Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action.
On January 23 2013 13:58 tokicheese wrote: Is there any other major lobbying groups for gun owners other than the NRA? It seems like the NRA should be a fringe group rather then the main lobby group because of all the crazy things that they say video games cause school shootings etc. etc. I think most responsible gun owners are in favour of a level of gun control like a gun safety course before you can purchase a weapon but the only meaningful lobby group for gun advocates is the NRA so they are stuck going with the more fringe views. Am I wrong?
NAGR. National Association for Gun Rights . I haven't looked into them much myself, but I've heard good things from family, people I went to school with, and Army buddies.
Of course, they ARE a lobby, which automatically means you can expect some partisan stuff. But for some people, I know they seem less out of touch and loony in the process of doing the same job. All I know for sure.
On January 23 2013 13:58 tokicheese wrote: Is there any other major lobbying groups for gun owners other than the NRA? It seems like the NRA should be a fringe group rather then the main lobby group because of all the crazy things that they say video games cause school shootings etc. etc. I think most responsible gun owners are in favour of a level of gun control like a gun safety course before you can purchase a weapon but the only meaningful lobby group for gun advocates is the NRA so they are stuck going with the more fringe views. Am I wrong?
NAGR. National Association for Gun Rights . I haven't looked into them much myself, but I've heard good things from family, people I went to school with, and Army buddies.
Of course, they ARE a lobby, which automatically means you can expect some partisan stuff. But for some people, I know they seem less out of touch and loony in the process of doing the same job. All I know for sure.
On January 23 2013 13:58 tokicheese wrote: Is there any other major lobbying groups for gun owners other than the NRA? It seems like the NRA should be a fringe group rather then the main lobby group because of all the crazy things that they say video games cause school shootings etc. etc. I think most responsible gun owners are in favour of a level of gun control like a gun safety course before you can purchase a weapon but the only meaningful lobby group for gun advocates is the NRA so they are stuck going with the more fringe views. Am I wrong?
NAGR. National Association for Gun Rights . I haven't looked into them much myself, but I've heard good things from family, people I went to school with, and Army buddies.
Of course, they ARE a lobby, which automatically means you can expect some partisan stuff. But for some people, I know they seem less out of touch and loony in the process of doing the same job. All I know for sure.
A lobby doesn't have to be partisan.
In this day and age, in our heavily polarized political climate, a lobby for a major facet of politics is likely to be fairly partisan. I don't consider that to be any sort of shock.
I can't understand how everything is so partisan in the US it just doesn't seem like a healthy political system.
This seems kinda strange what's the logic behind this? If someone wants to stay in their own home why do they have to leave and give up their weapons? Apparently you needed to provide your guns serial number to have it returned only after the NRA filed a lawsuit against the city.
On January 23 2013 15:06 tokicheese wrote: I can't understand how everything is so partisan in the US it just doesn't seem like a healthy political system.
Guns aren't exactly a partisan issue. The NRA does endorse both Democrats and Republicans. The endorsement is based solely on the issue, not the party. However, it is true that Republicans (anti-federalists) are more likely to be ardent gun rights supporters compared to Democrats (usually pro-federalists).
On January 23 2013 15:06 tokicheese wrote: This seems kinda strange what's the logic behind this? If someone wants to stay in their own home why do they have to leave and give up their weapons? Did they get them back o.o
A State of Emergency was declared in Louisiana following the hurricane.
It's been a while since I've looked at it in detail, but I'm pretty sure you lose certain protections during this time. It's not unconstitutional for them to do what they did, despite it being highly unpopular at the time. I think it would be found constitutional as long as it actually related to the problem at hand for which the State of Emergency was declared.
On January 23 2013 13:58 tokicheese wrote: Is there any other major lobbying groups for gun owners other than the NRA? It seems like the NRA should be a fringe group rather then the main lobby group because of all the crazy things that they say video games cause school shootings etc. etc. I think most responsible gun owners are in favour of a level of gun control like a gun safety course before you can purchase a weapon but the only meaningful lobby group for gun advocates is the NRA so they are stuck going with the more fringe views. Am I wrong?
NAGR. National Association for Gun Rights . I haven't looked into them much myself, but I've heard good things from family, people I went to school with, and Army buddies.
Of course, they ARE a lobby, which automatically means you can expect some partisan stuff. But for some people, I know they seem less out of touch and loony in the process of doing the same job. All I know for sure.
The NAGR makes the NRA look like the Brady Campaign, just saying. They oppose any legislation concerning guns, period.
There was a bill in the House that would force states to accept out of state concealed carry permits, even if the standard to gain those permits was weak by comparison. It was opposed by law enforcement as dangerous, but supported by the NRA. In comes the NAGR, claiming that some future Congress could change the law to increase restrictions and regulations on guns, a 'trojan horse' as they put it, and then the NRA turns and attacks the NAGR for 'sounding false alarms.'
On January 23 2013 15:06 tokicheese wrote: I can't understand how everything is so partisan in the US it just doesn't seem like a healthy political system.
Guns aren't exactly a partisan issue. The NRA does endorse both Democrats and Republicans. The endorsement is based solely on the issue, not the party. However, it is true that Republicans (anti-federalists) are more likely to be ardent gun rights supporters compared to Democrats (usually pro-federalists).
Don't you find it odd how they treated the last presidential election? If you look at their records, you have a president who spent the last four years expanding gun rights, while the last time Romney was in office, you couldn't really say the same thing about him.
Edit: Well I don't really find it odd, it is just amusing, because you can't endorse Romney over Obama if you were the NRA a few months ago, I could see refusing to endorse either, but not Romney over Obama.
On January 23 2013 13:58 tokicheese wrote: Is there any other major lobbying groups for gun owners other than the NRA? It seems like the NRA should be a fringe group rather then the main lobby group because of all the crazy things that they say video games cause school shootings etc. etc. I think most responsible gun owners are in favour of a level of gun control like a gun safety course before you can purchase a weapon but the only meaningful lobby group for gun advocates is the NRA so they are stuck going with the more fringe views. Am I wrong?
NAGR. National Association for Gun Rights . I haven't looked into them much myself, but I've heard good things from family, people I went to school with, and Army buddies.
Of course, they ARE a lobby, which automatically means you can expect some partisan stuff. But for some people, I know they seem less out of touch and loony in the process of doing the same job. All I know for sure.
The NAGR makes the NRA look like the Brady Campaign, just saying. They oppose any legislation concerning guns, period.
There was a bill in the House that would force states to accept out of state concealed carry permits, even if the standard to gain those permits was weak by comparison. It was opposed by law enforcement as dangerous, but supported by the NRA. In comes the NAGR, claiming that some future Congress could change the law to increase restrictions and regulations on guns, a 'trojan horse' as they put it, and then the NRA turns and attacks the NAGR for 'sounding false alarms.'
On January 23 2013 15:06 tokicheese wrote: I can't understand how everything is so partisan in the US it just doesn't seem like a healthy political system.
Guns aren't exactly a partisan issue. The NRA does endorse both Democrats and Republicans. The endorsement is based solely on the issue, not the party. However, it is true that Republicans (anti-federalists) are more likely to be ardent gun rights supporters compared to Democrats (usually pro-federalists).
Don't you find it odd how they treated the last presidential election? If you look at their records, you have a president who spent the last four years expanding gun rights, while the last time Romney was in office, you couldn't really say the same thing about him.
Edit: Well I don't really find it odd, it is just amusing, because you can't endorse Romney over Obama if you were the NRA a few months ago, I could see refusing to endorse either, but not Romney over Obama.
But with Obama you also get Biden, I think that had a lot to do with their endorsement.
Edit: specifically to vote for the guy who they thought would be less of a threat to gun rights
On January 23 2013 13:58 tokicheese wrote: Is there any other major lobbying groups for gun owners other than the NRA? It seems like the NRA should be a fringe group rather then the main lobby group because of all the crazy things that they say video games cause school shootings etc. etc. I think most responsible gun owners are in favour of a level of gun control like a gun safety course before you can purchase a weapon but the only meaningful lobby group for gun advocates is the NRA so they are stuck going with the more fringe views. Am I wrong?
NAGR. National Association for Gun Rights . I haven't looked into them much myself, but I've heard good things from family, people I went to school with, and Army buddies.
Of course, they ARE a lobby, which automatically means you can expect some partisan stuff. But for some people, I know they seem less out of touch and loony in the process of doing the same job. All I know for sure.
The NAGR makes the NRA look like the Brady Campaign, just saying. They oppose any legislation concerning guns, period.
There was a bill in the House that would force states to accept out of state concealed carry permits, even if the standard to gain those permits was weak by comparison. It was opposed by law enforcement as dangerous, but supported by the NRA. In comes the NAGR, claiming that some future Congress could change the law to increase restrictions and regulations on guns, a 'trojan horse' as they put it, and then the NRA turns and attacks the NAGR for 'sounding false alarms.'
On January 23 2013 15:06 tokicheese wrote: I can't understand how everything is so partisan in the US it just doesn't seem like a healthy political system.
Guns aren't exactly a partisan issue. The NRA does endorse both Democrats and Republicans. The endorsement is based solely on the issue, not the party. However, it is true that Republicans (anti-federalists) are more likely to be ardent gun rights supporters compared to Democrats (usually pro-federalists).
Don't you find it odd how they treated the last presidential election? If you look at their records, you have a president who spent the last four years expanding gun rights, while the last time Romney was in office, you couldn't really say the same thing about him.
Edit: Well I don't really find it odd, it is just amusing, because you can't endorse Romney over Obama if you were the NRA a few months ago, I could see refusing to endorse either, but not Romney over Obama.
I may be mistaken, but hasn't Obama clearly demostrated a distaste for firearms? And Romney was running on a pro-gun campaign. Romney had supported Assault Weapon Ban in the past, but had committed to not doing so if he was elected. I tihnk most people knew that Obama intended to ban whatever he could (he's been very vocal that local handgun bans are fine as far as he's concerned).
Oh, definitely. I'm pretty sure somewhere in the past Obama said something anti-gun, probably when he was in the Senate. But still, if you look at the last actions carried out while in office, you have on one side a man who expanded gun rights and on the other one who signed them away.
I never expected the gun issue to go any way than it did, both the endorsements and the feelings of the public. I just find their actual actions amusing as the contradict their positions.
And your link leaves out the bills Obama signed into law as president, one of my main points. I wonder how many people don't even know the laws were passed.
On January 23 2013 15:43 Saryph wrote: Oh, definitely. I'm pretty sure somewhere in the past Obama said something anti-gun, probably when he was in the Senate. But still, if you look at the last actions carried out while in office, you have on one side a man who expanded gun rights and on the other one who signed them away.
I never expected the gun issue to go any way than it did, both the endorsements and the feelings of the public. I just find their actual actions amusing as the contradict their positions.
And your link leaves out the bills Obama signed into law as president, one of my main points. I wonder how many people don't even know the laws were passed.
He probably only signed them because it would be political suicide to veto bipartisan gun agreements. He knew he was running again in 2012. As President, not everything you sign is 100% what you want if you are trying to get re-elected. Presidents always get more involved with "pet projects" during their second term, while their first term is Agenda Lite.
Oh I agree, but it is still something you can and should point out when on the campaign trail, something to reassure a few undecideds, etc etc.
Did anyone catch LaPierre's speech in Nevada tonight? I wonder if he ignored or built on the shootings in Texas and New Mexico today, considering how close those states are to Nevada.
Edit: Apparently he said that universal background checks for gun sales would 'put an end to American traditions.' Doesn't that have something like 90% support by the American population? Seems like a bad place to make a stand, and something to easily give up to quiet the masses.
On January 23 2013 15:58 Saryph wrote: Oh I agree, but it is still something you can and should point out when on the campaign trail, something to reassure a few undecideds, etc etc.
Did anyone catch LaPierre's speech in Nevada tonight? I wonder if he ignored or built on the shootings in Texas and New Mexico today, considering how close those states are to Nevada.
Edit: Apparently he said that universal background checks for gun sales would 'put an end to American traditions.' Doesn't that have something like 90% support by the American population? Seems like a bad place to make a stand, and something to easily give up to quiet the masses.
I'm in favor of background checks, but I'm not sure it'll make a difference. Most guns used in crimes are illegally owned already, so a background check wouldn't stop them. It may not be worth checking 1000 people only to find 999 of them perfectly able to own a weapon. Especially when the 1 who wasn't was only going to hold up a convenience store or two.
On January 23 2013 15:58 Saryph wrote: Oh I agree, but it is still something you can and should point out when on the campaign trail, something to reassure a few undecideds, etc etc.
Did anyone catch LaPierre's speech in Nevada tonight? I wonder if he ignored or built on the shootings in Texas and New Mexico today, considering how close those states are to Nevada.
Edit: Apparently he said that universal background checks for gun sales would 'put an end to American traditions.' Doesn't that have something like 90% support by the American population? Seems like a bad place to make a stand, and something to easily give up to quiet the masses.
I'm in favor of background checks, but I'm not sure it'll make a difference. Most guns used in crimes are illegally owned already, so a background check wouldn't stop them. It may not be worth checking 1000 people only to find 999 of them perfectly able to own a weapon. Especially when the 1 who wasn't was only going to hold up a convenience store or two.
Maybe LaPierre had the same idea?
How are "I'm in favor of background checks, but I'm not sure it'll make a difference" and "universal background checks for gun sales would put an end to American traditions" at all the same? Millitron, I may vehemently disagree with you on gun control, but its clear that even you are not above the simple truth of the necessity of background checks; even if they only prevent one murder via restricted access, the notion that bipolar ex-felons ought have no check when it comes to legally getting a gun is absolutely ridiculous, and I find it quite telling in regards to the NRA's motivations. Those being the bottom line of their donors rather than any far flung defense of the "American Tradition".
And I also find it hilarious that La Pierre is the NRA's spokesman; is some evil younger brother of Donald Rumsfeld looking dude really the most photogenic and personable mouthpiece they could find?
On January 23 2013 15:58 Saryph wrote: Oh I agree, but it is still something you can and should point out when on the campaign trail, something to reassure a few undecideds, etc etc.
Did anyone catch LaPierre's speech in Nevada tonight? I wonder if he ignored or built on the shootings in Texas and New Mexico today, considering how close those states are to Nevada.
Edit: Apparently he said that universal background checks for gun sales would 'put an end to American traditions.' Doesn't that have something like 90% support by the American population? Seems like a bad place to make a stand, and something to easily give up to quiet the masses.
I'm in favor of background checks, but I'm not sure it'll make a difference. Most guns used in crimes are illegally owned already, so a background check wouldn't stop them. It may not be worth checking 1000 people only to find 999 of them perfectly able to own a weapon. Especially when the 1 who wasn't was only going to hold up a convenience store or two.
Maybe LaPierre had the same idea?
Most of the school shootings in recent times were used with guns bought legally. Making universal background checks is a no-brainer. What is a bigger issue is selling guns to otherwise normal and law-abiding people who live with other people who have health or mental issues, as in the case of the sandy hook shooting. You also have problems with "responsible" gun owners who can't seem to safely store their own guns and end up having their 4 year old kid bring it to preschool or shoot someone on accident with it.
Look at that 15 year old kid in New Mexico yesterday who used a hunting rifle and AR-15 to kill his mom, three younger siblings (including his 2 year old sister), and finally his dad when he came home from work. Why aren't these guns locked up? Or the ammo kept separately from the weapons, somewhere the kids cannot access it?
On January 24 2013 07:19 Saryph wrote: Look at that 15 year old kid in New Mexico yesterday who used a hunting rifle and AR-15 to kill his mom, three younger siblings (including his 2 year old sister), and finally his dad when he came home from work. Why aren't these guns locked up? Or the ammo kept separately from the weapons, somewhere the kids cannot access it?
Well he's a 15 year old. He may have known where they keys were and whatnot. Or maybe they were just not locked because someone's afraid of a home invasion.
On January 24 2013 07:19 Saryph wrote: Look at that 15 year old kid in New Mexico yesterday who used a hunting rifle and AR-15 to kill his mom, three younger siblings (including his 2 year old sister), and finally his dad when he came home from work. Why aren't these guns locked up? Or the ammo kept separately from the weapons, somewhere the kids cannot access it?
Look at the cop who recently killed his family in NV.. Lots of people think only law enforcement should have guns, but here's one who murdered his family and torched his home. The bad thing is I can find around 10 articles involving cops doing wrong or abusing their authority for every 1 you find about a kid shooting his parents.
He was 15 years old.. At that age I'd trust him to take care of his siblings. In my house that would include a lesson about the guns that are present and how to use them. I don't know about where you live but the Is Your Son a Mass Murder take home test isn't offered here in my area.. And never during a check to buy a gun have I been asked the question, Do I think I have a child that might kill me unsuspectingly with the firearm I'm about to purchase?
shit happens.. and bad things happen to good people.. But I'm sure we can all agree that the before mentioned cop's wife would get on this website and say "My husband, a trained law enforcement officer, should be one of the only people to have a gun because we just can't trust ANYONE to have one of those things."
If I can't trust cops to do whats right.. how can I trust them to be one of those privileged few to carry a firearm.
On January 23 2013 15:58 Saryph wrote: Oh I agree, but it is still something you can and should point out when on the campaign trail, something to reassure a few undecideds, etc etc.
Did anyone catch LaPierre's speech in Nevada tonight? I wonder if he ignored or built on the shootings in Texas and New Mexico today, considering how close those states are to Nevada.
Edit: Apparently he said that universal background checks for gun sales would 'put an end to American traditions.' Doesn't that have something like 90% support by the American population? Seems like a bad place to make a stand, and something to easily give up to quiet the masses.
I'm in favor of background checks, but I'm not sure it'll make a difference. Most guns used in crimes are illegally owned already, so a background check wouldn't stop them. It may not be worth checking 1000 people only to find 999 of them perfectly able to own a weapon. Especially when the 1 who wasn't was only going to hold up a convenience store or two.
Maybe LaPierre had the same idea?
Most of the school shootings in recent times were used with guns bought legally. Making universal background checks is a no-brainer. What is a bigger issue is selling guns to otherwise normal and law-abiding people who live with other people who have health or mental issues, as in the case of the sandy hook shooting. You also have problems with "responsible" gun owners who can't seem to safely store their own guns and end up having their 4 year old kid bring it to preschool or shoot someone on accident with it.
I don't think it's a no-brainer.. Do I need to run a BGC on my mom for her to hold onto some shotguns for me? Or do a check on my little brother because he wants to use one of my rifles for the weekend? Maybe my father wants to give my son a family rifle.. better check his background first.
Do I lose my right to own a gun because my family has a history of mental illness? Which mental illnesses strip you of your gun rights? Do I lose it if I were to marry a woman who suffers from manic depression? Would my right to own a gun be stripped of me if I was to suddenly become the father of a child who has a mental illness? If it doesn't happen instantly..or upon the child reaching what age would me owning a gun become illegal? If I had a stockpile of guns, but my father had reached the age where he can't care for himself.. Am I at risk of losing all my firearms because I'd being a good son?
I agree that a dealer should have to do background check.. but I don't agree that I should have to do one to sell one of mine to a family member or friend I've known my whole life.. I also don't think I should have to check the background of someone buying a gun from me who already own them..
I don't agree with mentally ill people being stripped of their gun rights.. If you can live on your own, support yourself with a job, and pay taxes.. you should be able to have a gun for defense..
On January 23 2013 15:58 Saryph wrote: Oh I agree, but it is still something you can and should point out when on the campaign trail, something to reassure a few undecideds, etc etc.
Did anyone catch LaPierre's speech in Nevada tonight? I wonder if he ignored or built on the shootings in Texas and New Mexico today, considering how close those states are to Nevada.
Edit: Apparently he said that universal background checks for gun sales would 'put an end to American traditions.' Doesn't that have something like 90% support by the American population? Seems like a bad place to make a stand, and something to easily give up to quiet the masses.
I'm in favor of background checks, but I'm not sure it'll make a difference. Most guns used in crimes are illegally owned already, so a background check wouldn't stop them. It may not be worth checking 1000 people only to find 999 of them perfectly able to own a weapon. Especially when the 1 who wasn't was only going to hold up a convenience store or two.
Maybe LaPierre had the same idea?
Most of the school shootings in recent times were used with guns bought legally. Making universal background checks is a no-brainer. What is a bigger issue is selling guns to otherwise normal and law-abiding people who live with other people who have health or mental issues, as in the case of the sandy hook shooting. You also have problems with "responsible" gun owners who can't seem to safely store their own guns and end up having their 4 year old kid bring it to preschool or shoot someone on accident with it.
I agree that a dealer should have to do background check.. but I don't agree that I should have to do one to sell one of mine to a family member or friend I've known my whole life.. I also don't think I should have to check the background of someone buying a gun from me who already own them...
This is absurd. You believe someone who is professionally familiar with the business of selling guns should be forced to abide by gun control laws but random people in the street shouldn't?
I'm not accusing anyone you know of being unstable or questioning your judgement but a policy of "anyone who anyone else thinks is alright is good to have a gun" is not a good policy.
On January 23 2013 15:58 Saryph wrote: Oh I agree, but it is still something you can and should point out when on the campaign trail, something to reassure a few undecideds, etc etc.
Did anyone catch LaPierre's speech in Nevada tonight? I wonder if he ignored or built on the shootings in Texas and New Mexico today, considering how close those states are to Nevada.
Edit: Apparently he said that universal background checks for gun sales would 'put an end to American traditions.' Doesn't that have something like 90% support by the American population? Seems like a bad place to make a stand, and something to easily give up to quiet the masses.
I'm in favor of background checks, but I'm not sure it'll make a difference. Most guns used in crimes are illegally owned already, so a background check wouldn't stop them. It may not be worth checking 1000 people only to find 999 of them perfectly able to own a weapon. Especially when the 1 who wasn't was only going to hold up a convenience store or two.
Maybe LaPierre had the same idea?
Most of the school shootings in recent times were used with guns bought legally. Making universal background checks is a no-brainer. What is a bigger issue is selling guns to otherwise normal and law-abiding people who live with other people who have health or mental issues, as in the case of the sandy hook shooting. You also have problems with "responsible" gun owners who can't seem to safely store their own guns and end up having their 4 year old kid bring it to preschool or shoot someone on accident with it.
I agree that a dealer should have to do background check.. but I don't agree that I should have to do one to sell one of mine to a family member or friend I've known my whole life.. I also don't think I should have to check the background of someone buying a gun from me who already own them...
This is absurd. You believe someone who is professionally familiar with the business of selling guns should be forced to abide by gun control laws but random people in the street shouldn't?
I'm not accusing anyone you know of being unstable or questioning your judgement but a policy of "anyone who anyone else thinks is alright is good to have a gun" is not a good policy.
To be honest I think Biden already said they wouldn't require background checks for the transfer of firearms not requiring a license to own between family members.
"In that meeting, Biden conceded that any push for universal background checks could include exceptions for gun transfers between family members."
EPT
