Mock

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212

Politicians, Guns, and Money

Lots of pro-gun and second amendment-defending politicians participated in talks and legislation right after Newtown. It was a bi-partisan effort for a very short time, then things went right back to normal, though some stayed committed to change. Senator Manchin sure is paying the price with the NRA.

From CBS News today:

Months after the Senate voted down legislation that would strengthen gun laws in the U.S., Sen. Joe Manchin, W.Va., who authored a key amendment to the bill, is attempting to fight off blowback from his position on background checks, combating a series of NRA attack ads with a new television spot of his own.

According to Jonathan Kott, a campaign aide for Manchin, the Manchin campaign is shooting an ad today in West Virginia. He said it is expected to air this week and will be a buy of at least $100,000.

"The Washington NRA leadership is clearly out of step with the American people and law abiding gun owners, and is now attacking Senator Manchin for a position they once supported," Kott said in an email to CBSNews.com. "The Washington NRA leadership is trying to distort Senator Manchin's commitment to the [Second] Amendment because they know he is one of the most credible defenders of gun rights who also believes that it just makes sense to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and those found severely mentally ill."

Manchin, a moderate, pro-gun Democrat who has an "A" rating from the NRA, worked with Republican Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., on an amendment that would expand background checks for gun buyers in the U.S. By the standard of many gun control advocates, the measure was considered to be very moderate.

Nevertheless, the NRA is launching ads attacking senators who supported the legislation, and Manchin is no exception. He's being hit with $100,000 worth of NRA-sponsored ads in West Virginia blasting him for "working with President Obama and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg" on issues related to gun rights.

(06-17-2013, 09:25 AM)Cynical Ninja Wrote: [ -> ]Don't change the goalposts now, the scenario you are describing above is completely different to the one maggot postulated. Let's get back on track shall we? We were talking about a crowd of looters looting your home after a hurricane you say you would immediately open fire on them and I asked the question “what if they shoot back?”. I patiently await your answer.

I did not say a "crowd" of looters nor a gang of "niggers", looters can be anyone. You are typing what you think I'm thinking because you have a mindset that believes only conservatives think like that "cracker".

(06-17-2013, 04:34 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]Manchin, a moderate, pro-gun Democrat who has an "A" rating from the NRA, worked with Republican Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., on an amendment that w
ould expand background checks for gun buyers in the U.S. By the standard of many gun control advocates, the measure was considered to be very moderate.
Nevertheless, the NRA is launching ads attacking senators who supported the legislation, and Manchin is no exception. He's being hit with $100,000 worth of NRA-sponsored ads in West Virginia blasting him for "working with President Obama and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg" on issues related to gun rights.

This is what makes it so hard for moderates to listen to anything gun advocates have to say.

If you oppose anything the big, bad NRA stands for, regardless of where you've stood with them in the past, you are now a sworn enemy.

Talk about living under a totalitarian regime...

Hard to believe this exists in the U.S.A.

MS, I mostly agree. That said, giving up on anything gun related is a slippery slope. Give the antigun crowd an inch and they will try to take 5 miles. The news media and just about everyone else goes on about the Bill being about Background Checks, however that was a small part of the bill, couple paragraphs. The rest of it was $400,000,000 in giveaways and even more restrictions.
Put the effort where it is needed, Prohibit the nuts from getting access to guns in some intelligent manner and leave all of us law abiding citizens alone.
The NRA feels it has to take its aggressive stance and make a big splashy deal to counter exactly what that bill did. It was an over reaction to an over reaction. One wrong to cancel another. Not good but that's the way it is.
We don't need more gun laws, we need to enforce the ones we have and we need Nut Laws, good ones.

(06-17-2013, 02:49 PM)ZEROSPHERES Wrote: [ -> ]I see what happened now. And it is a misunderstanding. When you removed my 'chop' from the post I had been interacting with CN at the time.

"Interacting with CN" sounds funny.

Dancing with the Midgets...Mock style.

j/k CN.

(06-17-2013, 07:22 AM)Maggot Wrote: [ -> ]A quick scenario:
A hurricane blasts through the city or town you live in, you seek shelter and when you go back home you find your house is almost destroyed. The police are very busy and looters are everywhere taking anything of value that's still good. How do you guard your house?

In reply, if not a mandatory evacuation, might consider to ride out the hurricane in downstairs underground closet, which is structurally sound, and (of course) has no windows. (But then again, might not) If did leave house, & after storm, returned to looters, as many have said, that's what insurance is for. I only have one gun so. . . . . it could have been damaged in the storm anyway. (Not to mention, I wouldn't have it in my possession)

I have a sawed off 12 ga for protection. And have on hand lots of 00 Buck, #1, #2 Buck, shells, & even rifled slugs that can disable a car's engine if need be. (The gun store owner said, (knowing of the riots) if you're going to shoot the gun at someone, you want to be sure you take them down, I was a kid, so he was the expert) I bought the gun full barrel length, (by law) and sawed off most of the barrel myself. (now making the gun illegal) After the saw job, I test fired the gun many times in the dense woods behind my house. As I used to live at least a 25 minute away drive from the next nearest living beings. The first shot, I almost deafened myself, due to the fire flash blast that came out of the too short barrel. (ear plugs after that)

Anyway, a little background: Back in the late 60's myself and my young family lived in the boonies. During that period, the media kept showing that there was mass rioting going on for months in small towns. And then they showed the riots were slowly moving into neighborhood's surrounding the towns. They were burning buildings down.
So if the riots eventually ever came to my house, calling the police would have been futile, with them being over 25 minutes drive away. So having the 12 ga gave me a little sense of false security. Luckily for me, the riots were around nearby towns, but never came my way!
POF, Over the years when I got older, & more responsible, I had the gun repaired to make the barrel legal (min) length. (This time, (now legal gun) Tested the gun at a friend's gun club "indoor" range.) I own a gun, but am not a gun enthusiast.

(So don't tell anybody I have a gun, hope "big brother" is not screening forums! hah

)

(06-17-2013, 07:37 PM)Carsman Wrote: [ -> ](So don't tell anybody I have a gun, hope "big brother" is not screening forums! )

I think a janitor working at The Dept. Of Homeland security is a fan, I sometimes see it reading.

(06-17-2013, 07:35 PM)username Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-17-2013, 02:49 PM)ZEROSPHERES Wrote: [ -> ]I see what happened now. And it is a misunderstanding. When you removed my 'chop' from the post I had been interacting with CN at the time.

"Interacting with CN" sounds funny.

You have to be very careful interacting with CN, next thing you know you're wrongly accused of evil doings.

(06-17-2013, 08:09 PM)sally Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-17-2013, 07:35 PM)username Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-17-2013, 02:49 PM)ZEROSPHERES Wrote: [ -> ]I see what happened now. And it is a misunderstanding. When you removed my 'chop' from the post I had been interacting with CN at the time.

"Interacting with CN" sounds funny.

You have to be very careful interacting with CN, next thing you know you're wrongly accused of evil doings.

That and you run the risk of carpal tunnel syndrome.

No one has been wrongly accused.

(06-17-2013, 04:49 PM)Midwest Spy Wrote: [ -> ]This is what makes it so hard for moderates to listen to anything gun advocates have to say.

If you oppose anything the big, bad NRA stands for, regardless of where you've stood with them in the past, you are now a sworn enemy.

Talk about living under a totalitarian regime...

Hard to believe this exists in the U.S.A.

MS this problem exists on both sides of the fence. Gun owners fear loosing their firearms. The anti gun people say they would never take away our firearms in one breath and in the next breath say that BG checks would be a good START. Well if its a start what do you think we would think. To the anti side its a game of one step at a time. The end goal of many antis is removal of all semiauto firearms, elimination of right to carry permits and heavy restrictions on the purchase and possession of what few types of firearms we are allowed to own. I have read this time and time again as I am reading the comments at the Brady bunches site. If it were just about BG checks there would be no where the resistance you see, but it is not.

(06-17-2013, 08:12 PM)username Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-17-2013, 08:09 PM)sally Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-17-2013, 07:35 PM)username Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-17-2013, 02:49 PM)ZEROSPHERES Wrote: [ -> ]I see what happened now. And it is a misunderstanding. When you removed my 'chop' from the post I had been interacting with CN at the time.

"Interacting with CN" sounds funny.

You have to be very careful interacting with CN, next thing you know you're wrongly accused of evil doings.

That and you run the risk of carpal tunnel syndrome.

(06-17-2013, 04:49 PM)Midwest Spy Wrote: [ -> ]This is what makes it so hard for moderates to listen to anything gun advocates have to say.

If you oppose anything the big, bad NRA stands for, regardless of where you've stood with them in the past, you are now a sworn enemy.

Talk about living under a totalitarian regime...

Hard to believe this exists in the U.S.A.

I share your frustration, MS.

I also understand what Six and F.U. are saying about fear that universal background checks might be looked at as a first step towards banning for SOME on the left.

The universal background check, regardless of negligible administrative or personal inconvenience to some gun owners, is a positive step that negates the need to ban responsible/qualified persons from owning any gun of their choice in order to accomplish the goal of reduced gun violence, imo. I oppose bans and don't think they're necessary with the right controls in place. I know that you prefer bans for some types of guns, MS, and I understand that too, though I respectfully disagree.

What I don't understand as anything but fear-based stubbornness is why pro-gun advocates refuse to negotiate because of what SOME extremists on the left might possibly wanna do, rather than looking at the expressed intentions of those proposing the laws and being prepared to hold them accountable should they try to exceed the agree-upon parameters. It would be political suicide for the balkers, as long as people are paying attention. Politicians just aren't that selfless. Pay attention gun owners. You have the power and the damn guns, whole lotta fear-based excuses to be holding on to (assuming your expressed open-mindedness is for real) for those sitting in the driver's seat.

Gun owners wield a lot of political power via the NRA. That's a fact, not an opinion. Using it as blackmail against politicians who strongly support the NRA and second amendment rights, but also wanna make it as hard as possible for the wrong hands to get a hold of guns, is pure bullshit as far as I'm concerned. The message is coming through loud and clear. It renders all claims of "working together to develop an acceptable solution to a shared problem" suspect; just a public facade. All cheap talk, no action.

Highly disappointing to this citizen who rejects bans and supports second amendment rights, but also wants to minimize the gun massacres by making it as hard as possible for irresponsible/unqualified persons to acquire guns.

Frustrated by an increase in petty crime, residents of an Oregon neighborhood have decided to arm themselves instead of calling the police.

Residents of a Jennings Lodge neighborhood in Clackamas county, Ore., have put up fliers advertising their new policy, calling themselves the 'Glock Block', according to KOIN News.

'This is a Glock Block,' the fliers read. 'We don't call 911.'

[Image: article-2343491-1A5F4261000005DC-507_634x338.jpg]

[Image: article-2343491-1A5F4261000005DC-507_634x338.jpg]

Story

Vigilantism is dangerous and stupid.

What you have there is an entire neighbourhood of potential George Zimmermans.

A nigger buying skittles and ice tea better be careful walking through that neighbourhood jeez.

HOTD, I hear you and mostly agree with you, it is a very disappointing state of affairs that we can not trust our politicians to do the right thing. The "Universal Background Checks" would have been a good thing IF they had not been tied to all the other things that had nothing to do with them. I think everyone that buys a gun from a dealer should go through a BC, there should be a database out there that has "Undesirables" in it. I also don't think people should be selling guns out of the trunk of their car at a gun show avoiding the entry fees and checks, at best that looks bad and gives anti gun folks ammunition. At worst it provides a source for undesirables to obtain guns and avoid the law.
The question is How to accomplish that? This last bill definitely was not the way to do it, and it is far harder to get something back once its lost, so passing it "just to get something done" is a very bad idea. As usual it was an over reach by grandstanding politicians and was rushed through in order to ride the wave of public outrage. What should have done to meet their stated goals is build a database of crazy folks and criminals and then require all commercial sales of firearms to go through that, attach penalties to the circumvention of the lawful checks and then fund that operation.
The "Assault Weapon Ban" as it was written was a joke and still is. Assault weapons are fully automatic or selectable, period. Just because the stock folds up, or a pistol grip or a detachable magazine or even a high capacity magazine does not make it an assault weapon or more deadly. The public is already prohibited from owning fully automatic weapons and should be IMO.
Its not the weapons, its the criminals and the nuts that are the problem and yet, our politicians do not seem to be able to figure that out. Why do we always read about some guy with 72 arrests, 14 felony convictions and he is out on the street?
My views have been pretty clear in here, I don't think every snowflake is precious. Death Row should be a very short stay. Crazy folks should be locked away somewhere and kept away from the rest of us, irresponsible gun owners should pay.

(06-18-2013, 08:32 AM)Cynical Ninja Wrote: [ -> ]Vigilantism

I don't see it that way. I see it as a community being proactive. They are depending on themselves to protect themselves, their families and their property. I applaud them.

Thanks, Six.

I still haven't read what I consider a valid reason for opposing the bill on universal background checks by those who claimed to support the concept before the legislation was drafted. Separate issue from enforcement of current laws (which were as they are now when the alleged support for UBC was expressed).

I only see fear and personal inconvenience cited as reasons for backing off of the support, just worded in different ways repeatedly. I think the backing off would have occurred no matter what the bill included or excluded because by the time the bill was submitted, it was pretty clear that the fear that some bans might get passed was an unnecessary fear. And, so, there was no longer a need for the pro-gun advocates to continue feigning support of something that would have required change to benefit society as a compromise position; it was instead time for excuses and time to back peddle.

It comes down to any new law or change that makes sense and would benefit society getting a shallow verbal commitment of consideration from the NRA and pro-gun advocates, as a "show" that there's a willingness to reason. However, the same re-worked excuses will be used to oppose it when it comes down to putting their money where their collective mouth is. IMO.

Why? It's become clear to me from reading and listening carefully that it's because the pro-gun side considers anything that's proposed or supported by the middle or the left, even if it's the right thing and the best thing for the collective of individuals known as society, as a "loss". And that's scary and just not acceptable to the gun enthusiasts. Any pro-gun advocates who buck the group mentality and follow through on their personal commitments/convictions are then viewed as traitors. It's unreasonable group-think at an extreme level, and very discouraging.

We're not gonna agree on the reasonableness or lack thereof on full display by the NRA and pro-gun advocates; I've been paying too much attention.

But, I really do appreciate reading the view points shared by you and others here and have learned a lot from the gun enthusiasts among us. Smiley_emoticons_bussi

(06-18-2013, 08:40 AM)Duchess Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-18-2013, 08:32 AM)Cynical Ninja Wrote: [ -> ]Vigilantism
[size=medium][i]

I don't see it that way.

Then I hate to say this but you are deluded and 100% incorrect.

Vigilante - noun - one who takes the law or advocates taking the law into their own hands.

By refusing to call the police and all arming themselves they are taking the law into their own hands ergo vigilantism.

There really is no way of getting around that.

I bet criminals will skip that town and go to the next one though.

HairOfTheDog

Maggot

Midwest Spy

SIXFOOTERsez

username

Carsman

Duchess

sally

username

Duchess

F.U.

sally

HairOfTheDog

Duchess

Cynical Ninja

SIXFOOTERsez

Duchess

HairOfTheDog

Cynical Ninja

Maggot