On this horrific anniversary let us speak out against the horrors the NRA agenda has brought us

[Bjorn Against]

It has been one year since Sandy Hook and a lot has happened in that year. Day after day, week after week we all read stories right here on DU about countless tragedies involving guns.

We read about the grave injustice that was commited against Trayvon Martin.

We read about children accidently shooting themselves with their father's gun.

We read about the gun nuts who open carried their weapons around our schools and terrified their communities.

We read about gun nuts threatening to take up arms against our nation because of their warped perception of "tyranny".

We read about the toxic influence the NRA has on our political system.

We learned a lot in the last year from many of the hundreds of posts that have been made on this site about the topic of guns, many of the things we learned are things that certain people would prefer that we did not know about because the facts don't reflect well on their position.

The reality is however that if we want to prevent more Newtowns from happening we need to be able to discuss the reality of guns in our society because this a real issue that effects a lot of people. Sometimes the discussions can get heated no doubt and sometimes people on both sides including myself could do a better job of keeping it civil, but healthy debate is needed if we are ever to move forward as a nation on this issue.

Thank you to everyone who is speaking out on this horrific anniversary, change is slow to come but if enough people speak out we can reduce the influence of the NRA Nutcases.

[madinmaryland]

1. Off to the greatest you go!

[WillyT]

2. HUGE K & R !!! - Thank You !!!

[BlueJazz]

3. My take on it is a lot of gun nuts are just more terrified to die than the rest of us.

For all their "Praise Jesus" and other stuff, it's a front to hide their fear of death.
They don't REALLY believe in an afterlife or they wouldn't go to such extreme lengths to protect their existence.

In short...they're scared little mouses.

[Bjorn Against]

4. They love to tell us about how much crime has dropped when we express concern about guns

And yet in the same breath as they tell us how much crime has dropped they also tell us that there is such a threat of crime that we need to carry a concealed gun with us everywhere in order to be safe.

They don't even seem to recognize how badly they contradict themselves.

[Agschmid]

21. Yup!

[aikoaiko]

5. And if the"no gun in GD" rule comes back there is always 2 groups

where one can share his or her thoughts.

[Bjorn Against]

7. Sure, but it is always good to have open discussion on the issues of the day

I am sure that many DUers have appreciated reading about many of the news stories that have been posted in GD over the past year. I recognize that many of the gun stories that have been posted have contained facts that were inconvenient to gun advocates and those gun advocates would no doubt prefer those articles be limited to a smaller audience, but I think the majority of DU can handle the discussion.

[seveneyes]

6. The NRA certainly has its own set of problems

But I'm not letting the sick, twisted, and murderous people that pull the trigger off the hook. Millions of people in America manage to make it through life without harming anyone, and we should expect the same from those that harm others.

[Bjorn Against]

8. Of course not, no one wants to let the person who pulled the trigger off the hook

Actually I take that back, many of the NRA type gun nuts cheered when George Zimmerman got let off the hook so there are actually a number of people who do want murderers to get a free pass.

I think that is why it is so important to speak out against the NRA because they are the ones that push the laws which enable murderers like Zimmerman to get away. There will always be dangerous individuals out there, it is the gun advocates who enable those dangerous people to acquire their murder weapon.

[albino65]

9. It comes down to intent

Assault weapons are meant to do one thing and one thing only...kill people. There are no two ways about this. If someone purchases an assault weapon, it is implicit that that person wants to kill another person. To me that indicates an intent to commit murder. If we don't take away assault weapons, we are all complicit.

[hack89]

12. Not familiar with competitive target shooting, I see

Explain something for me - if what you say is true, why are there so few deaths due to semi-automatic rifles? Far fewer than handguns, knives, blunt objects or hands/feet. Perhaps 150 a year - why aren't al those gun owners actually killing people if that was the only reason the bought their guns in the first place? I don't think you have thought this out very well.

[Duckhunter935]

17. please do not

confuse him with facts.

In another thread I was told us gun owner were not being called killers in waiting.

[albino65]

32. Don't get your u-trou in a bunch

I don't need your snarky condescension. There is competitive shooting using long rifles, shotguns, handguns and I bet if you still need the challenge, slings and arrows. I don't have a problem with guns as long as there is gun control. Part of gun control needs to be the abolishment of assault rifles, assault pistols and large capacity magazines. I assume that you don't use an assault weapon to shoot ducks.
In addition, the second amendment states that a well regulated militia is the reason that the people should be allowed to bear arms. If you are willing to be part of the national guard in your state, then I'm sure they will let you shoot some guns.
It's not about gun owners, it's about gun idiots.

[hack89]

33. Are you familiar with the Democratic party platform?

The part where it says the 2A protects an individual right to own guns? The president has also said exactly the same thing.

[albino65]

34. What don't you get?

The democratic platform says nothing about assault weapons. The president has come out against assault weapons, and large capacity magazines. Just as you selectively read the second amendment, you also selectively read my post.

[hack89]

35. "the second amendment states that a well regulated militia is the reason..."

you wrote that. Do you think it is correct?

You do realize that CT had an AWB and Lanza's gun was legal? And that no proposed AWB will ban semi-automatic rifles. Nor for that matter, will do they actually take a single assault weapon off the streets because they grandfather all existing weapons.

The president's AWB could pass and it would not effect me one iota - those four AR-15s in my gun safe would still be there and I would continue to shoot them.

[albino65]

36. Here it is

Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791.

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.
And now I am done. I have to blow snow off my driveway, and steam off my head.

Now I have met a real troll and I am sad.

[hack89]

37. I am merely agreeing with the president and the party platform

I thought that is what good Dems did.

[Bjorn Against]

38. Good to know that you agree with the President that the assault weapons ban should be reinstated

I am glad that you support Obama's calls for gun control, he does not go as far as I would like but it is at least a step in the right direction.

[hack89]

40. It would be irrelevant to me as it is not retroactive

It doesn't take a single gun off the streets. Remember that CT had a tough AWB and registration - it made no difference.

An AWB is pure security theater.

[Bjorn Against]

42. But you said in post 37 that you agree with Obama

Obama does not consider the Assault Weapons Ban to be "pure security theater" and you told us in post 37 that you agree with Obama on this issue because in your words that is "what good Democrats do." Are you now telling us you don't actually agree with Obama and are therefore failing to live up to your own definition of what a good Democrat is?

[hack89]

45. Obama also supports drone attacks and the NSA

So his judgement is not perfect. It is theater for one simple reason - if a law would not have stopped Va Tech then it will not stop mass shootings. Let's remember what the most common weapon used in mass shootings - it is not rifles.

[Bjorn Against]

46. I have vocally disagreed with him on drone attacks and the NSA as well

I can do that however because I never said that agreeing with him is "what good Democrats do", I believe you can be a good Democrat and disagree with the President and I never said otherwise. You did however declare that good Democrats agreed with the President so I have a hard time understanding how you can still consider yourself a good Democrat under your own definition of what a good Democrat is.

[hack89]

50. I actually agree that lockstep uniformity has no place in the Democratic Party

And one can certainly question the president. Even on gun control. My good democrats comment was sarcastic - I was pointing out that what the poster holds as a twisted and perverted definition of the 2A is actually the mainstream definition even within the Democratic Party.

Good Dems should actually question politicians all the time.

[Bjorn Against]

55. I do agree with a lot of what you said in this post

I do realize you were being sarcastic and I was messing with you to a certain extent, I just feel that your comments in this thread have attempted to portray Obama as far more pro-gun than he actually is.

[hack89]

58. He is pro-gun control but it is not a high priority as far as I can see

He views gun control through the prism of elections and the reaction of independent voters. He will do enough to placate his base and no more.

[Bjorn Against]

61. He has made it a pretty major issue in his second term

He made another call for gun control legislation just yesterday, he has actually invested quite a bit of time on this issue over the past year. If you don't think he has made this a high priority you must not have been paying much attention over the past year as he has pushed for gun control on numerous occassions.

[hack89]

74. He refuses to strong arm pro-gun Dems that are up for reelection

There are not enough Democratic votes in the Senate to pass his gun control agenda. He is letting them off the hook because he wants to retain the Senate in 2014 - that is why gun control died a quiet death there. That is the irony of this debate - many here want to place the blame solely on the RW while refusing to admit that Democratic Senators are an equally large obstacle.

So no, it is not a high priority as far as I can see. He is merely doing enough go placate people like you.

[Bjorn Against]

82. I admit that shitty Democrats are a problem

Lots of people know that the Blue Dog assholes derail many good laws, but their refusal to vote for gun control does not mean that Obama has not pushed heavily on gun control in the past year. Getting people to vote the right way is not as simple as just "twisting their arm", Obama can advocate gun control but he can't force Congress to go along. That is why we need a better Congress.

[hack89]

87. It is easy to push for things you know have no chance of passing

We do need a better congress for a host of other reasons.

[Hoyt]

59. Good point, we need to restrict handguns as well.

Very few gun fanciers are into target shooting, unless it's shooting targets that resemble humans.

[world wide wally]

10. The biggest problem I see is that BOTH sides have to be rational, and one side

Has a distorted, perverted view of what the second amendment says and they are blinded by that. This makes "rational" dialog virtually impossible at this point in time.
Such a bloody shame.

[hack89]

14. Gun control advocates will figure out the law eventually

Don't be so hard on them.

[world wide wally]

18. ^ Point proven

[hack89]

23. The 2A protects an individual right to own guns according to both the president

Last edited Sun Dec 15, 2013, 09:00 AM - Edit history (1)

and the Democratic Party platform. Is that the "distorted" interpretation you are referring to?

[Duckhunter935]

28. I think so

[world wide wally]

39. If that is what the Democratic platform says, then YES, it is distorted. I am not a mystic

or time traveler, but I am quite convinced that our Founding Fathers never envisioned the type of weaponry that would be available to any douchebag that is capable of putting a 3 word sentence together such as, "I want gun". Nor did they envision the way those weapons would be used.

I am quite willing to bet Mitt Romney $10,000 on which side of the issue our Founding Fathers would be on in 2013. That would be the side of common sense and not the side Ted Nugent is on.

[hack89]

41. It is also what the president believes

Are you willing to concede that it is not as black and white as you think?

[world wide wally]

43. Not to me. And I also don't think the Prez is as much of a gun control deregulator as you seem to

believe he is.

[hack89]

44. He taught constitutional law - he understands the 2A

My only point.

[world wide wally]

48. Now if only the NRA and it's "ditto heads" could understand it, we would all be better off

[hack89]

49. They believe it is an individual right just like the president . Nt

[Bjorn Against]

51. No, the NRA does not believe "just like the President"

You may be determined to portray Obama's position as one and the same as the NRA position but everyone here knows you are full of shit. Obama's definition of what constitutes an individual's right to bear arms is far different than the NRA's not "just like" it as you claim.

[hack89]

53. The issue is militia versus individual right.

The president and the NRA do not agree on specific gun laws. They do agree that it is an individual right. My only point.

[Bjorn Against]

56. So his position is actually not "just like" the NRA position as you previously stated.

The truth is more that they both see individual rights but have drastically different beliefs on what those individual rights are.

[hack89]

64. Please go back to the start of this sub thread

The only point we were discussing was the original intent of the 2A. I understand that the president and the NRA do not agree on specific gun laws. But those differences are political not legal. Both accept Heller and Heller is very explicit that guns can be regulated. Scalia made it clear that even an AWB would be Constitutional.

[Bjorn Against]

70. Yes Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito and Kennedy were very clear in the Heller decision

Too bad all five of them are awful judges who tend to be wrong on nearly every issue of importance, but they got their 5-4 decision despite the objection of every respectable member of that court.

The only reason Obama accepts Heller is because he is legally obligated to not because he thinks it was a good decision.

[Duckhunter935]

77. not all will agree

but the law of the land until changed

[Bjorn Against]

96. True, it is pretty much only right-wing nuts who agree with those five

It has been well established that the five Supreme Court justices who agreed with the Heller decision rank among the worst Supreme Court justices in history, you are absolutely correct that not all will agree with them, it is pretty much just idiots and the extremely wealthy who agree with this Supreme Court.

[X_Digger]

81. Umm, the president agreed with the individual rights approach *before* Heller. n/t

[Bjorn Against]

91. The president supports gun control, you may not want to accept that but he does

[X_Digger]

93. Which has no bearing on my comment. Do keep up, yes? n/t

[Bjorn Against]

98. You can try to pretend Obama's position on individual rights is the same as the Supreme Court's

But it is not the case, I don't think you could find any reference to Obama saying that he would have ruled the same way the terrible five on the Supreme Court did.

I never said Obama did not ever call it an individual right but this was a discussion of the Supreme Court and whether Obama's position is the same as the five nut jobs on the court, it is not.

[X_Digger]

102. You said.. and I quote..

The only reason Obama accepts Heller is because he is legally obligated to not because he thinks it was a good decision.

Candidate Obama endorsed the individual right to keep and bear arms in 2007- before Heller was decided. That is the core of Heller, and to ignore it is to be disingenuous or to demonstrate lack of knowledge.

Heller also states that some regulations are in line with the right. The president agrees.

The court has made no additional decisions that would on the face of it, disagree with a position that the president has taken.

You feel free to guess at how you think the court might decide on any particular decision. Me? I'll wait for actual arguments and cases.

[hack89]

83. But Heller was a very limited decision that disappointed the NRA

They wanted a decision that would grant sweeping rights to all gun owners in all situations with all types of guns. They got a decision that says you have the right to own a handgun in your home. The only explicitly protect right gun owners have is to own a handgun in their homes. Says nothing about rifles, concealed carry, open carry, high capacity magazines or any other gun issue. Which means it is perfectly constitutional to regulate them. The issue is political not legal.

[G_j]

115. whatever they believe, they are liars

and have deliberately obscured truth and facts.
They also actively opposed and lied about Obama during the election.

[hack89]

118. True. Nt

[billh58]

15. +100

Spot on.

[Agschmid]

20. +100

[hack89]

24. So what is the correct view of the 2A? Nt

[Duckhunter935]

27. you know they will not answer

The President, the Democratic platform and the USSC all agree on the individual right to keep and bear arms. Some around here seem quite confused and are against the President and the party platform and openly calling for confiscation.

[world wide wally]

47. The correct view of the 2A is that early on in our country's formation, the only way they could

get the southern states to ratify the Constitution was to make this provision so that slave owners would be able to form militias to hunt down escaped slaves. Since the land was so expansive and basically uncivilized, it seemed much more logical that people should have the means to protect themselves as well and the compromise was sealed. Furthermore, supermarkets were few and far between so people needed to hunt for food much more often.

Today you would be hard pressed to find any open space at all. The vast country is totally settled by about 300 million people and they've even eliminated homesteading rights in case you haven't heard. I'm sure some people have a problem with that too.

The actual reality of the situation is that things do change and as cognizant human beings, we are obligated to evolve along with everything else...That or we end up with well armed, deranged people walking into elementary shools and shooting first graders.

[hack89]

52. The Constitution describes the method to change the 2A

If you truly have the national support you claim then it should be easy.

[X_Digger]

54. If that were true, why did the northern states incorporate the same right in their respective..

.. state constitutions?

Pennsylvania 1790: "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."

Vermont 1777: "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State.."

Connecticut 1818: "Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state."

Rhode Island 1842: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

If the second amendment (federal) were a 'gimme' to slave-owning states, how do these northern state constitutions make sense?

[Duckhunter935]

60. sound of head exploding nt

[Hoyt]

63. I don't think any of those envisioned the 21st century gun fanciers' abuse of the bearing of arms.

I'm sorry, I don't think this is what they had in mind:

[X_Digger]

67. Have anything actually in response to my question, or are you just going to post snark?

(Honestly, I know the answer to the question, but hope springs eternal.)

[Hoyt]

68. The fact is, gun fanciers are not arming up for the reasons envisioned in the 2nd Amendment, or

in any of those state documents. I realize you don't like such facts, they threaten you large gun "collection."

[X_Digger]

73. As usual- evade, distract, and obfuscate.

If, as the poster posits in a response upthread, northern states 'gave' the second amendment to the southern states as a measure of slave control, why did those same nothern non-slave states pass their own version of the same?

Enlighten us with your knowledge, Hoyt. Can you reconcile the poster's statement with history?

[Duckhunter935]

75. please post where I

can see these FACTS for myself. I like to look things up and am curious were these facts are that you are citing.

[X_Digger]

104. Where, oh where, has Hoyt gone?

There's a question pending, one reply up.

Care to take a swing at it?

[world wide wally]

111. Please refer to reply #10

[X_Digger]

114. That's not an answer. Since it was you who originally posited it, care to answer?

Why did northern non-slave states pass their own version of the second amendment, if the sole purpose of the federal one was to appease the slave-owning southern states?

Here, let me quote you in case you forgot..

The correct view of the 2A is that early on in our country's formation, the only way they could get the southern states to ratify the Constitution was to make this provision so that slave owners would be able to form militias to hunt down escaped slaves.

[world wide wally]

125. PlEase read the "other" reasons to understand why they compromised

ie...hunting, settling, etc.
It was a big, untamed land at the time, not a world population center with over 300 million people trying to pay their way send send their kids to school in safety.

[X_Digger]

128. That's a non-answer.

If it were appeasement, there would be no need for state analogs. You can have hunting, settling, etc without a second amendment (see other states that have no explicit protection, like NJ).

[Jenoch]

133. "Today you would be hard pressed to find any open space at all."

Where do you live? I'm guessing NYC metro area.

You need to get out more. In Minnesota there is a federally recognized wilderness that is 30% larger than the state of Rhode Island. Most of the entire state of Alaska is wilderness.

[Duckhunter935]

138. or most states

west of the Mississippi. Lots of open range land and dangerous animals also.

[Jenoch]

141. Being west of the Mississippi

is not always a requirement for wilderness either. The UP of Michigan and northern parts of Wisconsin have a lot of wilderness areas, and state and national forests.

[Duckhunter935]

143. very true

and SE Ohio and West Virginia have lots of open land if I remember when I was stationed there.

[world wide wally]

145. You are thinking in terms of 21st century America where open space may mean a couple square

miles to you. I was talking about 18th century America where there were hundreds of thousands of unexplored wilderness to be settled. A little different.

And I live in Colorado FYI so I am not looking at it from a NY city point of view. There is little in common between the "open space" in America today and 250 years ago...anywhere!

[Jenoch]

146. You are attempting to make an extreme and

immaterial point. I'd say there are hundreds of thousands of squares miles still in Alaska that would qualify.

[In_The_Wind]

11. Kicked & recommended.

[billh58]

13. K&R

for the truth about the bought-and-paid-for politicians who did the right-wing NRA's bidding to bring us to this gun-infested set of circumstances.

[Fred Sanders]

16. Money buys power

Take away the money of the NRA and it's detestable kin and you take away the political influence.
That is one way.
The other way is to end the delusion that guns are not the deadliest, user friendly, mobile, hide-able weapons of mass destruction ever invented. There has got to be a reason armies are equipped with guns and not pointy sticks.

[pipoman]

26. Take away the money from any

political activism and take away their political influence. .what does that make our democratic republic? No, political activism is integral to political policy, whether we agree with the activism or not. .

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

19. Thanks for this OP. K&R.

[Agschmid]

22. Kicked!

[TBF]

25. Rec just for using the term "NRA Nutcases" -

it's time to expose these trolls and take back our country.

[Duckhunter935]

29. please do not forget DiFi

Her idiotic attempt to ban cosmetic features only enraged many more gun owners than the NRA has. Instead of working to solve the issue that much more involves hand guns and mental health than scary black semi automatic rifles with a bayonet lug.

[Bjorn Against]

31. I am glad we can agree that hand guns are an even bigger problem than assault rifles

You are correct that hand gun control is needed, mental health treatment is also needed although I do not like people trying to pin the gun problem on a minority group such as the mentally ill despite the fact that most violent criminals are not mentally ill.

I am not a fan of Dianne Feinstein, in fact just yesterday I was talking about how she needs a primary challenger, but she is not totally wrong on the gun issue. You are correct in pointing out that restrictions on hand guns are even more needed than restrictions on assault rifles however so I am glad you acknowledge that it is time we tackle the issue of hand guns to keep them out of the hands of gun nuts.

[etherealtruth]

30. I regret I can only rec this once

[LittleBlue]

57. Did the NRA have anything to do with the latest school shooting?

From what I've read, he bought the gun legally with background check and everything.

Sometimes a person is just bent on murder and no one else is at fault.

[LAGC]

62. *shh* You're ruining it!

How are we to stay perpetually outraged if folks like you keep trying to bring facts into this two-minute hate?

(But of course, the pro-gun control folks don't want to ban all the guns... just pass a few "sensible" restrictions. )

[Logical]

85. You could lose the sarcasm and help the pro-gun side a little. Just an idea. n-t

[G_j]

117. you support the NRA? nt

[LAGC]

123. Not particularly.

But what I don't support is folks who make it tougher for Democrats to get elected in predominantly red states.

Look at what happened in Colorado.

Gun control plays well inside the belt-ways, but is a major political liability everywhere else.

There are many ways we could work to reduce gun violence nation-wide without resorting to the endless hyperbole demonizing guns and gun-owners in general.

It just seems like some folks don't want to find solutions, they just want to cast aspersions and act holier than thou.

This is why nothing ever gets done.

[G_j]

124. seems to me the biggest opponent to solutions

is the NRA.

[beevul]

126. Nonsense.

The only way that could possible have any truth to it, is if one views progress as passing a law that has nothing to do with the problem you’re trying to solve.

Which describes quite accurately, most of the proposals after newtown.

[G_j]

127. do you support the NRA? nt

[beevul]

129. Not particularly.

My support for the nra, or lack there of, does not change the facts.


That 95 percent the response to newtown, was proposals for laws that had nothing to do with the problem they were proposed in light of, is a verifiable fact.

See: assault weapon ban.


The state in which newtown is located has one.

[G_j]

130. not particularly?

I just heard that above. What does that mean actually? Are you a member?

[beevul]

131. I was a member 20+ years ago.

A one year membership came as part of a gun safety course I took. After that year was up, the membership expired, and I never renewed...Though some posts here almost make me reconsider that decision.

I addressed yours, now how about addressing mine.

What sort of common sense or reasonability is there, in passing a law that has nothing to do with the problem you’re purportedly trying to solve?

[G_j]

132. that was not the conversation I was involved in

why should I have a solution?
What I stated was the NRA has been the major obstacle to solutions.

[beevul]

134. These "solutions"...

What sort of “solution” is passing a law that has nothing to do with the problem you’re trying to solve?

As I said, just about all of the "solutions" proposed in light of sandy hook, do NOTHING, to prevent that which they purport to solve.

What difference does it make if the nra opposes them or not, that being the case?

[LAGC]

135. There are other solutions besides restricting the particular tools that people happen to use...

...to commit acts of violence.

Addressing poverty being a big one, or scaling back the "war on drugs" in the case of gang-bangers fighting it out over turf in our major cities. That's where most of the gun violence in this nation lies right there.

As for the much more rare acts of shooting sprees and what not that make all the headlines, that almost invariably boils down to mental health issues on the part of the shooter. Normal people don't just up and decide to shoot a bunch of unarmed people. There's some serious "wiring" issues going on, especially with Cho, Holmes, and Lanza.

Would you not agree that we could do much more on the mental health front, expanding access and getting more troubled people the help that they so desperately need?

Why not work on areas where we can all agree on, instead of polarizing the issue and causing people to "circle the wagons" so to speak?

[G_j]

136. did you not read my simple statement?

I stand by by it 100%!

If you didn't then why are you responding to my comment?

[LAGC]

137. Yes, the NRA has been a major obstacle to gun-related "solutions."

But this is exactly what I'm talking about. Instead of this "my way or the highway" mentality, focusing only on the guns, why not work on other areas of violence prevention that could have some real benefit?

It's like people think if we pass a "background check" bill here or an "assault-weapon ban" bill there, the violence will suddenly stop.

The problem goes much deeper than that.

[G_j]

139. it's not "my way"

I pointed out that the NRA works against solutions. The are extremely powerful and have shaped the debate in this country.
I am not at all being narrow minded or uncompromising, they are!
Fuck the NRA!!!

[LAGC]

140. Why do you choose to keep fighting them then?

By your own admission, they are the 800-lb. gorilla in the room on this issue.

Instead of riling them up and mobilizing their base, why not try to work on solutions that they won't knee-jerkedly oppose?

Is the goal really to reduce violence in this country, or to hand-wring over whatever inanimate objects people happen to enjoy collecting and playing with recreationally?

It just seems like some people are picking a fight where none is needed.

[G_j]

142. no way

the NRA have damaged this country, and the last thing we need to do is shut up because the are so intimidating.They lie and obscure the truth from the American people. You advocate submitting to their bullying and manipulation of our politics?

[LAGC]

144. All I know is that they are very effective at mobilizing their voting base.

And helping countless Teabaggers get elected to boot. All the money in the world would be worthless if it didn't boil down to many voters being receptive to their message.

I guess I just don't see the point in playing into their fears and giving them ammunition to use to work against our interests, when other paths are possible to achieve the same purported goal (reducing violence).

It's like neither side will budge, and then all we are left with is gridlock.

[Duckhunter935]

65. they invented pump shotguns

and sold it to the store, The NRA ran the background check and I am sure they paid for the gun the MURDERER used. Of course he had no responsibility, he was forced to do it by the evil NRA.

NRA is responsible for all evil

[Bjorn Against]

66. Yes, the fact that a teenager can legally go buy a gun is a result of NRA pressure for weak gun laws

You are correct that he did buy the gun legally but you fail to realize the reason he was able to buy that gun legally is that our gun laws are so weak a teenager can just go out and buy a deadly weapon. The reason for this is because the NRA won't allow reasonable limits on who can buy a gun, teenager's brains are going through one of life's most volatile stages in those high school years and it seems ridiculous that a teenager can just go buy a gun off the shelf.

[LAGC]

69. An 18-year-old is old enough to vote and serve in the military.

Should that age be raised to 21? Or higher perhaps?

At what age does someone become "mature?"

You got the draw the line somewhere...

[Bjorn Against]

72. If you have to be 21 to drink then 21 seems reasonable to buy a weapon as well

[Duckhunter935]

78. and drive

and smoke

[Logical]

86. Smoke I agree. n-t

[Duckhunter935]

71. for gods sake

don't let them drive with those not fully developed brains. Voting should also be held off until they develop fully. Is there a test we can develop?

[Bjorn Against]

76. A gun is not the same thing as a ballot or a car, your comparisions are ridiculous.

If you have to be 21 to drink I see no reason why it is unreasonable to say 21 for a gun as well.

[Duckhunter935]

80. tell that to their families

http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/11/us/texas-teen-dwi-wreck/

Another

http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/I-95-Deadly-Crash-235537341.html

I guess that was OK since no gun was involved.

[Bjorn Against]

88. Never suggested anything like that is OK because no gun is involved

Cars provide transportation which is often a necessity however, guns don't provide nearly the level of necessity as cars do. The vast majority of people virtually never use guns, many don't even own them, of the ones who do own them many never use them, of the ones who do use them they are rarely used out of necessity, and of the ones who do use them out of necessity the large majority are adults. Teenagers quite simply don't need guns just as toddlers don't need guns.

[LittleBlue]

79. Well the teenager is 18, so he's an adult

Unless this was sarcasm, I don't see how this is relevant.

[Bjorn Against]

89. As I have said more than once 18 year olds should not be able to buy guns

If you have to be 21 to drink I don't see why 21 seems so unreasonable to buy a gun.

[LittleBlue]

90. The NRA isn't exactly responsible for that

They didn't institute the law stating that 18 is the threshold for adulthood nor is there significant push to extend it to 21.

So it isn't very relevant.

Sometimes a tragedy is just a tragedy and no one but the deranged gunman is responsible.

[Bjorn Against]

92. It is not about the "treshold for adulthood"

They did not extend the treshold for adulthood when they set the drinking age to 21 either, but you better believe the political clout of the NRA would make it nearly impossible to pass a law raising the age to purchase a gun to 21.

[Duckhunter935]

94. up to the states

just like drinking age. I believe some states already restrict gun types to age. No difference.

[Bjorn Against]

99. Actually the drinking age is really not up to the states

I suppose technically it is, but a state will lose all federal highway funding if the age is set below 21 and because no state can afford to lose that funding they are obligated to set the age to 21.

[LAGC]

95. Well, you're right about that.

In fact, the NRA is pushing to lower the handgun buying age from 21 down to 18:

http://thehill.com/blogs/regwatch/court-battles/315989-nra-asks-supreme-court-to-lift-ban-on-handgun-sales-to-teens

So you might want to whip out that check-book and fire off some greens to Bloomberg right away.

[LittleBlue]

100. Drinking is a special exception

Tell me, where is the push to extend the gun ownership age to 21 that the NRA is blocking?

It's not happening because it has zero support. The NRA is responsible for a lot but not this one.

[Bjorn Against]

101. I can assure you there would be substantial support if it were proposed

The reason it does not get proposed is because everyone knows just how much political influence the gun nuts in the NRA have on the political process and we need to choose our battles.

[LittleBlue]

103. Your assurance isn't what I'm looking for

I can assure you the moon is made out of cheese, but it doesn't mean anything.

Cite me a poll where people believe the gun purchaser threshold should be raised from adulthood to 21.

[Bjorn Against]

105. Give me a few hundred thousand dollars to conduct a poll and I will get that number for you

But as I am sure you well know it costs money to conduct a poll and if nobody paid big dollars to have that particular question polled then there is no polling data on the subject. I certainly think that many people would consider it to be a pretty reasonable position to say the age to own a gun should be the same as the drinking age however.

[LAGC]

106. There's a pretty good argument that the drinking age should be lowered to 16.

I mean, look at Germany -- their teenagers drink responsibly for the most part, you don't see all the binge drinking you see here in the U.S. where underage drinking is illegal.

So I'm not sure that's a barometer you really want to hang your hat on...

[Bjorn Against]

109. I would be open to such an argument, but that is for a different thread

I think owning a gun is a more serious responsibility than drinking and if the drinking age as it stands is 21 then I see no reason we can't set the age to buy a gun to 21 as well.

[LAGC]

113. Fair enough.

But like you said yourself, the problem is one of money.

People like to complain that the NRA has too much influence, but why is that? Why is it that the pro-gun folks are so motivated to send all sorts of money to their advocacy organization, yet the pro-gun control folks can't be bothered to fund even piecemeal reform efforts?

That's the problem I see with gun control efforts in general in this country. There's a lot of huffing and puffing, but when push comes to shove people just don't really care about this issue as much as others, thus nothing gets done.

There's nothing "mystical" about the NRA's influence -- they simply have more devoted grassroots contributors fighting for their pet cause, whereas all the gun control side has is Bloomberg and his Mayors Against Illegal Guns with only a small fraction of the monied war-chest.

Gun control rhetoric plays well inside the belt-ways, but its a big political loser everywhere else. Look at what happened in Colorado.

[Bjorn Against]

116. Part of the reason the NRA has more money than the gun control advocates...

There is actually money to be made from selling guns, but you can't make money off not selling guns. It is the same reason the oil industry is able to contribute far more to political campaigns than conservationists, there is lots more money to be made from drilling for oil in a wilderness area than there is from leaving the wilderness untouched. The gun manufacturers have a product to sell and profits to be made, there are not any gun control sales bringing in big profits so naturally gun control activists do not have as much money.

[Duckhunter935]

107. so it is your opinion

Might be fine as long as that pesky second amendment does not prevent this as is now an adult seems to have a right to a firearm and the there is no right to drink alcohol.

[Duckhunter935]

108. right to keep and bear drinks

I think not as of now.

[Ranchemp.]

119. But they're old enough to join the military, be deployed to a combat zone,

carry an M-16/M-4, SAW, Grenade Launcher, Grenades, handgun, operate a tank's 120MM main gun, operate LAW's, operate AA missiles, so, where do we draw the line?

[Bjorn Against]

120. I am no fan of our wars of aggression

And believe me if I could raise the age to join the military I would, I don't like seeing our government try to manipulate teenagers to sign up for the military without a full understanding of what they are signing on to.

That being said the military does not just give a person a gun, they train them to use it and test them extensively to ensure they are competent. There is no training required to buy a gun off the shelf.

[Logical]

84. Guns are LEGAL to manufacturer, sell, purchase and own. There is NO WAY to solve this problem....

in the USA. As long as someone wants to kill someone with a gun, they will find a way to do it.

50,000 guns are stolen every year. That is way more than enough to keep criminals in guns. And way more than the 9,000 murders by guns a year.

We have an issue in this country with guns, no doubt about it. People want to use them to kill each other.

There is unfortunately no solution that will actually pass congress or the public.

[Hoyt]

97. Yep, do nothing and in another decade we'll have 100 million more gunz to deal with when

we finally decide to bite the bullet.

[Logical]

110. You are maybe the least reasonable person on this topic.....

No facts, no solutions, just being emotional.

Please list your top 1 or 2 ideas that have ANY chance of even democratic support that would stop mass shootings.

[Hoyt]

112. Simple, do what is best for the country, not just gun fanciers.

This is not a topic where one can discuss what is acceptable to those steeped in gunz. Those folks have proven they are irrational, and out for themselves at the expense of society.

[Ranchemp.]

121. So, in the end, you have no solutions beyond the usual demagoguery?

[Logical]

122. You are really not rational. Like I said, no real discussion. Just whining to whine. nt

[world wide wally]

147. Then they have a much better reason for having unlimited weapons in Alaska