Yep, They're Coming to Take Our Guns!

[Mad American]

Your little hypothetical game is actually a very good example of this entire debate. To the anti-gunners there is only one solution. So even when given a hypothetical situation and presenting an alternate solution, that is unacceptable because it does not fit with the ant-gun agenda. Even though the alternate solution is just as, or even more effective it still will not be accepted because it goes against the agenda. You asked, I answered...it is just because my answer goes against your agenda you will attempt discredit it.

I'm curious why you think allowing the deranged shooter in to the school, regardless of the weapon he is carrying, is better than improving security and stopping him at the door? That is what you are advocating in your little hypothetical game.

[Mad American]

We've been here before, I remember that tree. I'm done going around and around in the same circle with you vrede. Looks like we are gonna have to agree to disagree.

[rstrong]

Second, when people got fed up with drunk drivers, the government cracked down and strengthened related laws. And it worked: Drunk driving deaths are a third of what they were. Regulation works.

Granted, there's at least one other kind of motor vehicle where this probably wouldn't work.

[Mad American]

The Surprising Unknown History of the NRA: For most of its history, the NRA supported gun control laws and did not see government as the enemy.

For nearly a century after, its founding in 1871, the National Rifle Association was among America’s foremost pro-gun control organizations. It was not until 1977 when the NRA that Americans know today emerged, after libertarians who equated owning a gun with the epitome of freedom and fomented widespread distrust against government—if not armed insurrection—emerged after staging a hostile leadership coup.

In the years since, an NRA that once encouraged better markmanship and reasonable gun control laws gave way to an advocacy organization and political force that saw more guns as the answer to society’s worst violence...

Once Upon A Time…

The NRA was founded in 1871 by two Yankee Civil War veterans, including an ex-New York Times reporter, who felt that war dragged on because more urban northerners could not shoot as well as rural southerners...

The NRA’s first president was a northern Army General, Ambrose Burnside. He was chosen to reflect this civilian-militia mission, as envisioned in the Second Amendment, which reads, “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The understanding of the Amendment at the time concerned having a prepared citizenry to assist in domestic military matters, such as repelling raids on federal arsenals like 1786’s Shays Rebellion in Massachusetts or the British in the War of 1812. Its focus was not asserting individual gun rights as today...

Yep, even the NRA did not ignore the "Militia" phrase.

...In the 1920s and 1930s, the NRA’s leaders helped write and lobby for the first federal gun control laws—the very kinds of laws that the modern NRA labels as the height of tyranny...

In the early 1920s, the National Revolver Association—the NRA’s handgun training counterpart—proposed model legislation for states that included requiring a permit to carry a concealed weapon, adding five years to a prison sentence if a gun was used in a crime, and banning non-citizens from buying a handgun. They also proposed that gun dealers turn over sales records to police and created a one-day waiting period between buying a gun and getting it—two provisions that the NRA opposes today...

State gun control laws were not controversial—they were the norm. Within a generation of the country’s founding, many states passed laws banning any citizen from carrying a concealed gun...

Get that? Most of the founders were still alive, but Mad American and others claim to know their intent better than what they wrote, did, and accepted.

...The cowboy towns that Hollywood lionized as the ‘Wild West’ actually required all guns be turned in to sheriffs while people were within local city limits. In 1911, New York state required handgun owners to get a permit, following an attempted assassination on New York City’s mayor...

...A new president in 1933, Franklin D. Roosevelt, made fighting crime and gun control part of his ‘New Deal.’ The NRA helped him draft the first federal gun controls: 1934’s National Firearms Act and 1938’s Gun Control Act.

The NRA President at the time, Karl T. Frederick, a 1920 Olympic gold-medal winner for marksmanship who became a lawyer, praised the new state gun controls in Congress. “I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons,” he testified before the 1938 law was passed. “I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses.”

These federal firearms laws imposed high taxes and registration requirements on certain classes of weapons—those used in gang violence like machine guns, sawed-off shotguns and silencers—making it all-but impossible for average people to own them. Gun makers and sellers had to register with the federal government, and certain classes of people—notably convicted felons—were barred from gun ownership. The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously upheld these laws in 1939.

The legal doctrine of gun rights balanced by gun controls held for nearly a half-century.

In November 1963, Lee Harvey Oswald shot and killed President John F. Kennedy with an Italian military surplus rifle that Owsald bought from a mail-order ad in the NRA’s American Rifleman magazine. In congressional hearings that soon followed, NRA Executive Vice-President Frankin Orth supported a ban in mail-order sales, saying, “We do think that any sane American, who calls himself an American, can object to placing into this bill the instrument which killed the president of the United States.”...

The Paranoid Libertarians’ Hostile Takeover

But in the mid-1960s, the Black Panthers were better-known than the NRA for expressing that view of the Second Amendment...white libertarians with podiums started to assert that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to guns—like the Black Panthers....

Hey, Partisan62, the NRA is a Union creation and the NRA belatedly followed the Black Panthers lead. You've been outed.

...Harlon Carter wasn’t just another hard-headed Texan who grew up in a small town that was once home to frontiersman Davy Crockett. He was an earlier era’s version of George Zimmerman, the Floridian young man who claims to have shot Trayvon Martin in self-defense in February 2012—even though police records and 911 recordings seem to show Zimmerman was looking for a fight...

Carter’s top deputy Neal Knox was even more extreme than him—wanting to roll back all existing gun laws, including bans on machine guns and saying the federal government had killed Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy as “part of a plot to advance gun control.”

...Harlon Carter became the NRA’s new executive director...

After Carter was re-elected to lead the NRA in 1981, The New York Times reported on Carter’s teenage vigilante killing—and how he changed his first name’s spelling to hide it. At first, he claimed the shooting was by someone else—and then recanted but refused to discuss it...

A George Zimmerman-type liar. Is anyone surprised?

...After the coup, the NRA ramped up donations to congressional campaigns. “And in 1977, new articles on the Second Amendment appeared” in American Rifleman, Burbick noted, “rewriting American history to legitimize the armed citizen unregulated except by his own ability to buy a gun at whatever price he could afford.”...

The NRA’s fabricated but escalating view of the Second Amendment was ridiculed by former U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger—a conservative appointed by President Richard Nixon—in a PBS Newshour interview in 1991, where he called it “one of the greatest pieces of fraud—I repeat the word ‘fraud’—on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”...

So, the entire argument advanced by Mad American, Partisan62 and others is not in the Constitution, was not supported by the founders, was not recognized in early America, was not even believed by the NRA for 100 years, and is a fraud according to a conservative Justice. Instead, it's a recent Black Panther-NRA radical lie swallowed and repeated by thousands of useful idiots.

So even if they were BORN in the year 1789 "the founders" would have been 82 years old when the NRA ws founded in 1871, Vrede thinks that group of infants wrote The Constitution, and Vrede thinks a "prepared citizenry to assist in domestic military matters" should only have single shot muzzle loaders! All of that and vrede calls us idiots

[Mad American]

This is nutty. The NRA, Kochs and ALEC want to prevent willing sellers (with the expectation that the guns will be destroyed) from permanently getting rid of their guns through police by-back programs. In AZ, the guns must be put back into circulation.

The NRA and Koch-Backed ALEC Have Fought Gun Buyback Programs Across Country

Your link title is not entirely true (mistake or intentional deception)...they are fighting the destruction of the guns once "bought" by the police. So a simple question...what is wrong with a legal, law abiding citizen being given the opportunity to purchase these guns from law enforcement? I support the idea of the buy back but also think that law abiding citizens should be given an opportunity to purchase the collected guns. Some of the guns that are being turned in and destroyed are truly collectibles and efforts should be made to prevent their destruction.

[Leo Lyons]

The 2nd. Amendment gives us the right to bear arms (own guns) for self preservation.

It does not guarantee us the right to own weapons capable of mass destruction, nor does it guarantee us the right to own an arsenal.

Anyone of you even stared at the business end of an automatic weapon? I have. It ain't no picnic.
You learn early to carry an extra Depends with you; then you "get serious about what goes on in the bathroom". (dumb commercial)

[Mad American]

The 2nd. Amendment gives us the right to bear arms (own guns) for self preservation.

It does not guarantee us the right to own weapons capable of mass destruction, nor does it guarantee us the right to own an arsenal.

Anyone of you even stared at the business end of an automatic weapon? I have. It ain't no picnic.
You learn early to carry an extra Depends with you; then you "get serious about what goes on in the bathroom". (dumb commercial)

Automatic true assault weapons have been banned for decades. The latest targets are semi-automatic look alikes that have no mechanical differences from thousands of sporting weapons.

[Mad American]

Mad American, you are making a foolish arguement. The whole point of police by-back programs is to remove guns from circulation and such laws will likely end them, which is obviously the NRA, Kochs and ALEC's intent.

If sellers wanted "truly collectibles" to be preserved, they'd sell them on the open market.

Not if the sellers were/are unaware of what they have. Consider where most of the buy backs occur. You have a city resident that has received his/her grandfather's collection. However, that person does not own guns, does not want guns, and has no knowledge of guns they simply want rid of them. So they "sell" them at a police buy back. Shouldn't a law abiding citizen have an opportunity to purchase any of those. Funny thing about the buy backs is the vast majority of the guns "bought" are not covered under any form of "assault weapons" definition. So why such an effort to keep sporting arms off the street??

[Mad American]

Mad American, you are making a foolish argument. The whole point of police by-back programs is to remove guns from circulation and such laws will likely end them, which is obviously the NRA, Kochs and ALEC's intent.

If sellers wanted "truly collectibles" to be preserved, they'd sell them on the open market.

Not if the sellers were/are unaware of what they have.

That's their problem.

Consider where most of the buy backs occur. You have a city resident that has received his/her grandfather's collection. However, that person does not own guns, does not want guns, and has no knowledge of guns they simply want rid of them. So they "sell" them at a police buy back.

With the expectation that they will be destroyed. They don't need a nanny like you questioning their awareness and intent.

Shouldn't a law abiding citizen have an opportunity to purchase any of those.

Not mandated by a law in contravention to the sellers' and police buyers' wishes.

Funny thing about the buy backs is the vast majority of the guns "bought" are not covered under any form of "assault weapons" definition. So why such an effort to keep sporting arms off the street??

Straw man. Police are also concerned about the numbers of guns out there, not just the types.

I see that you ducked the main point. The obvious NRA, Kochs and ALEC intent is to discourage the buy-backs, not to change them.

That said, I don't know that police buy-backs are cost-effective. One would hope so given how many departments do it, but I don't know what research has gone into it. However, if they are not cost-effective then government and taxpayers should end them outright, not use this sleazy ruse for doing so.

I ducked nothing. In fact, I pointed out that your headline was misleading at best and possibly intentionally deceptive due to the fact that the NRA and the others, are only opposed to the destruction of the guns once bought back....not the buy back itself. From your article it appears that Rachel Maddow is the one that has turned the argument into something it is not and you bit hook, line, and sinker.

Buy backs are not cost effective. Unless the funding for the purchases comes from donors then it is taxpayer money being used to perform them. However, flip the argument to allowing law abiding citizens the opportunity to purchase the guns turned in and it becomes a souorce of revenue.

[mike]

I'm still wondering what part of "well-regulated" and "militia" people appear to not understand ...

[JTA]

A 5-year-old Pennsylvania girl who told another girl she was going to shoot her with a pink Hello Kitty toy gun that blows soapy bubbles has been suspended from kindergarten.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/19/pe ... z2Iqf4xWgB

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/19/pe ... k-toy-gun/

This girl's right to be part of a well regulated militia has been denied. That school principle ought to be shipped off to Iran or North Korea or Canada where he belongs.

[O Really]

A 5-year-old Pennsylvania girl who told another girl she was going to shoot her with a pink Hello Kitty toy gun that blows soapy bubbles has been suspended from kindergarten.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/19/pe ... z2Iqf4xWgB

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/19/pe ... k-toy-gun/

This girl's right to be part of a well regulated militia has been denied. That school principle ought to be shipped off to Iran or North Korea or Canada where he belongs.

That's the sort of idiocy that almost makes the NRA sound rational. Well, maybe not that, but it's still pretty idiotic.

[rstrong]

That school principle ought to be shipped off to Iran or North Korea or Canada where he belongs.

Canada? The principal wouldn't be welcome here. While there are no doubt a few exceptions, insanely administered "zero tolerance" policies are as rare here as the gun-in-every-school-locker culture. Rare enough that when it happens it makes the news, and there's enough uproar that the school board quickly backs down.

[Boatrocker]

Would it be constitutional to ban Hello Kitty?

I'd make an exception.

[O Really]

So they're charging two suspects in the Lone Star College shoot-out with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. No charge of illegal possession or carry? That would imply - but not confirm - that these were just a couple of law-abiding young citizens legally (except for being on school property) carrying their legally acquired firearms and decided to exercise their Second Amendment rights to "protect themselves" in what the Sheriff called an "adolescent confrontation." (I think "adolescence" usually ends before age 22, but what-everrr)

In light of that, we have a Colorado gun ummm "enthusiast" who wants to restore firearm rights to certain "good" felons... http://now.msn.com/perry-buck-colorado- ... -criminals

A security guard not actually licensed to carry a gun shoots himself in the dick... http://now.msn.com/security-guard-accid ... -own-penis

And Texas lawmakers still want more guns on campus. http://www.kvue.com/news/Texas-lawmaker ... 86121.html

[Wneglia]

A security guard not actually licensed to carry a gun shoots himself in the dick... http://now.msn.com/security-guard-accid ... -own-penis

That's what happens when a dyslexic tries to cock a gun.

[O Really]

A security guard not actually licensed to carry a gun shoots himself in the dick... http://now.msn.com/security-guard-accid ... -own-penis

That's what happens when a dyslexic tries to cock a gun.

Oh, that is majorly funny!

[O Really]

...A security guard not actually licensed to carry a gun shoots himself in the dick... http://now.msn.com/security-guard-accid ... -own-penis

...
That's what happens when a dyslexic tries to cock a gun.

Gun on "gun" violence, it's a tragedy. Now, he has even more to compensate for.

Another: Guy mistakenly shoots gal pal on romantic hog-hunting date

The first clue that the date would not go well - linking "romantic" with "hog-hunting". He would have skated without charges, but she squealed.

I'm sure she did squeal, but he wasn't charged anyway. How is that not criminal negligence? Why doesn't the "opps" defence work when you hit somebody with your car or forget your kid in the car? I'm just waiting for the gun ummm "enthusiasts" to blame the victim for not wearing an orange vest over her pig costume.

[k9nanny]

Well, this came about centuries before North America was even discovered; ergo, the writers of the Second must have included pots of boiling oil, mirrors to ignite Roman ships, and other assorted archaic weapons.
Wonder how local LEOs would react if I built a repeating catapult to repel stray dogs and the jerks who churn up my driveway.

[rstrong]

Well, this came about centuries before North America was even discovered; ergo, the writers of the Second must have included pots of boiling oil, mirrors to ignite Roman ships, and other assorted archaic weapons.

Cool. The Mythbusters tested that design by building one.