Anyone else notice how the writer of DB's paste job quoted stats on all gun shootings, eg drunken brawls, accidents, etc then applied them to people carrying legally? His logic is if some gang bangers or drunken obama voters get mad and shoot each other, it means the rest of us should be denied our right to carry.
Yeah, pretty much sucks if you don't like that. Because it's the law, and you're going to have to deal with your issues.
No, I didn't notice, because I don't read past the first line of the nonsense that panty waste puts out.
Americans for Responsible Solutions, the gun issues super PAC started by former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, has decided to take down its tough ad that’s been criticized locally and nationally as “vile,” “disgusting,” “mean,” “ruthless,” and — worse yet! — threatening to Giffords’ reputation as a heroic Civility Unicorn who makes us all feel better about ourselves. The ad, which criticized Arizona congressional candidate Martha McSally for objecting to legislation that would bar convicted stalkers from purchasing firearms, depicted a mother, Vicki, telling the story of her daughter being shot to death by a vengeful ex-boyfriend. In other words, it was “vile” because it forced people to confront a possible outcome of lax gun control policies. But ARS isn’t pulling the plug on the ad (24 hours before its run was already scheduled to end) as a concession to Victorian sensibilities about the impoliteness of describing reality. It’s doing it because the ad was effective enough to get Martha McSally to change her mind. In other words, the ad that found so many of our decency-defining political writers succumbing to their fainting couches… got results. McSally has run a typical Republican campaign on gun issues, arguing that no new federal restrictions are needed. “Our focus for preventing shootings should be on strengthening our mental health system and enforcing background check laws already on the books,” she said in April, “not expanding those laws that will do little to prevent violence and infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens.” And “when asked how much she supported the goals of the National Rifle Association on a scale from one to 10,”Tucson Weekly writes, “McSally told a crowd of Republican supporters earlier this year that she saw herself as a 10.” So what are the stalking laws already “on the books”? In Arizona, stalking is a felony, and convicted felons aren’t allowed to purchase guns from licensed dealers. But McSally is running for federal office, and, in a lot of states, stalking is only a misdemeanor, and those convicted stalkers aren’t barred from purchasing guns. Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar introduced a bill earlier this term that, among other things, would have closed the so-called “stalker gap” and placed those convicted of misdemeanor stalking on the federal prohibited possessor list. The bill went nowhere, because no legislation that even marginally restricts the sale of firearms ever goes anywhere in Congress. The “mean” ad against Martha McSally was attacking her for not supporting legislation that would have closed the “stalker gap.” In a statement yesterday, McSally’s team claimed that she was “never asked” by ARS what her position on this stalker legislation was. Well, her position was pretty clear that she didn’t support “expanding” existing gun laws, opting instead to focus on “enforcing background checks already on the books.” So her campaign announced that McSally now “supports adding misdemeanor stalking to the list of criminal offenses that would keep dangerous individuals from obtaining guns in other states where stalking can also be a misdemeanor.” That’s a big deal, and probably something that never would have come about had ARS not called out her position. Although it seems like a no-brainer to restrict convicted stalkers of all stripes from purchasing firearms, the National Rife Association disagrees. Remember how Klobuchar’s bill went nowhere? That’s partly because the NRA vocally opposed it. In its position statement, the NRA mocked the the very idea of misdemeanor stalking laws while wrapping itself in the First Amendment: “Stalking” offenses do not necessarily include violent or even threatening behavior. Under federal law, for example, stalking includes “a course of conduct” that never involves any personal contact whatsoever, occurs wholly through the mail, online media, or telephone service, is undertaken with the intent to “harass” and would be reasonably expected to cause (even if it doesn’t succeed in causing) “substantial emotional distress” to another person. The federal stalking law is so broadly written that some constitutional scholars even claim it could reach speech protected under the First Amendment. McSally, who’d previously described herself as a 10 on the 1-10 scale of total adherence to the NRA’s wishes, deserves some credit for going against the gun lobby’s line on this particular issue — even if the announcement came a bit late, and although she has yet to endorse closing background check loopholes for Internet and gun show sales. Those who screeched about the incivility of ARS’ ads should consider the fruit that those ads bore: we have a Republican congressional candidate now supporting a gun control measure that, however modest, is strongly opposed by the National Rifle Association. It’s as if there’s a mismatch between common sense and the NRA’s firearm maximalism and, when that’s pointed out in stark terms, progress can be made. Jim Newell
what...you have not heard the NRA and others constantly go on about the problem of guns, the need to protect yourself when you are cold dark wet.... that 911 wont be quick enough....etc; The best way to protect our ids from 'bad guys with guns is more good guys with guns.... so - if these are not real problems as for why you need a gun then they are clearly NRA hijinks to simply sell fear and paranoia? I know you might not think I am a facist but if you think most of the debate is not polarised and that for many in the debate they simply label everyone either a nutcase or a facist then maybe you need to re read not just this thread but any similar debate. You are normally better at arguing than giving the sholder shrug of 'I dont get what you are saying' Your comment about non commitment probably best sums up your position. You dont think there is any room for compromise, you dont think there is a problem, but you insist - you must pick a side and simplify the debate to 'hands off my guns'. Thats fine -- in some arguments there is usually a bargaining point that people will nt budge on. The problem as I see it is that some people dont wish to pay the price for the culture of guns in the USA, the NRA sells fear and paranoia (but so do most products)....and some people would like to work toward minimizing that price. Thats my simplification. So we agree that there might be another issue/problem that is better attacked. Folks generally reach these conclusions by rational debate not polarised emotional tantrums and sales pitches. got things to do so see you in a few days maybe.
No, I haven't. And I am an NRA member. Apart from their political mailings, which go in the trash (after all, it's not like they need to convince me of the importance of the 2nd amendment), I don't see anything from them. If YOU do, it is because YOU are searching for it. They're no different than any other political activist group. I have guns because of self/home defense, because it is my constitutional right, and because I enjoy firing them. But there's no problem. You folks are the ones with the problem, because you have issues with the current law. Sorry about that, but it's not changing. I don't have a problem. If I don't understand your comment, I should pretend to? I literally didn't understand what you were saying - usually, the human interaction equivalent is to go "huh" when someone says something you didn't get. Or perhaps you don't interact with humans face-to-face all that often? Again...what? I have said - repeatedly on these forums - that I am open to any potential solution that gets rid of all of the illegal guns on the street. In fact, when compared to my fellow gun aficionados, I'm the only one who has been open to the idea of some gun control - IF someone could present a solution that would be feasible. But none of you have. Just more doublespeak and randomness. No real solutions. And, without you getting rid of the illegal guns from the bad guys, you shouldn't come looking for my guns - especially since I'm the law abiding citizen. And again, I say "who gives a shit". Stop being so fixated on the NRA (which is just a political group) and focus on the issues you want to correct. Provide solutions to problems you see. Right now, and I'll say it for the 100th time, there is no problem for those of us with guns. I mean, other than the fact that a small group of left folks keep whining about it. I don't agree with anything you've said. You're just hyping an issue that I don't see as a problem.
I'm going to cross post this one, because it's just that good. Let us look at what gun control did to the Limeys. How Gun Control Made England The 'Most Violent Country In Europe' Gun control in Britain passed in stages, beginning just after World War I and continuing in a reactionary fashion with increasing strictness through the 1990s. When the final stage arrived in 1997, and virtually all handguns were banned via the Firearms Act, the promise was a reduction in crime and greater safety for the British people. But the result was the emergence of Britain as the "most violent country in Europe." Britain began placing restrictions on gun ownership after World War I with the Firearms Act of 1920. The passage of this act was emotionally driven, based in part on the public's war-weariness and in part on the fear that an increased number of guns--guns from the battle field--would increase crime. The Firearms Act of 1920 did not ban guns. Rather, it required that citizens who wanted a gun had to first obtain a certificate from the government. We see this same stage taking place in various places in the United States now, where a person who wants a firearm has to get a Fire Owner Identification Card (Illinois) or has to be vetted by police (Massachusetts) or both. Thirteen years after the passage of the Firearms Act, British Parliament passed the Firearms and Imitation Firearms Bill, making the possession of a replica gun or a real one equally punishable unless the owner of either could show the lawful purpose for which he had it. (Sounds like California?) This was followed by the Firearms Act of 1937, which author Frank Miniter says"extended restrictions to shotguns and granted chief constables the power to add conditions to individual private firearm certificates." In the U.S., police departments in Massachusetts play the role Britain's chief constables played and have final say on who can or can't own a firearm. On July 25, Breitbart News reported that that Massachusetts police were pressing for "sole discretion" on who could own a long gun; they already had such discretion over who could own a handgun. On August 1, they received the power they sought. Britain continued to issue firearm certificates as World War II set in. But by the time the war was over, the gun control mindset had permeated society to a point where self-defense was no longer a valid reason to secure a certificate for gun ownership. Guns were simply for sport or for hunting. In 1987, Michael Ryan shot and killed sixteen people in Hungerford, including his mother. He wounded fourteen others, then killed himself. According to the Library of Congress, Ryan used "lawfully owned" rifles to carry out the attack. Nevertheless, his attack prompted the passage of more laws in the form of the Firearms Act of 1988. This act "banned the possession of high-powered self loading rifles" and "burst-firing weapons," and imposed "stricter standards for ownership" to secure a government certificate to own a shotgun. In 1996, Thomas Hamilton walked into an elementary school in Dunblane, Scotland, and shot and killed "sixteen small children...and their teacher in the gym before killing himself." He brought two rifles and four handguns to carry out the attack. All six guns were legally owned: Hamilton had fully complied with gun control statutes. The Firearm Act of 1997 was passed while emotions ran high. Gun control proponents push for an all-out ban on private gun ownership, in the much the same way that Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) reacted to the heinous crime at Sandy Hook Elementary by trying to ban approximately 150 different guns. Yet the Firearm Act did not ban all guns, "but served to essentially prohibit the ownership of handguns in Britain" and to make the acquisition of certificate to possess a long gun an onerous and time-consuming one. Much the same as the onerous and time-consuming process now burdening law-abiding DC residents seeking a gun in the home for self-defense. And what has been the outcome of passing more laws in Britain to remedy the fact that other laws were ignored or broken? It has not been good. In 2009, twelve years after the Firearms Act of 1997 was passed, Daily Mail Online reported that Britain was "the most violent country in Europe." They also reported that Britain's home figures showed "the UK [had] a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and South Africa." Oops.
A South Carolina state trooper was fired last week and arrested on Wednesday after a dashcam video showed him shooting an unarmed man during a routine traffic stop. Former officer Sean Groubert, 31, is seen in the newly released video pulling over Levar Edward Jones. The clip, which was recorded on Groubert's dashcam on Sept. 4, shows Jones getting out of his vehicle at a gas station in Columbia. Groubert asks Jones for his driver's license. As Jones reaches into his vehicle to retrieve it, Groubert shouts, "Get out of the car!" When Jones complies and starts to back away from the vehicle, Groubert opens fire. Three shots can be heard; Jones was hit at least once, in the hip. "I was just getting my license," Jones says. He also apologizes repeatedly, and asks, "Sir, why was I shot? All I did was reach for my license. I'm coming from work." "Well, you dove head-first back into your car," Groubert says. "Then you jumped back out, I'm telling you to get out of your car." Groubert was charged with assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature, a felony which carries a penalty of up to 20 years in prison, according to a news release from the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division. The complaint states that Groubert "did without justification unlawfully shoot Levar Jones which produced great bodily injury or was likely to cause great bodily injury. Audio and visual recordings, as well as written statements, obtained are further evidence to indicate the shooting incident was without justification." South Carolina Department of Public Safety Director Leroy Smith called the case disturbing. "After my review of the facts surrounding this matter, I have determined that Mr. Groubert’s actions rose to such an extent that his employment with us must be terminated," Smith said in a statement last week. "While Mr. Groubert was within the law to stop Mr. Jones for a safety belt violation, the force administered in this case was unwarranted, inconsistent with how our troopers are trained, and clearly in violation of Department policies." Groubert pleaded not guilty and is free after posting a $75,000 bond, according to WIS-TV. He's expected to appear in court on Oct. 24. Jones was hospitalized for the hip injury, but has since been released. He told WIS that he hopes the incident will lead to change throughout the country. Ed Mazza