NRA: Our meeting with Joe Biden’s task force went exactly as well as you’d expect
The National Rifle Association of America is made up of over 4 million moms and dads, daughters and sons, who are involved in the national conversation about how to prevent a tragedy like Newtown from ever happening again. We attended today’s White House meeting to discuss how to keep our children safe and were prepared to have a meaningful conversation about school safety, mental health issues, the marketing of violence to our kids and the collapse of federal prosecutions of violent criminals.
We were disappointed with how little this meeting had to do with keeping our children safe and how much it had to do with an agenda to attack the Second Amendment. While claiming that no policy proposals would be “prejudged,” this Task Force spent most of its time on proposed restrictions on lawful firearms owners – honest, taxpaying, hardworking Americans. It is unfortunate that this Administration continues to insist on pushing failed solutions to our nation’s most pressing problems. We will not allow law-abiding gun owners to be blamed for the acts of criminals and madmen. Instead, we will now take our commitment and meaningful contributions to members of congress of both parties who are interested in having an honest conversation about what works – and what does not.
NRA, how do we know what doesn’t work? I have yet to hear honest conversation.
Some ideas out of the meetings VP Biden has held:
- Clarifying gun ownership responsibilities.
- Restrict high-capacity clips and magazines.
- Impose universal background checks, including those at gun shows, for every transaction.
It appears they went into the meeting full of the spirit of give and take. It has been reported that Biden is considering some proposals that even the NRA has not opposed in the past. Surely there’s something that they can agree on.
Poor little NRA. Joey wasn’t nice to them and they’re (NRA) are ALL about compromise and thoughtful discussion. They do need to garner sympathy because they know change is coming. Lets see how they handle “compromise means agreeing with me”.
I have rarely given money to causes. I am giving money to groups determined to knock the gun lobby to their knees.
@Lyssa
That’s just it. Compromise to the gun control crowd is “agree with me.” We keep hearing the same thing over and over again. The list for the gun ban is out.
The fear of restrictions is that any restrictions are just the beginning. The gun control groups have NEVER stated the limit of gun control to which they would stop.
Restricting standard magazines will do nothing unless the police use draconian confiscation. There are hundreds of millions of magazines out there. And they look identical to the “restricted” magazines. And restricting magazines to some magical amount does nothing, anyway.
I’m all for universal background checks IF the private citizen can run it….or some other way of identifying non felons or crazies. However, to enforce all private transfers through a background check at an FFL is to bottleneck the procedures, increase cost, AND will require registration. And registration is a deal killer.
This police officer said it best in 2010: http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2010/09/ok-ill-play.html His analogy of the cake at the end explains how gun control works.
We don’t all believe that background checks violate 2A rights. That man clearly does, since he answers yes.
Change is coming. I would want to be part of the solution, if I were you.
Take it from one who has gotten very used to rights being whittled away (and most of your crowd doesn’t give a rat’s ass about) you are far better off owning a stake in things than letting it be done to you. Until the NRA is willing to give a little it won’t be getting a little.
Cargo, Is there a weapon that exists that you would be willing to put on the do not sell list?
Would you consider that some repeat fire high capapcity weapons might be housed at a range rather only shot there?
I think you need to accept that Brinks truck guards and meter maids aren’t going to be placed at schools. I think the caliber of LEO needed is more along the lines of uniformed officer or retired LEO. Those folks are expensive. The cost is well over $100k here when factoring in car, equipment, etc.
Restricting magazine size could do a great deal. Many law-biding citizens could turn in their high capacity in exchange for smaller ones or cash or other incentives. Getting any amount out of circulation helps. Remember that the mass killers generally are not part of the criminal demographic. That’s a different problem.
Will anything work 100%? Of course not. Can we try to make a dent in this kind of senseless killing? Yes.
When 20 6 year olds are mowed down in cold blood, its time to take a look at how things could change. Lanza wasn’t part of a criminal gang. He was a lone wolf who obviously snapped. He was a strange little toad who obviously flew below the radar to a certain degree. How do we change what happened? He obviously didn’t go in that school with box cutters and hack 26 people to death.
We also need to look at how to spot these people long before they commit murder, we need to make treatment more available and we need to be able to share information without violating people’s rights and perhaps branking many innocent people. We have to get more open about mental illness, tighten up on environment as well as remove certain stigmas. Now that’s a tough one.
Here is the first problem, Cargo, You have painted everyone who isn’t a …gun nut…pardon me…as “the gun control crowd.”
There are plenty of gun owners out there who believe it is time to make some sacrifices. You insist on turning them into “the gun control crowd.” Some of them are NRA members.
I see NRA, from every thing they have said or written since December 14, as being unwilling to make ANY changes at all in their position. Please. Show me where I am wrong.
I have an idea.
You want universal background checks.
I want the state to not register guns.
Every time you get or renew an ID/Driver’s license, you are run through the NICS. If you come back clear, you get one type of ID. If you don’t, you get another type of ID. Only the first type is valid for buying firearms, voting, etc.
That kind of check is on the table. Someone mentioned a high security weapons purchasing card that involved basic mental health test if you want to buy a certain level of weapon. I would oppose that for general weapons. For high capacity type weapons, perhaps that could be entertained. Not sure yet.
I am not sure I believe in mail order weapons. Maybe ammo and weapons ought to be reduced or eliminated from internet or catalog sales.
Maybe you could be allowed to buy a certain level of weapon by catalog but the high capacity weapons would have to be bought at a specialty store with more regulation.
All weapons are not equal.
@Moon-howler
They don’t have mail order weapons anymore. All sales like that HAVE to go through a dealer.
“Change is coming. I would want to be part of the solution, if I were you.”
So, instead of working to defeat restrictions of my rights, I should just “lay back and think of England.” No thanks. The problem is that your solutions sound suspiciously like the failed, unconstitutional policies promoted by Feinstein, the VPC, and the Brady gang.
The universal check that I described has been “vetoed” by the gun control organizations because it would prevent the need for more gov’t control and registration.
The NRA has ALREADY given in, having helped to design the previous gun restrictions and laws. And history has already proven that people will NOT turn in the magazines. Why else are they cleaning them from the shelves. Demand is so high, that the prices are triple and they are STILL selling.
There ARE many gun owners that don’t mind more control. They think that their guns are not being targeted. They are wrong. I’ve seen bolt action hunting rifles described as sniper rifles. Revolvers are “saturday night specials.” Shotguns are “streetsweepers.” Everytime there is a restriction, its not good enough. Lawdog’s analogy of the cake is taken from real life. Gun owners have given enough.
“Cargo, Is there a weapon that exists that you would be willing to put on the do not sell list?”
A hand held weapon currently being sold? No. For one thing, what would be the point. All rifles are either semi-auto, single shot, or automatic. Autos are rigidly controlled already. So banning “a weapon” removes just that. One type…like an AR-15 model. Leaving many other rifles with the exact same capabilities that look just a little bit different. And basically, no. You have a right to modern arms.
“I see NRA, from every thing they have said or written since December 14, as being unwilling to make ANY changes at all in their position. Please. Show me where I am wrong.”
I don’t think that you are wrong. Just as I think that they have no reason to change. In fact, I think many of the loudest voices calling for extreme forms of gun control, like Feinstein, are using the CT shooting as a political tool to advance their unconstitutional, hypocritical agenda.
“Will anything work 100%? Of course not. Can we try to make a dent in this kind of senseless killing? Yes.”
I agree with that, as long as the rights of citizens are not abused, especially by enacting laws that a) don’t work b) turn millions of Americans into instant criminals, c) compromise is not defined, as usual, as “do it the liberal gun control way.”
“Someone mentioned a high security weapons purchasing card that involved basic mental health test if you want to buy a certain level of weapon. I would oppose that for general weapons. For high capacity type weapons, perhaps that could be entertained. Not sure yet.”
Basically you are advocating that Americans must pass a subjective mental test to exercise a right, heck… to get a license to exercise a right. Chicago ALREADY HAS THIS, in reality. One must get a license to get a gun. Its called a FOID card. And the only people prevented from getting firearms are lawful citizens.
You cannot implement your ideas without trampling on the rights of 150-200 million Americans.
First off, I have offered no serious solutions. I have thrown a few ideas I have heard from others out there. Let’s get that straight right now. They aren’t my ideas nor do I necessarily endorse them. I am calling for discussion.
So cut the ‘your solutions’ bullcrap. I have none.
I believe the following:
It must be at least a 2 fold, preferably 3 fold plan–change in gun laws, mental health treatment and video games.
Teachers should not be armed in the classroom.
Change will happen.
That’s a pretty short list.
Stop trying to insult me with the anti-gun crowd and the gun-control crowd. I have owned guns my entire life. I am just not married to the idea that the right to bear arms is limitess and infinite. As a responsible member of society, I am aware that society is not going to continue to allow access to huge capacity magazines and weapons that can take out scores of people in a couple minutes.
Cargo said:
So much for the idea that gun owners are law abiding. People who stock pile illegal materials are not lawabiding.(or who stockpile in anticipation of something not being legal.)
I think responsible gun owners need to start distancing themselves from those who take on this surival mentality.
I consider myself a responsbile, law-abiding gun owner.
Of course, I don’t go into maximum hormonal over-drive when I see a new gun. Maybe that makes me not a real gun owner.
Cargo said:
Mine is. Sorry.
Cargo said:
“Someone mentioned” does not mean I am advocating. I don’t know how to make it any clearer. In fact, I said unequivocally I didn’t approve of that for ordinary weapons. I might consider something like that for weapons that fit a particular category…operative word…MIGHT.
Every time I open my mouth here, I am lumped in with Diane Feinstein and the ‘anti gun crowd.’ Actually I would rather be lumped in with her than a lot of other people. Perhaps I should be thanking you.
However, you immediately want to couple me up with groups. That is a way to silence me….to insult me or marginalizing me by throwing me in with the perceived enemy, rather than listening to what I have to say. I am throwing out ideas that I hear that I think are worthy of discussion.
@Cargo,
Are you telling me I can no longer order a .22 rifle through Sears or Walmart?
So cut the ‘your solutions’ bullcrap. I have none.
If you present YOUR ideas, such as restricting magazines or the banning of all semi-auto firearms…which you did…they are YOUR solutions. Stop trying to evade your responsibility for your opinion. Your list includes changes in gun laws. In every case, your desire is for more restrictions. Mine is for more liberalization. Mental health treatment reform is outstanding. Video games is an arguable influence on some weak minded people.
“I am aware that society is not going to continue to allow access to huge capacity magazines and weapons that can take out scores of people in a couple minutes.”
Your OPINION is that society should change that…but its not necessarily going to happen.
“As a responsible member of society,” So, are you implying that those that disagree with you on the merits of your position are NOT responsible? As a responsible member of society, I support the rights of all Americans to keep and bear arms.
So you’ve owned guns your entire life. So what? Diane Feinstein owns guns and has a concealed carry permit, but wants to ban guns. Ownership of guns does not make you NOT a gun control advocate. If you want to increase restrictions on gun owners, you are in the gun control camp. Be proud. There are hundreds of thousands just like you.
However, those of us who are gun owners also have just as much of a voice as you do. 1 person 1 vote.
I have never said …ever …to ban all semi automatic firearms. You must have me confused with someone else.
I do think restricting magazine size is a good idea. Now, if people want to be able to use them in a range setting, I have no problem with that as long as they arent on the street. That isn’t a new thought however.
I think society has changed. I just don’t think society had the impetus to change. I think they do now.
You want mental heath treatment reform. Tell me exactly, what does that mean?
I want video game reform and gun reform. <---------- BS I have said nothing. I never said anything about anyone but myself. I know several people I don't think are responsible gun owners. I didn't call them out my name, however, and I wouldn't. You don't seem to want to allow any room for moderates. Its either die hard no compromise gun nut or round up all the guns. Binary again.
“So much for the idea that gun owners are law abiding. People who stock pile illegal materials are not law abiding.”
They are NOT illegal yet. If the gov’t wants them, they can go find them.
And will you go quietly into the night if the gov’t decides that the 1st Amendment is troublesome….all that unapproved hate speech…. Or will you turn in that doctor that provides abortions if your political enemies succeed in outlawing abortion?
And if the the gov’t wishes to turn Americans into criminals with a stroke of the pen, then we have gone a long way into tyranny. For a crime to be committed, there has to be an intention. Or, at least, that USED to be the case…..our gov’t has moved away from that because its easier to convict if you don’t include that.
Right on. I’m quoting a republican congressman there. I’m ready to takes tea party stance on the issue of changing gun laws and access anything else that would prevent tThe slaughter of babies. . I’ve listened to the tea party and I’ve learned to make it simple, paint with a broad brush and not to listen to anyone that may disagree with me. You are either against the slaughter of babies or you’re not. It’s really that simple.
@Lyssa
“You are either against the slaughter of babies or you’re not.”
And I reject your idiotic. insulting premise that I’m not against the slaughter of babies. Its really that simple. Bloomy’s ideas are idiotic too. I’m not ready to restrict the rights of millions of Americans because criminals are breaking the law.
@Moon-howler
I am saying that you cannot get it delivered from Sears or Walmart without going through an FFL and doing the paper work.
@Cargosquid
I’ve seen that mentality used over and over by the Tea Party – disingenuous twist of logic. I can see why they like it. Thought I’d try it out.
Something like this-
Gingrey also defended Richard Mourdock, a Republican who also lost a Senate bid in Indiana after arguing during the campaign that pregnancies resulting from rape are “something that God intended to happen,” despite the “horrible situation” from which they derived.
@Cargosquid
I never claimed to be a law abiding abortion seeker. I probably wouldn’t know anyway since I don’t plan on being an abortion seeker.
All I keep hearing how law abiding all you gun owners are. I am just saying if you buy up high capacity magazines to stock pile should they be made illegal…that certainly whizzes on the spirit of being law-abiding.
@Cargosquid
But youc an still do it if you fill out the paper work?
@Cargo and Lyssa
It sounds like both of you are digging in your respective heels.
From the middle ground, you both sound extremist.
Those little kids were barely more than babies.
I don’t think that we can just say “well that won’t work” and move on.
Sometimes extremism is necessary. But I am digging in my heels.
Did you see that idiot in the second post? he is threatening to kill people over this.
Name is Yeager. Skeery.
Every profession, every hobby, has its unique language. Some of us work in professions where precision in spoken and written language can be a matter of life or death, even. Clarity is needed, especially when big decisions are about to be made that impact millions of lives. So when I hear terms like “automatic weapons”, “assault weapons”, “high-capacity magazines” used vaguely and interchangeably, I want to know what people mean when they’re using those terms to make a case for restricting the rights of the millions of law-abiding Americans.
And let’s say that a law is passed to restrict magazine capacity to 10 rounds. Will that really get at the root cause of the killings, or is it just an agenda-driven first step towards an eventual gun grab? It’s a legitimate question. Let’s define the problem before we figure out an answer.
What if we ban AR-15’s as many are demanding now? It’s my understanding that the Sandy Hook shooter left that in his car. Would that get at the root cause, or would it just be another chip away at the rights of millions?
Where does it end? I think about the uproar that happens right on this blog over any regulation of abortion clinics to conform to hospital standards. To many people, that seemed like a slippery slope towards the loss of “reproductive rights” and the old days of coat-hanger abortions. We’re all never going to agree on the rightness or wrongness of abortion, or at what point in a pregnancy it should be restricted, but I know plenty of people who would stand up and fight any infringement at all on those rights.
I’m willing to have a conversation, and I do think something needs to be done. But I don’t think anyone should be offended when they are asked to clarify what they mean by the above terms when they are proposing restrictions. Changes to the Constitution must be considered very carefully, and shouldn’t be based on emotion. I am appalled by accusations that decent, law-abiding citizens don’t care about slaughtered babies if they don’t support positions that may be based on misleading or false information. Think about the emotional impact of characterizing people as “pro-abortion” or “pro-life.” Not really fair, is it? Words matter.
@Emma
I believe Lyssa was speaking of those murdered children when she mentioned slaughtered babies. They were barely older than that. My 6 year old granddaughter just left my house. She is barely older than a baby.
Now…lets talk about that abortion reference…lets get down to what it really happening there.
Tell me why you think abortion clinics and not facilities that perform colonoscopies, gastr-scopies, vasectomies, foot surgery, oral surgery, liposuction and an entire host of complicated surgeries should not also meet the same standards that just got slapped on those who provide abortion services? You can’t tell me because no good reason exists. The entire reason that legislation was enacted and Cuccinelli made such a total hypocritical liar out of himself was to abolish abortion. No other reason. All the upgrades are disengenuous or they would have been done for all outpatient clinics that involve surgery, often far more invasive surgery than abortion.
Yes, if all the clinics in Virginia are shut down, and many will be, someone will eventually do something stupid out of desperation.
But you knew all that anyway. That’s why references to abortion in the middle of a discussion about sentient 6 year olds who did nothing but go to school one day just bring out the fire in me. Now if this was a sincere effort to protect people’s health, the same criteria might have been applied to all the out patienct facilities that are involved in surgical procedures. Then I would believe it was real concern. This isn’t. The reason all facilities weren’t included is the state of Virginia doesn’t have the balls to try it. The entire clout of the AMA and ADA would come crashing down on dumbo Cuccinelli’s head.
Emma, I don’t think you are right about any restrictions at all on abortion. In the first place, Roe vs Wade places restrictions. But let’s say they need shoring up….I think most people are very comfortable going up to third trimester and working backwards. I think you would find that most folks would find a lot of common ground.
The problem is, that isn’t ever where it starts.
Where was the big fight this past year…over contraception that people like MY delegate sees as a abortofacient. I have no use for that nonsense.
That was extreme and I knew when I wrote it – it’s not what I think. An unwillingess to modify a stance or even listen to those with whom you disagree is frustrating – and there seems to be too much of that.
The 14th Amendment written in 1868 may or may not apply in 2012, the first amendment doesn’t come without restrictions – from what I see and hear, some here think that the 2nd is sacred – it’s not more sacred than life.
This past election bordered on evil in my eyes – I’ve never been so disappointed in the American people and I am fearful of being disappointed again. How many Democrats were made to feel that they don’t care for the unborn, or are all on welfare or wish they were? How many Republicans were made to feel as though they were borderline illiterate or abortion Dr murderers or snotty rich folks? I’m sick of the anger, the polarization and the blame game.
This shooting happened in this country because we’re not doing something right. We should be willing to look at all aspects freely and work through them not acting like 5 year olds. I apologize for anyone who felt I truly thought that twisted logic was real. I’ve been on the receiving end of that kind of thinking as we all have. It’s not a nice feeling.
Please – let’s try to be kinder, less accusatory, less sweeping and try to be just plain polite – respectful of opinions. Words do matter including words placed here toward each other.
PAX
Excellent Lyssa. You make a profound point.
@Moon-howler
You would have to go TO the FFL to fill out the paperwork and pass any regulations of the state, then THEY might ship it to you. Uncertain. Usually, its shipped to the FFl and you pick it up.
@Moon-howler
Civil disobedience is a virtue. People can be law-abiding when the laws are just. Of course, all this stockpiling also sends a message that it would, perhaps, be too much trouble to pass certain laws.
Breaking the law is breaking the law. You are equivocating now. My issue is, if you say you are law abiding, it can’t just be for convenience. Is this where I start shouting rule of law?
@Lady Emma
I wish I koold rite as pretty as you .
That was good.
@Lyssa
Pax.
I like what you said there.
As for the 14th, I have to say again, that one court case clarifying THIS clause, ” and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” would go a long way to solving any confusion. THAT is the problem clause as interpretations of it state that foreign nationals do not fall under our jurisdiction as their home countries have to be kept abreast of any legal proceedings against them. So… do illegal aliens fall under our jurisdiction? Most say yes….. the author if the amendment says no. Clarity should be found.
Foreign nationals are under our jurisdiction while they are here.
That clause refers to diplomats who are in that gray area.
meanwhile, born means born.
@Cargosquid I owe it all to publik skool.
Thanks. I hope it didn’t sound like I’d had too much wine or something. I’m glad you think that change can happen. I’m afraid it won’t. Very afraid it will happen again. One of the firefighters murdered in Rochester came very close to my family. It’s unbelievable how that can make you feel and how, in an absolute instant, you have clarity of thought. I’d figured your first thought swould be emotional. I found out they’re not.
I am still in shock over Newtown. That also happened on my birthday. Then I just lost a close friend. I think I am on raw nerves. Oh and my friend of longest duration moved across country 2 days after Dec. 14.
Nothing is settling real well over here.
@Moon-howler I wasn’t taking a stand on abortion-clinic regulation in that post. I was simply making a point about language, and how important it is to define what the real issue/agenda is before anyone can expect buy-in from skeptics, and not to base decisions purely on the emotional impact of slaughtered babies.
We’re all horrified by what happened at Newtown. I’ve stated my willingness to have a dialogue on this, because I do agree something needs to be done to protect the defenseless. But all I’m seeing is movement towards bans and quick fixes that do nothing to cure the disease, so to speak.
I definitely think the fix has to address the issue rather than just flapping around in the breeze.
I also think (going back to my self made Venn Diagram) that is has to be a three pronged approach.
I am having the conversation with my grandson this morning …can’t he find a video game that doesn’t have killing in it. He told me zombies aren’t people. I told him, close enough…and discussed nuts who stay on the computer for hours on end…and that most of the mass murders had that element in common. Not sure if I did the right thing or not.
He just told me no one plays games any more that blow up asteroids or martians. Lots of zombies to kill. He said pretty much all games involve guns. Lots of slack jaw going on right now.
ps thanks for clarifying.
@Moon-howler Funny you mentioned zombies. We used to go to the NRA range in Centreville before we settled on our current place for membership. NRA does not allow any targets that look remotely human (that includes my son’s reactive zombie targets). So you can use a standard silhouette target, but nothing with a human face, even if it’s a known, deceased terrorist.
I think that is a good thing for sure. Now, how do we get the humanoid features out of the video games?
I had quite a fight going here with the almost 12 year old. (who knows more than I could ever know mind you.) i am afraid he is right though…that all games that any kid wants has guns and killing in it.
How do you combat this? I don’t feel like giving in. I don’t think it hurts to kill zombies for a half hour or so but holy cats? 8 hours of zombie killing? when do you desensitize and forget what you are killing? i think kids go psychotic in front of video games anyway.
If they don’t play the zombie video games, they’re playing them on their smart phones. And when they’re not playing them, they’re talking about them with their friends. It’s a losing battle, so to speak.
@Lady Emma,
You are bearing out exactly the rest of my conversation. I pretty much gave up. He doesn’t have a smart phone is the only good thing I can add.
They all kill zombies, there are no games without guns, and they all talk about them. And if I can’t control it on my computer he can go home and play it on his Wii.
I think this conversation is sceaming that something needs to change….
I hate to disillusion you more, but zombies are the least of it.
Games like HALO, Call of Duty, etc, are playable online. You are playing against others, and each player is a person in a combat game.
One vet posted online that his son asked for headphones with a mic for a birthday, so he could play his games online. Wondering how that worked, he watched his son maneuver his character and talk to his friends online, using the exact terms and tactics that the vets unit would use. His son is 12. By the time he will be able to enlist, he will be familiar with small unit tactics, even though it won’t be valid real world tactics.
I don’t play these games. For one thing, first person shooters as they are called, makes me motion sick.
Yea. Do we really want our kids playing games like that? One of the things in my background is knowing quite a few recruits…you know, like military folks going in for the first time. Basic training types. I came out of MWC with a semi degree in Basic training. What happens during basic training…well..your ego is stripped down and the marine corp (or army navy airforce) builds you back up into a mean, lean fighting machine. Part of that training ends up being desensitizing to snuffing people out. Remember, this was during Vietnam. The before and after Vietnam was also unique. The same people didn’t come back.
I am not criticizing the Marines. I am criticizing Nintendo, and all the other game makers who seem to be doing that to our children and we are paying hundreds of dollars to help them do it.
This area of the puzzle absolutely cannot be ignored.
We also have another thing happening, in addition to video games that simulate real people with real faces etc….the mental diseases that seem to trigger some of these people to go batshit crazy have their onset at…young adulthood. Schizophrenia is one such disease. No, not all with schizophrenia turn into killers but..its one of those diseases that manefests itself post adolescence.
So we have guns with the capacity to kill huge amounts of people when in the wrong hands, we have a mental health system that really doesn’t deal with problems until someone ‘does something,’ we have a country full of young people playing video games that simulate killing and desensitize the players and we have mental illness that kicks in in young adulthood.
It sounds like more than the perfect storm for some people.
It sounds like more than the perfect storm for some people.
And there you have it in a nutshell.
Millions play the games with no problems. Millions own guns with no problems. In both cases, some few…have problems. Sometimes they coincide.
The objections to just re-institutionalizing “crazy” people willy nilly for our “safety” is the same objection to banning the guns of millions of people. And while YOU may not be doing it, there is a politician in Conecticut putting forth a bill that will put anyone owning anything other than a single shot gun of any sort into prison.
Millions also grow to adulthood without succombing to debilitating mental illnesses that trigger killer rage.
We have to look at that intersection where someone goes crazy batshit and starts a massacre. What can we add or remove from society to curtail some of this?
I still don’t like the damn video games for hours.
Shooting is addictive. Video games are addictive. How do parents keep kids off of long computer sieges? Easy enough when they are little. Whaat about teenagers?
You got shoot em outs on the cell phones, at friends houses, its impossible to control.
I’ve spoken with many veteran therapists who firmly believe in institutionalization.
In Connecticut, Democratic Sen. Beth Bye wants to limit access to assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, and require that firearms be registered by model and serial number, Reuters reported. Bye also wants to impose a 50 percent sales tax on ammunition and magazines.
Sounds like a good start. Note “limit” not “ban”. Registration sounds like a VIN number to me…
That is certainly strict.
I expect there would be a hue and cry.
I am not sure how the registration would prevent these killings.
I give up.
Why? Do you think Beth Bye’s plan would sale through congress? I agree with her about assault weapons and high capacity magazines. Not too sure about a 50% tax. Some tax would be fine. We certainly tax liquor and cigarettes.
I believe very much in humane institutionalization. I keep hearing about these institutes but am not sure where they are. Someone just escaped from one the past few days—individual is highly dangerous.
@Moon-howler
I agree about the taxes. If a state wants to tax an item…go for it. But those items can be purchased elsewhere.
Registration is inflammatory, useless, and a deal killer.
And as I said…Connecticut already has an “assault weapons” ban.
I am not sure how I feel about registration. I haven’t seen any ideas that make me think we will be safer, but I have an open mind.
@Moon-howler The only solution that would scream for is parenting that sets effective limits. Who’s buying the video games, the kids or the parents? There are a whole host of things many kids should not have access to that we could talk about banning, but that would certainly tick off most responsible adults. Blaming Nintendo for Sandy Hook is like blaming Phillip Morris for your lung cancer, Anheuser-Busch for your DUI, Hostess for your obesity, McDonalds for the coffee burns on your thighs, and Twinkies for your fits of murderous violence.
So at what point do we just throw up our hands and say we cant do anything and let people have surface to air grenade launchers, killer videos, all the twinkies they want, and 4 cartons of marlboros a day?
A lot of older kids buy their own video games, especially those with cell phones.
I do agree that parents can take a lot more control than they take and I include myself in that admonishment.
Of course I don’t think that I’m not witless. But rather than finding fault with every suggestion or getting giddy over artful dismissal of ideas cant we look and see if there’s any merit??!!! Isn’t that dialogue? No one person will come up with one perfect answer. Lady Emma gave me a lot to think about – I don’t have to agree 100% or even at all. But I should listen.
BTW, if guns were registered I think that would mean a more complete background….
I don’t think I have found fault with every suggestion, or any. Sorry if I gave that impression.
I’m all for increasing personal responsibility. How about Mr Lanza? He knew of the problems with his son, he knew his wife had an arsenal, he knew she took him shooting, he knew how she stored her arsenal…..he knew, he knew he knew.
Let’s dsay he did know…what could he have done about it?
Article in the Post today about the NRA. Dismiss it if you like but consider this one excerpt – no commie pinko left wing nut slant to this –
“In the fall of 2009, Chuck Wexler, the executive director of the Police Executive Research Forum, convened a gun conference that brought police chiefs and law enforcement officials to Washington from around the country. Wexler also reached out to the NRA. The NRA representative remained largely silent, and at the end of the day Wexler sensed that the NRA had showed up merely to say no.
“They were not willing to accept what police chiefs who deal with shooting and firearms every day were saying,” Wexler says. “It was like, we don’t really care what you’re saying because this is what we think. The NRA has a preconceived idea about what should be done. And that is nothing.”
Those seem like powerful words. It has been my impression that the NRA wants what they feel is right and they make up “facts” to back them up. That has always been my impression. I would rather go to those who deal with the problem when guns go bad….ie kill someone.
I heard that 95% of all police never have to fire their weapons except on the range.
@Lyssa
Exactly. But we are also completely in the dark as to the legalities about their relationship. Wasn’t there a divorce involved?
Your article about police chiefs is interesting. Be aware that studies of gun control politics show police chiefs usually support it. The rank and file of many police departments do not.
Remember…gun control is about control. And police chiefs main responsibility is control…crime, safety, etc. And guns are an easy target. Police Chiefs cannot change a culture so that is the social weapon that they support. And regardless of the experience of the chiefs, depending upon what they advocate, their ideas are still limited by the Constitution.
@Cargosquid
The divorce was recent and I would look into it. Most federal and local law Enforcement DO endorse gun control. Maybe in Idaho….
Read the article. Our previous discussion about compromise surfaces.
Removed the guns.
You want the man to go into the home of his ex wife and steal her guns? You want him arrested? What if they were locked up at the time?
@Lyssa
Tried to remove the guns. Gone to court to have the guns removed.
They were her property. I would have supported those actions.
The problem with compromise in this situation is each time a compromise is reached, the gun controllers ask for more when their previous golden solution doesn’t work. And as I said, the LEO organizations leaders love control. And they get the press. Go back to Lawdog’s cake analogy. We started out with the whole cake. Now we have the crumbs, in many jurisdictions. In Virginia, we still have about 25% of our cake by his analogy.
Also good to keep in mind that LEO’s are agents of the government. So a police chief saying he or she is for any kind of gun control carries no more weight to me than Obama himself calling for it.
Any problem I have with govt usually isn’t the type that fighting it out with gun fire would solve. I figure I would lose.
@Cargosquid
I’d say that’s true in any situation. Gun controllers or others – more, more is not any particular side.
Emma, I don’t think much carries any weight with you. Got a sister like you 🙂
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-nras-true-believers-converted-a-marksmanship-group-into-a-mighty-gun-lobby/2013/01/12/51c62288-59b9-11e2-88d0-c4cf65c3ad15_story.html?wpisrc=nl_cuzheads
Ah, you’re not sliding down the “jackbooted thug” slope are you?!
snicker…who MEEEEEEEEE?
Emma….of course. Excuse me, LADY Emma.
Yeah, break in and steal them – exactly what I meant.
Gone to the cops and told him son who had issues had access to an arsenal. Or if he had a key to a house that might still be in his name – remove them. Or convince his ex-wife. Just TRY. He is pretty high on a list of who should be responsible.
i think that is part of the problem…when someone is mentally ill there is darn little you can do unles sthey have actually done something. Being withdrawn and werid doesn’t cut it as ‘something.’
As for the father intervening….I don’t know enough about the situation to make any suggestions.
Certainly if any of us had foresight, we would have all broken in stolen her weapons.
Locking up the arsenal is probably an easy decision to make. Trigger locks is another easy decision to make. Just because they divorced I don’t think he’s any less liable than the wife would have been had she not been killed.
We are a society of defensiveness and excuses. And then wonder why bad stuff happens.
I agree totally with sentence 1 & 2. @ Lyssa
I don’t think that anyone has control over someone else’s house. Divorce means no longer related.
But it doesn’t mean not responsible for your child. Or you can erase your kids.