I’m A Gun Owner And The NRA Does Not Represent Me

empty_gunAmerica has a serious gun problem. No, I’m not talking about the responsible gun owner who has a couple bolt action rifles and a shotgun locked in a safe for hunting, or the individual with a concealed carry permit packing a Colt 1911 .45 inside their jacket because they carry a lot of cash. There’s many reasons why someone would need or want to own a gun that fall within the realm of reasonable probabilities.

Unfortunately, over the last couple of decades, thanks largely to the NRA, America has developed an absolute fetish with guns. Coupled with a serious, untreated mental health issue in this country, the NRA’s campaign of fear to sell as many guns as possible to an ever-shrinking segment of gun nuts has resulted in the gun violence problem we have today. Even as the overall violent crime rate has diminished, we continue to witness tragedies like Aurora and Sandy Hook, committed by mentally unstable individuals who should have never had the chance to get their hands on a gun.

Logic should dictate that the NRA, the gun lobby and those who are gun enthusiasts would promote responsible usage of guns. Instead, the NRA has morphed from an organization for hunters, collectors, and target shooters into a propaganda machine for gun manufacturers hyping the paranoid fear that there’s bad guys around every corner, just waiting for their chance to steal, rape and kill. In this dark, imaginary world, the only way to be safe is to buy guns, guns, and more guns.

This isn’t to say that there aren’t bad people out there; every day we see stories on the news of another bank robbery, a mugging or someone raped and murdered. And there are regular stories of a “good guy with a gun,” one of which happened recently here in the Lafayette, LA area where a family member shot and killed a man holding his cousin hostage at knife point. However, for every one of these stories, we see countless more where a child uses an easily accessible gun to kill themselves, a sibling, or shoot up a school. And every time we have a tragedy like Sandy Hook, out comes the gun lobby to say that the only thing to make us safer is, you guessed it, more guns.

We are the most heavily armed country in the world and yet, thanks to people like John Lott, we’re still told over and over that we need more. When are we going to finally realize that more guns do not equal greater safety? We have a failed war on drugs, an education system slipping behind the rest of the world, and ever-growing economic inequality. There’s no amount of guns that will solve this problem, America simply cannot shoot away all of the problems that lead to our culture of desperation and violence. Yet that’s what the NRA preaches over and over again. More guns, more guns, more guns. Can you imagine any other industry pushing their product in such an irresponsible and dangerous manner, all while screwing over real sportsmen?

I own a few guns, including a .243 bolt action hunting rifle and a 12 gauge pump shotgun but I would never, ever join the NRA. The rights of responsible gun owners and sportsmen are indeed under attack, but it isn’t from President Obama or the other boogeymen cooked up by the far right. Our rights as Americans and gun owners are being infringed upon by the actions of the NRA and the gun manufacturers they represent. By pandering to the lunatic anti-government militia types and loudly screaming that any sort of sensible legislation on guns is exactly the same as Hitler, the NRA is actually hurting those of us who don’t buy into the Infowars-style paranoid delusions of an invasion by the United Nations and FEMA death camps.

We can live in a country where we can have guns and access to affordable health care, including mental care for those who need it. It is possible to have income equality and programs to lift people out of the endless cycle of poverty and violence instead of continuing to jail people for things as minor as marijuana possession or being homeless. But as long as the NRA pushes it’s “gun sales at any cost” fear campaign, we as a nation are continuing the slow march to irrelevance, and ruin.

Comments

Facebook comments

  • Charles Vincent

    Yay another piece filled with rhetoric, ill informed opinion, false equivalencies and straw-men. Oh and misplaced blame. Carry on wallowing in ignorance.

    • Sandy Greer

      Really? I thought it was spot on.

      ‘Cause I’m a gun owner. And the NRA does not represent me. 😉

      • modera8

        I’m with you, Sandy. I support responsible peoples’ rights to own firearms, but not those with a “dickhead” attitude who try to use words they can’t comprehend or spell properly, like Mr. Vincent.

      • Sandy Greer

        Thanks for the ‘upvote’. I guess that makes two of us (he and I) that can’t spell properly; I’ve been over what he said a couple times now, and just don’t see the mistake? I do tend to overlook grammar, favoring the ‘gist’ of what is said.

        But if I thought he couldn’t comprehend, or worse, was a ‘dickhead’ – I wouldn’t waste my time on him. 😉

        He’s an Opponent, and a worthy one, at that. None but the worthy will do for me.

      • Charles Vincent

        Really? Misspelled eh? Well Mr. Ad hominem you already lost the argument. You do not get to define what responsible is nor do you get to tell people what they think is necessary for them in their estimation of what is or is not needed. The fact here is while you continue to be willfully ignorant the rest of us who can and do think critically are leaving you and others like you by the wayside with all the other evolutionary cast offs.

      • McAllister Bryant

        ” You do not get to define what responsible is nor do you get to tell people what they think is necessary for them in their estimation of what is or is not needed.”

        Nor do you.

      • Charles Vincent

        I am not the one trying to tell others what is reasonable gun control.

      • carowe

        Because you’re one of the sputum puddle who isn’t capable of understanding what it is.

      • McAllister Bryant

        No, you are trying to tell others YOUR opinion of what they should or should not consider responsible.

      • Charles Vincent

        Please explain to me where in my post I did that.

        “Really? Misspelled eh? Well Mr. Ad hominem you already lost the argument. You do not get to define what responsible is nor do you get to tell people what they think is necessary for them in their estimation of what is or is not needed. The fact here is while you continue to be willfully ignorant the rest of us who can and do think critically are leaving you and others like you by the wayside with all the other evolutionary cast offs.”

      • McAllister Bryant

        As I pointed out earlier…neither has the right to define what responsible is…and that includes your name calling post which attempted to say someone else’s opinion was not allowed “you don’t get to define”.

        Put simply, your castigation of other’s opinion is attempting to force YOUR opinion.

        FYI, it doesn’t work.

      • Charles Vincent

        Other than carowe who did I call names? Ehh wrong my philosophy is live and let live. Second and most important I am not the one running to the government and trying to force my idea of how things should be on other people. Third my opinion is my opinion I am not forcing anyone to read what I post or agree to what I say, every one on this site has the option to pass right on by I don’t make them post they post on their own.

      • carowe

        can you even define it, Bryant? No, of course not. Dogwhistle.

      • McAllister Bryant

        Define what? The pronoun “it” doesn’t provide a clue what you are asking.

      • carowe

        You still are woefully incapable of articulating exactly what it is you’re talking about. InFUXicated again, we see.

      • lewiston59

        Jeeze I wish there was an intelligent conversation exchanged here, instead of all the put downs. I was reading comments to learn or get different views on this subject, nothing but a tug of war of insults

      • John

        Just because you Google a few big words doesn’t make you smart. You are still an inconsiderate piece of shit. You even have the audacity to speak for other people when you know they would never side with an idiot like you in the 1st place.

      • Charles Vincent

        Awe did I hurt your feelers chief? Must have hit a nerve to be the lucky recipient of such vitriol from an ignorant ninnyhammer like you.
        I digress you thwarted me with your brilliant use of ad hominem, ad lapidem, and strawman arguments. What ever shall I do…

      • Charles Vincent

        “‘Cause I’m a gun owner. And the NRA does not represent me.”

        That is about the only truth in the article. do you want me to point out the straw-men and false equivalencies as well? And the misplaced blame?

      • Sandy Greer

        I’ll spot you a straw-man; even a couple false equivalencies. But here’s the thing, and this is just me, apparently:

        Just as I don’t get hung up on grammar, so also do I not allow an imperfectly written article to distract me from a message. In this case, that the NRA, gun industry, and gun nuts do me – and you, if you own guns – no favors.

        I don’t throw out babies with my bathwater. Which you did: Your OP was dismissive.

        Defending against insults, straw-men, false equivalencies, blame, or even grammar – fights a ‘turf’ war. Distracting, and best avoided.

        See how none of us are talking about the issue of how to make our country safer for all? We’re all too busy standing our ground (defending turf) to meet each other in the middle.

      • Charles Vincent

        All these things obfuscate the real problems By hiding the real facts in a sea of disinformation and people that write articles like this are essentially the co-conspirators that effectively prevent “See how none of us are talking about the issue of how to make our country safer for all?”

        “so also do I not allow an imperfectly written article to distract me from a message.”

        I dismiss the trash in the article and I put away bias when dealing with rhetoric the last thing we need are people that agree with the wrong message simply because it fits there personal slate even though it’s wrong. And painting the NRA as evil is just blatantly false they support the second amendment as written and as it is historically understood not just from the words them selves but from other historical writings.

        My stance on the issue is clear to anyone whose read my posts on the subject, it isn’t a gun problem its a people problem and micro managing guns will not solve the problem.

        remember your post about dispensing with the hate and fear? Well this article and many others like it on this site promote that hate and fear mongering you said should be done away with. the right need to do the same. and as for me I been in the middle a long time and I tell it like I see it to either side. In short My OP wasn’t so much dismissive as it was about calling the author on his bullshit.

        /tips hat

      • Phil Keast

        If you’d be so helpful as to point out the false equivalencies, and straw men, then I’m interested to hear them. If your point is that arsenals of weapons beyond those required to protect onesellf are not contributing to gun related problems (and note I haven’t suggested that everyone be diarmed, just that gun ownership be regulated, like say, car ownership, because I know that disarmament will never happen), then I’ll debate the issue. And there is more than one issue here.

      • Charles Vincent

        Well lets start with this point of yours.

        “just that gun ownership be regulated, like say, car ownership”

        No government in the world that I know of tells anyone they can only on 1 car, or only one make or model of car, or that the car can only use batteries and not gas.

        false equivalency #1;

        “We have a failed war on drugs, an education system slipping behind the rest of the world, and ever-growing economic inequality. There’s no amount of guns that will solve this problem, America simply cannot shoot away all of the problems that lead to our culture of desperation and violence. Yet that’s what the NRA preaches over and over again.”

        guns have nothing to do with either our failing education system nor our growing economic inequality. and saying the NRA has said this is an out right fallacy.

        Straw-man #1;

        “thanks to people like John Lott, we’re still told over and over that we need more.”

        John Lott never said this he said that statistically speaking where one sees less private ownership there is higher crime and where one sees higher private ownership there is typically lower overall crime. He used cities like Chicago and DC to highlight this, and if you looked at Camden NJ they have a 60.4/100k gun death rate that’s something like 13 times the national average of 4.5/100k. NJ has some of the strictest gun control laws.

      • Phil Keast

        “No government in the world that I know of tells anyone they can only on 1
        car, or only one make or model of car, or that the car can only use
        batteries and not gas.”

        However, all cars owned by an individual must be registered, and drivers must be licensed to drive particular types of vehicles. (usually based on power to mass, type of controls, age of the driver, etc.). For example, the following licenses are required in Australia. Motorcycle license (probationary) – the bearer of this license has had less than two years experience riding a motorcycle, and cannot ride a motor cycle of with an engine capacity of greater then 250 cc. Motorcycle license – can drive all motorcycles regardless of engine capacity. Automobile license, does not apply to vehicles with a carrying capacity of more than 2 tons. If the automobile license is for an automatic transmission vehicle, then the driver cannot drive a vehicle with a manual gearbox. Light truck license – vehicles with a carrying capacity of between 2 tons and 5 tons. Commercial truck license, for non-articulated vehicles with carrying capacity of greater than 5 tons. Articulated vehicle license – for 18 wheelers and related vehicles. Double-B license for multi-trailer road-train vehicles. Fork lift license. And to gain any of these licenses the bearer of the license must undergo training and prove competency to an examiner.

        So, I throw you false equivilencey back at you. The analogous firearms regulation would require firearms owners to register all their weapons, prove that they are competent in the use of those firearms, and does not treat a bb-gun as being the same as a fully automatic assault rifle.

        As for your points:
        1) Do guns cause all the problems related to education, health care, poverty, etc.? No, but the author didn’t say that guns caused these problems, merely that guns are not part of the solution.

        2) Do guns cause crime? People commit crimes, people with guns commit gun-related crimes. American has the highest per capita rate of gun-related crime and gun-related deaths in the world outside active war zones. This is not a coincidence. Look at the statistics outside your own backyard, and recognize that your “strict gun laws” are, by world standards a joke. Effective firearms ownership laws reduce crime. Hide behind your disbelief, but the evidence is out there.

        3) Guns manufacturers have a vested interest in selling more guns, so it is no surprise that they have a lobby group hat opposing all attempts to block all attempts at reasonable firearms regulation.

      • Charles Vincent

        First this isn’t Australia that is a false equivalency

        “The analogous firearms regulation would require firearms owners to register all their weapons,”

        firearms registries are against federal law here. See the firearms owners protection act.

        “1) Do guns cause all the problems related to education, health care, poverty, etc.? No, but the author didn’t say that guns caused these problems, merely that guns are not part of the solution.”

        He did equate them and I quote “There’s no amount of guns that will solve this problem, America simply cannot shoot away all of the problems that lead to our culture of desperation and violence. Yet that’s what the NRA preaches over and over again.”

        That is equating guns to the problems he listed sorry you’re wrong.

        “American has the highest per capita rate of gun-related crime and gun-related deaths in the world outside active war zones.”

        Americas homicide rate by firearms of any type is 4.5 per 100k and is made high by places with strict gun laws like Camden NJ which has a gun homicide rate of 60.4 per 100k ~13 times the national average that’s just one example i can list at least 10 others, so your theory is incorrect. And don’t even try to equate violent crime that is also a false equivalency as different countries classify violent crime differently.

        “3) Guns manufacturers have a vested interest in selling more guns, so it is no surprise that they have a lobby group hat opposing all attempts to block all attempts at reasonable firearms regulation.”

        The US government is the largest Money purchaser of firearms.

        See also my most recent post to Sandy above some of what i posted there is relevant to this discussion also be aware that even she recognizes this article is presenting straw man arguments and false equivalencies.

      • Sandy Greer

        Love your last sentence, LOL You crack me up.

        But I’ve got a problem. Disqus sent me an email you’d Replied to me. I can ‘see’ your post, but it says it ‘awaits moderation’ (still…hours later)

        Any idea what’s going on?

        I took the time and trouble to write up a Reply (and a good one, you can be sure) figuring yours would show by then. But it doesn’t. And it wouldn’t be fair I post mine when your own doesn’t show.

        C’est la vie…!

        I’ll check back later, and if it never shows – join in somewhere else, if I can.

      • Charles Vincent

        Incase the other post gets deleted.

        “How is the author’s message a wrong one? How does he paint the NRA as ‘evil’?

        NRA does pander to Fear.”

        NRA’s campaign of fear to sell as many guns as possible to an ever-shrinking segment of gun nuts has resulted in the gun violence problem we have today. Even as the overall violent crime rate has diminished, we continue to witness tragedies like Aurora and Sandy Hook, committed by mentally unstable individuals who should have never had the chance to get their hands on a gun.

        As for the author having the wrong message well He is clearly saying guns are the problem. too Which you have already agreed it’s not the guns its people that are the problem.

        I don’t recall any adds By the NRA that say they are grabbing your guns. I do hoevern recall through history where the gun grabbers used fear to get gun legislation passed and the NRA was on the side of trying to prevent bad legislation I don’t see how that’s fear-mongering on the NRA’s part. Perhaps you have examples of it happening that were not in response to the gun grabs in the past or the present?

        “But how, when The Right sees any attempt as ‘micro-managing’ guns, or as Lefties comin’ for our guns, or even – as throwing out the 2nd Amendment and/or Constitution?”

        Lets examine this;

        gun control through recent history:

        http://en DOT wikipedia DOT org/wiki/Gun_law_in_the_United_States

        Few thing on that list I want to highlight considering a few supreme court rulings

        1.) National Firearms Act (1934)
        2.)Federal Assault Weapons Ban (1994–2004) (expired)

        SCOTUS 2A case law and relevant documents

        http://en DOT wikipedia DOT org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

        The NFA outlawed a whole class of firearms that’s a direct infringement according to SCOTUS in DC v Heller, and US v Miller.

        Heller and Miller also apply to #2

        As to the micro managing of fire arms i need only point to the plethora of asinine laws that have come up which include magazine capacity bans, bans on certain features etcetera. these being the result of a fundamental lack of knowledge about firearms by people on the left.

        this guy is a prime example of complete ignorance of firearms;

        https://www DOT youtube DOT com/watch?v=QrCBIFp9834

        Here is what the ATF says about 80% lowers that the guy in the video was talking about.

        http://www DOT thefirearmblog DOT com/blog/2014/03/26/80-ar-15-receiver-determination-letter-atf/

        As to how I see the constitution look up John Locke on the two treatises of government, The Law By Frederic Bastiat, and;

        http://thefederalistpapers DOT integratedmarket DOT netdna-cdn DOT com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Jefferson-And-Madisons-Guide-To-The-Constitution- DOT pdf

        There are other prominent figures the founding fathers drew on to formulate the constitution but this post is too long as it is. also see portions of my post to Phil Keast.

      • Sandy Greer

        Thanks, but – that’s not the one. That was yesterday, and it shows already.

        I mean the one from this morning: You spoke of family unit decay, mood altering drugs, FOMA, and 1993.

        Also the ‘vilification’ of ‘evil’ NRA. But I told you about those ‘turf’ wars. Maybe you can see now why I don’t go there. 😉

        It’s quite lengthy. I suspect length is why it’s hung up.

      • Charles Vincent

        It is the one that was awaiting approval I had to re-post it because I missed part of a hyperlink.

        “Also the ‘vilification’ of ‘evil’ NRA. But I told you about those ‘turf’ wars.”
        This is not a turf war it was highlighting the point that they author is using hate/fear-mongering to paint the NRA as Evil as we were discussing earlier.also did you get the links to work?

      • Sandy Greer

        LOL If you say so. You started out on the ‘vilification’ of ‘evil’ NRA & ‘fear-mongering’ and whatnot – and ended up in an Australia vs. USA turf war.

        But that’s your business. Yours and Phil’s.

        I just don’t see the point in meandering arguments. But I see you’re typing (probably to repost) so will be back later. 😉

        No to the links. We’ve moved on, anyway. I don’t want to argue yesterday’s stuff.

      • Charles Vincent

        Well for future reference remove the DOT’s and the spacing and insert a period “.” then paste the link.

      • Charles Vincent

        “What would you do? Anything? Nothing? What?”

        I answered this last night but it was apparently eaten by the net gremlins so I shall answer it again

        This is easy Educate people on the proper use, care and safety of firearms as soon as possible. I would reintroduce firearms safety courses in schools, and marksmanship teams as well.
        The question is what changed and the answer isn’t more guns its decay of the family unit, mood altering drug given to children etcetera. this whole violence problem is a social issue not a criminal justice issue.

      • Sandy Greer

        Well, that’s the short version: REALLY short. Sans FOPA and 1993 – which I was going to speak to.
        You’ve left me nothing to go on; my post wouldn’t make any sense now, without context. Can’t help but be a little disappointed – having spent 1hr+ this morning on it.
        No matter. You’ve got your hands full fending off new people to the thread. 😉 I’ll just leave you with a reminder that insults are where we find them.
        Like when somebody says we’re ‘dangerous’ or ‘full of shit’. Can be insults – but don’t have to be.
        In any case, we don’t have to return ‘like for like’.
        But that’s just me, maybe. You be sure to have a good evening, and I’ll catch you next time.

      • Charles Vincent

        They are barely an afterthought in the grand scheme of things. mostly entertainment value.. its good to laugh you know.

        “REALLY short. Sans FOPA and 1993 – which I was going to speak to. You’ve left me nothing to go on;”

        Speak away don’t let the lack of verbose in my reply shut you down.

      • Sandy Greer

        Serendipity! Was reading thru before bed. Thanx for the invite. Your post was lengthy; I ‘highlite’ for context:

        1) I expressed concern of prosecution for stolen guns (ie Lanza shooting) you thought unlikely
        2) I want background checks & proper training; you said they won’t ‘fly’ as per FOPA
        3) You thought no mass shootings prior to 1993
        4) And that gun violence is due to ‘family unit decay’ and ‘mood altering drug’ prescriptions
        ~~~~~~~
        FOPA, a 1986 law, revised the 1968 Gun Control Act. So laws – come and go. FOPA banned sales of machine guns after enactment to all but military/law enforcement. But left ‘grandfathered’ in place.

        ^^^I argued for registration & background checks on NEW sales – leaving ‘grandfathered’ weapons in place. Caveat Emptor WILL ‘fly’.

        Stolen gun prosecutions are rare, but some penal codes allow it. Part of the debate: Are parents responsible when children use guns in school shootings – or accidental shootings? It’s not out of
        the realm of possibility.

        I found school shootings on Wikipedia dating back to 1764 – where a teacher and 9-10 kids were killed.

        1850 (1 dead) 1853 (1) 1856 (2) 1858 (1) 1859 (1)
        1860 (1) 1861 (1) 1864 (1) 1867 (4) 1868 (3)
        1871 (3) 1872 (1) 1873 (5) 1874 (2) 1876 (1) 1877 (1) 1878 (1) 1879 (1)
        1880 (7) 1881 (2) 1882 (1) 1883 (3) 1884 (3) 1887 (1) 1889 (2)
        1890 (2) 1891 (15) 1892 (2) 1893 (5) 1894 (2) 1898 (8)
        1900 (1) 1902 (2) 1903 (5) 1904 (8) 1905 (2) 1906 (5) 1907 (2) 1908 (6) 1909 (5)
        1910 (3) 1911 (1) 1912 (3) 1913 (3) 1919 (3)
        1920 (1) 1921 (2) 1927 (1)
        1930 (1) 1932 (1) 1933 (4) 1934 (3) 1935 (5) 1936 (4) 1937 (3)
        1940 (11) 1942 (1) 1943 (1) 1946 (2) 1947 (3) 1948 (1) 1949 (2)
        1950 (4) 1951 (4) 1952 (4) 1953 (2) 1954 (4) 1955 (1) 1956 (4) 1957 (1) 1958 (2) 1959 (1)
        1960 (5) 1961 (3) 1966 (58) 1968 (9) 1969 (5)
        1970 (5) 1971 (8) 1972 (1) 1973 (3) 1974 (16) 1975 (2) 1976 (15) 1977 (1) 1978 (4) 1979 (12)
        1980 (3) 1982 (6) 1983 (3) 1984 (3) 1985 (18) 1986 (87) 1987 (6) 1988 (23) 1989 (38)
        1990 (2) 1991 (9) 1992 (23)

        ^^^Some were accidental (yes, at school) some murder-suicides, one a bomb in addition to a gun – but an astounding list – considering they’re only for schools. I stopped at 1993 – the year you suggested.

        It’s NOT a new phenomenon that can be laid at the feet of ‘family unit decay’ and ‘mood altering drugs’.

      • Phil Keast

        You said that no country regulates how many cars you can own, so I gave an example of another country. I drew parallels between vehicle registration and driver licensing as a model for reasonable firearms regulation, one that would even deprive anyone of their firearms. But that’s Australia, and despite your assertion that “no government” etc., you declare it irrelevant.

        I’m aware that many Americans believe that the USA is a special case and that evidence from other parts of the world is irrelevant. Therein lies one of the reasons you’ll probably never grow up. Universal Health care is defined as a basic human right in the UN Declaration of Human Rights. Not relevant to America, You don’t recognize Universal Human rights. Ditto with compulsory secular education up to secondary level. So, effectively, as far as the rest of the world is concerned, and organizations such as Amnesty are concerned, the argument can be made that American is guilty of human rights abuses (Not that anyone is going to accuse someone with a permanent seat on the UN Security council without the support of at least three other members of the security council). The rest of the world’s experience with the benefits of firearms legislation are irrelevant to you. It appears that anything that doesn’t suit the insulated and arrogant assumption that America does it better (based on a document that is over 200 years old and has not kept progress with the social and technological developments since it was written) is irreverent.

        .You quote: “He did equate them and I quote “There’s no amount of guns that will solve this problem, America simply cannot shoot away all of the problems that lead to our culture of desperation and violence.” Pretty clear to me, firearms are not the solution to America’s social problems.

        As for firearms regulation leading to lower crime rates, and the influence of specific states laws on firearms deaths, they are not a significant contributor statistically to the overall rate of gun related deaths. Even assuming it does include 10 local ordinances (I note that you don’t include any example of state-wide firearms regulation), so compared to the overall population of the USA they make no difference to the statistics.

        As for the USA being the largest single market for firearms sales is not something you should be proud of, but then for those who believe that they need at least three guns per capita (how do you use them all at one?) it’s not surprising, given the culture of fear that makes people proud of the fact that private citizens own more firearms tht even pest control and defense of family and property can justify.

      • Charles Vincent

        Going to break this into a few separate posts so its not obnoxiously long.

        You said that no country regulates how many cars you can own, so I gave an example of another country. I drew parallels between vehicle registration and driver licensing as a model for reasonable firearms regulation, one that would not deprive anyone of their firearms, merely make them responsible for the ones they own (I thought personal responsibility was valued by people in the USA, or does that only apply to the poor, not to gun owners?). But that’s Australia, and despite your assertion that “no government” etc., you declare it irrelevant.

        Umm they don’t. Here in the US I can own 5000 cars if I choose and have the money to do so I can Own an SUV or a Ferrari I can choose to go green with the vehicle or not and the government can say nothing about it. The reasonable gun regulation you refer to is not reasonable at all. They are wanting to regulate aesthetic features that have NO bearing on the weapons lethality or performance.

        Registration has historically always lead to confiscation of the firearms.

        We do value personal responsibility but you cant make any law that will make people behave responsibly it does not work. You should quit now if you think laws and regulations will make people less ignorant/stupid, or more responsible. That’s fools errand.

        “But that’s Australia, and despite your assertion that “no government” etc., you declare it irrelevant.”

        The law in the US would work no better if they were implemented in your country or your laws implemented here. Therefore the comparison is irrelevant to the discussion. If you try to force your idea of how things should be done on your neighbor what are the odds he will tell you to piss off? Pretty good I would guess. It’s the same concept with country to country comparisons in instances like this.

      • Phil Keast

        Buy as many cars as you like. Of any type you want. But if you want to use them anywhere except on your own personal property, you have to register all of them. And the difference between a pellet gun and an assault rifle is not aesthetic. At least you recognize that proper training in the use of firearms is necessary.

        As for pissing off your neighbors, stop supplying weapons to factions in civil wars in other countries. Stop seeking UN resolutions to change the way other countries operate. Stop advocating (and going to war) to achieve regime change in other countries. Stop holding yourself up as the shining light of democracy and morality that others should follow. Stop pissing off your neighbors, especially when they give advice (rather than demanding that America change or face sanctions or invasion, which appears to be most of what the US representation in the UN does).

      • Charles Vincent

        I will rebut this when I get home at more length. An assault rifle is a fully automatic weapon. You need a class III license to own one and there are several extra things you have to do to get one. Contrary to popular belief the firearms that MSM dubbed as assault weapon which are semi automatic. And were banned bases on feature that had nothing to do with the weapons lethality. When I get home I will produce the verbatim item list that made a rifle illegal.

      • Charles Vincent

        “Firearms registries are against federal law here. See the firearms owners protection act.” A dumb law is a dumb law, regardless of whether it is in the USA or Russia.

        This is your opinion. But the fact is the FOPA law falls in line with the SCOTUS decisions and with our Constitution.

        “Universal Health care is defined as a basic human right in the UN Declaration of Human Rights.”

        They said access to healthcare they didn’t say anything about taking from Joe to give Bob money to pay for his medical healthcare needs.

        That’s in essence like me walking into your home taking all the food off your table and taking it to the homeless people down the way and not making any attempt to reimburse you for the loss.

        “You don’t recognize these (and other) Universal Human rights.”

        This is a gross assumption on your part about what I do or do not know and smacks of Ad Hominem.

        The fact is the UN lists something like 30 universal human rights and I believe one of them is the right to bear arms and it doesn’t say you can only have a certain number of them either.

        “So, effectively, as far as the rest of the world, and organizations such as Amnesty are concerned, the argument can be made that American is guilty of human rights violations”

        And pretty much every other country in the world is on that list as well. China is far ahead of the US on that little list.

        “The rest of the world’s experience with the benefits of firearms legislation are irrelevant to you. In fact, it seems that the rest of the world’s experience with anything is irrelevant to the USA because you are so special. This sort of “we are the USA and we know what’s best, other countries experiences are irrelevant” that diminishes you as a country.”

        Don’t confuse the general populous’ agenda with the the governments agenda. The people here are pretty much fed up with being the world police and cleaning up other peoples messes.

        “Maybe if you looked out side your own borders you might learn something.”

        I’ve learned enough to not tell someone else how to live their life or run their country, and I expect others to return the favor.

        “However, it appears that anything that doesn’t suit the insulated and arrogant assumption that America does it better (based on a document that is over 200 years old and has not kept progress with the social and technological developments since it was written) is irreverent.”

        We can and have done it better. Are we doing it better now? NO. Our constitution is doing just fine if people would actually abide by it.

        Riddle me this you have had a Constitution for ~114 years has it grown or not?

      • Phil Keast

        Our constitution is a living document. It has been changed many times. It is currently in the process of being changed to remove all references implying or advocating discrimination on the basis of race or country of origin, and to recognize that the indigenous Australians are the first Australians and had a prior claim to Australia. There will not be a flood of law suits, because the principle that Indigenous people had and have ownership of their traditional lands and should receive appropriate remuneration for the use of those lands by non-indigenous individuals, corporation, or government agencies has already been tests in the High Court. the case was ruled in favor of the traditional indigenous owners. There is a good chance that it will be altered in the near future to remove the Queen as head of state, so that the head of state a position held by an Australian, chosen by Australian, and with no ties to any other nation. When the world changes, when Australian social values change, so does the constitution. Not by Amendment, but by changing the actual wording of the constitution.

        As for my opinions, yes they are my opinions, but I can safely walk the streets at night without the fear of being mugged by someone with a gun.

        Access to healthcare requires that all individuals can access affordable child care. So long as the health insurance industry control access to healthcare and people are turned away because they cannot pay, then access to health care is restricted. As a country, failure to provide affordable health care to all your citizens is a failure to provide access to health care.

        Access to food, shelter, water, education etc., is the responsibility of the country in which a person lives, which means that you don’t have to take the food from your table and give it to the homeless, but to object to the government using your tax dollars to feed them makes you complicit in the denial of their rights.

        America is the only country where the right to bear arms is considered a human right, you won’t find it anywhere in the UN Charter of Human Rights.

        It is not a competition to see who violates the most human rights, just because China commits gross human rights doesn’t excuse the USA for violating some human rights.

        I said “You don’t recognize these (and other) Universal Human rights.”

        You replied “This is a gross assumption on your part about what I do or do not know and smacks of Ad Hominem.” If I hurt your feelings, tough. As I said, if you fail to provide universal health care, food, and shelter, then you obviously don’t value these as human rights, otherwise you’d be doing something to provide those services.

        “Don’t confuse the general populous’ agenda with the the governments agenda. The people here are pretty much fed up with being the world police and cleaning up other peoples messes.”
        The rest of the world is sick of you claiming the moral high ground, while dragging them into the messes you create. Who pushes for sanctions in the UN regularly (and fails, as the rest of the world seeks answers other economic warfare, or at the end of a gun)? Who sought UN support to invade Irag based on non-existent WMD? You are not the world’s police, you’d like to think you are, but you are only one country, and you start more conflicts than you stop.

      • Sandy Greer

        I like the idea of your ‘living document’. So many here are inflexible, and believe our Constitution written in stone, as the 10 Commandments.

        Are there difficulties – obstacles – to rewrites? Here, Amendments are extremely difficult – requiring passage by 2/3 of both Houses in Congress (an impossibility, these days) and then ratification by 3/4 of the states.

        Absolutely support your last sentence, 110%. Neocons, along with CIA secret ops have wrought havoc all across the globe – and will be our undoing.

      • Phil Keast

        Re-writing the Constitution can, and often is, a difficult process. There will always be those (not always conservatives) who will resist such a wide-reaching change. But usually, over time, when it becomes clear that there is wide-spread popular support, and significant political will and support for a change, then that change will be made.

        For example,in 1986 a case was presented to the High court case seeking ti overturn the “terra nullius” doctrine that Australia was uninhabited before the arrival of English settlers, and establish that the indigenous people were (and remain) the owners of the lands with which they had a traditional connection. The case was resolved in favor of the indigenous litigant, and the principle that those with traditional land right should receive just compensation for the use of their lands.

        The Native Title Act of 1993 established legislation that made the decision of the High Court law, not merely precedent. (Rulings of the high Court may establish precedent, and are binding on all parties, but thst doesn’t prevent another case with similar issues appearing before the court nd overturning the precedent set by previous rulings. Legislation, however, cannot be overturned unless it breaches the Constitution.). At the same time the Native Title Tribunal was established to adjudicate on all disputes in which indigenous land might may be an issue.

        Since then historians and high school history teachers have lifted the lid on the previously little known aspects of the historical relationships between indigenous Australians and European settlers (although it was probably less a case of little known, historians had been writing about it for decades, but it had never reached the consciousness of the general public, and where it was known it was not talked about in the hope it would juts go away). The result has been a slow but steady recognition that mainstream Australia’s record of race relations with indigenous Australians is abysmal. Noone can change the past, but we can make damn sure it isn’t repeated.

        It has taken time, but it is virtually universally accepted that the formal and public apology to Australians indigenous people by the Prime Minster of Australia on behalf of all Australia’s citizens was long overdue, and that the Constitution must be amended to take remove all references to discrimination on the basis of race, and include acknowledgement of indigenous Australians as having a per-existing claim to the lands to which European (English) settlers chose to emigrate, hammering the final nail in the coffin of the doctrine of terra nullius.

        Constitutional change is neither easy, nor quick, but it does happen.

      • Sandy Greer

        Our gun culture stems from our settlement here. We took this country, by force – and held it, by force.

        Part of the problem was that Native Americans didn’t ‘own’ the land, as we do. They were caretakers – sojourners, for awhile – willing to share. Out of their element, with us.

        Our Westward expansion was by force. We pushed West; took their lands. Made treaties, and broke them – time, and time again. Eventually, we moved them onto Reservations – the worst land, that we didn’t want ourselves. Sometimes, when gold was discovered later on those lands – we took that, too. All by force.

        What a man had was only as good as what he could hold in the Wild, Wild West.

      • Charles Vincent

        Exactly our government(or any government for that matter) should not be trusted ever ask Native Americans they can attest to that. I see that as one of the best reasons to retain the natural right to bear arms just saying. Want a more recent example look up the battle of Athens Tennessee.

      • Sandy Greer

        >I see that as one of the best reasons to retain the natural rght to bear arms just saying.

        I knew as I posted it: You’d pick up on that. It’s why I threw it out there. 😉

        Again: Nobody is coming for your guns. Or mine.

        It’s yet another classic argument The Right propagates against Lefties: That we’re coming for your guns. Doesn’t make it true.

        Lefties bear arms too. I’m not the only one admitted to it, in this thread.

        Did you see my post below, wherein I chronicled 150+ years of school shootings? It’s the one I spent
        1hr+ on – and you specifically invited me to post. It’s an eye-opener.

      • Charles Vincent

        I know and many of the shootings you listed were not either mass shooting or were really odd and there were more than 150 listed I am still going through the list to read the details of all of them. and when I am through I will set fire to that straw-man of a list.

        Again: Nobody is coming for your guns. Or mine.

        Tyranny come in increments first it was the NFA which made full auto unavailable to civilians then it as the 1968 law then it was the AWB(expired) and now its magazine limits, slowly chip chip chipping away at a right. Frankly I have had enough of “well if we just do this one thing” to then a year later hear the same line again perhaps with a twist I am done listening to anything anti-gun people have to say. And so are many other gun owners.

      • Sandy Greer

        You sound like strayaway. You sure you’re not a Libertarian? Every time I post with him, he’s talking “drip, drip, drip, Police State is coming”. I finally had to tell him I’m not arguing Police State with him, anymore, LOL

        And here you are, with your ‘chip, chip, chipping”… I swear, you guys are gonna be the death of me.

        Does it matter – many of them weren’t ‘mass’ shootings? You indicated there weren’t many shootings prior to 1993. I honestly had no idea there
        were so many; looked out of curiosity. Does it matter, if we kill them onesie-twosies, or by the dozens? They’re just as dead – aren’t they? Isn’t that what matters – in the end?

        It was interesting the first ‘mass’ shooting occurred in 1764. And that so many of the ‘accidental’ shootings
        were back in the days when schoolboys brought their weapons to school as a matter of course.

        I didn’t present it to argue – rather, edification. Yours, AND mine. Set fire to it, if you must. They’re still dead.

        I guess I’m tired, arguing guns, with somebody who’s ‘done listening to anything anti-guns have to say’. Talk about your straw-men! I think I just got put in
        the ‘tyranny’ camp, and I’m not sure how I got there.

      • Charles Vincent

        And here you are, with your ‘chip, chip, chipping”… I swear, you guys are gonna be the death of me.”

        Look at history Sandy tyrannical anything didn’t happen over night it happens incrementally over long time periods, The roman republic is and example of this. And if you researched the Athens Tennessee thing that happened in the late 1940’s it follows that pattern, of time and increments.

        Does it matter – many of them weren’t ‘mass’ shootings?

        In order for a shooting to be considered a mass shooting there has to be more than 4 dead.

        “You indicated there weren’t many shootings prior to 1993. I honestly had no idea there were so many; looked out of curiosity.”

        I didn’t either which is why I qualified my statement with to my knowledge.

        “Does it matter – if we kill them onesie-twosies – or by the dozens? They’re just as dead – aren’t they? Isn’t that what matters – in the end?”

        Theses are the wrong questions, What I was referring to were the circumstances surrounding the shootings. An example of this is would be the spurned lover as a couple cases are. The fact it happened at a school was incidental. The school or the children were not the intended target as the recent mass shootings were. Another is the case of the teacher that strangled a boy that accidentally kill the teachers pet bird and the teacher was then shot by the boys father that’s not tragic that’s justice, and again the location was incidental.

        “I guess I’m tired, arguing guns, with somebody who’s ‘done listening to anything anti-guns have to say’. Talk about your straw-men! I think I just got put in the ‘tyranny’ camp, and I’m not sure how I got there.”

        I am not questioning your intention to do something good Sandy nor am I attempting to say your intentions are motivated by “evil” I am just think the method proposed by the anti-gun crowd is wrong. Empirically what I said isn’t a straw-man it’s fact and if you looked at the circumstances around the NFA et al you would see the same or similar rhetoric being spoken in favor of or as a reason to ban firearms. And when I said light fire to the straw-men in regards to the list of school shootings I meant to the ones that really weren’t school shootings in that the students weren’t the target and the location was incidental. In the case of the boys with a firearms back in the early portion of our country it was against the law to travel and not have a firearm caveat is I don’t know which states had these laws or time periods other than the one from Virginia Circa 1700 I think.

        /tips hat

      • Sandy Greer

        OK. I’m (somewhat) appeased. It just bugs me when somebody is ‘done listening’ (why should I speak at all?) BTW, that wasn’t my ‘ton of bricks’ fell on you – petulance, rather. 😉 But you handled it well – like a gentleman.

        Agree about ‘tyranny incrementally’ (historically) Still, I finally told strayaway I won’t argue Police State with him: I’m just not the worrying kind. Probably puts me back in the ‘dangerous’ camp. But patience is not my strong suit, and I don’t want to drop a ‘ton of bricks’ on you.

        I’d have to be a masochist to beat my head against the brick wall of somebody who thinks ‘full auto’ belongs in civilian hands.

        Wrong questions? Not to me. ‘Incidental’ shootings or not – they’re just as dead.

        >The school or the children were not the intended target

        ^^^Better an ‘intended target’ than an ‘incidental’, accidental, one. Just saying. Random makes it worse – dying for nothing.

        Doesn’t matter WHERE the shooting, where the death. We’ve had shootings MANY other places than schools. They’re ALL bad: Every single one – but especially the random ones.

        >it was against the law to travel and not have a firearm

        So? And? That excuses accidental shootings? Does it hurt those who loved the dead less?

        ^^^More ‘wrong questions’?

      • Charles Vincent

        In order for a shooting to be considered a mass shooting there are certain criteria that must be met,

        1) the shooting must have 3 or more victims

        2) there usually has to be a confined area according tot he FBI school room meeting room etcetera.

        I was applying that metric to the shootings you mentioned as well as context of the shooting i.e. rejected suitor shooting the person that rejected them and accidents too name a couple.

        When I said intended target i was referring to the intent of the shooter was to kill as many people as possible or it was directed a a single individual etcetera.

        “Doesn’t matter WHERE the shooting, where the death. We’ve had shootings MANY other places than schools. They’re ALL bad: Every single one – but especially the random ones.”

        I am not attempting to marginalize or trivialize them or say that because it was only 1 person its not bad. I am saying we need to look at context and intent of the individual shooting(s) and match them to the established criteria.

        “And, so? Do we argue unintended consequences excuse accidental shootings? Do unintended consequences and accidental shootings hurt those who loved the dead less?”

        No but what i am saying is that accidents happen no matter how safe or cautious we are.
        NO they dont hurt less but we must consider that perhaps in accidentally shooting someone that the guilt and distress the shooter feels is sometimes punishment enough, and a bit of compassion is better suited to the situation. is this all cases no but we should weight them individually and apply the needed remedy for that individual case.

        Take for example my uncle. When I was 17 he was driving and the roads were snow packed and an oncoming car lost control and he hit the car and killed the driver no one was at fault it was a accident, but I guarantee not a day has gone by that he doesn’t second guess what he could have done different to avoid hitting that lady. Having someones death on you is a heavy weight indeed.

        Hope that this post clears up what i was trying to communicate to you.

        /tips hat

      • Sandy Greer

        I think I understand. Thanks for taking the time to be clear.

        I absolutely understand about Guilt. Not the kind your uncle bears (I’m sorry that happened to him) But I know how Guilt can weigh heavy on a heart, for things that can’t be undone.

        My own family has had four deaths, by shooting. A murder (grandfather) two suicides (cousin and uncle) and one accidental (cousin) Once, I fought over a gun – with someone intent on suicide. Afterwards, I got the shakes; couldn’t believe I did that.

        I would minimize occurrence, to the extent we can. I
        know we differ in methods.

        You’re OK, Charles. Got skills: Patience (with people) and perseverence (presenting your case) We don’t have to agree, for me to admire that about you.

        You be sure to have a good day, tomorrow.

      • Charles Vincent

        Some other things occurred to me as I was looking at the list but I will set on that. Hope your day goes well too.
        /tips hat

      • Sandy Greer

        This is so weird! Do you see an ‘upvote’ from me, on your post?
        I upvoted it last night. But this AM it wasn’t there; I did it again. Refreshed the page; it’s not there; did it again. I can see I did it. But can YOU see it?
        Maybe I need a new computer? Mine ‘sticks’ when I post (sticks on the cursor, when it shows, and when it goes live, so I can actually type)

      • Charles Vincent

        Try deleting temp files and cookies then reset your modem. and no I don’t see the upvote.

      • Charles Vincent

        “Constitutional change is neither easy, nor quick, but it does, and should, happen”

        Some of the founders thought there should be constitutional conventions every 10-20 if I remember correctly.
        I think that the issue of slaver and the treatment of Natives of this continent are some pretty heinous things and had our government not handled it so poorly history might look on us with a kinder light.

      • Charles Vincent

        “It has been changed many times.”
        Funny you mention that ours has been amended 26 times over the course of our history.

      • Charles Vincent

        “As for my opinions, yes they are my opinions, but I can safely walk the streets at night without the fear of being mugged by someone with a gun.”

        Yep but unfortunately for you muggers use knives most often followed by firearms.

        “In 2010, a weapon was used in 67% of murders, 71% of attempted murders, and 39% of robberies. The most common weapon type used in the commission
        of all three offences was a knife, which was used against 33% of murder, 28% of attempted murder, and 18% of robbery victims.”

        http://www DOT abs DOT gov DOT au/ausstats/[email protected]/Lookup/by%20Subject/1301.0~2012~Main%20Features~National%20crime%20statistics~63

        “Access to healthcare requires that all individuals can access affordable health care. So long as the health insurance industry controls access to healthcare and people are turned away because they cannot pay, then access to health care is restricted.”

        It is illegal for a hospital to turn away a patient;

        http://en DOT wikipedia DOT org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_Treatment_and_Active_Labor_Act

        “Access to food, shelter, water, education etc., is the responsibility of the country in which a person lives, which means that you don’t have to take the food from your table and give it to the homeless, but to object to the government using your tax dollars to feed them makes you complicit in the denial of their rights.”

        I do not object to helping with my tax dollars, I object to the ACA because it doesn’t fix the problem of “failure to provide affordable health care to all your citizens”.

        “You replied “This is a gross assumption on your part about what I do or do not know and smacks of Ad Hominem.” If I hurt your feelings, tough. As I said, if you fail to provide universal health care, food, and shelter, then you obviously don’t value these as human rights, otherwise you’d be doing something to provide those services.”

        Hurt my feelings.. please you haven’t the wit or the tongue to hurt my feelings and ad hominem is an admonition of defeat. You flat out have no clue what I do or do not recognize personally you’re making a large leap to say I agree with what my countries government does.

        “Who pushes for sanctions in the UN regularly (and fails, as the rest of the world seeks answers other economic warfare, or at the end of a gun)?”

        The US government and quite frankly many people here are just as sick and tired of it as well I fail to see your point. And quite frankly you haven’t a clue about what the average American thinks and shown by your statements here. I myself prefer Ron Paul’s ideas on foreign policy. I also think we should let other countries run their own business and we should run ours, and next time don’t call us when someone invades your country fix the problem yourself since you’re so adamantly against The US being the world police(something I wish we would stop doing BTW)

        Next time try researching how our populous views our governments foreign policy before you make such sweeping brush strokes.

        Congress approval rating; March 13%

        http://www DOT gallup DOT com/poll/168428/no-improvement-congressional-approval DOT aspx

        Obamas approval rating; 44%

        http://www DOT gallup DOT com/poll/116479/barack-obama-presidential-job-approval DOT aspx

        Foriegn policy approval rating; 33%
        http://townhall DOT com/tipsheet/guybenson/2014/03/06/poll-obama-approval-rating-hits-new-low-n1804809

      • Phil Keast

        I don’t know why I bother.

        You: “Yep but unfortunately for you muggers use knives most often followed by firearms”, and then you state Australian Crime Statistics, avoiding the issue that I have a much lower chance of ever being involved in a gun-related crime than an American. I didn’t say gun regulation stops crime, I said it prevents gun-related crime..

        You “It is illegal for a hospital to turn away a patient” Fair enough, I wasn’t aware of that, given the horror stories we hear.

        You: “I do not object to helping with my tax dollars, I object to the ACA because it doesn’t fix the problem of “failure to provide affordable health care to all your citizens”. Then implement Universal government subsidized healthcare, and vote out of office anyone that tries to prevent it in any way. The ACA is the best you’ll get so long as there is this phobia about anything that smacks of socialism. At least it is a step (a very small step) in the right direction.

        You: “You flat out have no clue what I do or do not recognize personally you’re making a large leap to say I agree with what my countries government does.” The USA is a democracy, it has the government its citizens have chosen. As a citizen, your government’s policy is your policy until you vote to correct the failures of your government. You voted them in, you have to take responsibility for what they do in your name, whether you personally agree with it or not.

        As for Ad Hominem arguments, I get so tired of undergraduate philosophers describing it as a concession of defeat. It isn’t, it is a direct attack on a fallacy along the lines of “pull your head out of your arse and try a real argument”, and a perfectly valid philosophical arguing technique.

        You: “The US government and quite frankly many people here are just as sick and tired
        of it as well I fail to see your point. … next time don’t call us when someone invades your
        country fix the problem yourself since you’re so adamantly against The
        US being the world police(something I wish we would stop doing BTW)” No-one asks to be invaded by the USA for their own good. No-one asks the USA to initiate calls for sanctions against themselves. No-one wants the USA to shove it’s fucking nosed into their business, and the USA hasn’t help anyone resist the invasion by any country other than the USA for decades. This vision of the USA as the world’s police exists entirely in the mind of the USA. Get over it. And again, the USA is a democracy, so you are responsible for your government’s policies and actions, you can’t take the easy way out by saying I didn’t vote for them so its not my fault. The only opinion poll that matters is at an election, whtever the aproval rating of a politician, department, government, or policy, the citizens made their choice at the elections, now man up and take responsibility for what you allowed to happen (and not just the last election, but all the previous administrations as well, the mess you’ve got is the result of decades of sheep-like voting and the refusal of the citizenry to take responsibility for actions of the governments it elects.

      • Charles Vincent

        “You are not the world’s police,”<— you said this in the post prior to this.

        Then you said "This vision of the USA as the world's police exists entirely in the mind of the USA."

        If its all in our minds why did you mention us as the world police?

        P.S. You missed this little nugget about the world police "(something I wish we would stop doing BTW)" and it is not just me that wishes that here in the US.

        "Again, the USA is a democracy"

        Your ignorance is rearing its ugly head Phil, the US is not a democracy its a constitutional republic and if you want to get really technical a polyarchy.

        "The citizens made their choice at the elections, now man up and take responsibility for what you allowed to happen (and not just the last election, but all the previous administrations as well, the mess you've got is the result of decades of sheep-like voting and the refusal of the citizenry to take responsibility for actions of the governments it elects)."

        Don't lump me in with the rest of the lemmings. I have been voting against government involvement in things since I was old enough to vote. The stuff you describe in this post is exactly what you get when you vote more government control.

        Last but not least Ad hominem is a personal attack and does absolutely zero to forward your position in a debate nor does it refute your opponents argument. You lose when you do that. So put on your big boy panties take a couple midol, rinse the sand out of your mangina and get over it. And from some of the logical intelligent stuff you have posted Ad hominem is puerile and beneath you.

      • Phil Keast

        You: “If its all in our minds why did you mention us as the world police?” You personally may not have said it, but I have read it from so many people form the USA it has become a standing, frustrating joke. And you are the one who had the arrogance to suggest that the USA’s unilateral decisions to interfere in the affairs of other countries was somehow at the request of those countries.

        You: “Your ignorance is rearing its ugly head Phil, the US is not a democracy
        its a constitutional republic and if you want to get really technical a
        polyarchy.” I’ve heard this over and over from people who want to disown the actions of their own government. Whatever the parliamentary traditions and forms, no matter the relationships between the states, if you vote for your representatives, then you are a fucking democracy. Vote = democracy. No vote = not democracy. Simple, eh?

        “Don’t lump me in with the rest of the lemmings”. Your country, your government, your responsibility.

        “Last but not least Ad hominem is a personal attack and does absolutely
        zero to forward your position in a debate nor does it refute your
        opponents argument” Yes, ad hominem is a personal attack. What part of “You are a fucken moron, at least present an argument with enough substance to make it worth arguing”. This is not conceding defeat, this is giving your arguments the contempt they deserve.

      • Charles Vincent

        “Yes, ad hominem is a personal attack. What part of “You are a fucken moron, at least present an argument with enough substance to make it worth arguing”. This is not conceding defeat, this is giving your arguments the contempt they deserve.”

        My argument is factual lol. Keep flapping your suck it only reveals how little you know about my country(if i could find the thread where you said exactly that i would paste it here). Contempt for facts… Poor little Phil rage more please, I enjoy setting fire to the straw-men arguments you make.

        “I’ve heard this over and over from people who want to disown the actions of their own government. Whatever the parliamentary traditions and forms, no matter the relationships between the states, if you vote for your representatives, then you are a fucking democracy. Vote = democracy. No vote = not democracy. Simple, eh?”

        Three things here.

        1) You’re setting up a straw-man.

        2) Your ignorance is well astounding in relation to the way different forms of government work.

        3) Governments 101;
        http://www DOT diffen DOT com/difference/Democracy_vs_Republic

        “And you are the one who had the arrogance to suggest that the USA’s unilateral decisions to interfere in the affairs of other countries was somehow at the request of those countries.”

        Wrong I never said that, in fact what I said is I favor the Ron Paul approach to foreign policy, and that I think we need to stop doing that, so now you’re a liar as well as a ninnyhammer. And just for reference here is what Ron said we should do on foreign policy;

        https://www DOT youtube DOT com/watch?v=XtQTTSmc-CU

      • Sandy Greer

        Stop. Please. Previous exchange was 4(?) days ago; should have died there. I see the following personal attacks:

        CV = you haven’t the wit or the tongue to hurt my feelings
        CV = you haven’t a clue about what the average
        American thinks

        PK = now man up and take responsibility

        CV = Your ignorance is rearing its ugly head Phil
        CV = So put on your big boy panties take a couple
        midol, rinse the sand out of your mangina

        PK = you are the one who had the arrogance
        PK = this is giving your arguments the contempt
        they deserve

        CV = Keep flapping your suck it only reveals how
        little you know
        CV = Poor little Phil rage more please
        CV = your ignorance is well astounding
        CV = so now you’re a liar as well as a
        ninnyhammer

        The “big boy panties/midol/mangina” comment was so personally reprehensible to me – as a woman – I’m at a loss to explain the repugnance I feel. Two things:

        1) Seems an ‘old’ argument – carried over from previous threads. Never a good idea. Both online and IRL – best argue once; be done with it. Don’t dredge up the past.

        2) I’m probably the only one saw this particular exchange. But most online fights online are seen by others. As IRL – witnessing ‘personal’ fights between two people is an uncomfortable (and helpless) feeling.

        I like and respect you both. Ask – with respect – that this not escalate further.

      • Charles Vincent

        No offense intended but I didn’t start this mud flinging contest with Phil but make no mistake I will finish it. I’ll not be called a liar by the like of trash like that ever. the conversation he had in regards to not knowing much about America was with Piper not me I just highlighted what he had said. The fact is I think Phil is pretty intelligent and his stooping to personal attacks and such is beneath him. I am sorry you have been offended and I apologize to you, but I will not ever tolerate that from anyone ever.

        /tips hat

      • Sandy Greer

        1) You called him a “liar as well as a ninnyhammer”. Just now said he was “trash”. Yours was the first mud flung here.

        2) Far as I know, Pipercat bears no grudge: Gave Phil a lead to the group you Admin (with MR) – where you argue with ‘civility’.

        3) He is intelligent – as are you. Personal attacks are beneath you BOTH. But you’re in the ‘lead’ on those.

        We don’t have to fight every fight. For those we do:

        Choose to be kind over being right and you’ll be right every time. ~ Richard Carlson

        Phil spoke for me once when I’d been subjected to a personal attack. I did the same for you. And because I did that, earned your respect, utmost courtesy, and even – an apology.

        Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them? ~ Abraham Lincoln

        ^^^That’s what a ‘dangerous’ woman does. 😉 Dangerous, and formidable men, with indomitable wills – are capable of no less.

      • Charles Vincent

        Well was he lying or not if I was wrong and he wasn’t lying about what I clearly said I will apologize.
        You are omitting his snarky bit of condecention that came before my reply and a couple far more subtle AD hominems.

        Yep and we don’t get into epeen contests there and we don’t employee Ad Hominem attacks either.
        I don’t bear a grudge either I take issue with his behavior here and yes I am ahead on the ad hominems now as I was giving him a dose of his own medicine. And as per your request I am retiring from the conversation.

        /tips hat

      • Sandy Greer

        Thank you. I’d ‘like’ your post, but it’s not working for me (in this thread) Others, yes, but not here.

        Did what you said (cookies, temp files) in IE, Firefox, & Chrome. To no avail. Comp still giving me trouble; time I spring for another.

        But I appreciate your letting it go. Takes a big man to walk away from a fight. I think it a personal favor to me; I’m grateful, and in your debt.

        Thanks, as always, and again.

      • Charles Vincent

        Did you reset your Modem? Just unplug it and let it set for 10-15 minutes then plug it back in. Piper might also have some ideas on fixing the sluggishness you’re seeing.

      • Sandy Greer

        Unplug? No. I just pushed a button on it; thought that would do. Not ‘tech savvy’, I’m afraid. I will unplug. Do I have to close all windows & programs first?

        When I got the comp my tech guy said I’d probably only get 3yrs out of it – that it was ‘light’ in weight, compared to old one. Both Dells. It’s been 4yrs now; I just figured it was time.

        I’m going to call my tech & have him build one for me, this time.

        The ‘sticky’ cursor is what makes me grit my teeth.

      • Charles Vincent

        yep probably time for a new one.

      • Charles Vincent

        ON a side note this little number from down under is totally awesome.

        https://www DOT youtube DOT com/watch?v=QpauUSmtJmA

      • Reynard Vulpes

        ” I didn’t say gun regulation stops crime, I said it prevents gun-related crime..”

        Dead’s dead, bucko, by any means that produces death.

        I’m not interested in lowering the suicide rate, for instance, and have the jumpers number increase, like they found in Canada after passing laws precisely to lower gun suicide.

        It produces more vegetable state victims families, and I, have to support, than gun suicides.

        That splat on the pavement often does not kill. People don’t do their homework before jumping thus pick short building, or overpasses too low, or a floor that won’t provide full momentum for the impact.

        I’m objectively cold when it comes to figuring out public policy. Forgive me.

        I’ve had my say.

      • Sandy Greer

        >they didn’t say anything about taking from Joe to give Bob money to pay for his medical healthcare needs. That’s in essence like me walking into your home taking all the food off your table and taking it to the homeless people down the way and not making any attempt to reimburse you for the loss.

        You said you’re in the middle. Don’t deal in ‘rhetoric’. But robbing Peter to pay Paul is the classic (rhetorical) argument The Right uses against Lefties.

        It’s OK to be right of center. So long as one knows where he is. We don’t want folks getting lost. 😉

        It’s not enough to be registered Independent – or even to vote Independent – to be ‘centrist’.

        ‘Buying’ the argument of Peter robbing Paul – enough to profess it – puts you squarely on the right. Which, again – is OK, so long as you know.

      • Charles Vincent

        Taking anything not voluntarily given is wrong Adam smith understood that John Locke under stood that, Frederic Bastiat understood that Thomas Sowell understood that, if you take anything from joe that he does not give freely that’s theft. Taking my money to pay a subsidy so someone else can pay for thier bills is theft I would rather have that money to pay for me or my children’s medical bills. Bastiat called this legalized plunder.

        But this is a seperate discussion I only rebutted Phil’s assertion. More on the rest when I get home.

      • Sandy Greer

        I understand your position.

        I’m just pointing out you’re not in the ‘middle’. You think you are, because you’re registered Independent – but you’re not in the ‘middle’. Not by a long shot.

        We wouldn’t be Opponents if you were.

      • Charles Vincent

        I am fiscally conservative and socially liberal my stance on drug legalization and abortion sort of push me back to the middle. It’s really incorrect to categorize me for 1 stance. I have many facets you know. I do not think being an independent makes me in the middle as above its more about stances I take on various topics.

      • Sandy Greer

        >It’s really incorrect to categorize me for 1 stance. I have many facets you know.

        Fair enough. I do know; I don’t waste my time on just anybody.

        How’s that Rocky Mountain High working out for you? I’m a little jealous, truth be told.

      • Charles Vincent

        I gave up the high when my first kid came. I did vote for it and I think it should all be legal and regulated like alcohol it worked in Portugal at least for the users, and the sky did not fall when they decriminalized.

      • Charles Vincent

        “As for firearms regulation not leading to lower crime rates, and the influence of specific states laws on firearms deaths, they are not a significant contributor statistically to the overall rate of gun related deaths. Even assuming it does include 10 local ordinances (I note that you don’t include any example of state-wide firearms regulation), compared to the overall population of the USA they make no difference to the statistics.”

        New Jersey the state that Camden is in has strict gun laws. Here are the New Jersey town.

        Camden 60.6 per 100k New Jersey
        Newark 33.8 per 100k New Jersey
        Trenton 27.0 per 100k New Jersey

        How about California they have strict gun control there as well.
        Oakland 26.3 per 100k

        Stockton 19.7 per 100k
        Compton 17.4 per 100k

        Utah in 2012 had a murder rate of 1.8 per 100k and they are one of the most gun friendly states

        Wyoming in 2012 had a rate of 2.4 per 100k gun friendly

        New Hampshire 1.1 per 100k in 2012 gun friendly

        Tell me again how my statistics are “are not a significant contributor statistically to the overall rate of gun related deaths”.

      • Phil Keast

        As a proportion of the total population of the USA, the combined population of all those listed above will, statistically, have virtually no effect on the overall per capita rate of gun-related deaths and gun related crime for the entire population of the USA. It’s simple statistics, relatively small sample sizes have negligible influence on the results of a large sample size of which they are a part.

      • Charles Vincent

        They are example of the larger list from the FBI crime statistics table I picked them to illustrate my point, sorry you missed it. Next Time I will list them all so you see the point clearer.

      • Sandy Greer

        I’m late to the party on this one. You were pretty rough on America (4th paragraph – specifically, “special case” and “arrogant”) and I had to think (tho I know it intellectually to be the case)
        Do I believe it in my heart to be true?
        And I have come to the conclusion – reluctantly – it’s a fair assessment.
        Being a Superpower is not all it’s cracked up to be.

      • Phil Keast

        I was more than a little rough, I agree, but I had and have no desire to offend.

        We (Australia) have our own problems, for example; incarceration of refugees who arrive via boat from Indonesia (including incarceration of minors); holding those refugees in secure camps in locations outside Australian territory (friendly neighbors willing to house them) until they are processed by the immigration department; horrendously poor provision of health care and education for indigenous Australians; proportionally higher rates of male suicide among indigenous Australians; trying to integrate immigrants from places such as Somalia or Syria and dealing with the ugly disputes within those immigrant populations. There are many thing we could and should be doing better, so I’m not holding Australia up as some shining example of perfection. One thing we do well, in my opinion, is that we examine our own actions and policies, and when we recognize that we are wrong we try to fix it (although the inevitable clash between the left and the right over whether something is a problem that needs to be fixed causes more than a few problems).

        Recently the Prime Minster, with the bipartisan support of every sitting Member of the House of Representative, and every Senator, formally apologized, in Parliament and broadcast live on radio and TV, to indigenous Australians for the way they have been treated historically, and for the current failures to address the problems the are experiencing (although how to fix things such as health, education, etc. remains a problem we have yet to find an adequate solution for).

      • Sandy Greer

        One reason I’m glad you’re here is because I know less about Australia than you know about the United States. Probably most countries in this world know more about America, than we do about them.

        Goes to ‘arrogance’ and ‘special case’ we don’t give that a thought – but take it for granted, as our due.

        And that’s why what you said is fair. Because it’s the truth.

      • Reynard Vulpes

        Sir two states have recently PROVEN that indeed registration was, by deception, later used to confiscate guns. CA and MS as I recall. Very nasty business as California promised registration would NOT result in later confiscation, then the collection threat letter when out.

        About 18 months later as I recall.

        Talk about angry citizens.

      • Reynard Vulpes

        “However, all cars owned by an individual must be registered, and drivers
        must be licensed to drive particular types of vehicles. (usually based
        on power to mass, type of controls, age of the driver, etc.).” Nope bunky. Not in the U.S.

        I can buy all the cars, high powered, huge gas tanks, big or small, and NOT have to have a license or registration.

        How can I do this? Haul out, use on my own property, just like I should be able to buy a gun keep it at home and keep it private.

        I don’t have to insure those cars, I don’t have to limit gas tank size (think magazine limits), and I don’t have to limit their speed (think machine guns that I’m not allowed to own).

        I can build a monster truck, haul it to a show, and never a bit of government contact.

        I have to meet some laws designed to curtail THEFT, but no laws on controlling my ownership to prohibit or limit my use. Those on guns do that precisely.

        Never wish for what may turn out to be a rattlesnake.

        If we had gun laws conforming to auto laws we’d be in heaven.

      • Charles Vincent

        And now for the outright lies in this article. this article portraits the NRA as heartless uncaring and apathetic. this is false they promote education and training for firearms owners.

        http://training DOT nra DOT org/

        “If your point is that arsenals of weapons beyond those required to protect onesellf are not contributing to gun related problems”

        Define “arsenal”.

        I have family members that have all sorts of firearms. some that are completely custom and require them to hand make the ammunition for them. Its a hobby to them. Some people collect coins or baseball cards they collect guns, and not one of their firearms killed anyone nor have they been misplaced or stolen. I fail to see the logic in imposing rules and regulations with zero efficacy on the public at large because a few people did something wrong/broke the law etcetera.

        http://www DOT nraila DOT org/media/10883516/nij-gun-policy-memo DOT pdf

      • Reynard Vulpes

        There is a huge business in firearm speculation, think hog bellies, as a commodity these days.
        Why do the gun grabbers think the numbers of gun owners has not gone up but the number guns they have purchased has.

        They play the market with guns like rich folks play the stock market.

        It does nothing for or against the rate of gun crime going up or down. The Clinton commissioned study showed more than just NO CORRELATION OF GUN LAWS TO RISING OR FALLING RATES OF GUN CRIME.

        All violent crime goes up and followed by gun crime. And that, overall, has been dropping for decades, even with the millions more guns being sold.

        High purchase numbers have NOT correlated with a rise in gun crime.

        Doesn’t anyone do research before they babble? Or do they just swallow the “knews?”

        Or the BS on TV and other media?

        I’ve had my say.

      • Charles Vincent

        Not sure I get where you’re going… I wasn’t even touching on some of the stuff you mentioned in your post.

      • Reynard Vulpes

        Oh PLUUUUZZZZ give us gun regulation on the vehicle model, please.

        I do NOT have to have a background check to go into a auto showroom or lot and buy as many cars as I want in any configuration I want.. .500 HP engines that can clock out at 200 miles per hour if I wish, and gas tanks the size of those on an earth mover if I wish.

        Do you get the analogy? It goes MUCH further.

        I do NOT have to take training to operate a car…just past a simple minded test. I do not have to limit myself to 10 round magazines, as I can mount a hundred gallon spare tank if I want, just like many ranchers and farmers do.

        I do not have a criminal and mental health background check when I buy those cars either. And if I have someone else drive, or put the damn cars on a hauling rig, I can take them with NO license. If I operate them on my own property I do NOT have to have insurance, nor do I have to license them or register them, and I can build a monster truck, or a dozen junk derby crash rigs and haul them to events with NO insurance and no limits beyond what the vendors require of me.

        You people are full or horse leavin’s.

        Tell me again that cars aren’t made for killing and I’ll happily laugh in your face and show the numbers of how this “innocent,” machine kills thousands more than guns.. and that you are safer carrying a gun than behind the wheel of car.

        Do the Kellerman jig for us and claim that you are x times more likely to be shot if you have a gun in your home and I’ll ring you up the proof his study was bogus crappola the research world panned him for. He surveyed high crime areas. He counted deaths of people shot OUTSIDE THEIR HOME BY STRANGERS. He counted homes with felons who couldnt’ legally ahve a gun anyway.

        More anti gun lies.

        I’ve had my say.

      • Patrick Milliken

        were you going to point out the false equivalencies, and straw men any time soon?

      • DavidD

        I own weapons to protect my stock out in the country and provide defense for my home.
        I am a former member of the NRA but won’t have anything to do with them because of their fear mongering and extremist nonsense.
        I’m for common sense regulation and registration along with universal background checks.
        Sandy Hook was the straw that broke the camel’s back for me and I like the rule of law over vigilante thugism.

      • Charles Vincent

        See my post to Phil Keast.

      • Sandy Greer

        How is the author’s message a wrong one? How does he paint the NRA as ‘evil’?

        NRA does pander to Fear. Some of us fall victim, as well. Author calls BS on that.

        Agree it’s a ‘people problem’. We need to ‘police’ ourselves (stop the crazies) But how, when The Right sees any attempt as ‘micro-managing’ guns, or as Lefties comin’ for our guns, or even – as throwing out the 2nd Amendment and/or Constitution?

        For clarity: Are you a Strict Constructionist? I prefer Living Constitution, as you might guess.

        Hate and Fear; yes, I remember. Best overcome by reaching out to each other. Pointing out BS requires delicacy, lest we turn our audience away, prior to arguments being heard. Especially when we invade enemy territory, to converse with Opponents.

      • Charles Vincent

        Incase the other post gets deleted.

        “How is the author’s message a wrong one? How does he paint the NRA as ‘evil’?

        NRA does pander to Fear.”

        NRA’s campaign of fear to sell as many guns as possible to an ever-shrinking segment of gun nuts has resulted in the gun violence problem we have today. Even as the overall violent crime rate has diminished, we continue to witness tragedies like Aurora and Sandy Hook, committed by mentally unstable individuals who should have never had the chance to get their hands on a gun.

        As for the author having the wrong message well He is clearly saying guns are the problem. too Which you have already agreed it’s not the guns its people that are the problem.

        I don’t recall any adds By the NRA that say they are grabbing your guns. I do hoevern recall through history where the gun grabbers used fear to get gun legislation passed and the NRA was on the side of trying to prevent bad legislation I don’t see how that’s fear-mongering on the NRA’s part. Perhaps you have examples of it happening that were not in response to the gun grabs in the past or the present?

        “But how, when The Right sees any attempt as ‘micro-managing’ guns, or as Lefties comin’ for our guns, or even – as throwing out the 2nd Amendment and/or Constitution?”

        Lets examine this;

        gun control through recent history:

        http://en DOT wikipedia DOT org/wiki/Gun_law_in_the_United_States

        Few thing on that list I want to highlight considering a few supreme court rulings

        1.) National Firearms Act (1934)
        2.)Federal Assault Weapons Ban (1994–2004) (expired)

        SCOTUS 2A case law and relevant documents

        http://en DOT wikipedia DOT org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

        The NFA outlawed a whole class of firearms that’s a direct infringement according to SCOTUS in DC v Heller, and US v Miller.

        Heller and Miller also apply to #2

        As to the micro managing of fire arms i need only point to the plethora of asinine laws that have come up which include magazine capacity bans, bans on certain features etcetera. these being the result of a fundamental lack of knowledge about firearms by people on the left.

        this guy is a prime example of complete ignorance of firearms;

        https://www DOT youtube DOT com/watch?v=QrCBIFp9834

        Here is what the ATF says about 80% lowers that the guy in the video was talking about.

        http://www DOT thefirearmblog DOT com/blog/2014/03/26/80-ar-15-receiver-determination-letter-atf/

        As to how I see the constitution look up John Locke on the two treatises of government, The Law By Frederic Bastiat, and;

        http://thefederalistpapers DOT integratedmarket DOT netdna-cdn DOT com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Jefferson-And-Madisons-Guide-To-The-Constitution- DOT pdf

        There are other prominent figures the founding fathers drew on to formulate the constitution but this post is too long as it is. also see portions of my post to Phil Keast.

      • Sandy Greer

        Disagree. Evil is your interpretation of NRA portrayal here. You said above (post to Phil) NRA is portrayed as ‘heartless, uncaring, and apathetic’. I disagree there as well:

        NRA cares about different things than me. But that doesn’t make them ‘evil’. And they’re certainly not apathetic.

        ^^^This is what I mean about ‘turf’ wars, and why they’re a distraction I won’t be misled into fighting.

        I couldn’t get a single one of your links to work. But here’s the ‘issue’ for me, and why I think the NRA/gun industry/gun nuts do us no favors:

        Assuming no children in the home, those of us with weapons probably have at least one hidden – but unlocked, and accessible. The nightmare is that it be stolen, used in a crime – and we be prosecuted, for not keeping it safe.

        I expect the likelihood of prosecution increases with every mass shooting. A knee-jerk reaction by Lefties – borne of frustration with the knee-jerk, reactionary, ‘more guns is good guns’ and ‘No, by God, you
        will NOT infringe my God-given right to bear arms’ stance taken by The Right.

        ^^^My interpretation of The Right, of course. 😉

        If I had my druthers, I’d require background checks on all purchases (no straw allowed) and periodic training in proficiency and safety. Registration for new (with exemptions for grandfathered) I’d allow private
        ‘giveaways’ to those who’d otherwise pass background checks (we pretty much
        know who they are)

        What would you do? Anything? Nothing? What?
        It’s late. Time for me to go. Goodnight, Charles.

      • Charles Vincent

        “couldn’t get a single one of your links to work.”

        Replace the DOT with a period and remove the spaces on either side of the word DOT its the only way to post links.

        “The nightmare is that it be stolen, used in a crime – and we be prosecuted, for not keeping it safe.”

        I have never seen a case of this, and when a weapon is stolen the responsible person reports that to the police immediately.

        “I’d require background checks on all purchases (no straw allowed) and periodic training in proficiency and safety.”

        This will never fly as it requires every firearm to be registered. and registries of any type are against federal law on any level i.e federal, state or local according to FOPA.

        “What would you do? Anything? Nothing? What?”

        This is easy and obvious, education of people in both handling and safety training starting when children can walk and get into things(this is how I an my cousins learned none of us shot someone on accident) bring firearm safety back into schools along with rifle teams as competitive sport.

        And second follow the 5th amendment concerning violations of the law and on an individual person by person basis;

        The relevant portion is here;
        “nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”

        Firearms are property.

        “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

        And last violence of any sort is a Social problem just like alcohol and drug addiction, and cannot be solve by laws or the criminal justice system.
        The sad fact is that before 1993 you only needed to sign an affidavit swearing you were not a felon to get a gun from a gun dealer and there wasn’t streets full of blood like the anti-gun crowd claim schools had rifle teams and taught firearms safety and high schoolers brought their rifles and shot guns to schools and there weren’t to my knowledge and mass shootings there. The question is what changed and the thing that didn’t change is the guns and the availability of them.

        My opinion is that the decay of the family unit and the prescription of mood altering drug to children is the likely culprit here not the firearms. and that my friend is a social issue 100%.

      • Reynard Vulpes

        I bet you leave the gasoline in your car too. And yet you won’t be prosecuted if your car is stolen and used in a crime, even if you left the keys in it too.

        The issue on guns is bogus.

        I’ve had my say.

      • carowe

        Well these points are true. NRA ONLY panders to fear (and little dick syndrome rightwads). NRA long since ceased to actually talk about responsible ownership, and has sold out to the gun lobby (meaning the gun manufacturers). As with everything Koch, it’s all about the money these days and fuck the poor people who are victims of gun idiots like the Aurora and Sandy Hook shooters. They only see these incidents as an opportunity to rail against voices of reason. Because their “base” like the GOP “base” has no concept of reason or rational thought. Frightened little almost-men.

      • Charles Vincent

        AH I see all mouth and no brain and not one fact to prove your assertion, Just a pile of ad hominem attacks. Oh and some incorrect assumptions good day to you Mouthbreather.

      • Reynard Vulpes

        Oh horse pucky. You don’t even know there are two branches (more actually) adminstratively seperate, and only ONE is for lobbying, and the other is for all the traditional things people piss and moan and about say is “lost,” so they let their membership lapse.

        I think they are liars who were never members. Making up some trolling dialogue.

        All the NRA programs are still there, and even more from when I was a kid.

        Gun handling safety, marksmenship, now even child and gun safety being addressed.

        The NRA has had a hand in authoriing some of the most prohibitive gun laws on the books.

        You are just another victim of Madison Avenue mind manipulation in service to the plutocracy brought to you by the media, fool.

        I’ve had my say.

      • Reynard Vulpes

        Nonsense. Doesn’t it occur to you to research ANYTHING? The DOJ figures o the risk of violent person on person attack PROVE the NRA is NOT lying.

        That they influence people to consider the gun as an option is irrelevant to real world survival.

        In fact, THEY HAVE FAILED to do the very thing you claim they do.

        The rate of gun ownership person in this country has stabilized. That is the rate of ownership has remained constant, while the NUMBER of guns bought has gone up.

        Who is buying.. those that already OWN GUNS.

        Meaningful to the industry, but of NO merit at all when it comes to self defense. You can only use so many guns at once, four if you are really agile and can use your feet and toes with dexterity.

        So the claim that fear mongering increases the RISK OF MORE GUN DEATHS because of more guns being sold is bogus.

        Why do they buy? Mostly for investment. If you researched you’d find that out. They are speculating in a commodity, just like others buy and sell Hogs Bellies.

        Studies and raw data show clearly that most gun grabbers claims are bogus. Time and again I’ve uncovered the facts, and you just ranted out of ignorance. Apparently studied ignorance because you wish to rant and your best excuse, your plausible deniability is ignorance.

        You didn’t know you were wrong. Did you? That would be deliberate lying.

        Now that you know the truth are you prepared to lie just by NOT looking up with I claim and calling ME a liar?

        Go ahead, I’m used to the dishonesty in the gun grabber crowd.

        I’ve had my say.

      • Charles Vincent

        Are you actually calling me a gun grabber?

      • Charles Vincent

        Upvoted because of, “not because I agree with every word (I don’t) – but because I appreciate your speaking frankly. And because your remembrance of what I said that night is a very great compliment.”

        I do not expect people to agree with everything I say. That’s part and parcel of being an individual in a world with 6 billion other individuals, plus it makes life more interesting.

        /tips hat

      • Reynard Vulpes

        “NRA does pander to Fear. Some of us fall victim, as well. Author calls BS on that.” It does NOT.

        The NRA uses the facts.

        You, if you are a male, according the U.S. DOJ, have a 48% chance, from age 12 up, of being the victim of a violent person to person crime in your lifetime.

        That’s facts, jack.

        Those odds could make you a very rich gambler, or ignoring them, in our world, very dead dead dead.

        YOU decide how you want to defend yourself, but the odds tell you something critical.

        And the FBI, this is researchable, has commented that you have a higher percentage chance of injury or death if you don’t fight back, less if you do fight back, and the best chance of survival and less injury if you fight back WITH A GUN.

        Facts are bitch.

        I’ve had my say.

      • McAllister Bryant

        “And painting the NRA as evil is just blatantly false they support the second amendment as written…”

        Really…they support the well organized militia?

      • Charles Vincent

        “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.”

        They support ownership of firearms by private citizens, That supports the militia as private citizens are what comprise the militia as defined under US Code.

        http://www DOT law DOT cornell DOT edu/uscode/text/10/311

      • carowe

        Charley-bo-barley, you have yet to articulate a stance. Just a bunch of bullshit.

      • emma c.

        The Second Amendment *as written* provides for a well-regulated militia and the possession of single-shot firearms, which were all that existed at the time. Would you call the thugs that have been parading through Target stores with their semi-automatic longarms a well-regulated militia? All you have to do is look at their ugly guts protruding over their baggy pants to know that these guys are not well-regulated in any sense of the word. They are bullies and show-offs. They intimidate women, even shooting female mannequins up in target practice. They chased a former Marine down the street only last week, taunting him because he thought they were being stupid, which of course they were. The NRA is officially for no restrictions on gun ownership. They even oppose background checks. I’m assuming that you agree? In that case, your NRA hands are bloody with the blood of the children at Newtown and all the other victims whose existence you refuse to mention. You people, I’m sorry to say it, are just despicable. You don’t deserve the country you live in.

      • Charles Vincent

        All males 17 to 45 are considered part of the unorganized militia according to past and current law. Arms as referred to by the second amendment means any weapon capable of being used for selfdefense. A close look at the founders writings will show you this as will Supreme Court decisions, one of which explicitly said that people have a right to use weapons that have use in military operation. The NRA opposes the conversion of a right into a privilege by the state which is unconstitutional according to Supreme Court ruling.

      • Reynard Vulpes

        The NRA has often had a hand in authoring some quite prohibitive gun laws. Attempts to paint them as evil servants of the gun industry is crass lies.

        Why do I say that when they indeed lobby in a ways that result in more gun sales? Because the reaction of the government so often triggers a rush on guns. That is NOT the NRA’s fault.

        And it is not a crime or even ethically questionable for a group to lobby for business. if you think so and want to stop it expect to lose some of your own interests power and clout.

        Cause if you can change how we are governed so that you can stop one special interest group know the same method can then be used to stop YOUR special interests, including anti gun sentiments.

        Nature and government share a trait.. that they always seek balance and find it one bloody way or another.

        Grow up, get smart. The problem is a social, not a tool problem.

      • Reynard Vulpes

        Paid trolls are becoming more common in hot issues comments sections of articles. They go personal argument precisely to branch away, deflect from, the actually issue.

        I KNOW what would lower gun violence, and so does anyone that can think. Our social problems, of racism, plutocratic takeover of our government and thereby our lives, and the failure to recognize and support better mental health programs including raising children to be caring, kind, and responsible citizens.

        And the problem is concentrated in a far smaller group than people want to admit.. and I do NOT mean Blacks, I mean all groups that are socially isolated and de-franchised.

        We have been splintered by the oligarchy for their profit. The LOVE for us to fight like this.

        It lets them get away with piracy and enslavement. Our treasures, OUR children become lost to them.

      • carowe

        well you haven’t been able to yet.

    • carowe

      Could you be more specific, Charles, or are you just the stupid dog who answers to the paranoia whistle that LaPerre is blowing? Obedient little gelding aren’t you.

      • Charles Vincent

        Ad Hominem just ruined any argument you could possible field Chief. And if you weren’t so lazy you would see them in posts to others on this little thread. Phil Keast and Sandy Greer to be more specific.

    • robingee

      You mention 5 things. Which parts of this article do you think relate to these things? Thank you.

      • Charles Vincent

        I listed them and then some in the lengthy dialog with both Sandy and Phil. They have modified links in my posts you can look through. Hope that helps answer your query.

    • Reynard Vulpes

      Damn shame, isn’t it? And people will believe this ignorant tripe, and try to force laws on others that make things worse.

      Does no one bother to research? Does this silly fool forget, or be ignorant of the Clinton administration, no friend of gun owners, that’s for sure, the study they commissioned that concluded NO CORRELATION BETWEEN GUN LAWS AND RISING OR FALLING RATES OF GUN RELATED CRIME.

      Clinton’s gun grabbers, we know who the principle one was, the hypocrite that got herself a permit to carry, quietly tucked that report away and didn’t mention it, and the GOP (who I find a group of distasteful thugs nowadays, rightly created law that stopped fishing expedition “studies,” designed primarily to find only the bad stuff and ignore the good.

      The risk benefit ratio of gun owning is statistically out of sight in FAVOR, and the language of the anti gun folks is rife with subterfuge. Just the use of the word “HOMICIDE,” to count gun deaths is a blatant lie. Not all homicide is murder.

      And counting suicides when proof is ample that suicide by other means quickly replaces the number when guns become more difficult to obtain. Lots of families have vegetable state failed suicide members to support. I know that sound crass but less be cool head and objective when we look at this issue of public social policy.

      Weigh everything. And recognize that what does work is being either not enforced (lack of funds and conflicting law), or not even considered .. .mental health upgrade and a HIPAA workaround, and judges that don’t allow gun crime plea bargains, would move things waaaay forward in keeping guns out of the hands of the wrong people.

      I’ve had my say.

    • Marsha

      lol usually when an article begins with “I’m” it IS bound to be an opinion…

      • Charles Vincent

        His opinion is based of false rhetoric Marsha and he passes it off as truth that makes him part of the problem.

  • rossbro

    Too many guns, too many idiots.

  • Matthew Reece

    We do not have a mental health issue. We have the result of bad parenting and bad philosophy disguised as a mental health issue. We must not hack away at the branches of evil when we can strike the root.

    • Christy

      I haven’t heard of schizophrenia arising as a result of bad parenting. PTSD doesn’t usually come from bad parenting either. Every single generation since the ancient Greeks have ranted about civilization going to hell in a hand basket because the next generation was lax, lazy, rude, and (yeah) badly raised. Silliness. Christy

      • Matthew Reece

        Yes, every single generation has complained about bad parenting. All of them have failed to do anything about it, so we still have the same basic problems.

    • robingee

      We do have a mental health issue. You see the homeless people talking to themselves or the guy who pushes someone in front of a subway car or the nut who shoots up a school? Mentally ill.

      Bad parents do contribute to bad people. But those people also need mental health care. We had hospitals but they were run poorly and ultimately closed and all the patients freed.

  • To me, yes, I sometimes do NOT agree with the gun lobby on certain things. However, in my opinion, the “armed society is a polite society” thing is incomplete. Arm the wrong people, and it’s not going to be pretty. Guns mean power. And power is what both sides want. Now, I’m no conspiracy person, but I know how history has shown what happens after some time and you give a group a lot of power.

  • Page Perryman

    If they don’t have guns, then they will use “RICE COOKERS”. Whats next, a registry and background check,
    for purchasing pressure cookers? Spoken like a true ” died in the wool” liberal.

  • r2d2

    As a non-gun-owning-non-NRA-member, who still stands solidly by the 2nd Ammendment, I say, Bravo! I never connected the ‘mass hysteria’ psychosis with the NRA and it’s proponents, who I believe in their heart of hearts, aren’t intending to promote gun sales and possession, but that is exactly what’s happening. Blaming the NRA will obviously incense some people, but it’s certainly worth looking into the idea that over-promotion of personal protection can create additional problems, much like the side effects of prescription medicine.The first step toward fixing problems is admitting they exist. The question is, where to begin? Within your text, seemingly unclear to the obviously obtuse, you also allege that guns are not the problem, people are the problem. I couldn’t agree with you more!!! I will always stand by a mentally competent persons right to own and carry a gun as strongly as I will always oppose any law, or lack thereof, that allows an insane person access to the same! (Although, in reality, I know some people who are considered ‘sane’ but should absolutely NOT be carrying, or even have access to, a loaded weapon)

  • Bayousara

    I am a new owner of a handgun I have for personal protection. I am a senior female, I passed the security checks of Oregon and my concealed carry classes required by law. I will never be involved with the NRA in any way.

  • June Goetz Lynne

    I agree with the article … the NRA in no way, shape or form represent my husband and I. The fringe people will be the death knell for many gun owners. Your shove in their face and down their throats attitude is disgusting. Own your guns, use your guns, but don’t scare people with your guns. Honestly, if you walked into our local Target with your AK47 I would probably just shoot you and be justified in doing so! You are an immediate threat to me!

  • David Edward Martin

    In this corner, responsible gun owners.
    In the other corner, the North American Man Gun Love Association.
    And running for cover, 99% of the American populace.

  • Tony Quatermass

    I’m a gun-owner, and this article represents me too. The NRA domestic terrorists don’t.