United States & Gun Control discussion.

I'm watching it now, so far I'm pretty disappointed. Like you said, same old stuff.

my god, this dude needs a public speaking class.

*Edited* Well, I agree that he fell short on a lot. The content of his message wasn't necessarily bad in and of itself, but the delivery was hollow and felt strained and more of the same. I'm disappointed.
 
There are some ignorant fucks in Congress who hold power over our lives. :wall:
Sadly true. What method do we have to reign them in? I've only started following politics in the last few years, but it looks as if our usual methods (letters to representatives, petitions, etc) more often than not fall on deaf ears.
 
Sadly true. What method do we have to reign them in? I've only started following politics in the last few years, but it looks as if our usual methods (letters to representatives, petitions, etc) more often than not fall on deaf ears.

Strength in numbers. Get all your friends to get their friends and get their friends and write and e mail and fax and call and then VOTE.
 
Sounds great, unfortunately, and I hate to be a pessimist, how many people would really take action? There are no shortages of shouts and fists in the air, but when it comes down to it we're either ignored by our representatives or not enough people follow through.

There ought to be some way to force open polls for voting on policies and what not when enough people take action and demand change rather than having to rely on politicians that may or may not have our best interests at heart who could be free to proceed as they would until the next election season
 
Sounds great, unfortunately, and I hate to be a pessimist, how many people would really take action? There are no shortages of shouts and fists in the air, but when it comes down to it we're either ignored by our representatives or not enough people follow through.

There ought to be some way to force open polls for voting on policies and what not when enough people take action and demand change rather than having to rely on politicians that may or may not have our best interests at heart who could be free to proceed as they would until the next election season

We're getting off topic here ;-) however in short it needs to start with 1 person, then 5, then 10, etc.
 
Did they call for anything else?
I'll admit I caught about the final 25 minutes of it, so I'm not sure if he or anyone else offered any other solutions. But as far as I saw/remember, there was no mention of any bans, just the recommendation that we fund armed security, be it a police officer, former police officer, etc. to be in every school in the nation.

I was disappointed, as most people appear to be, with the news conference. You guys have a week to put something together and the only thing you can conjure up is a few excuses regarding video games and violence in movies? It's a shame. They would have been better off citing statistics such as the number of people killed when someone CCW stops a gunman versus the number of people killed when there's no one CCW and the police have to take care of it.

In reality I'm not sure it matters. The media is going to crucify them regardless of anything they say or do. Welcome to America.
 
In reality I'm not sure it matters. The media is going to crucify them regardless of anything they say or do. Welcome to America.

While I agree, they now appear to be inept and out of touch. The largest RKBA organization, a lobbying force to be reckoned with, and that's the best they could do? The largest, most visible hope for the 2A and that's it? Are they incompetent or apathetic?

The 2A is really going to be steamrolled now unless a small miracle occurs. The NRA waits a week for a press conference, doesn't attempt to get ahead of the situation, and when things die down a little and you expect them to deliver something of substance they just flew over the Titanic and dropped a couple of pairs of water wings?

Wow.
 
IMHO I thought Wayne LaPierre did a very good job at setting the NRA's position of no concessions as a starting point, identifying causes and solutions to these types of mass murders, and going so far as volunteering to mobilize the NRA membership. I'm sure when everyone sees this play out, you may not show the disappointment you do currently to the NRA leadership. I believe that we must view this as murder/suicide.
When I started school in the mid 50's, all the teachers were either veterans that served in, or civilians that served on the home front of WWII. Korea had just ended, and the United States was very Patriotic. It is a different society now, but I believe the patriotic atmosphere that I grew up in will return somewhat by exercising our Constitutional rights. Teachers should be able to choose whether to carry or not, and local communities should have the final word of how to protect it's children, not the fed, or that jackass Bloomberg.
 
You are correct, Sir. Nevertheless, my question still stands. I would like some help in understanding the implied causality between owning weapons and having more freedom.

It's self-evident if you believe that gun ownership is a check and balance on the government, which many of the founding fathers repeatedly did.

The anti-gun people will choose what they want to believe because, to them, the founding fathers are just a bunch of dead guys that couldn't foresee changing realities of our "civilized" society we have today. They could care less what the greatest political thinkers we've ever seen said or did.
 
You are correct, Sir. Nevertheless, my question still stands. I would like some help in understanding the implied causality between owning weapons and having more freedom.

It is quite simple once you understand the intent of the 2nd amendment.
It was put in place to ensure the peoples right to be armed in such a manner that they had the potential power to overthrow a tyrannical government should one ever take power.

The 2nd amendment was the guarantor of all the other rights in the Constitution.
 
I, too, was a bit disappointed with what the NRA came up with. It seems that they need some fresh thinkers who can adapt their rhetoric to counter arguments used by the anti-gun movement, instead of being stuck in the past and blaming violence on TV and video games.

There are over 100,000 schools in the US. Assuming only one armed guard per school, 100,000 x $40,000 = $4 billion / year (which still wouldn't be enough to provide adequate protection). Also, they'd spend 99.9% of their time doing nothing useful. Well, I suppose they could give firearms training to the kids.

Instead - invest $4 billion in better mental health care to be available to those who need it, or different ways of locking down schools so that there's only a limited number of entries/exits (which should be guarded).

To use the other side of the argument - a determined attacker will always find a way - just shoot the armed guard first. Or go shoot up some other place that isn't guarded. The answer to that is clearly to fortify any place people are - instead of treating the cause. If you live with someone mentally unstable, it's your duty to keep your weapons secured. Considering Adam Lanza's psychological profile, I doubt he would've felt compelled, or even capable, to go out and find guns on the black market... especially in the affluent area they lived in. Like in many cases with mentally disturbed people, someone was careless and he acted on a moment of opportunity.

We left, they're still there. I think that means they won.

It seems to me that you achieved your primary goal of ousting the old powers. Naturally, you had to stay around to stabilize the country and train/prepare the new security forces and the new government during the subsequent insurgency... but I don't think anyone expected you to stay there until you completely defeated the insurgency. That's a problem for the new government to handle, but you gave them all the tools and training to do so (no matter how much of that was squandered due to corruption and infiltrations).

However, if the current government was to fall now or in the near future, then it would definitely be quite a loss. As long as they don't manage to do that, then I think you accomplished the minimum required. I'm sure everyone can agree that more could have been done, or that some things could've been done better, but overall, I wouldn't call it a loss. I think the greater danger is the influence of other countries such as Iran... and how, despite all the help given to rebuild their country, certain elements in the new Iraq might not be so cooperative (e.g., see release of Ali Mussa Daqduq).
 
Everything old is new again.
http://articles.latimes.com/2000/apr/16/news/mn-20323

Clinton also unveiled the $60-million fifth round of funding for "COPS in School," a Justice Department program that helps pay the costs of placing police officers in schools to help make them safer for students and teachers. The money will be used to provide 452 officers in schools in more than 220 communities.
"Already, it has placed 2,200 officers in more than 1,000 communities across our nation, where they are heightening school safety as well as coaching sports and acting as mentors and mediators for kids in need," Clinton said.
 
Got this in my email today...


A Message from President Obama about Your Petition on Reducing Gun Violence

By Bruce Reed, Chief of Staff to Vice President Biden


In the days since the tragedy in Newtown, Americans from all over the country have called for action to deter mass shootings and reduce gun violence. Hundreds of thousands of you have signed petitions on We the People.

I'm writing you today to thank you for speaking up, to update you on an important development, and to encourage you to continue engaging with the White House on this critical issue.

First, you should know that President Obama is paying close to attention to the public response to this tragedy. In fact, he sat down to record a message specifically for those of you who have joined the conversation using We the People. Watch it now:



On Wednesday, the President outlined a series of first steps we can take to begin the work of ending this cycle of violence. This is what he said:

"We know this is a complex issue that stirs deeply held passions and political divides. And as I said on Sunday night, there's no law or set of laws that can prevent every senseless act of violence in our society. We're going to need to work on making access to mental health care at least as easy as access to a gun. We're going to need to look more closely at a culture that all too often glorifies guns and violence. And any actions we must take must begin inside the home and inside our hearts.

But the fact that this problem is complex can no longer be an excuse for doing nothing. The fact that we can't prevent every act of violence doesn't mean we can't steadily reduce the violence, and prevent the very worst violence."

Vice President Biden has been asked to work with members of the Administration, Congress, and the general public to come up with a set of concrete policy proposals by next month -- proposals the President intends to push swiftly. The President asked the Vice President to lead this effort in part because he wrote and passed the 1994 Crime Bill that helped law enforcement bring down the rate of violent crime in America. That bill included the assault weapons ban, which expired in 2004.

As the Vice President's Chief of Staff, I'm going to do everything I can to ensure we run a process that includes perspectives from all sides of the issue, which is why I wanted to respond to your petition myself. Two decades ago, as domestic policy adviser in the Clinton White House, I first worked with Joe Biden as he fought to enact the Crime Bill, the assault weapons ban, and the Brady Bill. I will never forget what a key role the voices of concerned citizens like you played in that vital process.

The President called on Congress to pass important legislation "banning the sale of military-style assault weapons," "banning the sale of high-capacity ammunition clips," and "requiring background checks before all gun purchases, so that criminals can’t take advantage of legal loopholes to buy a gun from somebody who won’t take the responsibility of doing a background check at all."

An issue this serious and complex isn't going to be resolved with a single legislative proposal or policy prescription. And let's be clear, any action we take will respect the Second Amendment. As the President said:

"Look, like the majority of Americans, I believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. This country has a strong tradition of gun ownership that's been handed down from generation to generation. Obviously across the country there are regional differences. There are differences between how people feel in urban areas and rural areas. And the fact is the vast majority of gun owners in America are responsible -- they buy their guns legally and they use them safely, whether for hunting or sport shooting, collection or protection.

But you know what, I am also betting that the majority -- the vast majority -- of responsible, law-abiding gun owners would be some of the first to say that we should be able to keep an irresponsible, law-breaking few from buying a weapon of war. I'm willing to bet that they don't think that using a gun and using common sense are incompatible ideas -- that an unbalanced man shouldn't be able to get his hands on a military-style assault rifle so easily; that in this age of technology, we should be able to check someone's criminal records before he or she can check out at a gun show; that if we work harder to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people, there would be fewer atrocities like the one in Newtown -- or any of the lesser-known tragedies that visit small towns and big cities all across America every day."

The President said it best: "Ultimately if this effort is to succeed it's going to require the help of the American people -- it's going to require all of you. If we're going to change things, it's going to take a wave of Americans -- mothers and fathers, daughters and sons, pastors, law enforcement, mental health professionals -- and, yes, gun owners -- standing up and saying 'enough' on behalf of our kids."

So let's continue this conversation and get something meaningful done. If you have additional ideas and are interested in further engagement with the White House on this issue, please let us know and share your thoughts here:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/share-your-thoughts-reducing-gun-violence

Thank you for speaking out and staying involved.
 
I think one of the most ridiculous arguments I've recently heard for gun control is that current laws are negatively affecting the situation in Mexico. Quite frankly, the last thing any country should do is restrict their citizens' liberties for the benefit of other countries. You don't play charity with your liberties... and yet that's exactly what people like senator Dianne Feinstein would like to do. It's one thing to enact restrictions that can help your own country, but to do so for others is just ridiculous.
 
This was an excellent post:

It seems to me that you achieved your primary goal of ousting the old powers. Naturally, you had to stay around to stabilize the country and train/prepare the new security forces and the new government during the subsequent insurgency... but I don't think anyone expected you to stay there until you completely defeated the insurgency. That's a problem for the new government to handle, but you gave them all the tools and training to do so (no matter how much of that was squandered due to corruption and infiltrations).

However, if the current government was to fall now or in the near future, then it would definitely be quite a loss. As long as they don't manage to do that, then I think you accomplished the minimum required. I'm sure everyone can agree that more could have been done, or that some things could've been done better, but overall, I wouldn't call it a loss. I think the greater danger is the influence of other countries such as Iran... and how, despite all the help given to rebuild their country, certain elements in the new Iraq might not be so cooperative (e.g., see release of Ali Mussa Daqduq).

But the mission changed over time. First we were all --> regime change! :thumbsup: then we accomplished it and we were all --> protect and rebuild! :-/ then it was --> insurgency? what insurgency? :-x then --> defeat the insurgency! :whatever: then --> "responsible withdrawal" :wall: then the Iraqis were all (queue Dave Chappelle skit) -->fuck yo' SOFA, Yankees!:-o and then we were all -->peace out, bitches!:thumbsdown:

Now a brutal dictator has been replaced by a regime that is just as corrupt, if not (yet) as violent, that is still not pro-US, that is under the thumb of Iran, the country is still overrun with guns and jihadis, and with all that oil they're sitting on, I'm still paying $3.80 at the pump. So I'm not sure anyone can objectively look at Iraq and see it as anything other than a defeat for the US.
 
These shooters are mostly looking for a target where the response time will be at least a few minutes+. Does it really matter if they've got an assault rifle or a pistol? 30 round mags or 7 round ones? It might take a bit longer to reload, but it won't really matter when they've got plenty of time to kill dozens of people before the police even arrive. A pistol might not have as much firepower, but again, it doesn't matter as much if they're unopposed. They can just fire off a few more rounds per target, and they'll still get the job done. Just pack more ammo and magazines.

So yeah, those kinds of restrictions are stupid and obviously don't do anything to solve the root of the problem. Maybe the loss of firepower slows the perp down, but it doesn't stop him. Maybe a few more people survive, but the tragedy is still there. Politicians supporting the anti-gun movement obviously don't really care about doing anything intelligent, because the kind of legislation most of them are pushing is just as dumb as the excuses about violence on TV or in video games. It seems like they're supporting these kinds of measures to make themselves look good, because it's what people living in fear want to hear. High capacity magazines, assault rifles, military style, etc... oooh, sounds scary, but don't worry, we'll take those away!

And when more of these tragedies will keep occurring, people will start to realize that guns are deadly no matter what, and that's when they'll try to move to ban them outright (regardless of the fact that that still wouldn't solve the root of the problem). I really hope someone will start to make some intelligent discussion on solutions for the real problems before that kind of mass fear takes its toll. Despite their strong support and other important contributions, the NRA can't help in this respect, if they stick to the angle they're taking right now. There should be more focus on the mental health aspects and what can be done there, and more focus on raising people's awareness of their responsibilities to keep their weapons safe, etc.
 
This was an excellent post:



But the mission changed over time. First we were all --> regime change! :thumbsup: then we accomplished it and we were all --> protect and rebuild! :-/ then it was --> insurgency? what insurgency? :-x then --> defeat the insurgency! :whatever: then --> "responsible withdrawal" :wall: then the Iraqis were all (queue Dave Chappelle skit) fuck yo' SOFA, Yankees! and then we were all -->peace out, bitches!:thumbsdown:

Now a brutal dictator has been replaced by a regime that is just as corrupt, if not (yet) as violent, that is still not pro-US, that is under the thumb of Iran, the country is still overrun with guns and jihadis, and with all that oil they're sitting on, I'm still paying $3.80 at the pump. So I'm not sure anyone can objectively look at Iraq and see it as anything other than a defeat for the US.

Very true, when you put it like that. I think one of the main problems is with limp-wristed political actions. The majority of the population can't stomach the real measures that need to be taken sometimes, so politicians do everything half-assed. They never take the gloves off when needed, and when support inevitably drops, they cut and run on whatever half-assed measures they were taking in the first place.

I guess that's the problem when you have a government with so many people who are in it for a meal ticket or a 'prestigious' career (making decisions based on whether it'll get them reelected or not), as opposed to actually serving their country. Add that to all the political bullshit involved at the higher levels of the military (often leading to poor strategical choices), and that's just a recipe for utter mediocrity, despite having the tools and knowledge for a solid victory.

Oh, and of course, let's not forget the elements of the media which are hellbent on multiplying the negative effects from all of the above.
 
Back
Top