Gun Control

[Moiraine]

[methodical]

I mean there are probably plenty of people that do want to ban all guns, but here's the problem with the NRA and the right.  There's been many opportunities to have common sense closing of loopholes after past tragedies and instead they dug their heels in and went to state legislators to get more permissive laws passed still.  That digging in means that when there's enough political will to do something in the opposite direction its going to snap back the other way to the extreme.  I have very little sympathy for the far right on this, even as a gun owner, they've made that the inevitable outcome by blocking any attempt for very small limits to who can get guns and more background checks for all these years as mass shooters keep upping the body-count.

Edited February 24, 2018 by methodical

[Moiraine]

41 minutes ago, methodical said:

I mean there are probably people plenty of people that do want to ban all guns, but here's the problem with the NRA and the right.  There's been many opportunities to have common sense closing of loopholes after past tragedies and instead they dug their heels in and went to state legislators to get more permissive laws passed still.  That digging in means that when there's enough political will to do something in the opposite direction its going to snap back the other way to the extreme.  I have very little sympathy for the far right on this, even as a gun owner, they've made that the inevitable outcome by blocking any attempt for very small limits to who can get guns and more background checks for all these years as mass shooters keep upping the body-count.

 

 

This right here is why gun owners shouldn't be jumping to defend the NRA. They don't even want the issue to be researched.

[BigRedBuster]

48 minutes ago, methodical said:

I mean there are probably people plenty of people that do want to ban all guns, but here's the problem with the NRA and the right.  There's been many opportunities to have common sense closing of loopholes after past tragedies and instead they dug their heels in and went to state legislators to get more permissive laws passed still.  That digging in means that when there's enough political will to do something in the opposite direction its going to snap back the other way to the extreme.  I have very little sympathy for the far right on this, even as a gun owner, they've made that the inevitable outcome by blocking any attempt for very small limits to who can get guns and more background checks for all these years as mass shooters keep upping the body-count.

As a gun owner, I completely agree. 

[zoogs]

This is the freedom we crave.

[zoogs]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/blumenthal-law-would-take-guns-from-those-judged-to-be-threats-1519597084

 

This is a reminder not to be uncritical in our evaluation of all gun control efforts even for those of us most proactive in our support of gun control. This coming from the WSJ, of course it has a headline like that, but then...it's hard to see how it's unfair. 

 

This form of gun control may very well be bipartisan. That makes it no more agreeable, and no less dangerous. 

 

Quote

The National Rifle Association, which has opposed such laws at the state level, didn’t respond to a request for comment. When Oregon passed its law in August, the NRA said in a news release that the protection orders “strips the accused of their Second Amendment rights” and will only be “based on the brief statement of the petitioner.”

 

Yes, this is the NRA, but I agree with the statement. More on the Oregon law: http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/08/oregon_lawmakers_set_out_to_re.html

Quote

 

Under Oregon's law, a judge can issue an order requiring a person to hand over their guns if they're deemed a risk to themselves or people they live with. The person then has 24 hours to turn in all guns before they can be seized.

 

Post, a second-term lawmaker, said he strongly opposes the law because it "calls for the forced confiscation of property by the police with no due process, no accusation of a crime let alone conviction of a crime. It allows people with no mental health credentials to make assessments of other's states of mind and it allows people with no mental health credentials (judges) to punish people they have never met or spoken to."

 

Yes, Post is a Republican, but I agree with him here, too. 

 

The avenues we have left ourselves that are bipartisan are not necessarily the right ones. I want to see us reducing the number of guns in circulation -- not choosing people to strip of their property, and especially not when ownership of that particular property is considered a constitutional right. In this case, though, it wouldn't be any better without the 2nd amendment. But I can see how politicians on both sides of the aisle will consider such incursions on individual liberties totally fine, and it worries me.

[Big Red 40]

I don’t support a total gun ban just thought this was funny

Edited February 26, 2018 by Big Red 40

[schriznoeder]

And the pope isn't Catholic...

 

Edited February 26, 2018 by schriznoeder

[BigRedBuster]

 

[commando]

when the NRA helped write gun control laws.

 

http://amp.timeinc.net/time/4431356/nra-gun-control-history

[zoogs]

This "I'm going to punish Delta" faux pas is an important reminder of what Republicans and present-day "conservatives" really want: authoritarian control over speech and behavior in the country. "Corporations are just exercising their First Amendment rights to free speech, some of which is political" was never, ever an honest argument.

 

@commando, gosh, that's an interesting read. In the early 20th century there was a time when gun owners had to register with the government? How did America ever emerge from such rank tyranny? Also -- it seems like a really good thing to have again.

Edited February 27, 2018 by zoogs

[BigRedBuster]

Come on....please be someone I can respect. 

 

 

[zoogs]

Oh, my god. It was somehow lost on me that this was more than some dangerous hypothetical. Concretely, the GA Senate is agitating to strip Delta of an already-passed $50M tax incentive unless the airline company, to quote the Lt. Gov again, "fully reinstate its relationship with the NRA."
 
https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2018-02-26/georgia-senate-moves-to-punish-delta-for-cutting-ties-with-nra 
 
The GA State Senate is the same body that made news in recent days for passing a measure allowing adoption agencies to ban gay couples. It is a 56-seat legislative body with 37 Republicans and 19 Democrats. Are you very proud, Georgia?
 

Edited February 27, 2018 by zoogs

[commando]

7 minutes ago, zoogs said:

Oh, my god. It was somehow lost on me that this was more than some dangerous hypothetical. Concretely, the GA Senate is agitating to strip Delta of an already-passed $50M tax incentive unless the airline company, to quote the Lt. Gov again, "fully reinstate its relationship with the NRA."
 
https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2018-02-26/georgia-senate-moves-to-punish-delta-for-cutting-ties-with-nra 
 
The GA State Senate is the same body that made news in recent days for passing a measure allowing adoption agencies to ban gay couples. It is a 56-seat legislative body with 37 Republicans and 19 Democrats. Are you very proud, Georgia?
 

dangerous game of state sponsored blackmail.   it might work or they might drive delta out  and cost georgia approximately 33,000 jobs from delta.  not sure how many supporting jobs that may be added to that cost

[jsneb83]

1 minute ago, commando said:

dangerous game of state sponsored blackmail.   it might work or they might drive delta out  and cost georgia approximately 33,000 jobs from delta.  not sure how many supporting jobs that may be added to that cost

Couldn't Delta also take them to court?