There are weekly killings. I don’t mean thug on thug violence. That is another issue. I am speaking of perfectly decent people, just going about their daily lives, being gunned down in cold blood.
As I watched the anchors on WDBJ grasp hands and have a tribute, then a moment of silence for their colleagues, it broke my heart. It broke my heart to hear Allison’s father speak of his daughter. These grandiose, senseless killings have to stop, regardless of what it takes.
After I watched the friends and family members of the slain, I listened to Donald Trump. He advised us that we really have a broken mental health system and that guns aren’t the problem. The Hell they aren’t! The pro-gun community must start assuming some responsibility for something other than slogans and bumper sticker sound bites when these things happen. They must start coming up with solutions to screen gun buyers to help ensure that psycho-paths don’t have their weapons of destruction.
If the gun community fails to heed these warns, they are going to find themselves overwhelmed by the American people at the voting booth. WEEKLY innocent people are being hunted down and killed by nut cases with weapons. The best way for the gun community to ensure that they have guns is to knuckle down and come up with some really effective screen processes that cut down on this type of violence.
Furthermore, lawmakers need to quit pandering to one community while ignoring another. Mental health services are horrible, nation-wide. It is almost impossible to get someone committed. If you are bat-shit crazy and don’t want help, you don’t have to have it. Then you can go down to the local gun shop or K-mart and buy the weapon of your choice and start killing away for whatever voices are in your sick mind.
It has to be easier to commit people and it has to be harder for people like this to buy guns. Until both of these issues happen, the killing will continue. Normal people don’t do serial killing or hunt people down to kill because of perceived needed retribution.
The American people are seriously tired of this unacceptable, senseless killing. Gun community–hup to it and come up with something other than defending your “rights.” The rest of us have rights too–not to be hunted down and killed by lunatics. Let’s put some teeth in our screening process. You aren’t winning the hearts and minds of the American people.
Most of us on this blog are gun owners. Of all my threatened “rights,” losing my gun rights is not really a big fear. Enough is enough.
The NRA should take the lead. Every time this is said there’s a barrage of comments plaintively stating how much the NRA does. If the NRA would be half as forceful about responsible ownership and use as they are defending 2nd amendment rights. Their biggest “contribution” is outrage.
I am not sure I have ever heard the NRA’s “outrage” when someone mass murdered.
What I have usually heard is that if the victim had been armed, this or that wouldn’t have happened. I heard Andy Parker (Alison’s father) say on TV that he didn’t care if they both had had AK-47s strapped on them, they still wouldn’t have seen the shooter coming.
So much for the good guys with guns theory.
Yes, Lyssa, I totally agree that the NRA needs to take the lead as do politicians state-wide.
This latest shooting might be just the one to bring the issue home. Two of the media were assassinated before the nation. Maybe when everyone sees what an assassination looks like, the hearts and minds of the American people will sit up and take notice.
Not everyone should have a gun. I don’t give a rat’s ass what the 2nd Amendment says. It took forever to load a weapon in those days. I say there need to be some restrictions beyond what we have now.
Lyssa and Moon,
Perhaps you aren’t listening. That is why you don’t hear what the NRA supports and advocates for. To whit: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/dc505f338a9c4cf7957fb20f72bfc5c0/no-2-senate-republican-proposing-gun-background-check-bill
I like and respect both of you, but you need to be schooled. The problem isn’t the NRA. It isn’t a lack of “background checks”. Go back 20 years, to the time the National Instacheck System was implemented. COUNT the number of spree killers who PASSED a background check, and yet AFTER they commit their evil crimes, it was learned that they were KNOWN to have had mental issues, had interactions with law enforcement, the courts, school counsleors, and all manner of representatives of CIVIL AUTHORITY, and yet either no action was taken, or in the rare instance that action was taken…THE CIVIL AUTHORITY FAILED TO REPORT THE DATA TO THE FBI.
You want to lay this at the feet of the NRA, when a freaking nutjob who shouldn’t even be walking around in society passes a background check, and obtains a gun. I got news for you ladies: The NRA didn’t pass the the 1996 crime-bill that gave us the “assault weapons ban” and the “instacheck system”.
The NRA supported the instacheck system, and opposed the assault weapons ban. We learned through experience, and the data incontrovertably shows the “assault weapons ban” had no effect on crime. All it did was create a speculative gun market and inflate prices. Disagree if you’d like…you’d just be wrong. The NRA supported and continues to support the instacheck system. However, if localities, colleges, psychiatrists, school counselors, judges, and all of those other individuals with the moral and civil authority to deal with unstable individuals fail to act, fail to refer, fail to ajudicate…and the BIGGEST crime, fail to report, the instacheck system’s effectiveness will be limited.
The NRA recognizes this, and this is why they suppor Senator Cornyn’s bill to both incentivize states who tighten up their reporting, and penalize those who don’t. Those of us “responsible” gun owners have been saying this for YEARS. Go back and look at the threads at just this blog, you will see that it is true.
When you deamonize the NRA, you deamonize not only 13 million other Americans…you demonize me. What saddens me is you know NOTHING about what the NRA “preaches and teaches”.
“So much for the good guys with guns theory.”
Moon, you disappoint me. If I posted every “good guy with a gun” story that I am aware of, because I make it my business to be aware of them, I would hijack your blog. The problem is, the mainstream press rarely reports these incidents, in keeping with their agenda.
“I don’t give a rat’s ass what the 2nd Amendment says. It took forever to load a weapon in those days. I say there need to be some restrictions beyond what we have now.”
Moon, dear lady, I will appologize for getting a bit raw here, but I need to.
This debate was settled in 1791, with the ratification of the US Constitution. You had better give a rat’s ass about ALL of the ammendments, including the 2nd, which is the only ammendment that really protects your right to have this blog. Same holds true for the other ammendments in the original bill of rights, as well as several of the other ammendments. Without the ability to use FORCE to guard against infringments on these rights, the “other 9” would be just words. The fact that pro-2A people will not accept any further infringements only means that we have learned that it is a bad idea to give a child in the midst of throwing a trantrum, what they are screaming for. It only teaches the child that screaming is the way to get what they want.
You say the NRA needs to “take lead”. I counter with this:
The “black lives matter” community, and ALL of the race-baiters, including our President need to “take lead: the shooter was a black man who stated his intention was to start a race war.
The “gay community” needs to “take lead:: the shooter cited one of his motives as being percieved discrimination due to his sexual oreintation
The “mainstream media” needs to “take lead”: the shooter was a multiply-fired member of the media, who cited one of his motives as percieved unfair treatment by multiple broadcast news outlets.
“Organizing for Action” AKA “the Obama Campaign” AKA “the DNC” needs to “take lead”, as we know he was pissed that he was once disciplined for wearing an “Obama” sticker, during live-shots, reporting durning the 2012 election.
This guy was about as far as you can get from the “NRA Member Profile”. Unless you can produce demonstrative evidence that he was, in fact, a member of the NRA, you need to stop demonizing the NRA.
The shooter was a product of the liberal left. The liberal left owns him, whether or not they are intellectually honest enough to claim him. He wasn’t White. He wasn’t an evangelical Christian. He wasn’t a straight male. He wasn’t a TEA party member. He wasn’t an NRA member. He wasn’t a 2nd ammendment advocate. He was a gay, racist, democrat nut, who premeditated a murder (legally purchased a gun, rented a car, countacted news outlets, wrote a 20-something page manifesto, filmed the crime, and posted it to social media.
Moon, I Love Ya…but you are so freaking wrong in your assertions, so intellectually blinded to what the “real deal is” I am having a hard time being patient. He isn’t a product of the NRA, the GOP, the VCDL, the TEA Party…he’s a product of 7 years of the “Victimhood President”. Louis Farakhan has called for a race war. We have cops being targeted and ambushed (argue I’m wrong, and I will destroy that argument). There has been a maked rise in racially motivated crimes against whites, which go unreported by the media. When crimes are committed by certain members of a “guarded” religion commit murder, this admin can’t tell the truth….and the worst crime of all: When a freaking lunatic commits an act of violence with a gun, the gun is blamed. Doesn’t happen when the assailant uses a hammer, hatchet, machete, knife, bat, bare hands, gasoline, lye, or any other weapon of mayhem. In these cases we blame the individual. Let a gun be used, and it is the gun that is blamed…and every other individual who happens to own them.
True, Pro-2nd Ammendment advocates will not give an inch. We’ve learned that being “reasonable” is tantamount to giving a petulant teen the keys to the car. You want to change things, there is a means to do so: Repeal the 2nd Ammendment. If you aren’t willing to try, then you had better accept that we will do everything we can to advance this right, and defend it at every turn. Compromise and “reasonable” has only meant we give up something. We don’t need to willingly give up anything, and we won’t.
Fix the mental health reporting system. Enforce the federal gun crimes laws. That is your answer, and in doing so, you will find a friend in the NRA. Propose otherwise, and you will face nothing but opposition.
I don’t think that the attributes of the shooter matter in regards to mass murder. I think if we claim mental illness, then we can stop. I don’t care if he is black, white, purple, straight or gay. It is irrelevant. The only thing relevant is there have been too many mentally ill people getting their hands on guns and killing a bunch of people. I have said it time and time again, there is an overlap between crazy and guns…classic Venn diagram. Those two communities need to get together and closely examine the problem and come up with solutions. If that isn’t done, the American people are going to be the deciders.
You can’t say “we aren’t going to give an inch.” There’s a real freaking problem out there. There has to be a way to at least have some sort of screening process in place. On the legislative side, it is almost impossible to declare someone mentally ill. There are plenty of crazies running around who have not been involuntarily committed.
As for being unschooled. Maybe but I didn’t just fall off the turnip truck either. I had parents who owned guns and who were NRA members ever since I can remember. I also don’t live in a cave and I listen to various NRA responses to things. The problem is, I didn’t walk away from my nuclear family spouting the party line. Not agreeing isn’t the same as being unschooled.
I believe that all amendments and rights have some restrictions. My comments about loading time were to illustrate that nowadays we have weapons that can blow up entire cities. Regular old people can own some pretty impressive fire power. Who gets to decide what those restrictions are? Basically, communities and governments.
I don’t want to round up everyone’s guns. 2A people seem to see this as all or nothing. I do not. I believe for the safety of all, we have to keep guns out of the hands of those people who have mental health issues. If I have to go through some rigorous testing to make that happen, I don’t mind at all.
This idiot bought a gun legally on June 17th. Are there restrictions that could be legislated to keep someone with his track record from owning a gun? That is what we HAVE to talk about as a country. Things cant go on like this, when we have public executions on television.
BTW, as I have often said, I understand why you feel that way. Reproductive rights people pretty much feel the same way. However, the difference is, and I see this as huge: With reproductive rights, the activists are either allowing abortion or doing away with it totally. Its all or nothing.
With gun legislation, many many of us want to keep guns. We just want the bat shit crazy people not to have easy access. We know it wont cure it all but we have to start somewhere, to stop the carnage. It isn’t an all or nothing sort of thing. I am perfectly good with most of the people I know owning guns. Operative word now becomes MOST.
I am sorry you cant see where many of us are coming from, as gun owners. You have thrown the gun owners who don’t mind some restrictions in with the people who want to round up and confiscate everyone’s weapons. That really isn’t a fair assessment of the situation.
Steve: We all know what you are going to say when this subject comes up; and you know what I’m going to say as well. So I will spare you.
Your side and my side are different sides of the same deadly pancake. We can argue and point fingers and mis-direct all day but, I think that we do agree on one thing in this. Gun violence is at an unacceptable level in this country.
It is time that we, as a “rule-of-law society”, re-examine the second amendment. I believe that if we had the chance to conduct a new examination of the right to bear arms, we may come up with some sanity that would allow self protection, reduce gun violence and strengthen our national mental health programs.
If the will of the people, during this re-examination and re-codification, is that people shall bear arms in an unrestricted manner, then those on my side will have to move or shut-up. If the will of the people is that a citizen may not bear arms any time or any place, then those that feel otherwise would have to move or shut-up. If the peoples’ will is that we MAY bear arms subject to agreed upon restrictions, then the vitriol in the debate will lessen. The re-examination of this amendment is the vehicle to get this done.
Therefore… I will steadfastly support any effort that calls for a review of the second amendment from now on. I will support politicians who feel similarly. I will oppose politicians that block a re-examination. My efforts are small but they are joining the efforts of other citizens across the country.
I just don’t think that we can dismiss one side of an equation. I do not think we can allow total unrestricted gun purchase and ownership–at least not for everyone.
I know, I know, felons cant own guns. involuntarily committed people can’t own guns. Anyone here ever tried to get someone committed? Easier said than done. Don’t forget about those HIPPAA laws and those patient rights. Those are working against 2A rights.
Meanwhile, we talk it to death and more innocent people are executed.
@BSinVA
BS,
As stated on a previous thread, I will no longer argue against your position, as it would give it legitimacy. I don’t have to, as the debate was settled in 1791. Support all the “review” you’d like, you will lose. Either work to repeal, or accept it for the guaranteed and affirmed right that it is. Any attempt to infringe will be met with a vigorous resistance.
I think if gun people don’t work towards a solution for gun violence, the American people will decide. Then numbers are numbers.
Right now, the message out there is no compromise. That is why so many people hate the NRA, myself included.
Perhaps it’s time for the sane folks in this country to start shaming the factions who won’t work for a viable solution. I could envision TV or internet ads that poke fun of guys (and gals) who feel so insecure or fearful that they have to be armed outside of their homes. There are many talented filmmakers and comics out there who could do a spectacular job of humiliating those who deserve to be humiliated. The NRA does it’s public spiel. The opposition does theirs. Apparently, telling tales of losing one’s loved ones, children, neighbors to gun violence isn’t enough. Bring on the comics who can vilify the militia wannabes, the guys over-compensating for some shortcoming, the peeps who want to administer justice on their own. Wonderful targets!!!!
Steve: as was stated before… we all know what you are going to say!!
@BSinVA
And yet, you say nothing. Background checks? The shooter passed a background check. Ban high capacity? The shooter had a standard capacity glock. Ban “assault weapons” ? The shooter used a pistol.
It is YOU BS, with the predictable argument. We know what you and your ilk will say.
Ilk is such a directed word.
Yes, the shooter passed a background check. Let’s just stop right there. That is part of the problem. The bar is too low.
No one suggested anything about assault weapons or high capacity. The premise is too many crazies can get their hands legally one guns and do great harm.
The question is, what can we do to prevent some of this. Obviously there are loop holes all over the place in the mental health system. Senator Deeds can attest to that. What does it take to commit someone? Its almost impossible.
Many years ago I had a very good friend who would come over to my house drunk and armed. I wouldn’t let him in my house until he handed me his weapon. I locked it in my desk while he visited. That was my own gun control. Steve, I wouldn’t ask you or any other people I know to do that if you came to my house. DW was dangerous.
@Censored bybvbl
Go ahead and “shame”. Do your best. You will lose, because you are arguments are weak. What you have failed to realize is opinion and perceptions have shifted. On this issue, you have lost minorities and women. Boom. Done. Gone.
Good luck.
Shame. That has to be the major weapon. Everyone knows who the neighbor with the anger management problem is, who the person is who explodes at a civic association meeting, who is obsessed with guns, who threatens to shoot anyone who disagrees with their politics, who is armed and scared. These people have mental health issues that probably aren’t going to get them involuntarily committed and they may not be felons. However, there should be a way of detecting their problems before they’re issued any permit to own a gun. Perhaps a basic test at the time of registering a gun would help weed these folks out. And it wouldn’t help to make carrying insurance mandatory for gun owners and make the registration something that would have to be continually renewed.
@Steve Thomas
It must be nice to be as self-righteous as you are – with the answers to everything.
I see this issue as much more a practical one than a constitutional issue. What we didn’t decide in 1791, Steve, was what the best policy would be in 2020 or thereabouts to address the thousands of gun deaths we have annually. The Second Amendment doesn’t restrict states and municipalities from imposing reasonable regulation of firearms or other “arms”. What is reasonable will change with the times. For those of us who are conservative constitutionalists, we can live with governments permitting people to carry flintlock, black powder, single shot muzzle loaders in plain view (plus swords like the one I customarily carry, tomahawks and large knives). Anything beyond that, however, can, perfectly consistent with the Constitution, be regulated and controlled.
But here’s where the practical problems come in: We have nearly as many guns as people in this country. If we were tomorrow to impose a requirement that anyone seeking to purchase a gun would have to go through extensive skill and gun care training, be observed by certified instructors on a firing line, get re-certified every two years, be screened for anger and mental health issues, and ban concealed carry, we could do that without any constitutional limit under the Second Amendment. The guns are still out there. The Charleston shooter, the Roanoke shooter, the Connecticut shooter, the Colorado shooters etc. could still get them. As people like
Steve frequently point out, only those with a commitment to abiding by the law would be affected. Maybe it’s just too late. Maybe we’re screwed and civilized life has left the building. Not sure I’m really that pessimistic, but my mind has been wandering in that direction lately.
Show me a superbowl commercial paid by the NRA condemning gun violence. A three minute spot. Show me the NRA lobbying for more mental health funding. Let’s see the NRA, one of this most powerful lobby’s, in DC change gears. Then they will be believable.
I HAVE been listening. Hearing nothing. Like most.
@Scout
Paragraph 1 is what I was fumbling to say. Thanks!
I think we can do something. There will be no change unless we start addressing the problem.
What I don’t think Steve realizes is that every time there is a mass murder (and it is happening weekly now), more people drift on over to the “other side.” The problem is, gun owners are now calling for some regulations to be tightened. That’s making a big dent in the 2A count. Seeing a mass execution on TV does a lot to turn opinion.
@Lyssa
I don’t know what it will take. I can understand wanting to protect your rights. I don’t understand the blind spot that fails to see that something, even a little something, must be done.
Even if one person’s life is saved, that’s a pretty big deal.
@Steve Thomas
+1
Says the person who argues against regulations to ensure abortion clinics are held to a high standard. Women do die during abortion procedures, mostly at facilities with inadequate equiptment or personel.
Indeed… If one person’s life is saved, that’s a pretty big deal. Apparently not…
@Jackson Bills
Death from abortion is very rare. You obviously don’t know much about the subject.
I don’t have a problem with any clinic being held to high standards by the state health department, as long as all medical clinics are held to the same standard.
Don’t be stupid and try to compare the number of women who die from legal abortion to the number of people who are killed in mass slayings. You are aware that more women die in child birth in this country than they do from abortion?
Don’t try poking a stick at the bear. You won’t win on this one because you are just being stupid acting. Stay on the topic which is cutting down on crazy people getting weapons.
@Steve
I don’t think the Senator’s bill goes far enough either but…its a good place to start. Something is better than nothing. Nothing is going to be fixed over night.
It is a danger to our republic and to civil society for gun owners to declare that if others don’t agree with their self-defined “rights” that they will use their guns to kill to prevent infringement of those right. That inflated sense of entitlement is what leads gun owners to use their weapons to exact their own brand of justice.
Below are Steve’s words that are scary because they are only slightly shaded from the notions of using violence to achieve civil rights embedded in the most recent shooter’s manifesto. When our society relaxes the restriction to use a gun only in the most desperate of situation and as a last resort for preserving life and instead permits one to use a gun/violence to defend one’s [inflated, delusional] self-declared rights (e.g. SYG), we have lost human rights, respect for rule of law and a civil society:
“Without the ability to use FORCE to guard against infringments on these rights, the “other 9” would be just words…
Pro-2nd Ammendment advocates will not give an inch. We’ve learned that being “reasonable” is tantamount to giving a petulant teen the keys to the car. ..you had better accept that we will do everything we can to advance this right, and defend it at every turn. Compromise and “reasonable” has only meant we give up something. We don’t need to willingly give up anything, and we won’t.”
I don’t think Steve is the least bit dangerous. I know him and he isn’t. I think he, in his frustration, was letting off steam.
I am somewhere between your values and Steves. I am probably actually closer to Steve beliefs than yours. What bothers me about his is his inability to agree to any compromise. We have a serious issue in this country regarding gun violence. Something must be done to protect the innocent, especially when it comes to crazies with weapons. That is where I feel the compromise must start.
What is going to happen if they don’t compromise is, politicians who don’t strive for sanity will get voted out of office. You can only “look large” for so long.
The Constitution grants us the rights to bear arms… ARMS (plural) = more than one. Two is more than one and would meet the Constitution’s minimal threshold. Three, four or five weapons does not meet this threshold any more than two does. Therefore, we should be able to own (bear) at least two weapons of any kind. I would submit that if we were restricted to ownership on NO MORE than two knives, or two pikes, or two swords, or two guns, or two rocket launchers, or two any other type of weapon, we are within our Constitutional rights.
I would further submit that States and localities could (actually “should”) restrict the ownership of weapons to no more than two per citizen. That would reduce the number of guns, pikes, swords, rocket launchers in the hands of citizens in this country by 50%. I would further submit that if we can reduce the number of guns in circulation, we will reduce the number of gun violence incidents.
Now everybody, jump on the bus, we are heading to Richmond to support this rational and perfect solution and get our States representatives to enact legislation to restrict weapon ownership and possession to no more than two per Virginia citizen.
Every time I see Crazy Ed clutching his pearls about firearms (or frankly anything related to self defense) I get this image stuck in my head http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j186/DonaldDouglas/American/man_who_doesnt_like_guns_zps76e53457.jpg
Ed: You are a homophobe !!!
Cato: You are a homophobe !!!
You need to relax. There is room for everyone on this planet.
Jeez!! Not Ed…. Cato !!
Really? The “outraged” people I see are the ones demanding that the NRA “do something.” The NRA is already the LEADING advocate of responsible gun ownership.
Please…tell us what more they should do.
@BSinVA
We had that “review” of the 2nd amendment. That was the Heller decision and the McDonald decision. Later court cases are “reviewing” it every week.
@Censored bybvbl
Yeah..the comics and actors have tried to “humiliate” those that exercise their rights. Those people keep losing the argument and PR battle. So….bring it.
And Steve is righteous because he’s right.
@Moon-howler
If you think committing people is too hard, you can thank the anti-2nd amendment ACLU for fighting against such laws.
@Scout
“The Second Amendment doesn’t restrict states and municipalities from imposing reasonable regulation of firearms or other “arms”. What is reasonable will change with the times. For those of us who are conservative constitutionalists, we can live with governments permitting people to carry flintlock, black powder, single shot muzzle loaders in plain view (plus swords like the one I customarily carry, tomahawks and large knives). Anything beyond that, however, can, perfectly consistent with the Constitution, be regulated and controlled. ”
Complete and utter claptrap.
The 2nd amendment is a restriction on government action. The McDonald case incorporated the 2nd to the states. Conservative constitutionalists understand that the Constitution is not limited to the technology of the time or you would not have 1st amendment rights outside of paper, printing press, or your voice. Furthermore, concealed carry, then, was completely legal and fine…why consider that to be unconstitutional?
” If we were tomorrow to impose a requirement that anyone seeking to purchase a gun would have to go through extensive skill and gun care training, be observed by certified instructors on a firing line, get re-certified every two years, be screened for anger and mental health issues, and ban concealed carry, we could do that without any constitutional limit under the Second Amendment. ”
If we were tomorrow to impose a requirement that anyone seeking to express an opinion or vote would have to go through an extensive education process, be observed by certified instructors on language and critical thinking, go through extensive education to ensure an informed opinion, be screened for anger and mental health issues, and be registered to vote with necessary ID, we could do that without any constitutional limits under the 1st and 15th amendments.
@Ed Myers
We already know that you appear paranoid and overly sensitive when it comes exercising rights and have no problem advocating violence….so….
@BSinVA
Restrict to two? Go for it. Don’t forget to restrict your reading material to two books.
@Cato the Elder
HAHAHAHAHA!
Cargo,
You can comb this blog with a fine tooth comb and I doubt if you will find more than a handful of instances where I have sung the praises of the ACLU, so don’t throw them in MY face, slap your hands together like you have fixed me. You haven’t. I probably dislike them as much as I do your beloved NRA. I look at both organizations as necessary evils. Equal contempt.
The NRA should run a massive campaign against gun violence, lobby for more mental health screening and identify gaps in background checks. The NRA should have a massive PRESENCE in the discussions and not just the cold dead fingers 2A rhetoric. Like Coors and Bud did about responsible drinking.
Maybe another MADD needs to be put in place. They wreaked havoc on beer distributors and congress. Mad Moms are a force.
I expect it will come to that. I postulate that there are at least as many drunks as there are NRA members, maybe even more.
No, they didn’t eliminate all drunk driving but they sure took a big bite out of it. MADD is certainly reviled by many a person. MAMK ? Mothers against mass killings?
I expect Andy Parker the dad is going to be a force to be reckoned with also.
I think what also is happening is that gun owners are sick of being lumped in as “wieners” or “sissies” because they want common sense laws in place that keep crack pots from instantly buying a gun. All of a sudden, the demographics of the us vs them is changing…big time.
Gun owners who want common sense change have now become “thems.” That won’t bode well.
I would say this public, in your face, I won’t compromise attitude will be the unraveling. The country won’t support weekly mass killings. A tipping point will come in the near future.
I think the NRA has lacked the guts to lead a campaign because their membership is split between responsible hunters/gun owners and militia wannabes, Henny Pennies who are afraid of their government, and an assortment of crackpots. If they take one side, they’ll lose the support of the other. Someone else is going to have to step up. Then they may follow.
So the thinking, logical and altruistic side of the NRA are AFRAID to do the right thing in a massive campaign. So the posters here that are members and others of that ilk need to step up and not let the NRA remain cowards; fearful of taking this on.
It’s going to take a bunch of fed up women going after manufacturers and elected officials.
@Moon-howler
One would have thought the slaughter of 20 babies would have been a tipping point. Abortion anyone?
There really wasn’t any concealed carry in the late 18th century, Cargo. The technology didn’t permit it. The Founders were dealing with long rifles, swords, and pikes, primarily. If technology is not a limiter, then we can permit people to own flamethrowers, howitzers. and .50 calibre guns on their pickup trucks.
The Second Amendment is the only right that refers to mechanical devices. The courts have taken great pains to consistently state that the right to bear arms is subject to reasonable regulation by states and municipalities. If we can regulate switchblades and numchuks, we can surely regulate modern firearms. The case law makes clear that what we cannot do is ban firearm ownership through regulation. That leaves us a lot of room to be sane.
The sane room is where we need to start talking and doing something, rather than the “can’t statements.”
We already have laws about the mentally ill. We also have laws about due process.
The NRA is not in the business of addressing mental issues and does not have the expertise for that. Furthermore, there are many organizations that have even more money and influence….that could do so….such as the AMA.
@Scout
We already have people that own flamethrowers, .50 cals, and howitzers.
The courts have stated that in DICTA since the Heller and McDonald decisions did not cover those laws. McDonald incorporates the 2nd to the states. Perhaps the state shouldn’t be able to regulated nunchucks, knives, etc. Possession should not be illegal. Assault with such should be.
They need to get into the business of addressing mental health issues when those who are have unhealthy mental health misuse guns to harm others. They stick their noses into other things, why not this.
I simply do not accept that any organization is going to sit on the sidelines like a petulant child, and not participate in seeking a solution. You have successfully just made me HATE this organization. They very much need to be involved in solving a serious problem.
I certainly hope you don’t think these laws are adequate. Millions of mentally ill people are a danger to themselves and others.
Are you saying you want no change and that its ok for innocent people to be gunned down in cold blood? I think that is what you are saying. Please tell me I am wrong.
“The NRA is not in the business of addressing mental issues and does not have the expertise for that. Furthermore, there are many organizations that have even more money and influence….that could do so….such as the AMA.”
That’s just denial, refusal and choice. And very dismissive.
Cargo – explain your rapid dismissive response against the following which is taken directly from the NRA-ILA (means National Rifle Assiciation – Institute for Legislative Action). Or better yet don’t bother to respond – just read it and learn. Now where was that post that categorized NRA members….
“Since 1966, the National Rifle Association has urged the federal government to address the problem of mental illness and violence. As we noted then, “the time is at hand to seek means by which society can identify, treat and temporarily isolate such individuals,” because “elimination of the instrument by which these crimes are committed cannot arrest the ravages of a psychotic murderer.”[1]
More recently, the NRA has supported legislation to ensure that appropriate records of those who have been judged mentally incompetent or involuntarily committed to mental institutions be made available for use in firearms transfer background checks. The NRA will support any reasonable step to fix America’s broken mental health system without intruding on the constitutional rights of Americans.”
Cargo must really want us to hate the NRA.
Thanks for posting that info, Lyssa.
@BSinVA
By the way…I forgot to mention…..the Constitution grants NO rights. At all.
It protects existing rights.
@Lyssa
You can’t have it both ways.
This is the extent of the NRA’s involvement. They do not craft legislation for mental illiness. The legislation that you just mentioned is that in the current NICS check. This is also the current position that you say is “not enough.”
The position of the NRA is that we have laws to adjudicate those considered dangerous and that those deemed so will be prohibited from owning guns. That information is to go to the NICS.
But this is all they do. Thus, my dismissal of any greater push. Its not their job or expertise.
Why don’t you push for the ACLU to stop fighting laws that prevent people like Lanza from being institutionalized? Where’s the Democrat push to build more institutions to house the dangerous and incompetent? It was the Democrats that pushed for closing said facilities in the 70s due to the idea that patients should not be held against their will….that they could be outpatients.
The NRA has become the all powerful boogieman to you and other gun control people….while, at the the same time, is somehow denigrated to a minority opinion.
The NRA is one of the richest organizations in the United States. Wealth doesn’t necessarily equal numbers, as we all know.
Why don’t YOU push the ACLU? I have nothing to do with the ACLU. Why do you want the Democrats to do your dirty work? Why do you think that the Democrats are in the building business? I think you are mistaking the Democrats for Donald Trump. He is the one who builds things.
Actually it was a higher court decision about the deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill.
@Moon-howler
You already hate it.
I don’t care what people think of the NRA.
As long as civil liberties are protected…. don’t care. Once rights are taken away, it usually requires violence to get them back.
Cargo, the NRA has one of the largest lobbies around. They can do what they want. That’s my point, they should want to push for better mental health, they should push loudly and flamboyantly for gun safety, gun purchasing regulations and loudly express outrage at the misuse of the weapons they hold so dear. Just like Bud and Coors. It’s returning commitment to the community. It’s responsible use and they have a responsibility. They are selfish, dismissive and defensive.
Where is that post which lists the types of NRA members? It was dead on apparently.
Our son is a current member and is listening to his father (former np member) tell him what we think. He is listening…..
No one here is trying to pry your gun away. No one here is against the 2nd amendment. Most here just want the NRA to act in a way they haven’t in the past. That’s all. just look from a different viewpoint.
Well put, Lyssa. My son also is a member. He certainly doesn’t agree with all they say and do however. They used to be a client of my husbnad’s. He came home wearing an NRA hat, until I saw him. Wives have ways of handling things like that. 😈 👿
I equate their responsibility to a book that quotes a guy named Luke. Luke 12:48: “For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required.”
Bibles and guns, right?
I am in agreement with Lyssa’s first comment that the NRA should take the lead.
I remember when Michael Moore confronted Charlton Heston about the death of a child due to a gun. Heston didn’t have a come back. But the fact is that the NRA has recommended policies and procedures for gun safety. If those procedures had been followed, then that little girl never would have died.
In this case the NRA is in the best position to make proposals to prevent psychos from getting guns. These guys sit around all day thinking about guns and rights. Who else would be better at coming up with ideas?
Sadly, like in the case of Heston, the NRA is more interested in being a political organization than a gun owners association. Any reasonableness from them would probably reduce their membership rolls so don’t expect to hear any reasonable ideas from NRA
@El Guapo
I disagree.
The NRA already states that prohibited people should not get arms.
The NRA does not have the expertise. Mental health is not their bailiwick.
Reasonable? Oh..there’s that word again. Define “reasonable.” I guarantee it won’t mean what I think it means…in relation to protecting rights.
They are a political organization, primarily of gun owners. Your little “gotcha” phrasing is disingenuous. You want the NRA to return to the mythical years of just being a safety organization? Easy……get every single gun control advocate to stop attempting to infringe upon the rights of Americans. Compromise works two ways…and the gun control side has never compromised.
For starters, “reasonable” doesn’t need to be defined by gun owners. It needs to be decided by the American public. “Reasonable” is not limited to the 2A zone.
The problem continues to be that there are too many loopholes in the sale of guns, the law, and mental health. Those loopholes allow unstable people to continue to by guns with almost no hurdles.
@Lyssa
Okay..they are one of the largest lobbies around…compared to whom? Lawyers? Teachers? Unions? Medical? The NRA is actually NOT one of the largest lobbying groups when it comes to money. Its power comes from a motivated membership and motivated allies, like me. We defend rights and we vote.
“they should push loudly and flamboyantly for gun safety, gun purchasing regulations and loudly express outrage at the misuse of the weapons they hold so dear. ”
They DO push loudly for gun safety. We have purchasing regulations, already forced on the community. And the NRA, along with millions of us express outrage at the misuse of guns.
You apparently mean something different. You mean INCREASED regulations and restrictions that pretend to stop crime. The recent shooter in Virginia followed ALL of the laws and even waited to get the gun. What MORE do you want? Vague references to the NRA to “do something” and “reasonable” regulations are meaningless. Spell it out.
Tell us how to detect these mentally ill people prior to a crime without infringing upon various rights. Tell us how to imprison these people without using the same people that don’t follow up NOW. Tell us how to take these people off the street without infringing their rights.
Because that is the only way to do it. No “gun regulation” will affect them without infringing upon the rights of law abiding, innocent people.
Cargo said:
Back a million years ago when I was one of the chix at Mary Washington College, it was a rule that when men came onto the halls in the dorms, other than Sunday afternoons, they had to have official business and announce themselves. Sometimes this announcement was made on the intercom system. If no electronics were used, the men, generally service folks, were supposed to shout “man on the hall.”
That was always the quietest shout in the world. Some might have even called it a whisper.
It seems to me that if the NRA is shouting for reforms, it is a whisper.
Cargo said:
Why should I push the ACLU? The conservatives have no influence with them, including the NRA. And dirty work? Why is it “Dirty work?” Democrat, liberal donors do have influence. The Democrats should push more institutions…..they are in the “building business” because they are the ones that want the sick to be institutionalized now. It was the Democrats that set the environment for closing the institutions.
Time for the liberals to accept the unintended consequences of their “good intentions” once again.
You might want to drop the labels. The ACLU isn’t a democratic organization. You might want to check out the history on changes in the mental health institutions. It wasn’t democrats or republicans either one. I am calling bullshit on that one.
In fact, just the other day I defended Ronald Reagan. Someone was accusing him of emptying all the mental institutions.
What you are failing to accept is, most people are not involuntarily admitted to mental health facilities. In order to be denied a gun, you have to not only been involuntarily committed but that commitment has to have been entered into the data system.
So many of these shootings are done by people who are covered in red flags. Cho, Vester, etc. All covered in red flags. Creigh Deeds couldn’t get his son into a facility, even though he was in crisis. Please stop denying these things.
Continuing to dig heels in isn’t going to work forever. I feel like you and people with your attitude have become part of the problem because you are refusing to seek solutions to something that is a horrible problem in society.