United States & Gun Control discussion.

Marine0311 · Dec 17, 2012

policemedic said:
One thing does bear mentioning.

When you use the term assault weapon, you are allowing the other side to dictate the terms of the debate. There is no such thing as an assault rifle, assault pistol or any other type of assault anything. We know this, and we know better, but the term has become so commonplace that we use it without thinking. And when we do, we reinforce through the power of semantics and imagery the (allegedly) horribly evil and dangerous nature of these inanimate objects that the other side is trying to sell.

Even the phrase military-style rifle/pistol/shotgun/spork is problematic. A 1911 is military-style, and so are Berettas and Glocks and Sigs because they've been used by our nation's warfighters. Should we ban them simply because of their association with the military? In terms of rifles, the military uses bolt action rifles. Does that mean the Remington 700 you own to hunt deer (not that the 2nd Amendment has anything to do with hunting) should be outlawed because at its core it is reminiscent of the M24 sniper weapon system?

When we debate this issue--though why there is a debate puzzles me--we must be sure that in making our points we do not undermine our position by letting the other side frame the debate.

Words matter.

Agreed. The media seems to ignorant and unwilling to educate itself proper. Much like "TODAY OUR SPECIAL OPERATIONS BLACK NINJAS DID X, Y AND Z"

That is one point of conversation I throw at them along with a few other key terms. Then when you correct them they say "yeah but those assault weapons..."

Blizzard · Dec 17, 2012

^ I'll dovetail on the points from a few of the posts above.

We need to get past the Red Herring that is guns and start examining the root cause behind the desire to commit mass murder.

The interesting thing is that many crime statistics show an overall decline and is near historical lows:
FBI: Violent crime rates in the US drop, approach historic lows - U.S. News

Violent crime rates in the U.S. are reaching historic lows, according to new FBI data released Monday.

Instances of murder declined overall by 1.9 percent from 2010 figures, while rape, robbery and aggravated assault declined by 4 percent nationwide, according to records from more than 14,000 law-enforcement agencies around the country...

According to FBI analysis, the homicide drop would mean that nearly 280 fewer Americans were murdered last year, which would be the lowest homicide death toll since the mid-1950s.

So, considering the information from the article above, the focus on guns as the problem appears very much misplaced.

Yet, people will still call for a ban on certain weapons (as posted earlier, the wheels are already in motion). But we've been there, done that. The result? Well, consider the following WT article based on a report from the National Institute of Justice (NIJ):
www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/aug/16/20040816-114754-1427r/#ixzz2FHgALPuP

“We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence...

...It is thus premature to make definitive assessments of the ban’s impact on gun violence. Should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement"

To me, all this seemingly points to a greater underlying societal issue or perhaps a dark side of human nature. Neither of which will be solved with another law.

As our society grows and technology evolves, we are more connected and in tune to issues than we've ever been before. Thus, our visibilty/awareness of such violence is greater.

JBS · Dec 17, 2012

For those of you still unsure about how vocal and active you should be about this issue RIGHT NOW, TODAY, all across every blog and forum you might frequent, as well as with your friends and neighbors, the hour that many of us have feared (and expected) is now upon us.

These are examples of the flood of headlines almost everywhere across American media- print, electronic and radio as well.

An assault weapons ban will be rolled out, and it probably has already been drafted, sitting in a locker and collecting dust for just such a time as this. The call is about to go out and those of us who want to keep the 2nd Amendment had better be ready to mobilize and act when it does. Unlike the Clinton AWB, they won't stop with "Assault Weapons" this time. Obama has set the precedent for taking this country into territory we never thought we'd see. And, with the recent flood of unassimilated, illegal immigrants and mass production of the dumbest youth our nation has ever produced, the fabric of the country has changed just enough in the past 3-5 years to make his agenda actually possible.

And we know that the Obama Administration comes from the Chicago school of politics, where you never want a good crisis to go to waste:

JBS · Dec 17, 2012

If you haven't already, start watching the reports on gun legislation about to be rolled out and get involved with every pro-2nd Amendment organization you can find. If you want to keep your liberty, it is all going to come down to this effort that is merely being made out to look like a "knee jerk" reaction by the Left. In reality, they've been waiting patiently for the chance to act by leveraging public sentiment and the perfect blend of ignorance and lethargy so prevalent in our culture today.

8654Maine · Dec 17, 2012

^^^^Amen

0699 · Dec 17, 2012

policemedic said:
One thing does bear mentioning.

When you use the term assault weapon, you are allowing the other side to dictate the terms of the debate. There is no such thing as an assault rifle, assault pistol or any other type of assault anything. We know this, and we know better, but the term has become so commonplace that we use it without thinking. And when we do, we reinforce through the power of semantics and imagery the (allegedly) horribly evil and dangerous nature of these inanimate objects that the other side is trying to sell.

Even the phrase military-style rifle/pistol/shotgun/spork is problematic. A 1911 is military-style, and so are Berettas and Glocks and Sigs because they've been used by our nation's warfighters. Should we ban them simply because of their association with the military? In terms of rifles, the military uses bolt action rifles. Does that mean the Remington 700 you own to hunt deer (not that the 2nd Amendment has anything to do with hunting) should be outlawed because at its core it is reminiscent of the M24 sniper weapon system?

When we debate this issue--though why there is a debate puzzles me--we must be sure that in making our points we do not undermine our position by letting the other side frame the debate.

Words matter.

That's what Mexico does... :wall:

Marine0311 · Dec 17, 2012

Contact your local, state and federal officials

8654Maine · Dec 17, 2012

Marine0311 said:
Contact your local, state and federal officials

More than that: Get INVOLVED.

Don't be like so many who would ignore or hide from this encroachment.

Use Psy-Ops: infiltrate the bastions of plurality and liberalism.
Get involved in politics.
Enter the educational system and teach the future minds and voters.
Get involved in media. Use it to show the rational side in otherwise emotional issues.

Lord knows, I sometimes feel like I'm finning against a 10 knot sea in civilian medicine, but it's gotta be done. You should see the liberal, "be free, be me, gimme, gimme" BS that is in healthcare nowadays.

I say get subversive. Am I preaching to the choir?

JBS · Dec 17, 2012

8654Maine said:
More than that: Get INVOLVED.

Don't be like so many who would ignore or hide from this encroachment.

Use Psy-Ops: infiltrate the bastions of plurality and liberalism.
Get involved in politics.
Enter the educational system and teach the future minds and voters.
Get involved in media. Use it to show the rational side in otherwise emotional issues.

Lord knows, I sometimes feel like I'm finning against a 10 knot sea in civilian medicine, but it's gotta be done. You should see the liberal, "be free, be me, gimme, gimme" BS that is in healthcare nowadays.

I say get subversive. Am I preaching to the choir?

The time will come.

In the meanwhile we need to come out of the woodwork.

I just bought the tackiest 2nd Amendment T-Shirts that I never would ordinarily wear just for the express purpose of going into downtown and doing my best to express my views. One voice, but it's all I have. And I'm going to multiply my presence everywhere I can by posting coherent, factual counter points every time I have a spare minute to scan an anti-2nd Amendment news article.

It's horrible that the death of 20 kids is the currency of the Leftists, to purchase gun control, so we should be fearless in defending the principles of the 2nd Amendment. We have to do much better than we did during the Clinton Administration.

pardus · Dec 18, 2012

I feel like we are on the brink of loosing our liberty and it worries me a lot. America will not be America without the 2nd Amendment.

JBS · Dec 18, 2012

Fund management groups begin sell off of gun-maker/manufacturer stocks; hitting them in the pocketbook now:

http://news.yahoo.com/cerberus-sell-gunmaker-freedom-group-u-school-shooting-062303957--sector.html

(Reuters) - U.S. private equity firm Cerberus Capital Management said on Tuesday it will immediately begin selling its investment in gunmaker Freedom Group in light of last week's school shooting in Connecticut.

Pressure mounted on Cerberus as the California State Teachers' Retirement System (CalSTRS) said on Monday it was reviewing its investment with the private equity firm after the Connecticut school shooting.

CalSTRS had invested $751.4 million with Cerberus by the end of March 2012, according to its website.

Cerberus acquired firearms maker Bushmaster in 2006 and later merged it with other gun companies to create Freedom Group, which reported net sales of $677.3 million for the nine months ending September 2012, up from $564.6 million in the same period a year ago.

Bushmaster is the manufacturer of the AR 15 rifle used by the shooter in the Newtown, Connecticut killings that claimed 27 lives, including 20 school children.

The private equity firm said it will retain a financial adviser to sell its interests in Freedom Group, and will then return that capital to investors.

Founded in 1992 by Stephen Feinberg and William Richter, New York-based Cerberus has over $20 billion under management invested and shares its name with a mythical three-headed dog that in Greek mythology guards the entrance to the underworld.

Rapid · Dec 18, 2012

JAB said:
Man, I was going to respond with all kinds of deliberate contrast to your lengthy post, but then you went on with this other, and being as intoxicated as I am now…well I really just can’t see the point, you are so damn contradictory to your own posts, well it’s kind of…silly.

Nothing I have written has contradicted itself; you can try rereading it when you're not inebriated.

JAB said:
“I am all for gun ownership” well, as long as these people don’t have them, and these people don’t carry them, and well these people keep them locked up….and well these people are idiots and they should not have them….blah, blah, blahhh…

Dude! This is exactly why our country (the United States) has a constitution, to keep the flip-floppers, from injecting there “this moment” of reasoning/new laws from affecting the masses. Contrary to modern politics, the constitution is a document that guards against ignorance and intolerance. You cannot say “I am all for civil liberty, but only for these people”, it is either for EVERYONE or not.

For centuries, the laws of Western countries have guaranteed many liberties for their citizens, but they have also conferred duties upon them.

I don't know where you got the idea that one's rights shouldn't be taken away in any circumstance, but guess what? They should. Not because of dumb laws (such as the AWB), but because of one's own dumbass actions.

Commit a murder? You lose your freedom. Molest a kid? You lose your freedom, and you lose the right to be around kids. Maliciously and repeatedly hack government and/or private websites? You lose some of your rights when it comes to what you access on computers/the internet.

All those examples show how you can lose your rights, because of YOUR OWN stupid actions. No one should be able to go around doing stupid shit and not being prevented from doing it again. If you disagree with this, excuse me while I go facepalm myself for about half an hour.

Now then, what about if your neighbor gets diagnosed as a psychopath on the verge of a causing a bloodbath? I don't think you need to be a rocket scientist to deduce that maybe it'd be a good idea to temporarily suspend his rights to bear arms... until/if he's given the all-clear. Go ahead and correct me, if you think that you'd feel safe having your family around him.

What about if he's got a history of violent gun crime? Gee, I'm going to have to go with the same as above.

Let's stop with this "I can do whatever I want and not face any consequences" bullshit. Our constitutions, declarations, etc, aren't guarantees to act like self-righteous pricks who are a danger to others' liberties. Our rights can, and should, be taken away from us if we don't accept our duties.

JAB said:
Main point I will make before I pass the fuck out, is that whatever (anyone) can dream up as better for A, B and C, will never be good for the whole dam alphabet. Any of you, who feel that limiting one persons liberty (i.e. any person, ignorant, intelligent, mentally ill, or whatever you can come up with), either it be freedom to bear arms, freedom of speech, ect, ect… Have a true misunderstanding of what liberty truly is. It is not just to keep government from infringing upon those liberties, but also to keep all of you (and your bright ideas) from infringing on those rights as well.

The only person here who has no idea of what liberty is, ironically, is you. The fact that you can't grasp that your liberty ends where the next person's liberty begins speaks volumes.

I'm tired of sugarcoating it. Your infantile reasoning says that the kid who committed this massacre should've been able to own guns just like anyone else. I'm actually angry at this stupidity.

Edit: and I'm actually going to quote myself to put this whole post into perspective:

Rapid said:
I believe that people should be able to own handguns, shotguns, hunting rifles, assault rifles, sniper rifles, light machine guns... or whatever else. However, to say that these rights shouldn't come with any responsibilities (safekeeping), duties (immediately reporting missing weapons) or conditions (limiting/excluding these rights from the severely deranged or criminals) just seems crazy to me.

txpj007 · Dec 18, 2012

alibi · Dec 18, 2012

policemedic said:
One thing does bear mentioning.

When you use the term assault weapon, you are allowing the other side to dictate the terms of the debate. There is no such thing as an assault rifle, assault pistol or any other type of assault anything. We know this, and we know better, but the term has become so commonplace that we use it without thinking. And when we do, we reinforce through the power of semantics and imagery the (allegedly) horribly evil and dangerous nature of these inanimate objects that the other side is trying to sell.

Even the phrase military-style rifle/pistol/shotgun/spork is problematic. A 1911 is military-style, and so are Berettas and Glocks and Sigs because they've been used by our nation's warfighters. Should we ban them simply because of their association with the military? In terms of rifles, the military uses bolt action rifles. Does that mean the Remington 700 you own to hunt deer (not that the 2nd Amendment has anything to do with hunting) should be outlawed because at its core it is reminiscent of the M24 sniper weapon system?

When we debate this issue--though why there is a debate puzzles me--we must be sure that in making our points we do not undermine our position by letting the other side frame the debate.

Words matter.

This is something I have been thinking about, and it is certainly not limited to 2nd Amendment issues. Look at any of these:

Nanny State/Big Government vs. Helping others and taking care of each other

Marriage Equality vs. Protecting the Family

Reproductive Rights vs. Pro-life

Paying their fair share vs. Attacking the Rich

There are more, but the above is what worries me. How do you debate the above issues when the language just completely frames the debate in a mutually exclusive way?

I worry about the United States becoming Balkanized (certainly politically, at least). I think the U.S. has become this way concerning 2nd Amendment.

Chopstick · Dec 18, 2012

I wonder if this peace loving professor is packing heat? I <3 the liberal left.
I think some of that is a threat to Mr. LaPierre et al . This guy should be locked up. He doesnt sound very stable to me

ted at 11:42 am on December 18, 2012 by Twitchy Staff | View Comments

The Rude Pundit @rudepundit
First fucker to say the solution is for elementary school teachers to carry guns needs to get beaten to death.
14 Dec 12
Four days ago, Erik Loomis, an assistant professor of American history at the University of Rhode Island, retweeted the above tweet. In case it disappears down the memory hole, here’s a .jpg captured for posterity:

That was just one of Loomis’ many angry, profane tweets/retweets bashing pro-gun organizations and individuals such as NRA chief Wayne LaPierre in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary school shooting massacre in Newtown, Conn.

Erik Loomis @ErikLoomis
Can we define NRA membership dues as contributing to a terrorist organization?
14 Dec 12
Erik Loomis @ErikLoomis
@rmccrory I was heartbroken in the first 20 mass murders. Now I want Wayne LaPierre's head on a stick.
14 Dec 12

http://twitchy.com/2012/12/18/unive...r-anyone-who-thinks-teachers-should-be-armed/

pardus · Dec 18, 2012

What a scumbag POS. Be proud University of Rhode Island, be proud.

Totentanz · Dec 18, 2012

Hmmm sounds like the perfect way to eliminate violence in schools... [/sarc]

pardus · Dec 18, 2012

It is however a non starting idea to arm teachers. Teachers are generally of a liberal mindset, as a group they wouldn't do it.
Armed guards would be a better idea if that was the road we went down.

AWP · Dec 18, 2012

I'd love to have one of his classes. I'd wear an NRA shirt.

Ex3 · Dec 18, 2012

Rapid said:
Nothing I have written has contradicted itself; you can try rereading it when you're not inebriated.

For centuries, the laws of Western countries have guaranteed many liberties for their citizens, but they have also conferred duties upon them.

I don't know where you got the idea that one's rights shouldn't be taken away in any circumstance, but guess what? They should. Not because of dumb laws (such as the AWB), but because of one's own dumbass actions.

Commit a murder? You lose your freedom. Molest a kid? You lose your freedom, and you lose the right to be around kids. Maliciously and repeatedly hack government and/or private websites? You lose some of your rights when it comes to what you access on computers/the internet.

All those examples show how you can lose your rights, because of YOUR OWN stupid actions. No one should be able to go around doing stupid shit and not being prevented from doing it again. If you disagree with this, excuse me while I go facepalm myself for about half an hour.

Now then, what about if your neighbor gets diagnosed as a psychopath on the verge of a causing a bloodbath? I don't think you need to be a rocket scientist to deduce that maybe it'd be a good idea to temporarily suspend his rights to bear arms... until/if he's given the all-clear. Go ahead and correct me, if you think that you'd feel safe having your family around him.

What about if he's got a history of violent gun crime? Gee, I'm going to have to go with the same as above.

Let's stop with this "I can do whatever I want and not face any consequences" bullshit. Our constitutions, declarations, etc, aren't guarantees to act like self-righteous pricks who are a danger to others' liberties. Our rights can, and should, be taken away from us if we don't accept our duties.

The only person here who has no idea of what liberty is, ironically, is you. The fact that you can't grasp that your liberty ends where the next person's liberty begins speaks volumes.

I'm tired of sugarcoating it. Your infantile reasoning says that the kid who committed this massacre should've been able to own guns just like anyone else. I'm actually angry at this stupidity.

Edit: and I'm actually going to quote myself to put this whole post into perspective:

Excellent post. This is what I've been trying (and failing) to put into words the last several days.

United States & Gun Control discussion.

Marine0311

Marine

Blizzard

JBS

Leatherneck

JBS

Leatherneck

8654Maine

Recon Marine

0699

Marine0311

Marine

8654Maine

Recon Marine

JBS

Leatherneck

pardus

JBS

Leatherneck

Rapid

UKSOF

txpj007

Pararescue

alibi

Chopstick

Verified Estrogen Brigade

pardus

Totentanz

Civil Affairs

pardus

AWP

Ex3

Bionic SSSO1 plank owner

Similar threads