U.S. gun lobby slams anti-gun 'elites' after Florida school massacre

[thaibeachlovers]

22 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Or a different Supreme Court

Since when did the SCOTUS have anything to do with the constitution, other than interpreting it?

[ilostmypassword]

4 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Since when did the SCOTUS have anything to do with the constitution, other than interpreting it?

Do you understand how clueless your question is? Do you have any hard knowledge at all of American history?

For example. Despite the existence of the 14th Amendment for nearly 100 years the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of "Separate but Equal." No more.

If you look at the the history of the Supreme Court's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment you will find a wide variation in rulings depending on, among other things, how much weight is given to the clause " A well regulated militia being necessary to the welfare of a free state.."

[thaibeachlovers]

10 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Do you understand how clueless your question is? Do you have any hard knowledge at all of American history?

For example. Despite the existence of the 14th Amendment for nearly 100 years the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of "Separate but Equal." No more.

If you look at the the history of the Supreme Court's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment you will find a wide variation in rulings depending on, among other things, how much weight is given to the clause " A well regulated militia being necessary to the welfare of a free state.."

Fair enough. I misunderstood your reply.

[ilostmypassword]

2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Fair enough. I misunderstood your reply.

Congratulations. Now I feel guilty about the harshness of my reply. You are so Machiavellian.

[the guest]

USA a very backward nation !

[thaibeachlovers]

21 hours ago, rudi49jr said:

‘Jesus was not a liberal pacifist.’

 

Maybe not, but a Roman soldier’s arms don’t really compare to semi automatic assault weapons, do they? Or do you think Jesus would approve of ordinary citizens being allowed to own assault weapons? 

 

A Roman's weapons were the semi auto assault weapons of the time, which was how they conquered the known world ( plus better tactics ).

Jesus never had much to say about weapons of any kind ( far as we know ) other than "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword". I can't know, obviously ( but you knew that when you asked the question ), but I assume he would not have had anything to say about it either way. He was very accepting of the status quo, given his "give unto Rome" speech. IMO he would have accepted the law as it stood, and the law saying ordinary citizens can own weapons that resemble assault weapons, he would have accepted that.

The Christ's mission was not to change the world, but people's hearts. 

[thaibeachlovers]

21 hours ago, jvs said:

It may be a little bit of topic but i have a question i would really like answered by people who have guns for self protection.It is an honest question and i would like an honest response from responsible gun owners.

I think we can all agree that driving a car in the US is not a right but a privelige.

You abuse that and your license is taken away from you.

One of the things That will do that is drinking while under the influence of alcohol.When you are over the legal limit and you get stopped or involved in some kind of accident you will be arrested .

Now the question,when you are at home do you drink alcohol?How much?What is the legal limit to still be allowed to use your gun in case of a break in?If you are over the driving limit should you still be allowed to handle your gun?Does this mean you have to be sober all of the time in order to handle a dangerous weapon like a gun?What does the law say about that?

Please this is something i would really like to know.

Seriously? The right to defend oneself against bad people is not varied by the amount of alcohol one has consumed. Why on earth would you think differently?

[thaibeachlovers]

17 hours ago, IAMHERE said:

'Assault Rifle' 'Military weapon' ?  Heck, if the common ordinary American didn't have a gun as good as a Redcoat Regular the Revolution would have been lost. Back then the American Minutemen did have military type rifles. The framers of the 2nd amendment wanted every American to have the chance to keep their government from becoming tyarnnical. A small number of people dying so that all can remain free has always been the price of Liberty. Fear the Federal Government, not a few random crazies.

The cost of "freedom" has always been in blood. Millions have died while protecting their countries from the tyrant.

Personally, if I have to go defend my liberty I want to be carrying a weapon that allows me to kill lots more of them than me.

A muzzle loader just doesn't do it for me.

 

Worth noting that in the US handguns are far and away the most used in unlawful killings, so banning assault style weapons would make very little difference.

Even then I think suicides make up the majority of deaths and are wrongly included in the statistics. 

[smutcakes]

2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The cost of "freedom" has always been in blood. Millions have died while protecting their countries from the tyrant.

Personally, if I have to go defend my liberty I want to be carrying a weapon that allows me to kill lots more of them than me.

A muzzle loader just doesn't do it for me.

 

Worth noting that in the US handguns are far and away the most used in unlawful killings, so banning assault style weapons would make very little difference.

Even then I think suicides make up the majority of deaths and are wrongly included in the statistics. 

 

Meanwhile back on plant earth......... what in the world are you talking about.

[jvs]

37 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Seriously? The right to defend oneself against bad people is not varied by the amount of alcohol one has consumed. Why on earth would you think differently?

Just maybe a drunk person has a less clear mind so he would respond differently from being sober and his aim could be off?

You can not drive a car drunk but you can handle a gun?

Seriously?

Just think about this.Maybe staying sober would be of more benefit to you and your family who needs to be protected so badly?

 

Edited February 24, 2018 by jvs

[spidermike007]

On 2/23/2018 at 10:41 AM, mtls2005 said:

Two relevant speeches from CPAC: Dana Loesch and Wayne LaPierre

 

 

 

 

One can tell, by watching both of these speeches, that they are both whores, and rather disconnected with the rest of the population. Both are compensated very well, and both are positively working for a terrorist organization. Not only should the NRA be shut down, but the leaders should be jailed. Or tortured. 

[jvs]

7 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

One can tell, by watching both of these speeches, that they are both whores, and rather disconnected with the rest of the population. Both are compensated very well, and both are positively working for a terrorist organization. Not only should the NRA be shut down, but the leaders should be jailed. Or tortured. 

I watched this and i can not believe this BS is being taking serious.

 

[smutcakes]

1 minute ago, jvs said:

I watched this and i can not believe this BS is being taking serious.

 

Quite, if millions of normal Americans are watching and believing that, then the US has far worse problems with their education system than Thailand!!!

[thaibeachlovers]

38 minutes ago, jvs said:

Just maybe a drunk person has a less clear mind so he would respond differently from being sober and his aim could be off?

You can not drive a car drunk but you can handle a gun?

Seriously?

Just think about this.Maybe staying sober would be of more benefit to you and your family who needs to be protected so badly?

 

I'm not wasting my time looking it up, but I very much doubt that anyone using a weapon in self defence has to fear being prosecuted for using a weapon to save their life while under the influence.

 

[DM07]

39 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I'm not wasting my time looking it up, but I very much doubt that anyone using a weapon in self defence has to fear being prosecuted for using a weapon to save their life while under the influence.

 

Unless, you would grossly misjudge the situation, while you are drunk!

Which of course will never happen to all you and yours and the law abiding gun-nuts of 'Murica!

[wabothai]

On 2/23/2018 at 4:28 AM, spidermike007 said:

It has become increasingly clear, that the NRA is a terrorist organization, plain and simple. By continuing with their policies, they essentially support the massacre of civilians, and will stop at nothing to continue their insane support for automatic rifles, the ownership of rifles by 18 year olds, and are resisting calls for deep background checks.

 

The NRA are perhaps the most corrosive and dangerous organization in America today. They need to be stopped. They need to be taken out. Period. End of story. The time has come. They have outlived their usefulness. They are a boil on the face of America. 

 

The best way for Americans, who profess patriotism to their nation, to express that so called loyalty, is to not vote for any politician who accepts even one dollar from this heinous organization. They are a mafia. I am fine with someone being able to purchase a hunting rifle, or a pistol for self defense. With a deep background check. Gun shows need to be stopped tomorrow. 97% of the guns in the US, that are owned by civilians, are owned by 3% of the population. That is the very definition of a broken nation.

 

And did anyone notice that Trump was visited by an NRA lobbyist the day after the shooting? Those fools should not be allowed within 10 miles of the very white house. Trump has sold his soul to the highest bidder. That much is clear to anyone with any vision or understanding. Drain the swamp? How about re-populate it with his own crocodiles. The master of BS continues his crusade of lies.

Cox and Lapierre should be charged with accessory to mass murder and their homes and offices ought to be picketed with hundreds of thousands of protesters. 

[jvs]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I'm not wasting my time looking it up, but I very much doubt that anyone using a weapon in self defence has to fear being prosecuted for using a weapon to save their life while under the influence.

 

People like you are the reason why your country really  needs gun control.It is scary to realies you won't see it.

 

 

Edited February 24, 2018 by jvs

[riclag]

53 minutes ago, wabothai said:

Cox and Lapierre should be charged with accessory to mass murder and their homes and offices ought to be picketed with hundreds of thousands of protesters. 

Actually the NRA is a organization that promotes gun safety for millions of law abiding  gun owners.If anyone should be held liable it should be the law makers who don't enforce the gun laws.

[wabothai]

3 hours ago, riclag said:

Actually the NRA is a organization that promotes gun safety for millions of law abiding  gun owners.If anyone should be held liable it should be the law makers who don't enforce the gun laws.

Yeah, we should send them flowers

[HAKAPALITA]

Criminals advocate Gun Controls, it lessens the chances of a Victim shooting them.


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[lcp0761]

U.S. gun lobby slams anti-gun 'elites' after Florida school massacre
By Roberta Rampton and Makini Brice
 

Protestors rally outside the Capitol urging Florida lawmakers to reform gun laws, in the wake of last week's mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, in Tallahassee, Florida, U.S., February 21, 2018. REUTERS/Colin Hackley
 
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The head of the National Rifle Association lashed out at gun control advocates on Thursday, saying Democratic elites are politicizing the latest mass school shooting in the United States to try to erode constitutionally guaranteed gun rights.
 
NRA chief executive Wayne LaPierre echoed President Donald Trump's call to arm teachers to prevent school shootings, and weighed in on a long-running political and cultural divide over access to weapons that has been inflamed by last week's massacre at a Florida high school that killed 17 students and staff.
 
"The elites don't care not one whit about America's school system and school children," LaPierre told a friendly audience of conservatives outside Washington. "Their goal is to eliminate the Second Amendment and our firearms freedoms so they can eradicate all individual freedoms."
 
The U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms.
 
At the White House, Trump told local and state school officials he had discussed his ideas to stem gun violence in schools with the NRA, the politically influential gun lobby that backed him in the 2016 campaign. He called the group "Great American Patriots."
 
"There's a tremendous feeling that we want to get something done," he said. "The NRA wants to do the right thing."
 
Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer condemned LaPierre's comments and said the NRA was "once again spewing pathetic, out of touch ideas, blaming everything but guns."
 
The Feb. 14 rampage at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida was the latest in a series of deadly shootings at U.S. schools and has spurred unprecedented youth-led protests in cities across the country. Many of the teenagers and their parents taking part have called for more curbs on guns.
 
LaPierre, speaking at the annual gathering of the Conservative Political Action Conference, portrayed the NRA as the true protector of the country's schoolchildren and offered free training to those who want to bear arms to protect schools.
 
"We must immediately harden our schools," he said. "Every day, young children are being dropped off at schools that are virtually wide open, soft targets for anyone bent on mass murder." It should not be easier to shoot up a school than a bank or a jewelry store, he added.
 
The NRA set up a booth at the conference to sign up new members and recruit campaign field workers for the November mid-term elections in which Democrats are trying to take over control of Congress from Trump's fellow Republicans.
 
ARMED TEACHERS
 
"I'm strongly for concealed carry, strongly for arming the teachers like Trump said," said Nick Fuentes, 19, from Chicago, as he stood outside the booth. "Teachers who are adept at firearms should be armed."
 
LaPierre attacked Democrats by name including Senators Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren and Christopher Murphy and also took a swipe at the FBI for failing to follow up on a tip about the alleged shooter in the Parkland massacre. The FBI has said it failed to act on the tip.
 
Florida Governor Rick Scott also criticized the FBI for failing so far to provide details about why it did not respond to the tip. "Family members and loved ones of the victims deserve answers today," Scott said in a statement.
 
Trump reiterated his idea, first raised on Wednesday during an emotional discussion with people affected by the shooting, to arm teachers, a notion raised by some politicians in the past but dismissed by critics as fraught with danger.
 
"Anyone who pushes arming teachers doesn't understand teachers and doesn't understand our schools. Adding more guns to schools may create an illusion of safety, but in reality it would make our classrooms less safe," said Randi Weingarten, the president of the American Federation of Teachers union.
 
At an hourlong meeting on school safety with 10 state and local officials, Trump said armed teachers with an aptitude for guns would deter would-be shooters.
 
"A gun-free zone to a killer, or somebody that wants to be a killer, that's like going in for the ice cream," Trump said. "They're not going to walk into a school if 20 percent of the teachers have guns."
 
Trump repeated his support for tightening background checks for gun buyers, with an emphasis on mental health, and lifting the age limit to buy some kinds of guns. He also said he would push for an end to the sale of bump stocks, which allow rifles to shoot hundreds of rounds a minute.
 
The White House said Trump does not want to ban sales of an entire class of firearms despite mounting pressure to put assault weapons such as the one used in the Florida shooting out of civilian reach.
 
While gun laws vary widely by state, most federal gun control measures would require Congress to act.
 
A 19-year-old former student at Stoneman Douglas, Nikolas Cruz, has been charged with carrying out the Parkland shooting. Authorities say he was armed with a semiautomatic AR-15 assault-style rifle that he had purchased legally last year.
 
(Additional reporting by Alex Dubuzinskis in Los Angeles, Susan Heavey, Doina Chiacu in Washington; Writing by Doina Chiacu and John Whitesides; Editing by Frances Kerry and Will Dunham)
  -- [emoji767] Copyright Reuters 2018-02-23

Boycott the NRA!


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Scott]

Posts removed.

 

[Berkshire]

21 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

They didn't miss anything. The constitution was written to protect citizens from the tyranny of government, which you may understand was the reason for the war they just won against a tyrannical government, against which they rebelled.

It's nothing to do with technology.

Ironical thing about all those going on about how it isn't relevant, is that they want to change it, IMO, to allow tyranny of government again.

Good luck with that.

You may not realize it, but in some ways, you're supporting my point and contradicting yours.  To protect citizens from the tyranny of government, elements of the 1st Amendment are much, much more important than the 2nd.  Making sure that our elected officials serve our interest by way of uncovering corruption and not allowing someone like Trump unlimited power are essential to a healthy democracy.

 

Do you think that private citizens having guns would truly stop a tyrannical government from doing whatever it is they want?  If a SWAT or military spec ops team came to your house on the order of a corrupt government, you and your guns would have about 0 chance of survival. 

[spidermike007]

18 hours ago, riclag said:

Actually the NRA is a organization that promotes gun safety for millions of law abiding  gun owners.If anyone should be held liable it should be the law makers who don't enforce the gun laws.

 

Yes, the insistence, by very powerful lobbyists that automatic rifles, and many types of assault rifles be made available to the American public, is definitely keeping the nation safe. In addition so is the watered down version of background checks, that this terrorist organization known as the NRA supports. 

 

And if one believes that, you might also believe the deflector in chief is making America great again. 

 

None of us have a problem with a law abiding, and sane individual being able to buy a handgun, or a rifle for hunting. But, 3% of the gun owners own 97% of the guns. The NRA makes this possible and is supporting terror in the process, by diluting the process and the laws. That is only part of the reason why they are such a despised and vilified organization. I realize they have 5 million members. But, they don't have another 325 million Americans as members. Their time has come. They are going to have to face greater and greater scrutiny, and hopefully a complete shutdown, at some point. They do not benefit the country. They are a very, very destructive force in American politics. And Trump is their whore.

Edited February 25, 2018 by spidermike007

[thaibeachlovers]

17 hours ago, lcp0761 said:

 

 

Boycott the NRA!


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

 

Last time I looked the NRA don't pass laws. Your boycott would achieve nothing.

 

BTW, what would you be boycotting and how would you do so? They don't sell anything and are a membership organisation. People that want to join will do so regardless of any jumping up and down about the NRA.

[JTXR]

On 2/23/2018 at 9:29 AM, Time Traveller said:

Imagine a pedestration demanding cars be banned simply because their "right to be secure" outweighs other drivers rights to own and drive cars!!! Even if those other drivers are fully compliant with the law.  Sorry but the whole anti gun argument does not make logical sense.

Excellent example.  Yes, you have a right to own and drive cars, as long as you can prove you can do so safely (by government-administered testing and licensing) and as long as the car itself is safe and has clear ownership (in all U.S. states by registration, and in many by regular inspection and certification).  These are all reasonable, common sense restrictions on the right to own and drive cars.

And anyway, cars have many valuable uses other than that they can be used to mow down pedestrians.  AR15s have no other real use than to kill human beings rapidly and efficiently.  That's what they (and their full-auto military variants) were specifically designed to do.  Yes, they can be used for hunting and for target practice, but they're really not ideal for that -- there are better alternatives.  There are no better rifles, though, for killing many people quickly, which is exactly why they are the weapon of choice for the military and for mass murderers.

Nobody wants to take away folks' shotguns and hunting rifles, or their handguns kept for home protection.  The NRA drags out these ridiculous scare scenarios in order to prevent any common-sense gun reform like strict background checks and reasonable waiting periods and a ban on semi-automatic assault rifles.
 

[JTXR]

5 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Last time I looked the NRA don't pass laws. Your boycott would achieve nothing.

BTW, what would you be boycotting and how would you do so? They don't sell anything and are a membership organisation. People that want to join will do so regardless of any jumping up and down about the NRA.

Check this out:
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/02/23/588233273/one-by-one-companies-cut-ties-with-nra

 

The NRA markets membership in part by saying membership includes various discounts from companies.  Due to public pressure, many companies offering those discounts are ending them, saying they don't want to be associated with the NRA anymore.  I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the effectiveness of boycotts.  This one is already having an effect.
https://thinkprogress.org/corporations-nra-f0d8074f2ca7/

[thaibeachlovers]

16 hours ago, JTXR said:

Check this out:
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/02/23/588233273/one-by-one-companies-cut-ties-with-nra

 

The NRA markets membership in part by saying membership includes various discounts from companies.  Due to public pressure, many companies offering those discounts are ending them, saying they don't want to be associated with the NRA anymore.  I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the effectiveness of boycotts.  This one is already having an effect.
https://thinkprogress.org/corporations-nra-f0d8074f2ca7/

 

It's not going to stop people joining the NRA or make them leave. People will still join if they want the things the NRA was set up to do.

Example: McDs offers discounts on burgers to get people to buy burgers and become customers. When they stop offering discounts, McDs doesn't go out of business.

Business doing what business does. They sought to tap into a potential of millions of customers, now they think they'll lose customers if they continue to do so, but 

if they find they lose money by having done so they will quickly reinstate the discounts. There are few morals in a boardroom.

 

What is more likely, is that the millions of NRA customers will boycott the companies that pulled out, to punish them for doing so.

[Slip]

18 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

 

It's not going to stop people joining the NRA or make them leave. People will still join if they want the things the NRA was set up to do.

Example: McDs offers discounts on burgers to get people to buy burgers and become customers. When they stop offering discounts, McDs doesn't go out of business.

Business doing what business does. They sought to tap into a potential of millions of customers, now they think they'll lose customers if they continue to do so, but 

if they find they lose money by having done so they will quickly reinstate the discounts. There are few morals in a boardroom.

 

What is more likely, is that the millions of NRA customers will boycott the companies that pulled out, to punish them for doing so.

So it won't work when the hundreds of millions of non-NRA members boycott because there are "few morals in a boardroom", but the paltry 5 million members of the NRA will be able to punish these corporate giants?

 

Don't you think that the businesses will be more concerned about the hundreds of millions than the 5 million?  The whole point of what is happening now is that companies who support the NRA by offering these deals to members are being punished for it by the vast majority of citizens who see the NRA as a boil on the backside of the nation.

[mike324]

57 minutes ago, Slip said:

So it won't work when the hundreds of millions of non-NRA members boycott because there are "few morals in a boardroom", but the paltry 5 million members of the NRA will be able to punish these corporate giants?

 

Don't you think that the businesses will be more concerned about the hundreds of millions than the 5 million?  The whole point of what is happening now is that companies who support the NRA by offering these deals to members are being punished for it by the vast majority of citizens who see the NRA as a boil on the backside of the nation.

 

I agree the NRA supporters think they are majority and would impact these companies, but in fact they are not. The majority do not support companies supporting the NRA. So distancing themselves from the NRA would cost these companies less in the long run.

 

On 2/24/2018 at 7:01 PM, riclag said:

Actually the NRA is a organization that promotes gun safety for millions of law abiding  gun owners.If anyone should be held liable it should be the law makers who don't enforce the gun laws.

And the law makers are being paid by the NRA to not have restrictions regarding to gun laws - get it? Do you see the connection why so many republican accept money from the NRA and gun lobbyist?