Gun Control

[lo country]

http://newyork.newsd...s-say-1.4463741

 

This whole thing is turning into a witch hunt...

 

for those of you who aren't familiar, this is what started it...

 

http://www.huffingto...al-news-gun-map

I agree that the list shouldn't have been published but I don't really see a coherent message. In certain situations we're told that guns are a deterrent and that would be criminals prefer unarmed victims. Now some in the gun lobby are implying that publishing this list makes the gun owners targets for burglary? What happened to the unarmed victims line?

I think that the "deterrent" part comes into play when the homeowner is actually at the house. With all things being equal (two houses with people home) the thief would choose the one that didn't have an owner with a firearm.

 

The irresponsibility of the media now comes into play. In Newtown for example, where did he get the guns? That's right. From his mother's house, after he murdered her. He didn't lawfully purchase them. He murdered and then stole them. The media, by reporting gun owners has now done the same thing. They have openly listed all of the homes in a certain area that has guns. Now all would be thief has to do is drive by a few times, get a feel for the schedule of the house and then go shopping. Completely irresponsible in the part of the media. If these houses are broken into, and guns are stolen and used. These stellar reporters should be sued. (goes back to my previous suggestion that mandatory secure storage be required for gun ownership)

 

How about we publish a list of folks who have had abortions? Those who are receiving some for of counseling? Those undergoing some type of rehab?

 

Another shining example of the great job the media does.

[Junior]

http://newyork.newsd...s-say-1.4463741

 

This whole thing is turning into a witch hunt...

 

for those of you who aren't familiar, this is what started it...

 

http://www.huffingto...al-news-gun-map

I agree that the list shouldn't have been published but I don't really see a coherent message. In certain situations we're told that guns are a deterrent and that would be criminals prefer unarmed victims. Now some in the gun lobby are implying that publishing this list makes the gun owners targets for burglary? What happened to the unarmed victims line?

I think that the "deterrent" part comes into play when the homeowner is actually at the house. With all things being equal (two houses with people home) the thief would choose the one that didn't have an owner with a firearm.

 

The irresponsibility of the media now comes into play. In Newtown for example, where did he get the guns? That's right. From his mother's house, after he murdered her. He didn't lawfully purchase them. He murdered and then stole them. The media, by reporting gun owners has now done the same thing. They have openly listed all of the homes in a certain area that has guns. Now all would be thief has to do is drive by a few times, get a feel for the schedule of the house and then go shopping. Completely irresponsible in the part of the media. If these houses are broken into, and guns are stolen and used. These stellar reporters should be sued. (goes back to my previous suggestion that mandatory secure storage be required for gun ownership)

 

How about we publish a list of folks who have had abortions? Those who are receiving some for of counseling? Those undergoing some type of rehab?

 

Another shining example of the great job the media does.

 

I think we all agree that the newspaper shouldn't publish a list of gun owners. However, I still fail to see what relationship this has to gun control and the NRA's hamstringing of the ATF.

[carlfense]

I think that the "deterrent" part comes into play when the homeowner is actually at the house. With all things being equal (two houses with people home) the thief would choose the one that didn't have an owner with a firearm.

Maybe. I think that's giving a bit more credit to the common criminal than they deserve. Most aren't . . . overly intelligent.

 

The irresponsibility of the media now comes into play. In Newtown for example, where did he get the guns? That's right. From his mother's house, after he murdered her. He didn't lawfully purchase them. He murdered and then stole them. The media, by reporting gun owners has now done the same thing. They have openly listed all of the homes in a certain area that has guns. Now all would be thief has to do is drive by a few times, get a feel for the schedule of the house and then go shopping. Completely irresponsible in the part of the media. If these houses are broken into, and guns are stolen and used.

Again, I don't think anyone has said that we can prevent all gun crimes. Showing one (or more!) isolated examples doesn't really prove or disprove much.

 

These stellar reporters should be sued. (goes back to my previous suggestion that mandatory secure storage be required for gun ownership)

On what grounds?

 

How about we publish a list of folks who have had abortions? Those who are receiving some for of counseling? Those undergoing some type of rehab?

HIPAA.

[rawhide]

Junior you are responsible for the ATF restrictions.

 

Just like the rest of us. Remember these words: We the People

 

The government does not have the power. WE DO.

 

Maybe we should march on Washington to get restrictions on lobbyists. Like the NRA, Priorities USA Action, Planned Parenthood, Labor Organizations, etc. Then none of these special interest groups would have the power to get these laws enacted.

[carlfense]

Maybe we should march on Washington to get restrictions on lobbyists. Like the NRA, Priorities USA Action, Planned Parenthood, Labor Organizations, etc. Then none of these special interest groups would have the power to get these laws enacted.

I'm for it.

[Junior]

Junior you are responsible for the ATF restrictions.

 

Just like the rest of us. Remember these words: We the People

 

The government does not have the power. WE DO.

 

Maybe we should march on Washington to get restrictions on lobbyists. Like the NRA, Priorities USA Action, Planned Parenthood, Labor Organizations, etc. Then none of these special interest groups would have the power to get these laws enacted.

 

Believe me, I've contacted my Representative, and he responded with a list of talking points straight from the NRA handbook.

 

I firmly believe the best way to attack the problem, is to get the rational gun owners to see the problem with the NRA, and to get them to withdraw their support of it. That will make them a less powerful lobby to deal with. We can march on Washington all we want, but as long as the money is flowing into the NRA, thereby flowing into the congressman's pocket, we'll never see change.

[rawhide]

So you are implying that the people can not change the government. Correct?

[Junior]

So you are implying that the people can not change the government. Correct?

 

No, I'm saying that the best way to change the government is to tell the currently elected people what we want. Here's the problem with how the 2 party system works at the moment. Take my Representative, John Shimkus, as an example. He is against Obamacare, pro-life, anti-tax hikes, and strongly pro-gun (rated A+ by the NRA). So, he gets a bunch of money from the NRA for his campaign. If he backs off on gun control he loses the NRA campaign money. So even if the vast majority of his constituents want gun control, he won't go for it, because he needs that money. And he won't get voted out, because MAYBE a few people chose not to vote for him because of that specific thing... but he's still pro-life, against Obamacare, and against tax increases. So the only thing he has to worry about is if a person FURTHER to the right of him pops up with the NRA money. So as long as the NRA is able to fund him, he'll be an A+ NRA guy.

 

The way to change the government is to take the power away from the lobbyists. And you do that by making their money dry up.

 

BTW- sorry if this isn't the most coherent post... I'm typing in between meetings while I inhale some lunch!

[BigRedBuster]

I never have been a real fan of the NRA. I have never been a member even though I am a gun owner. Like most special interest groups, they start off with good intentions and then take it WAY too far and unreasonable.

 

However, I am also not comfortable with the anti gun special interest groups running wild in Washington without someone pushing from the other direction protecting the constitutional rights of gun owners.

[carlfense]

However, I am also not comfortable with the anti gun special interest groups running wild in Washington without someone pushing from the other direction protecting the constitutional rights of gun owners.

But it doesn't have to be this way . . . you can be in favor of reasonable regulations without being a Constitution trampling gun grabber. Conversely, you can be in favor of the individual right to keep and bear arms without opposing every single regulation.

[rawhide]

Believe me, I've contacted my Representative, and he responded with a list of talking points straight from the NRA handbook.

I firmly believe the best way to attack the problem, is to get the rational gun owners to see the problem with the NRA, and to get them to withdraw their support of it. That will make them a less powerful lobby to deal with. We can march on Washington all we want, but as long as the money is flowing into the NRA, thereby flowing into the congressman's pocket, we'll never see change.

What if we get all the rational anti-gun activists to see that gun control has not and is not the answer.

So you are implying that the people can not change the government. Correct?

No, I'm saying that the best way to change the government is to tell the currently elected people what we want. Here's the problem with how the 2 party system works at the moment. Take my Representative, John Shimkus, as an example. He is against Obamacare, pro-life, anti-tax hikes, and strongly pro-gun (rated A+ by the NRA). So, he gets a bunch of money from the NRA for his campaign. If he backs off on gun control he loses the NRA campaign money. So even if the vast majority of his constituents want gun control, he won't go for it, because he needs that money. And he won't get voted out, because MAYBE a few people chose not to vote for him because of that specific thing... but he's still pro-life, against Obamacare, and against tax increases. So the only thing he has to worry about is if a person FURTHER to the right of him pops up with the NRA money. So as long as the NRA is able to fund him, he'll be an A+ NRA guy.

 

The way to change the government is to take the power away from the lobbyists. And you do that by making their money dry up.

 

BTW- sorry if this isn't the most coherent post... I'm typing in between meetings while I inhale some lunch!

 

Maybe the vast majority of his constituents(your representative) do not want gun control. Maybe they want him to legislate repeal of Obamacare and for less money to be distributed to Planned Parenthood?? Maybe it's just YOU that want these things j/k

Do you think that Obama gets money in his pocket from special interest groups too. So isn't he also expected to follow his backers ideology?

The best way to control special interest groups money is to what?? make it illegal? put a cap on it. Make it a felony?? But here's the catch: it has to apply to all PAC's, and special interest groups, not just the left or right wingers.

Just to be fair, I like the sound of your Rep since I am a card carrying NRA Life member.

Do I like everything the NRA does, nope. Do I like everything Obama does, nope. Used to be a member of SEIU, not by choice, and didn't like them at all.

 

I agree with many of the EO's that Obama signed. I think they will have to clarify HIPAA rules drastically though. That should be the direction that Congress takes also. The AWB has proven ineffective. Go after crime, criminals and the class of people that perpetrate the crimes.

[lo country]

The reason the NRA exists. To counter crap like this.

 

There is no reasonableness in DC.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/18/gun-control-group-omits-top-lynching-line-in-attack-ad/

[BigRedBuster]

However, I am also not comfortable with the anti gun special interest groups running wild in Washington without someone pushing from the other direction protecting the constitutional rights of gun owners.

But it doesn't have to be this way . . . you can be in favor of reasonable regulations without being a Constitution trampling gun grabber. Conversely, you can be in favor of the individual right to keep and bear arms without opposing every single regulation.

 

Tell that to any special interest groups on either side. I agree to your point but that isn't how it works in Washington.

[walksalone]

http://newyork.newsd...s-say-1.4463741

 

This whole thing is turning into a witch hunt...

 

for those of you who aren't familiar, this is what started it...

 

http://www.huffingto...al-news-gun-map

 

I'm not sure I understand your point. A newspaper publishing a list of gun owners has nothing to do with the ATF. You are looking at the above links that I provided and think it is reasonable for the NRA to push for? That the ATF can't demand for the accounting of a seller's gun inventory is insane! Pharmacists have to do more!

 

I wasn't posting this in response to the ATF.

 

I was posting this to just show that it's become a bit of a witch hunt if you're a gun owner, and that a couple of gun owners on that list have had their homes broken into and their guns stolen.

[carlfense]

The reason the NRA exists. To counter crap like this.

 

There is no reasonableness in DC.

 

http://www.foxnews.c...e-in-attack-ad/

1. You don't need the NRA to counter stuff like that . . . you just need to expose the editing. I'd be willing to wager that this Fox News expose has had far more viewers than the original ad. No NRA needed.

 

2. Extremism and craziness is most effectively countered with rational thought and moderation. (Might be why Obama is winning these battles of late...)

 

 

 

 

When people (presumably voters) start believing that they need to be crazier because someone or something that they oppose is crazy . . . well . . . we're in a bad place.