The N.R.A. Wins Again

Mar 20, 2013 Full story: www.newyorker.com 236

After Sandy Hook, after twenty children were shot and killed at a place where they should have been safe from all harm, there was some optimism among supporters of gun control: perhaps now, finally, both Democrats and Republicans could see the light - and the suffering - and revive the assault-weapons ban.

Full Story

“Happiness comes through giving”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#122 Mar 22, 2013
FormerParatrooper wrote:
<quoted text>
I should have phrased that better. The restrictions that are being debated for gun owners is more than the restrictions placed on sex offenders. Not you personally.
Dr Kellerman is who authored the study that the percentage you quoted. That study was not well done. I have not seen another study that came to same conclusion.
Now, if mental exams were to be required, how do you propose that the evaluations be completed, fairly, timely and without expense to the gun owner? What of US who already own a firearm?
I wouldn't mind an expense to the gun owner. Owning a firearm should be difficult, not easy.

With respect to mental exams, try to imagine what this country would look like without them. In fact, don't imagine it. Just look around you.

Also, I would appreciate your pointing out the flaws in Dr. Kellerman's study.

Since: Jan 13

Worcester, MA

#123 Mar 22, 2013
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>What I don't want is demented people who think America is the Wild West.
I don't want that either. It's those people that ruin it for everyone else. Your beliefs and mine. But disabling responsible people is not the answer and I will always fight for that just like you will always fight for your beliefs. Education is key not bans.

Since: Jan 13

Worcester, MA

#124 Mar 22, 2013
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>What I don't want is demented people who think America is the Wild West.
Unfortunately it's not up too you whats best for America. I agree with background checks and mental evaluations. I had to go through them because I'm from MA. I will never give up fighting for my rights and the rights of the responsible. As long as there are criminals it's my god given right to protect myself and my family from them and that's what I intend on doing til the day that I die.
FormerParatroope r

United States

#125 Mar 22, 2013
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>I wouldn't mind an expense to the gun owner. Owning a firearm should be difficult, not easy.
With respect to mental exams, try to imagine what this country would look like without them. In fact, don't imagine it. Just look around you.
Also, I would appreciate your pointing out the flaws in Dr. Kellerman's study.
Can't be at the gunowners expense, it exercising a right. Poll taxes and the like or not legal, so neither would such an expense to exercise this right. All rights are equal, the difficulty about rights should only be in denying those rights.

Kellermans study, by his footnotes, was done in one US county, he did not differentiate between family and acquaintances, whether it was accidental, a response to criminal activity or many other factors. He lumped all incidents as the same. That is far from a scientific approach.

“Happiness comes through giving”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#126 Mar 22, 2013
subhuman 84 wrote:
<quoted text>I don't want that either. It's those people that ruin it for everyone else. Your beliefs and mine. But disabling responsible people is not the answer and I will always fight for that just like you will always fight for your beliefs. Education is key not bans.
The key is responsible people. That is the purpose of universal background checks.

“Happiness comes through giving”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#127 Mar 22, 2013
FormerParatrooper wrote:
<quoted text>
Can't be at the gunowners expense, it exercising a right. Poll taxes and the like or not legal, so neither would such an expense to exercise this right. All rights are equal, the difficulty about rights should only be in denying those rights.
Kellermans study, by his footnotes, was done in one US county, he did not differentiate between family and acquaintances, whether it was accidental, a response to criminal activity or many other factors. He lumped all incidents as the same. That is far from a scientific approach.
When I own a car, I pay registration fees. If I want a hunting license, I have to pay for it. If I want to be cleared to own a gun, there's nothing wrong with my paying a fee. Guns are extremely dangerous in psychotic hands.

I'll look into Kellerman's study.

Since: Jan 13

Worcester, MA

#128 Mar 22, 2013
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>The key is responsible people. That is the purpose of universal background checks.
There is no arguement there. I agree with you 100%. but that will never be enough for you libs.
Cat74

Palatine, IL

#129 Mar 22, 2013
So for protection you offer the police. Say you answer the door, and a really bad person steps in. you reach in your pocket, and dial 911 on the cell. what do you think the criminal is going to be doing while you wait for police? Better you reach under the sofa cushion for the gun, and blow them to hell. No one should enter your home unless you want them to.

“Happiness comes through giving”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#130 Mar 22, 2013
subhuman 84 wrote:
<quoted text>There is no arguement there. I agree with you 100%. but that will never be enough for you libs.
If you insist on addressing me as "you libs", this will be a short conversation. I speak only for myself, with my own thoughts. If you want to talk to "you libs", there are many liberal organizations to choose from. Shall I refer to you as "you subhumans"?

That said, truly thorough background checks will hold me for now. However, I am angered by the political pussies being kept in a stranglehold by the NRA, a shill for the gun manufacturers. Were it not for them, and their deranged leadership, I beleve many of their own members would not oppose the banning of assault weapons.

“Happiness comes through giving”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#131 Mar 22, 2013
Cat74 wrote:
So for protection you offer the police. Say you answer the door, and a really bad person steps in. you reach in your pocket, and dial 911 on the cell. what do you think the criminal is going to be doing while you wait for police? Better you reach under the sofa cushion for the gun, and blow them to hell. No one should enter your home unless you want them to.
The problem with your "solution" is that you are more likely to be the casualty than the invader.
"Hello, criminal. Why don't we sashay over to my sofa and talk about it?"

Since: Jan 13

Worcester, MA

#132 Mar 22, 2013
Cat74 wrote:
So for protection you offer the police. Say you answer the door, and a really bad person steps in. you reach in your pocket, and dial 911 on the cell. what do you think the criminal is going to be doing while you wait for police? Better you reach under the sofa cushion for the gun, and blow them to hell. No one should enter your home unless you want them to.
I'm with you cat. I would go straight for my firearm then the phone. The police would be great if they lived with you but they dont. You have to have be able to protect yourself immediately.

Since: Jan 13

Worcester, MA

#133 Mar 22, 2013
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>If you insist on addressing me as "you libs", this will be a short conversation. I speak only for myself, with my own thoughts. If you want to talk to "you libs", there are many liberal organizations to choose from. Shall I refer to you as "you subhumans"?
That said, truly thorough background checks will hold me for now. However, I am angered by the political pussies being kept in a stranglehold by the NRA, a shill for the gun manufacturers. Were it not for them, and their deranged leadership, I believe many of their own members would not oppose the banning of assault weapons.
I cannot agree with you on that. As an American qualified for firearm ownership I think you should be able to purchase anything you can legally. I'm a firm believer in the NRA loyal and will be for life. That's why I'm a life member and I always contribute when I can.
FormerParatroope r

Alsip, IL

#134 Mar 22, 2013
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>When I own a car, I pay registration fees. If I want a hunting license, I have to pay for it. If I want to be cleared to own a gun, there's nothing wrong with my paying a fee. Guns are extremely dangerous in psychotic hands.
I'll look into Kellerman's study.
Driving a car is a privilege, not a right. Hunting is a privilege, except for certain sustenance hunters. Anything in a psychotics hands are dangerous. Google mass murders by weapons other than firearms, you will be mortified.
If intelligent people on both sides of this issue directed our energy into holding government responsible for enforcing the laws we have and punishing criminals I would bet we could solve a majority of the issues.
FormerParatroope r

Alsip, IL

#135 Mar 22, 2013
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>If you insist on addressing me as "you libs", this will be a short conversation. I speak only for myself, with my own thoughts. If you want to talk to "you libs", there are many liberal organizations to choose from. Shall I refer to you as "you subhumans"?
That said, truly thorough background checks will hold me for now. However, I am angered by the political pussies being kept in a stranglehold by the NRA, a shill for the gun manufacturers. Were it not for them, and their deranged leadership, I beleve many of their own members would not oppose the banning of assault weapons.
What is your level of firearm knowledge? Have you owned, been trained with etc?

Since: Jan 13

Worcester, MA

#136 Mar 22, 2013
The NRA has always proved themselves true unlike alot of other people in politics. They don't lay down for anyone. They are always upfront with what they do. Very strong organization never backing down and I will always support them for that no matter what.
Cat74

Palatine, IL

#137 Mar 22, 2013
The sofa was an example. I am not going to disclose where the gun is, or if there is more then one. And truthfully I usually don't open the door to strangers. But if I did I have no qualms about shooting a bad guy if I had to. I practice at the range often, and I am good at it.

“It's a Brand New Day”

Since: Feb 06

New Rochelle

#138 Mar 22, 2013
subhuman 84 wrote:
<quoted text>I cannot agree with you on that. As an American qualified for firearm ownership I think you should be able to purchase anything you can legally. I'm a firm believer in the NRA loyal and will be for life. That's why I'm a life member and I always contribute when I can.
I would certainly agree with you if you, and every gum owner were responsible.

The guns killing children in our city centers are all bought elsewhere and smuggled in.

If you would simply stand up as a co-conspirator to any gun crime committed with your firearm; and get all owners to do the same, our murder and mass murder rate would plummet from lack of guns.

What do you say, are you responsible?
SMH

Tomball, TX

#139 Mar 22, 2013
Far Away wrote:
See the light? Are you kidding? The 'assault' weapons ban had no detectable impact on reduced gun crimes during the previous law's period. That's according to the Justice Department and CDC.
I agree!

Since: Jan 09

Central NJ

#140 Mar 23, 2013
If you libs would stop referring to "Lookalikes" as "assault weapons" maybe we'd listen to you! These are NOT "Assault Weapons" Learn it, Get used to it, accept it, roll it around on your tongue, But stop thinking of them in this manner.
Regards, Terri
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>If you insist on addressing me as "you libs", this will be a short conversation. I speak only for myself, with my own thoughts. If you want to talk to "you libs", there are many liberal organizations to choose from. Shall I refer to you as "you subhumans"?
That said, truly thorough background checks will hold me for now. However, I am angered by the political pussies being kept in a stranglehold by the NRA, a shill for the gun manufacturers. Were it not for them, and their deranged leadership, I beleve many of their own members would not oppose the banning of assault weapons.
Voice of Reality

Petersburg, VA

#141 Mar 23, 2013
Mr_Bill wrote:
<quoted text>
I would certainly agree with you if you, and every gum owner were responsible.
The guns killing children in our city centers are all bought elsewhere and smuggled in.
If you would simply stand up as a co-conspirator to any gun crime committed with your firearm; and get all owners to do the same, our murder and mass murder rate would plummet from lack of guns.
What do you say, are you responsible?
Do you believe that all past owners of any vehicle should be held to the same responsibility? What about the dealers who sell the cars? What we have is a quality of people problem, not a quanity of guns problem. I can not help it (As a proud Virginian) if idiots from New York come to Va. and or have people purchase guns for them so they can use them as a criminal.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

US News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Ferguson Police Are Being Relieved Of Their Dut... 3 min OOTA 2,731
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 4 min Dogen 116,632
Lawmakers Disagree on Discretionary Defense Cap 5 min Lord Grandrith 2
Atheism vs. Theism: Knowns and Unknowns 7 min Lawrence Wolf 92
Obama pledges to fight war on Ebola 9 min okimar 20
Obama vows "relentless" fight against ISIS 9 min barefoot2626 125
Gay marriage (Mar '13) 10 min Cali Girl 2014 55,924
The President has failed us (Jun '12) 11 min - Lady Liberty - 262,316
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 19 min Grey Ghost 1,110,354
'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 23 min DITCH MITCH 153,524
•••

US News People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••