It should surprise no one that National Rifle Association chief executive Wayne LaPierre has vowed to fight President Obama’s effort to require background checks on almost all would-be gun purchasers. Never mind that Americans overwhelmingly support that common-sense measure. Or that an estimated 25 to 35 percent of gun purchases currently go forward without such a check. Or that requiring nearly universal background checks could help keep guns out of the hands of terrorists, felons, and the mentally ill.
Hysteria and absolutism are, after all, LaPierre’s trademark tools for rallying his troops.
Comments
Just get a look at that guy's kisser, will you!? I mean, disregarding whatever it is he's selling, it's pretty apparent this is a very disturbed man. With the obvious "peace and joy" that is in his heart from the almghty, as evidenced by the serenity in his smile, you could put a turbin on his head and he'd look like one of the Ayatollahs in Iran. Ever look at the expression on those guys'faces? The discomfort of constipation. Terrible.
And you wonder why gun owners are fed up with anti gunners? There are those who still want to determine who or what a person is by looking at the person. Just like the clause in MA that allows individual Police Chiefs to determine if someone is "suitable" or not. No guidelines, left up to the discretion of the PC. Some towns, no LTC's, period, others, limited, still others, fine, no problem. Comments like yours give gun owners constipation.
Really History? You who reported yesterday that Hilary Clinton was old and ready to be turned into horseglue?
another day hard at work scot.......
This comment has been removed.
The country wants comprehensive reform. The gun lobby wants comprehensive deformity. The only way to beat them is by outlobbying them and outspending them.
You call "the country" about 52% of America? That is no true mandate, especially given the ignorant lack of knowledge found in that 52%. I am a liberal and would NEVER support comprehensive reform beyond what already exists. The 2nd Amendment was created to protect citizens from an abusive, corrupt government. Tyranny exists now as it did in 1791 when these rights were written in stone. Period. End of story.
Good luck stopping the armed forces, Rsquared. And, no, you're not a liberal.
gr8te:
Your post made me laugh. I have often believed that photos for news stories are selected to support the narrative of the story. Here, obviously, the NRA is the evil doer, so the photo must NOT be a flattering one. I wonder if Scot spent time looking for a Wayne La Pierre mugshot that would make him look appropriately evil. Did you see the Newsweek shot of New Jersey Governor Christie? They made him look like one of th Soprano's leg breakers.
The sad truth behind all these issues is that no gun legislation will stop a mad man from killing people. But the NRA is a good whipping boy for the liberals, who need a villain to make it look like they are solving a problem. They are not. I am not a gun owner, so none of the fiats and new laws will affect me. But I have to point out the absurdity of the approach.
Lawful gun owners will be inconvenienced, bad guys will still do bad things.
This comment has been removed.
But Richmond, when you have terrorists buying guns at American guns shows, you know that we have a problem. Why not background checks there? It wouldn't eliminate the problem, but it would certainly help. And why not a liability insurance requirement? That would screen out some of the young crazies right from the get-go.
Richmond: I don't choose the photos that run with my column (I don't even work in the building) but: Isn't that what he looks like?
Yes, it is a likeness of him. But clearly, it is NOT a flattering picture. Was that by design? I wonder, as other photos in news stories and colmumns look as though the selection process was built around the theme of the story.
I still find it quite amazing that within this gun debate some would make it a "liberal"-"conservative" debate as opposed to a problem solving debate. I know so many "liberals" who own guns, who hunt, who have pistols for home defense. I mean seriously while funny this concept of the latte/Prius/effiminated liberal does not really describe the group. I have known truck drivers, steel workers, CEO's who are liberal and like their guns and hunting.
No this is an argument between those who have an absolutist view of the 2nd Amen. much like a Christian fundamentalist or a member of the Taliban, the written word means exactly what it says. That the founding fathers saw deep into the future looking into their magic hat and said, "There will never be any reason to regulate the weaponry of the citizenry. Just in case the citizenry needs to rise up." Kind of like that old "Whiskey Rebellion" the feds crushed.
This should be a debate about reasonable regulations. What weapons should be available for what purpose. How should we license them? Keep track of them. How do we keep the mentally unstable from obtaining them? There are any numbe of solutions to anyone seeking a solution. Naturally there are no solutions if one takes the position there can be none.
Every freedom comes with some restrictions, some regulation. The NRA a group I once belonged to has lost its way. It now genuflects to gun safety but truly represents only gun makers. I know we have a zillion members, so you get sucked into paying dues to an organization that really doesn't represent you. That's not my fault.
Sadly an issue that should merely be one of public safety is reduced to a political cat fight. In some ways the immaturity of this country is really depressing, but hey that's Democracy for you.
Good Morning Mr. Turk. Agree your statement about this not being a lib/conservative issue.
So, now someone who has an "abolutist" view of the 2A is compared to the Taliban, how interesting. Concerning the Founding Fathers, of course they did not see deep into the future. However, if you read Supreme Court decisions, like DC v Heller, on page 8, you will see that they interpret constitutional rights as moving forward in time with changes in technology. Since we are a nation of laws, that covers the "absolutist" interpretation, are you saying the Justices are absolutists? (for anyone too lazy to go read it, that decision is about the right to own a handgun in DC, DC was forced to remove its restrictions) DC is also an example of how governments circumvent the constitution by passing a law and then forcing the citizenry to go to courts to correct it. In the case of DC, it took many years. In the meantime, many people had their rights violated, were jailed and fined. This type of behavior on the part of government is what gun owners and the NRA are against. To talk of "reasonable" and "government" in the same article is incredible naive.
Furthermore, weaponry actually is regulated. In 1934 regulations were put in place covering things like fully automatic machine guns, bazookas, etc.
Why should weapons be licensed? That is Northeast thinking, it is not a belief held in most of this country, people here are used to being told everything must be registered, licensed and inspected.
Atta, I believe the right/left perception stems from that for the right it's a constitutional issue, whereas for everyone else it's a social issue.
My reading of the column was halted as I tried to grasp the "irony" of toy guns being regulated by the Consumer Produce Safety Commission but the sale of real firearms are not. Might this not have something to do with children not having a constitutional right to have toys?
Barbara:
Are you suggesting that the 2nd amendment should mean that the government shouldn't even consider flaws that could make a gun dangerous to its user? Do you feel the government has infringed on your rights by pushing safety features in, say, cars or gas stoves or requiring that pajamas be made of nonflammable material?
The attorney general's office in Massachusetts has mandated product safety tests that must be passed by any firearm to be sold in Massachusetts, and publishes a list of those that can be sold here. Don't pass the test; don't sell in Mass.
No thinking gun owner and supporter of the 2nd amendment wants to see guns in the hands of criminals and people with mental health issues that might lead to violence. Most gun owners are not members of the NRA nor are we hysterical absolutists. We want reasonable approaches to ameliorating the problem of violence in our nation. Like most Americans we believe that the availibility of guns is not the major cause of gun violence. We applaud Vice President Biden for adding violent video games to the list of causes that should be examined. And there are others - breakdown of the family, glorification of violence on TV and in the cinema. All of these need to be studied. Our concern is that, as the media continues to try to associate all guns owners with the positions of the NRA (somewhat akin to associating all women with the positions of NOW) we will limit the debate over violence and only provide traction for the absolutist minority on the other side of the 2nd Amendment rights issue(confiscation, economic burdens, etc.)that seek to impose their will on the majority. You would be doing your readers a real service if you wrote about those (Andrew Cuomo for example)whose agenda adds fuel the the NRA fire by seeking to limit and/or destroy the rights of law-abiding Americans. Let's have a serious debate.
Like most Americans we believe that the availibility of guns is not the major cause of gun violence. ________________________________Right, 80 people a day, 1000 kids a year dead of gunshot. Guns had nothing to do with it. Maybe it was angry birds.
1500 kids a year dead from physical abuse (non gunshot). Hands, fists, feet, knives, clubs, etc. Must have been those damn pigs, huh, PV?
Maybe we should start fingerprinting parents, having the Police Chief determine their "suitability", background checks, impromptu inspections at their homes.
RJ:
I am not trying to lump all gun owners into the NRA. What's more, when you look at the polling, most NRA members support background checks. But LaPierre et al certainly do try to gin up the troops through dopey absolutist rhetoric and hysteria.
Myself, I think it would behoove sensible gun owners to make themselves heard on both sides of the debate, and not let the NRA suck up so much of the oxygen. It's leadership has become a coterie of absolutist extremists.
Scot
You bet the NRA is ginning up the troops. MSM is not telling the whole story. Before most gun owners know all the details, someone calls them on the phone and takes a "poll". Of course they support a background check. Later they learn that "background check" unlike the one they submit to now (NCIS) will register them permanently with the government. Then they find out that "registries" like that were used to confiscate ALL guns in Canada, Australia and the UK when they had a few more incidents like Sandy Hook.
It all sounds good, until a person really understands what can happen down the road.
History:
This, however, is abject paranoia, which is part of the problem -- and part of the fear that LaPierre exploits. He's playing yoiu like a violin. Cant you see that?
LaPierre's absolutism is a result of the constant pressure from the anti's to eliminate guns and the 2nd amendment entirely and please don't try to make the argument that that is not their goal. I would bet that if you got him in a room one-on-one he would likely believe that a background check would be OK but he knows it would never stop there with the anti's. Once that anti-gun snowball starts to roll downhill the NRA is over and done with and so is the 2nd amendment. He knows, and most gun owners know, that one small chink in the armor and the battle will be lost. Unfortunately we are already losing too much now and it will only get worse. The gun laws in the US, and worse here in Mass, are a hodge podge of rules and regulations that nobody can decipher. We need to step back from the hysteria and have a rational discussion on how we move forward.
So stop being hysterical then. No, the pressure is not to eliminate guns and the 2A. I won't try to make the argument that you don't want me to try to make. You're welcome.
The NRA seems to me like some single-minded machine with one purpose: reduce or eliminate any restriction on guns whatsoever. They've really taken things too far. They obviously don't care about reducing gun violence or gun crime. If they did, they wouldn't interfere with crime investigations. They don't care if guns are increasing the likelyhood of people killing themselves or their family members. If they did, they wouldn't try and block the studies. They don't care about criminals or mentally ill getting a hold of guns or they would accept background checks or at least propose something better. They say that we don't need laws because they are not effective all the while they've been the ones looking to undermine their effectiveness. Their love for guns is more than their love for the American government that is clear. Is it more than their love for their fellow American? For a rational person there is some tradeoff point between freedom and safety. For a mature responsible person this decision is made open-eyed and with care. For the NRA, the gun is God and the answer always and forever no questions no matter what. Who put these guys in charge of our safety?
You do not need a "study" about people killing themselves with guns. What would it prove? That it happens?
How about funding for how do we educate gun owners on preventing suicide via guns?
You see, studies like those suggested are used in an effort to ban guns, not really accomplish a meaningful goal.
But I can see that there is so much distrust.
How many deaths per year are you comfortable with to keep the given level of gun restrictions? Do you even want to know the number?
Here's my thought on education:
If you don't want to commit suicide with a gun.
1) Don't feel suicidal ever
2) Don't have a gun
One of the major problems here is guns going from legitimate owners to people who are not. Obstructionist tactics like those described here are unconsionable. All guns should carry permanent ID that cannot be destroyed, maybe a chip or nano ID. Guns used for criminal purposes could be traced to their last legit owner, and that owner should face penalties if he cannot explain how the criminal got hold of the gun. IE. Mrs Lanza would have to explain how her son got into the gun safe if she knew he was not normal.
PV, guns already do carry permanent id, a stamped serial number. Even grinding it off does not remove it, since the metal "flows" into the base metal and can be "raised" using various techniques.
About gun owners "explaining". Has some merit to it, probably a bit complicated legally, but not a bad thought.
Though to be fair, it is not always possible to reproduce the serial number...
Yes, gun owners are being blindly led by the evil Mastermind LaPierre and his organization, the NRA. If only they would see the LIGHT! For that, we need them to forget a few things:
70-80% of gun violence victims have prior police criminal contact
That people regularly defend themselves with guns
When strict gun regulations went into effect in MA, there were 1.5 million guns. Now there 120,000. But violent gun crime has increased by 200%
Chicago has banned guns for years, yet their gun crime rate has steadily increased (just tell em that guns are being shipped in, once we have banned ALL guns, the problem will be gone, but don't tell em that is our end game, just yet)
That almost 1500 children die every year from physical abuse, hands, fist and feet. That is a Sandy Hook about every week. But we think that a Sandy Hook every few years is much more tragic and we need their guns.
The 2nd amendment. It is outdated because we, well, just say so, anyone who says different is an ABSOLUTIST. Not that we are, btw.
That law enforcement has no duty to protect them.
We have regularly violated gun owners constitutional rights in various city and states by passing laws in direct violation of that document, then forced them to win decisions in the Supreme Court to get their rights back. But we still think they are wrong, who does that Supreme Court think it is, we have a majority after all, forget about that "rule of law" nonsense. In fact, forget about "rights" period, we much prefer "tyranny of the majority".
--------------------------------------------------------------
How about this? Instead of trying to pass all sorts of crazy laws that dance around people's constitutional rights, just do it the right way? See if you can get the 2nd amendment changed, repealed, etc. That is actually the way this country is supposed to work.
"When strict gun regulations went into effect in MA, there were 1.5 million guns. Now there 120,000." ...Just when I thought, because it's what I always hear from the right, that gun regulations don't work! That the laws already on the books aren't enforced! So I have to wonder, what's the source of this statistic? And where did all the guns go?
The source of this statistic is obviously the state of massachusetts, FRB. Keep in mind that it has been a lot of years since the state enacted these draconian laws. Over time, people just said "to heck with it" and sold their guns, to friends, or gunshops. Eventually they get traded out of the state. So that should make anti gunners all sorts of happy, happy.
Here is the thing about a statistic like this, it actually proves NOTHING. Many things have changed in all those years, one of them is the drug gangs. That would certainly raise the gun violence level.
But what it does prove is that anti gunners really know very little about what they are yapping about, since they are not knowledgable enough to even refute a simple statistic like this. They think that slogans like "less guns = less violence" make sense, they don't, for the same reason the statistic I used doesn't. There are many other factors that weigh in on the gun violence besides guns. And that is the point gun owners are trying to make.
Think about it, it is a fact there are way less guns in the state, but violent gun crime is UP..the best questions to ask are WHERE? WHY? instead of "It must be the guns!" Because saying it must be the guns makes a person look like a fool in view of the reduction of guns.
Wacky,
No, that's not right. The NRA used to be a pretty sensible organization -- I remember taking part in a very good hunter-safety program in my junior high years ago in upstage Idaho -- but sometime in the 1970s, the absolutists took over. It's now an organization that really serves as the lobbying arm of the gun manufacturers. It raises $$$ from members by playing on ridiculously hyperbolic claims. You need to be discerning enough to see through them.
As for not making the argument that peple are scheming to eliminate guns outright and do away with the Second Amendment, could you please post some supporting evidence that anyone we'd consider a political power in Washington -- that is, an elected official in a position to bring that about -- wants or plans to do that?
It's a paranoid notion -- but propounding it lets the NRA play its membership for fools through slippery slope-ism. To wit: Background checks may sound reasonable, but once they start there, they'll come and break down our doors and take our guns. I'm amazed that so many people fall for that kind of nonsense. (That said, I used to hear regularly from crazies who thought George Bush and Dick Cheney had known about or brought about the September 11 attacks and were about to stage a coup to stay in power, so I know that paranoia is a pervasive trait in American politics. And don't get me started on the black helicopter crowd.)
Scot
Scot: You were careful to specify "Washington". Nice move. But I will point out to you that Feinstein's proposed legislation opens up a Pandora's box to Federal regulations. Just one item, a list of "2000 approved firearms". Obviously, with her legislation, the Feds would then be able to regulate "approved firearms". This type of legislation obviates the need to do away with the 2A, it is for all practical purposes just regulated out of existence. Of course, those regulations would be challenged in the SC. The less stupid among us know that the SC changes from time to time. It could take many years to get overly restrictive regulations removed, as it has done in places like Washington, DC and Chicago, IL.
In fact, there is no such thing as an "assault weapon", it is an invented term, no one is even sure who invented it. The DHS just ordered 7,000 fully automatic AR15's, nowhere in their requisition does it refer to them as "Assault" anythings. Also, they are being ordered for "personal defense". The point is, that via Feinsteins bill, almost anything could be an "assault weapon", because there is no definition for one.
Scot: Not sure about the NRA changing course in the 70's? Maybe a bit later? But that is immaterial. It started when it became apparent that anti gun groups were going to start doing end runs around the Constitution.
What people do not comprehend is that it very easy for a state, city, county or town to pass a law that forbids gun ownership or otherwise regulates gun ownership. Until such time as that law is challenged in a court and the case won, it is law. We actually have quite a few places where that has happened, DC, Chicago, NYC, Morton Grove, IL, to name a few. Some of the laws in MA are borderline and being challenged. It can take decades to get a gun case all the way to the Supreme Court.
Since the anti gun people have absolutely no regard for the foundations of this country, the NRA took up the cause of gun rights. I am sure if the stupidity of violating gun rights via these "end runs" ceased, the NRA would slowly go back to more what it used to be like.
History:
Here, you are conflating two very different problems. The immediate issue people are focused on is preventing mass public shootings. Do you really suppose that Adam Lanza could have accomplished the same carnage with his fists or a hammer? It's really not an instructive argument to say because we have many instances of violence, there is nothing that can be done about some of the very worst of them.
Scot
You are cherry picking Scot. But so be it.
I challenge your assertion that the immediate issue people are focusing on is preventing mass public shootings.
If so, then why does Feinstein's bill include so many provisions concerning pistols with removable magazines?
If so, then why does Cuomo's bill outlaw all handgun's with magazine's that contain more 7 rounds?
The mass shootings are typically done with so called "assault rifles", not handguns.
Indeed, the anti gun groups have seen the Sandy Hook tragedy as a means to advance their anti gun agenda.
My point about the deaths of children via abuse is that the same people who scream about the "tragedy of it all" are virtually silent on these much more horrofic issues. It is in fact about disarming the american people.
"They're coming to take my guns away!" = abject paranoia. Why? Because not only is there the 2A, but there's also... wait for it... the NRA, and whether or not you're a member, they remain the most powerful lobby in the country. To think that these protections are just going to one day disappear is paranoid. I support the rights of hunters to have what they need, and for an individual to have a weapon for his own defense. No arsenals, period.
Define: Arsenal
"hunters to have what they need" Oh goody, the Framers should have called it "HonestMan's Bill of Needs"
"No Arsenals, period." Not quite sure what an "arsenal" is, then again, I suppose these days, it depends on your definition of "is".
Hunter has shotgun for bird hunting, rifle for deer hunting, varmint rifle for shooting pesky varmints, large caliber pistol for target shooting, small caliber for target shooting, trap shotgun, target rifle small caliber, home defense pistol. Let's see, that is 8 guns already. Now, wife has pretty much the same, so let's say 14 guns in all?
Yesterday, out in Springfield, police raided a home: "Police raid home and seize ARSENAL of 10 guns and 2300 rounds of ammuntion".
Hmmmm....looks to me like a sportsman could easily have an "arsenal". You should just see the guys out west, WOW!
I post a serious comment and I get zapped? Was it something I said? Couldn't you at least replace it with "This comment has been removed" so that all three of my fans will know what happened?
Did it again, huh Harry? Must be the bowtie.
Harry" quit embellishing, Three? I am not a fan of yours, please state facts, 2 Fans, you and someone else, not sure who that is?
Scot: You've reached a new level in superficiality, undiluted one-sidedness, and factual neglect. You fail to see (or acknowledge) that the strident calls for more laws that haven't worked and new laws that will not work, just MIGHT be a strategic wedge that the" banners" are using in their quest to ban ALL guns. This is one of the reasons that the seemingly "absolutists" are distrustful about such proposals. And about "absolutists", this slur belongs also to those, who, like you, demonize attempts by the people to protect themselves, who have already compromised with the edicts of the failed "banners".
Having been a recent victim of robbery by gunpoint, I will carry the terror of this assault forever in my memory; as I will carry the terror wrought from relentless attacks on the ability to protect my own life.
How dare you, or anyone else, legislate the endangerment of our lives.....this is "statism" at its most dangerous; and those that support it have blood on their own hands.
WOW, just WOW. Sorry to hear about that. Hope everyone is ok, no injuries, etc.
Aperture:
Sorry about your encounter with the criminal element. That must have been very scary.
As to your arguments, let me be as blunt you were: They are really kind of stupid. This is likely a grammatical problem, but no one is calling for more laws that won't work. What you mean is, you don't accept the notion that anything can be done.
Okay, so let's look at that. We know terrorists have bought guns at gun shows. A background check could have prevented that. Tell me why that wouldn't have worked?
We know that criminals have bought guns at gun shows. Why wouldn't a background check have worked?
We know the Virginia Tech shooter passed a background check because his interactions with the mental health system weren't of the sort that qualify for gun-transfer denial (that is, a failed check). If we strengthed the mental health part of the background equation, why wouldn't that have worked?
Why couldn't we require liability insurance on firearms? If we did, and one first had to obtain a policy, it's hard to see many of the deranged young men who commit these school and mall crimes even applying, let alone getting such a policy, because they are pretty obviously deeply troubled. Why wouldn't something like that work?
We know that states that have serious background checks, Massachusetts among them, have a much lower rate of gun crimes. That being the case, why wouldn't something like that work nationally?
And as for your strategic wedge argument, yes, and it might just be a way to distract the citizenry while the Martians land and seize our golf courses for their long holiday weekend ...
In others, c'mon. Think.
Scot
This comment has been removed.
I think any sensible Amercian citizen would agree there is a real issue with guns which needs a viable solution. There are too many radicals on the left & on the right which prevent this from happening. Just reading the comments on here you can see the divide. This "History" character seems to have an answer for eveything, please and spare us all. No one person has all the answers! It is not a Repub or Dem issue, it is a human issue and the idiotic rhetoric has to end. The paranoia which is perpetuated throughout this country is quite embarrassing. I lived abroad for many years with people always asking what is wrong with you "Americans & your guns"...I never had an answer because, I too, was at a loss. Hiding behind the 2nd Amendment & all the BS statistics is foolish. Makes no sense. Sadly in the end it truly is about $$$ & keeping the masses unbalanced. Truly genius as far as the NRA & gun industry are concerned. Sales are way up & people's trust is way down! Until we as American stop being dumb*sses the problem will persist!
This comment has been removed.
So GFY, just what would YOU propose?
Scot, you just cannot see the forest for the trees.
Sandy Hook I: First ban goes into effect, sold with the idea that gun owners share in the blame if we do not acquiesce to demands.
Registrations go into effect, mental health checks (more databases), insurance (even more databases) have we missed a gun owner somehow? nope, ok.
Ban magazines over 10 rounds. Reasonable. Everyone is happy. Didn't confiscate anything.
Sandy Hook II: Sure to happen, since no "assault rifles" were confiscated in Sandy Hook I. Many 30 round magazines never turned in.
Public outcry! Those damned gun owners and their guns! Now we MUST do something about it, IMMEDIATELY!
Hmmmm, those lists! How convenient......
Scot, you tell me what you think the outcome is going to be? Some more laws? A shrug of the shoulders? Or politicians seeing it as an opportunity to advance their careers?
Sell your "paranoid", "black helicopter", anti gun rhetoric to the terminally stupid. It is nothing more than the standard name calling the average anti gunner uses day in/day out.
History:
You've conjured up a hypothetical that really doesn't fit the contours of what I'm talking about -- and, frankly, you've tailored it to fit your central (faulty) premise: Nothing can be done, so nothing should be attempted.
Look at my reply below to aperture specifically addressing what could be done and the effect it would have.
Deal in facts, not scenarios you've dreamt up to support your circular logic.
Scot, I have not said "nothing can be done, so do nothing", so quit trying to set up that "straw man" argument.
Your "solutions" lead to creating databases of gun owners. Care to deny that?
Want to deny that in Canada, Australia and the UK after they had similar Sandy Hook events, databases were used to aid in forcing people to surrender their weapons after public outcry?
I am sure you are not going to state that implementing your "solutions" will prevent another Sandy Hook, that would be foolish.
As to facts? I note that you do not rebutt the statement I made about your facts being incorrect, re: less guns=less violent gun crime in states with...
We shouldn't "attempt" solutions in this country that are contrary to the constitution just because there is a public outcry, we have a mechanism for that, the congress and a ratification by 3/4 of the states to repeal an amendment. Passing "laws" that are questionably constitutional and then require decades to be resolved is hijacking our system of government. Gun owners have every right to fight it before having to live under those illegal laws, as they have in the past.
All I keep hearing from you is words like "conjuring" "hypothetical" etc, but you conveniently ignore any and all facts presented to you. You have not addressed the illegal laws passed in Washington, DC and Chicago that have been overturned in the SC. Evidently, you do not think those are "factual" enough.
I am sure you would be pounding your keyboard to pieces if legislation were proposed that would in any way limit your abilities under the 1st amendment, realizing that it might take decades to get it rescinded.
HistoryisJustThat, Scot clearly does not respond when he has no valid response to a rational argument. I have made two points to Scot on this board today that he will not answer apparently. Scot also should realize that the reason why we still have a 1st Amendment is that the 2nd Amendment has protected and defended our rights here and abroad.
Well, he might have gone to lunch? It is that time of day.
The problem is that it has to be legislated, like Roe v. Wade. You will never get people to stop fighting over it. I like the idea of the Boston (I think) Dr. who says it should be treated as a health concern like smoking. The outline from Feinstein is non-sensical. Random cosmetic bans make no sense and only make it seem like all they want is to take guns. And, do you really think Feinstein, from the great state of Greece, should be leading the charge?
How about gun safety, which background checks make sense. Sandy Hook was horrible, but Adam Lanza had access to guns because of his mother. How do you prevent that? Why are all of these killers lately in early 20's? Hollywood and video games and thre lefts love of anything goes unless its guns? We have reaped what we have sowed, and we can't legislate our ways out of with bans.
This comment has been removed.
VNG, you really cannot compare gun laws to Roe v Wade. Abortion is not a right under the Constitution, it is not mentioned anywhere. The problem exists that extreme anti gunners shoot for the whole enchilada, on the other side the extremists are "don't even think about gun laws". The cause of the gun extremist view is obvious, Washington, DC, Chicago, IL, Morton Grove, IL, Massachusetts, CA, NYC either put in outright bans or very strict gun laws. Some of which have not passed muster at Supreme Court level. In this state, we have an AG who cleverly made it a "public safety" issue and created all sorts of safety regulations, like they were protecting children with toys. Questionably legal, it just hasn't been challenged yet. Gun owners are tired of that method. The result is that the NRA fights EVERYTHING.
The fact is, the NRA did not become radical until the anti gun nuts went off their rockers and started taking end runs around the constitution, now they want to make the NRA the bad guy. The Supreme Court struck down those laws in DC and Chicago, so who was right? It sure wasn't the anti gun nuts who pushed them into law.
This comment has been removed.
You know, our nation's mental health system is in shambles. There is also a mental health "lobby" of people who have a vested interest in seeing that nothing changes. They include pill pushers, social workers and liberal judges. It seems the media never mention these folks. Who is their Wayne LaPierre? Why should their activities go unobserved, uncriticized and unaccounted for? How is it that the Virginia Tech shooter Seung Cho and Adam Lanza weren't in a rubber room instead of in a classroom shooting people? These are questions thta deserve an answer.
This comment has been removed.
Egg: They certainly shouldn't have had access to guns, so to the degree that you are arguing that we need privacy-law exemptions, I'm with you.