NRA Fuck you!!!

I try my hardest to start the worst threads but you beat me to them every time. 

_____

lol

_____

Is this an example of civil discourse?

>>>I try my hardest to start the worst threads but you beat me to them every time. 

you could give faceonmars, plf9905, and dstu their due as well.

"The Second Amendment is an anachronism that's no longer relevant today."

And there's a Constitutional method for fixing that.  All you need to do is get a majority of U.S. citizens on your side.  That's how it's supposed to work.

The left hates the Constitution because it's a charter of negative rights and purposefully limits that power of government.  It will always (thanks God) be a limit on their utopianistic ambitions.

And I love how people who have indulged in illegal activities most of their lives believe that making something illegal will make it go away.

>>>   All you need to do is get a majority of U.S. citizens on your side.  That's how it's supposed to work.

http://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx

>>>>>And I love how people who have indulged in illegal activities most of their lives believe that making something illegal will make it go away.

I love how you're a condecending asshole that's on the wrong side of every social issue.

To be fair, he's also on the wrong side of every fiscal issue too. Trickle down economics and tax cuts for the rich..

thom you dolt, it will make it HARDER for these things to occur. 

the genie is way far out of the bottle. 1000's of maniacs all over the country already have stockpiles of this shit. thanks to your colleagues.

SHAME.

>>>>>>>thom you dolt, it will make it HARDER for these things to occur. 

Exactly.  Nobody thinks new gun laws will stop all shootings.  If they stop just one it's better than none.

The all or noting disingenuous GOP argument is a bunch of bullshit.

Like with most things Republicans need something to affect them personally to care about it.  I bet if Thoms daughter was shot in an event like this he'd be singing a different tune.

Thom - All you do is spew fucked up shit!

 You have NO empathy or humanity whatsoever...

What the fuck is wrong with you?

Do you REALLY believe the bullshit you say??

Are you trolling us because you were picked on as a kid???

Debate welcome in this thread<<<

As I see it, the big problem with repealing the 2nd entirely without a modern day "rewrite" is that there is currently not a "right to self defense" contained within the Constitution; and strict constructionists might argue after a complete repeal of the 2nd that it simply does not exist ... even though most would agree it's an inelienable right (that which the government can't grant nor take away).

Would those of you who want to see the 2nd removed entirely be adverse to a simultaneous formulation of a new ammendment that guarantees a broad right to self defense, yet somehow appropriately limits the destructive power any given individual might possess / utilize for said purposes?

>>>>> All you need to do is get a majority of U.S. citizens on your side

Nope - takes two thirds.. 

>>>>>The left hates the Constitution because... it will always (thanks God) be a limit on their utopianistic ambitions

Nope - the right wants to live to the letter of a document written almost a quarter of a millennium ago and one written almost two millenniums ago. "God" didn't write either one.

.>>>>>And I love how people who have indulged in illegal activities most of their lives believe that making something illegal will make it go away

Nope, but better laws and better enforcement will reduce it.

The legislation most gun-control advocates call for would not have stopped Stephen Paddock.

He had no history of mental illness, and people who knew him didn’t report any bizarre behavior. He had no criminal record, beyond a minor violation years ago. He didn’t even have politics that anyone was aware of. ISIS is claiming responsibility, but the FBI says it hasn’t found any evidence of a connection. His brother seemed sincerely dumbfounded and called Paddock “just a guy.” No enhanced background-check regime, no matter how vigorous, would have stopped him from purchasing guns.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/452157/las-vegas-shooting-gun-cont...

Just admit that what you really want is to confiscate all guns and get on with it.  And good luck with that.

>>>>>Just admit that what you really want is to confiscate all guns

Nope again. I have owned and fired guns. They should be available to buy and own for practice, home protection, and hunting (for food).

Doesn't mean we can't restrict them with better background checks and some types of firearms made illegal to own,

>Just admit that what you really want is to confiscate all guns and get on with it.  And good luck with that.<

You are wrong again. 

No law will prevents all crime, guess we should repeal all laws.

And...

"The legislation most gun-control advocates call for would not have stopped Stephen Paddock."

 

That legislation is still far more humane & sensible, than the sheer lack thereof that you promote.
Not knowing beforehand that people will try to kill dozens, is not a reason to try to prevent that option.

If he wasn't able to buy all those guns, those people would all still be alive. Preserving his right to have those guns concerns me very little.


The world needs Devil's advocates, and the Philzone is a good place for one like Thom.
I do hope that in the real world, he is a better person, and that we won't be hearing news about him one day...

>> No enhanced background-check regime, no matter how vigorous, would have stopped him from purchasing guns. <<

How about a uniform federal background check on all sales AND transfers, with the mechanism to red-flag a spike in someone's purchases of both weapons and ammo. Would you be opposed to such a measure, Thom?

If someone with one or two guns suddenly buys 25+ guns within a year, I wouldn't mind them getting a knock on the door. If the NRA has a problem with this then I support it. Fuck them.

A guy shoots almost 600 people and Thom's like "what's the problem?"

>just admit that what you really want is to confiscate all guns and get on with it.  <<

yeah. that's it...

bill o'reiley says this is the price of freedom...

our society is SICK.

Thom slipped right down that slope.

When I lived in San Francisco, the first night was much better. I had the best seats in the house.

The only way to get meaningful gun regulation is for liberals and non-white people to arm themselves. Open carry is illegal in CA because Governor Ronald Reagan made that illegal after the black panthers openly and legally carried guns around. Trust me you start seeing a bunch of black people open carrying in Starbucks and the Thoms of the world will quickly start seeing the reason of meaningful gun restrictions. 

Or just a civil war style massacre. the police would use their military surplus to mow down any non white group open carrying. 

Addiction to guns is a mental disorder that needs to be treated.

Did the leaders of the NRA care about the children who were gunned down at Sandy Hook?

Do they care about the 586 casualties this single gun owner created in a single day?!

Unless its members take over and change its course: FUCK THE NRA

Here is the catch 22 with the NRA:

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/gun-maker-stocks-surge-after-mass-shoot...

The gun industry likes it when people start calling for gun control in the wake of a horrible tragedy like this.  The NRA gets folks all worked up about how the massacre du jour is going to prompt Congress to "take ur gurnz" and sales skyrocket.  Massacres = calls for new gun control = $$$$ for gun manufacturers. 

For advocates of additional gun control, the question should be how do you implement sensible additional regulations that have a real impact on public safety without lining the pockets of the NRA and gun manufacturers in the process? 

"The greater the bureaucratization of public life, the greater will be the attraction of violence. In a fully developed bureaucracy there is nobody left with whom one could argue, to whom one could present grievances, on whom the pressures of power could be exerted. Bureaucracy is the form of government in which everybody is deprived of political freedom, of the power to act; for the rule by Nobody is not no-rule, and where all are equally powerless we have a tyranny without a tyrant."

Hannah Arendt, 1970

https://www.brainpickings.org/2013/10/14/hannah-arendt-on-bureaucracy-an...

How about a uniform federal background check on all sales AND transfers, with the mechanism to red-flag a spike in someone's purchases of both weapons and ammo. Would you be opposed to such a measure, Thom?

If someone with one or two guns suddenly buys 25+ guns within a year, I wouldn't mind them getting a knock on the door. If the NRA has a problem with this then I support it. Fuck them.

I hate so much about bureaucracy.  I spend most of my working days swimming upstream against it.

But, if we are going to have violence, we may as well get rid of all these things:

Hey Thom

 I wonder if Hannah Arendt, a Jewish woman who survived the Holocaust, would approve of your mis-using her words so you can support gun violence?

>> If someone with one or two guns suddenly buys 25+ guns within a year, I wouldn't mind them getting a knock on the door. 

Already happens in border states and there is nothing legally preventing it.

https://www.atf.gov/resource-center/fact-sheet/fact-sheet-multiple-firea...

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/01/06/run-in-atf/

More guns, less gun violence between 1993 and 2013

“Even as a certain type of mass shooting is apparently becoming more frequent, America has become a much less violent place. Adjusted for the US population, the number of guns per American increased from 0.93 per person in 1993 to 1.45 in 2013, which is a 56% increase in the number of guns per person that occurred during the same period when gun violence decreased by 49%."

http://www.aei.org/publication/chart-of-the-day-more-guns-less-gun-viole...

So I guess we can assume that more guns equal less violence?

As far as I can tell, the NRA didn't have anything to do with what happened in Las Vegas.  And there isn't a law that could be passed short of gun confiscation that could possibly kept this from happening, and it's doubtful even that would have worked,  The guy obviously broke numerous gun laws so just how will more fix the problem?  And emotional responses to a problem that requires clear thinking is a bad way tlo deal with societies problems.

>> Already happens in border states and there is nothing legally preventing it. <<

But, the database is incomplete. Plus, gun-show loopholes, and friendly family exchanges need to be pulled into the database. 

you can only have 5 dildos in arizona....

>>> More guns, less gun violence between 1993 and 2013 ... 

... So I guess we can assume that more guns equal less violence? <<<

Assume nothing.

The AEI has its conservative bias and perspective.

Looking at what has been happening in the last 4 years (since 2013) guns are being used in deadly ways on more people. There's no defending the use of guns.

double

>> There's no defending the use of guns.

Let me give it a go. I like target shooting with my father. It's his hobby and he uses it to socialize with his friends. 

Let's be real about how guns are used in America, and it has nothing to do with defending freedom

Here are a few of the reasons Americans shot people last month, summarized in the first-person-voice. As always, we have provided links to news reports documenting each and every incident. Click "see more" or "continue reading" to expand this caption and all the links.

A guest at my son’s New Year’s Eve party got drunk and wouldn’t leave, so I shot him dead. (TX, 1/1)

http://www.nydailynews.com/…/homeowner-fatally-shoots-guest…

I got out my 9mm handgun to show it to my son, but I unintentionally shot him in the stomach. (CT, 1/7)

http://www.journalinquirer.com/…/article_6c0ba69c-d681-11e6…

I work at a butcher shop, where we received a live buffalo to process. I was up on a ladder with a gun trying to shoot it, but it bumped the ladder and I shot myself in the leg. (KS, 1/13)

https://www.hayspost.com/…/kansas-man-injured-during-attem…/

I got in a fight with a guy, so I grabbed my gun and fired at him. My shot went through a wall and killed a woman in the next room. (TN, 1/14)

https://www.facebook.com/DunawayForDA/photos/pb.185393134994543.-2207520...

Some guy dinged my door in a parking lot and we started arguing about it. We both had guns, so I shot him first. (TX, 1/17)

http://www.wfaa.com/…/haltom-city-man-shot-outsid…/386764042

My brother was arguing with me about which one of us treats Grandma right, so I shot him. (TX, 1/19)

http://news4sanantonio.com/…/police-say-man-shot-brother-du…

I was arguing with my stepson about chilidogs and I said I was gonna shoot him. So my wife hid my gun. Then he kept arguing with me so I got my OTHER gun out and shot him dead. (FL, 1/23)

http://www.mynews13.com/…/…/port_orange_deadly_shooting.html

My neighbor was yelling at me because I kicked her dog, so I shot her dead. (TX, 1/24)

http://www.khou.com/…/woman-dies-after-shooting-i…/392198837

I accidentally ran over a dog with my car. The guy who owned the dog was really mad about it and was yelling at me, so I shot him dead. (AL, 1/25)

http://www.wsfa.com/…/argument-over-dog-leads-to-deadly-sho…

Somebody in another car flashed their bright headlights at me (I was driving with my brights on), so I turned around, followed him and shot him. (NC, 1/28)

http://abc13.com/…/man-shot-during-argument-over-b…/1730152/

>> There's no defending the use of guns.

Let me give it a go. I like target shooting with my father. It's his hobby and he uses it to socialize with his friends. <<<

I can only hope your dad keeps that gun in a locked gun safe. Nice that he has a hobby, sorry it's that one.

a shooting rampage at the nra headquarters would be....ironic...

FUCK The  NRA  = Guilty As Charged !

How Can The 2nd Amendment  Way Way Then  Apply To The Last 15 Years etc = IT IS Totally WHACK !

so was the constitution.........just sayin'

>>And there isn't a law that could be passed short of gun confiscation that could possibly kept this from happening, and it's doubtful even that would have worked. 

I'm pretty sure if they outlawed the kits that allowed an account to convert semis into fully automatics a hell of a lot less people would have been shot. 

DROP A Daisy Cutter Right ON NRA Headquarters ! Fuck Those Pieces OF SHIT !

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1OqbwtIPy4

I know this isn't the time for lol, but this guy is pretty spot-on:

Jeff Jefferies - gun control. It's only part 1, a bit over 7 min., and worth it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rR9IaXH1M0

>>>   Jeff Jefferies - gun control. It's only part 1, a bit over 7 min., and worth it

way worth it, it was hilarious and cuts the Republican/NRA arguments to shreds.

hey gun nuts.  google this: "child accidentally shot by friend"

It happened to "the nicest of guys" near me. He was a salesman for computer parts I worked with. Son found his gun box in his nightstand.  Found the key, accidentally shot his 4 yo brother to death. Enough with all this gun debate. There is no debate. Stop buying guns. Stop making guns. Stop using guns.. Just stop. Lord almighty.

"that would never happen to me"  until it does.

Not that facts matter to the left, but......

Facts, Not Emotions, Are Needed In Gun Debate — Here Are 3

1. More gun laws won't mean fewer homicides or mass shootings. Gun control advocates claim that there's a direct relationship between state gun-control laws and gun-related fatalities. But these numbers include suicides, which account for two-thirds of all gun deaths. Restricting the sale of new guns isn't likely to have a significant impact on suicides.

When you look only at homicides, there's no clear correlation between those and state gun laws

2. Attacks on the NRA are disingenuous. As usual after a mass shooting, the NRA is being attacked for using its political muscle to block more gun control laws. Here's a typical comment: "For most Hill Republicans, bucking the NRA is unfathomable. The powerful gun lobby spent more than $52 million backing candidates in the 2016 cycle alone." Or as alleged late-night comedian Jimmy Kimmel put it, Republicans "should be praying for God to forgive them for letting the gun lobby run this country."

But the NRA is a relative piker when it comes to campaign donations and lobbying. In the 2016 election, labor unions outspent the NRA by more than 3 to 1. Last year, the National Association of Realtors spent twice as much lobbying Congress than all the gun rights groups combined.

3. There are already hundreds of gun control laws on the books. Also left out of the discussion is the fact that there are, by one count, more than 270 federal laws on the books, as well as countless state laws covering gun sales and gun ownership. Will one more gun control law make any difference? That's hard to show.

http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/after-las-vegas-shooting-fa...

Any gun crime occuring in Chicago?

GUN CONTROL? The Las Vegas Death Toll Happens Every MONTH In Chicago

There were 84 murders in Chicago, just in June, according to DNAinfo.com, which keeps a running tally.

There were 76 murders in July, 50 in August.

And there were 59 murders in Chicago last month, so the death toll in Las Vegas — again, the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history — was just a normal September there.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/21868/las-vegas-death-toll-happens-monthly...

Thom, your "facts" are meaningless...

Guns make their way to Chicago from states like Indiana. As long as states like Nevada put few restrictions on gun sales, guns will be transported from those states with few restrictions to places like Chicago. You are either intentionally ignoring this fact, or you are incapable of understanding it.

Attacks on the NRA are justified.  It's not the money spent, it's the power of the NRA members. The NRA tells them to jump and those sheep ask, "How high" 

Members of Congress do not fear a bad mark from the National Association of realtors, but they do fear a bad mark from NRA.   Are you incapable of understanding this? Or are you once again intentionally misrepresenting the facts?

270 guns laws, but no universal background check.

I'm suprised Thom hasn't blamed Hollywood liberals for making violent movies yet.

Thom, what are your ideas for reducing gun violence?

here is a peer reviewed journal study for my librarian pal.

http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/12/6/365

RESULTS

In the 18 years up to and including 1996, the year of the massacre at Port Arthur, Australia experienced 13 mass shootings. In these events alone, 112 people were shot dead and at least another 52 wounded (table 1).8 In the 10.5 years since Port Arthur and the revised gun laws, no mass shootings have occurred in Australia.

From a statistician who used to reflexively think that more gun control laws would solve the problem....

I used to think gun control was the answer. My research told me otherwise.

Before I started researching gun deaths, gun-control policy used to frustrate me. I wished the National Rifle Association would stop blocking common-sense gun-control reforms such as banning assault weapons, restricting silencers, shrinking magazine sizes and all the other measures that could make guns less deadly.

Then, my colleagues and I at FiveThirtyEight spent three months analyzing all 33,000 lives ended by guns each year in the United States, and I wound up frustrated in a whole new way. We looked at what interventions might have saved those people, and the case for the policies I’d lobbied for crumbled when I examined the evidence. The best ideas left standing were narrowly tailored interventions to protect subtypes of potential victims, not broad attempts to limit the lethality of guns.

By the time we published our project, I didn’t believe in many of the interventions I’d heard politicians tout. I was still anti-gun, at least from the point of view of most gun owners, and I don’t want a gun in my home, as I think the risk outweighs the benefits. But I can’t endorse policies whose only selling point is that gun owners hate them. Policies that often seem as if they were drafted by people who have encountered guns only as a figure in a briefing book or an image on the news.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-used-to-think-gun-control-was-...

Speaking of statistics, mass shootings only account for 1% of the approximately 33,000 annual US gun deaths.  60% are suicides, 30% are murders, and the remaining 10% are a mix of accidents and justified shootings (ie self defense).   55% of murder victims are African-American and most of the "mass shootings" (ie. four or more people shot in a single incident) are gang related.   The overwhelming percentage of homicides are committed using handguns.   If new regulations are to be enacted to promote public safety, they need to address and be tailored to those hard facts and be designed to protect the communities and populations most affected by gun violence.  If any particular type of firearm is need of additional restrictions, it should be handguns, especially high powered, high capacity models like the 9 mm Glock, which is the weapon of choice for gangsters, criminals, and some of the worst mass murderers (e.g. Virgina Tech, Ft. Hood, Luby's, etc.).    

One guy has blow up shoes and we all have to take our shoes off at the airport. 

Thousands murdered and Congress is the NRAs bitch.

Stop with the this wont work bullshit. 

Try something!

Ban auto/semi, magazine limits for rifles and auto pistols, license to own like a drivers license with test, full background check, national gun registry, and ban gun show loopholes.

Thom and his articles are pretty much pushing me towards supporting the extreme view that all guns should be out of all private citizens' hands.

As aiq says, "Try something!

The Australian model of government buy-back of guns has worked. What aiq wrote could help to significantly lessen deaths by guns.  "Ban auto/semi, magazine limits for rifles and auto pistols, license to own like a drivers license with test, full background check, national gun registry, and ban gun show loopholes."

We're worth it.

".washingtonpost.com/opinions/"

"The Australian example provides evidence that removing large numbers of firearms from a community can be associated with a sudden and ongoing decline in mass shootings and accelerating declines in total firearm-related deaths, firearm homicides and firearm suicides."

^DUDE!!!

>>  If any particular type of firearm is need of additional restrictions, it should be handguns, especially high powered, high capacity models like the 9 mm Glock, which is the weapon of choice for gangsters, criminals, and some of the worst mass murderers 

No one considers 9mm to be high powered. And Glocks are the choice of many police and armies too.

>>>>No one considers 9mm to be high powered.

Don't gun nerd out.  It really doesn't help your argument.  Not everybody knows every specific about guns but like he said maybe handguns need more regulation.

>>>>And Glocks are the choice of many police and armies too.

Yeah, they kill real good.

We've tried the more guns will make us safer theory and it doesn't seem to be working.  Let's try something else.

ender wants no regulation and to shoot people

“It’s all circling around the same problem of personal liberties,” Walter said. “People came to this country for either money or freedom. If you don’t have money, you cling to your freedoms all the more angrily. Even if smoking kills you, even if you can’t afford to feed your kids, even if your kids are getting shot down by maniacs with assault rifles. You may be poor, but the one thing nobody can take away from you is the freedom to fuck up your life whatever way you want to.” 
― Jonathan Franzen, Freedom

>> Don't gun nerd out.  It really doesn't help your argument.  Not everybody knows every specific about guns but like he said maybe handguns need more regulation.

The devil is in the details. When they pass regulation, they limit technical features of models, calibers, form factors and actual models by name. If you can't discuss technical details then you aren't ready to discuss regulation. 

It's like wanting to talk health care reform and not knowing what a "deductible" or "lifetime spending cap" is.

ender what, if any, gun regulation do you support?

are there no lines to be drawn?

>> ender what, if any, gun regulation do you support?

I'd like to see them ban the cranks and bump fire stocks that make semi-auto rifles approximate full auto. 

They don't have a "traditional lawful use".

but semi autos are ok? serve a legitimate useful purpose?

also i bet you could 3D print one of them bump stops

thanks for answering tho enders

>> but semi autos are ok? serve a legitimate useful purpose?

Yes. DC vs Heller explicitly said Heller had a right to own a bottom feeding, semi automatic handgun and the law banning it was unconstitional. 

From the decision: United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. 

Obviously, the semi-automatic category of both rifles and handguns have been commonly used for hunting and self defense for 100 years before this decision and are protected weapons. You can't pass wholesale bans on them. 

Ender,

we can change the law, just like Heller did.

We just need 5 justices who aren't Republican gun worshippers.

No other civilized nation has anything close to the level of gun homicides as the US.

Your clinging to Heller is a very weak argument.

It is pretty apparent that, while you may feel bad for victims of gun violence, you are completely ok with it,  as you defend gun rights immediately after every massacre.

I think gun nuts have blood on their hands.

But that is just my opinion.

Imagine a world where the constitution gave you the right to drink and drive, and everybody else just needs to watch out.

>> we can change the law, just like Heller did.

DC v Heller didn't change the law; it codified the multi-century status quo of individuals having the right to own and operate commonly used guns.

>>>>>No other civilized nation has anything close to the level of gun homicides as the US

Just a point of order.   Is Mexico not civilized?   Their murder rates are through the roof.  Like Syria bad.

>>>>>Your clinging to Heller is a very weak argument

That is what we call stare decisis 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/stare_decisis

Strictly speaking, Heller did not create new law.   It interpreted existing law, specifically the Second Amendment, and found that it protected the right of private gun ownership and that the Second Amendment was not limited to gun ownership in the context of a "well regulated militia" as some had argued.  It also struck down certain local laws (i.e. handgun ban and trigger lock requirements) that the Court felt infringed on those rights.  Under the doctrine of stare decisis, that issue has been resolved and won't be revisited, which is a little troubling even for this Second Amendment supporter, because I personally believe requiring trigger locks would be a sensible regulation and think that handguns are far more of a threat to public safety than the scary looking long guns the media is fixated on.

Now that being said, the Supreme Court made clear that firearms could be subject to some level of regulation, but saved questions regarding the limits of other specific regulations for another day.  The next question that might come up is whether limits on magazine capacity go too far.   The Second Circuit just upheld Maryland's ban on high capacity magazines, while certain other federal courts have struck down similar laws elsewhere.  When you have a patchwork of competing lower court rulings, that's when the Supreme Court steps in to sort everything out to ensure consistent interpretations of the law in all 50 states.   I guess we will have to wait and see what the Supreme Court does with that issue.