. Suicide and homicide contribute equally to total firearm deaths in the US, but most firearm deaths are suicides (71%) in HI countries and homicides (72%) in UMI countries.
HI means High Income and UMI means Upper Middle Class.
A chart on alcohol related deaths can be found at the link below.
http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-drivi … stics.html
So Americans who shoot people are better at it than citizens of other countries who shoot people?
I can believe that.
I like the words of that country music song, something like "I believe in God and Guns, and if you break into my house you're gonna meet both".
The NRA is a travesty anymore. I don't understand their thinking anymore. Example? They are endorsing Harry Reid in Nevada for Senate. Better to cancel your membership and join the Gun Owners of America.
The only gun control I like is when I'm the one controlling the gun.
As for the NRA, it has it's god and bad points and, yes, I'm a member.
by My Esoteric5 months ago
The NRA leadership (not most of NRA members) currently sees Gun Control as a stark Black and White issue. The NRA et al think that ANY step to keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them is ipso...
by Sychophantastic3 months ago
So, here's my rant. Since there appears to be no line on gun control, I advocate for complete freedom of gun ownership. After all, I should be able to exercise my constitutional right to protect myself wherever and...
by keioncseals3 years ago
In my opinion on guns is that guns don't kill people people using the gun for the wrong reasons that's what kills people because if you think about it when You put the gun on a table its not going to fire but when you...
by Scott Bateman4 months ago
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 … ouseholds/
by Beth372 years ago
I do not have a huge bias concerning gun control. To me, it's a bit like taking birth control pills, or being a vegetarian... it's up to you. However, I found these stats to be really surprising and I hadn't seen them...
by IslandBites3 years ago
George Zimmerman was arrested after a domestic altercation. Allegedly, he threatened his wife and father-in-law with a gun. His wife filed divorce papers a few days ago.Is this going to prove (not legally of course)...
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.