Announcement

Announcement Module
Collapse
No announcement yet.

NRA -are they Serious?!?

Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse
X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    So that would ban semiautomatic arms: rifles, pistols, revolvers, shotguns. That leaves me with breach action shotguns or bolt action rifles. Fine by me if you can give me an ironclad guarantee that nobody else will have a semi auto weapon either.

    Comment


    • #32
      As I understand, properly license citizens in Canada and Germany may own AR-15's and other semi-automatic rifles. I think Canada restricts mags to 5 rounds in those rifles, but as others mentioned low round count mags is a false security measure.

      I would like to see some changes in the ATF Form 4473 Firearms Transaction Record (what a firearm buyer fills out) and the NICS background check. There are no questions about how your firearm will be securely stored and who will have access. Not all states provide mental health data to NCIS. Connecticut does.

      I have not read any information about how Nancy Lanza stored her firearms. IMO when her son learned that she intended to commit him, her fate was sealed. If her son had not had access to a firearm, then a knife, bat, whatever. I would like to know more about her failed attempts to commit her son.

      No solution(s) will provide an iron-clad guarantee against crime, but we can try.

      My $0.01,

      Comment


      • #33
        The only person going down the slippery slope of "What if--" are those who don't want any restrictions on gun ownership at all. I can tell you the same type of slippery slope "What if--" scenarios HAVE and still ARE being waged over the right of free speech, arguing that free speech means you can say anything, anywhere to anyone with no repercussions.. Still we can get some commonsense laws passed, and people have been sued if they are irresponsible, yet free speech rarely kills more than one or a few over suicide or being trampled at a movie theater. We have had rules limiting free speech for a long time now (maybe Beavah can place the first limitation law), Yet no one has totally banned our free speech rights.

        I do like the ideas on the redesign of school buildings.. Those would be great to add into a totally balanced and reasonable package deal.

        Comment


        • #34
          In my state, when you apply for license plates, you have to check a box certifying that you are carrying the minimum prescribed limits for liability insurance. Otherwise you have to pay an "uninsured motorist fee" (which is not insurance). Guess how many choose to pay the additional fee voluntarily? The three times I have been involved in an accident, the other driver was uninsured and MY insurance had to cover the damage. POint being, putting extra questions on the firearms background check form is meaningless...the average citizen will lie to get what they want.

          Comment


          • #35
            Agreed, not perfect but maybe if will give some pause (hassle?) to responsible gun owners. I know many "responsible" gun owners with kids (great people) who have no secure storage for their firearms. "Didn't have gun safes when I grew up. Keep my rifle in the closet. My 1911 in the glove compartment." Some states have no requirements regarding securely storing a firearm.

            Just an idea, but maybe we need to "register" gun safes too or somehow make it a requirement to get a firearm license. Not perfect either.

            Should kids be restricted from accessing stored firearms is not black and white either. Adam Lanza age 20 obviously no, Kendra St. Clair age 12 definitely yes (OK girl home alone who shot intruder).

            Another $0.01,

            Comment


            • #36
              "The only person going down the slippery slope of "What if--" are those who don't want any restrictions on gun ownership at all."

              It's hard to have an intelligent discussion when people make false statements. In the various threads here on this subject NOT ONE PERSON HAS SAID THERE SHOULD BE NO RESTRICTIONS ON FIREARMS!

              Comment


              • #37
                Maybe not in so many words, but many are defending the speech given by the NRA spokesperson, who said that guns are not the problem except for the fact there are not enough gun packing citizens running around. All the problems come from the movies, games, mental illness etc. so the limitations should be on those and not guns. If you are going to argue in support of his views, then that is what you are arguing.

                We did little to restrict cigarettes, except put an age limit on them and a hefty tax, and courts allowed users of cigarettes to sue and win sometimes, limiting where you can smoke. With more & more bans. My work went from smoking anywhere, to a smoking room, to 2 specific places outside, to not on the premise at all, not even in your own car in the parking lot. Restaurants went from smoke anywhere, to smoking section, to smoke free. But, you can still sell cigarettes.

                Social acceptance went down with it.NRA would not like us to kill social acceptance for guns in the same manner as they did with cigarettes.

                Instead we have the gun lobbyist wanting to not allow people to be able to post "no hunting" signs on their own private property, want no gun free zones and in fact want an armed guard at all schools or for every teacher and the principle to be carrying, have worked hard to lift any restrictions we use to have on guns, or find new loopholes around the laws created and work to not allow those new loopholes to be filled. If you look at Florida you can find a lot of problems with this "stand your ground" law that encourages guns. I don't know what will become of the Travon Martin case, but this new one where a guy shot into a car full of kids and killed one then took off later to return with a story he thought he saw the glint of a gun in the car, so shot, so he is protected by "Stand your ground". If that guy gets off, then there is no laws in Florida to save anyone from being shoot for looking cross-eyed. Because no gun was found on the kids, and no one shot back at this guy when he started shooting at him.. "I thought I saw something, so I shot without confirmation and ran" will be anyones excuse to shoot anyone they want.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Government taking our guns would not have stopped the the Sandy attack because guns will still be out there. If some mental case wants to take a large group of folks with him to eternal hell, he will find the weapon. Think reasonable folks. Just because someone here doesnt like the NRA doesn't mean they are right. Ignore your biases and come up with practical ideas. Even mental cases don't go where there is armed resistance.

                  Barry

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    If the laws had been kept in place after the assult weapon ban was enacted in the Brady bill, rather then Republicans making sure it died out. Then he may have had a normal gun or a rifle. But he would not have had an assult rifle with a 30 round clip and enough surplus ammo to take out the entire school population. The mother bought those legally and recently, she did not purchase them on the black market.(This message has been edited by moosetracker)

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      "If the laws had been kept in place after the assult weapon ban was enacted...he may have had a normal gun or a rifle."

                      False: The "assault weapons ban" law was enacted into CT law years ago. Many states including mine enacted the exact version of the federal law when the federal law expired. Since the gun used in the crime was purchased in CT then it fell under CT law. If you're interested in facts you can read it here:
                      http://www.atf.gov/publications/download/p/atf-p-5300-5-31st-editiion/States/atf-p-5300-5-connecticut-2010.pdf
                      If it's too much trouble to read the entire law it's 53-202

                      "Maybe not in so many words, but many are defending the speech given by the NRA spokesperson, who said that guns are not the problem except for the fact there are not enough gun packing citizens running around."

                      False: But the NRA did predict that would be the response from people like you. The NRA made several proposals after Obama welcomed everyone to come together to find a solution. Apparently you believe only people who think like you should have a say. ONE of the proposals was to put armed officers in every schools. We have Air Marshals why not School Marshals. My son's school has at least one on duty every day.
                      Read the NRA's statement before making uninformed comments. If you want to read what was actually said instead of what media wants you think was said you can find it here:
                      http://home.nra.org/pdf/Transcript_PDF.pdf

                      Moose I would think you would be an NRA supporter, they do a lot to register voters and fight voter suppression.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        "ONE of the proposals was to put armed officers in every schools."

                        The bulk of the NRA speech was to criticize and blame the media, video games, and movies. The only solution put forth was to come up with a "emergency response plan" and put an armed police officer in every school.

                        Maybe NRA has some other ideas proposed elsewhere. What are they?

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          I heard the NRA speech.. That is what has been commented on. Here is what I said was the most stupid about his comments "with all the money in the Federal Budget, can't we afford to put a police officer in every single school?".. I guess like the names he gave the video and movies that were 10 to 20 years old, he is also out of step with the government and the Fiscal cliff talks, in which his side is the one claiming no new taxes, just cut all the programs..

                          As I stated if the NRA would like us to tax the gun owners for the guards at schools, sure we can do that, for what little good it will do. We can tax the sale of guns & ammo, and maybe tax you during your time at a shooting range..

                          All I am stating is that it is not a great "solve-all" solution. Because it didn't work at Columbine, nor at Gabby Giffords shooting, nor when Reagan was shot, nor when Robert F Kennedy or JFK were shot, nor at many bank robberies when armed guards were posted in the lobbies at all the banks. Also posting guards at schools will not help at shootings in malls, movie theaters, hospitals or resturants..

                          And having everyone walk around with a gun strapped to a hip holster, just means there will be more shootings during road rage, when parents get mad at their sons little league coaches, during arguments over favorite baseball or football teams at a bar also at a bar you can have that arguement over who goes home with the girl shootouts. It also would glorify the gun more, which I thought was LaPierres statement. Stop glorifing the guns in movies and games.. Well having it become the the proof of adulthood (if you make it to adulthood) is that you can also strap on a gun and shoot whomever you choose, would not help end the glorification of the gun.

                          But sure tax the gun owners to the hilt, and post your guard in the school.. Like cigerettes those who don't own a gun aren't the problem, so should not be taxed to fix the problem that the guns have caused. It is not the solve everything solution. So the other solutions have to be added to it. Change societies veiw of the gun, change the way buildings are built to reduce the ability for gun violence, and yes limit what types of gun and ammo may be purchased.

                          The statement I got was all the guns and ammo's were legally purchased by the mother in the Sandy Hook incident. So if Conneticut has a ban on the gun, then somehow there is a loophole in the law, or the women could not have legally purchased them.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            "And having everyone walk around with a gun strapped to a hip holster, just means there will be more shootings during road rage, when parents get mad at their sons little league coaches, during arguments over favorite baseball or football teams at a bar also at a bar you can have that arguement over who goes home with the girl shootouts."

                            Do you see a lot of this in New Hampshire?

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              I don't want to see this in NH. It is your viewpoint that to solve the problem of gun violence the answer is to have more people with more guns. Your Utopia, not mine.

                              Our laws are loose here, more loose then I would like. But, we do have gun free zones, and we haven't gotten into the mindset that everyone needs a gun to protect themselves from everyone else, because everyone has a gun.

                              We have had some shootouts here, a couple in my neighborhood, although I live is a bedroom community. Seems like a great place for drug dealing and money laundering and we have had old fashion car chases with shooting out of the car windows.. We have had two murder/suicides with guns in the neighborhood, one where the children just got to watch the husband kill the wife, then himself. The other where the whole family wife/children & husband died.

                              Luckily no school shootouts in my community yet. Otherwise aside from schools, there really is no public place to have a mass murder. Maybe at our 4th of July parade or a church. But we have no stores (except a small country store) or restaurants (except a takeout pizza palor & a dunkin donuts) no movie theaters, not even a pool hall.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                It is a simple quandary. Folks with guns can do a lot of harm. One solution is to arm folks to combat the "evil" person. Another solution is to attempt to limit the availability of guns. Neither is a perfect solution.

                                Personally, I don't carry a gun. But then again, I don't feel threatened. I can see the frustration of a homeowner who lives in a crime ridden area wanting to protect himself - especially is they feel the police force is unresponsive.

                                My preference is for the government to regulate guns at least as well as they do automobiles. Require a license to "operate" them, require a written and "driving" test to obtain a license, make the licensing renewable every four years or so, have age and health restrictions, etc.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X