US politicians seem UNWILLING to prevent gun violence

[SinCityGr8One]

I am a Lifelong member of the NRA. Because I am a member of an association that protects that protects the second amendment of the Constitution that gives rights to all Americans, Does that mean I ahould go for a mental health check up? Screw you and your *(Edited out)* point of view. The SCOTUS has reaffirmed the second amendmemt guaranteeing gun ownership. I would have my pistol and not need it than need it and not have it. Sent from my GT-S5360B using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Edited September 27, 2013 by Scott
Inflammatolry remark edited out

[SinCityGr8One]

No man there was more to come but having a size 15 finger to type on a mobile phone does cause problems sometimes. If your off the floor and back on bar stool try reading the completed post I sent in. Cheers!

Sent from my GT-S5360B using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[F430murci]

No man there was more to come but having a size 15 finger to type on a mobile phone does cause problems sometimes. If your off the floor and back on bar stool try reading the completed post I sent in. Cheers!

Sent from my GT-S5360B using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Haha, I do love your intellectual way of articulating the finer points.

You state:

"Does that mean I ahould go for a mental health check up? Screw you and your *Deleted out* point of view. The SCOTUS has reaffirmed the second amendmemt guaranteeing gun ownership"

Too funny. Poster boy for the NRA LaPew position regarding mental health. Even LaPew says that people should not have guns unless they pass a mental health examination. So is he or is he not for mental health evaluations. So is it truly the NRA's position that it is mental health issue and not a gun issue? Love how you guys just gloss over that one and say stuff like "screw you LIBtards" when someone says you should be subject to a mental health evaluation to carry a gun.

Supreme Court has not guaranteed everyone a right to gun ownership. Mental defects and criminals are not guaranteed that right. Scalia and the Heller decision has clearly stated that certain types of weapons are not protected by 2nd Amendment.

I have no problem with people having pistols, just not whacked out mental defects, retards or nutty survivalist types that think the government is coming to take them away which is about on a level with Aaron Alexis mental stability.

Edited September 27, 2013 by Scott
Inflammatolry remark edited out

[Publicus]

Wow, are you tilting at windmills.

"Supreme Court affirms fundamental right to bear arms" The Washington Post

Tuesday, June 29, 2010

"The Second Amendment provides Americans a fundamental right to bear arms that cannot be violated by state and local governments, the Supreme Court ruled Monday in a long-sought victory for gun rights advocates."

"...But Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., who wrote the opinion for the court's dominant conservatives, said: "It is clear that the Framers . . . counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty."

"The decision extended the court's 2008 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller that "the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home." That decision applied only to federal laws and federal enclaves such as Washington; it was the first time the court had said there was an individual right to gun ownership rather than one related to military service." - Emphasis mine.

I've never said otherwise.

I've only pointed out the vast majority of Americans want tighter laws governing gun ownership, access, possession, but that we can't get such laws because of a fanatical single-issue minority subculture of gunslingers.

I'm afraid your posts do a Dick Cheney - with your own gun you shoot another hunter.

You need to be more attentive and careful. Lives depend on it.

In your post just above, you said "a tiny minority, a subculture...votes in large numbers..."

Who is confused? Who needs to be more attentive and careful?

Your side always loses because of something we call majority rule.

You don't like the outcome so you spin the facts until even they are dizzy.

Last April, 54 of 100 US Senators voted IN FAVOR of more strict background checks for gun buyers but the measure still lost. That's minority rule

The Senate on that particular vote required a SUPER MAJORITY of 60 of the 100 Senators voting in favor. And that's absurd.

That's minority rule or, more accurately, minority obstructionism, interposition, nullification.

That's due to a fanatical single-issue small absolutist subculture of gunslingers who won't accept any change to laws governing gun purchasing, gun ownership, gun possession despite the repeated murderings of children in their schools, the D.C. sniper randomly killing people and too many mass killings to mention here.

I've said many times I can produce dozens and dozens of polls by reputable polling organizations over the past 20 years that prove the vast majority of Americans demand tighter laws governing gun purchases, gun ownership, gun possession.

And, unfortunately - tragically - I can produce instance after instance of the fanatical single-issue minority absolutist gun subculture that votes in force and uses huge amounts of money in election campaigns to foil a needed and necessary tightening of gun laws.

Absolutists don't bend in the breeze, so one day a huge wind is going to knock you guys over. It happened with gay rights, it happened with civil rights, it's happened with women's rights and in many other instances in the history of the United States. And it's going to happen in respect of the rights of US citizens to be safe from mass gun killings.

Our time will come, and your time will be gone forever.

[Baloo22]

Wow, are you tilting at windmills.

"Supreme Court affirms fundamental right to bear arms" The Washington Post

Tuesday, June 29, 2010

"The Second Amendment provides Americans a fundamental right to bear arms that cannot be violated by state and local governments, the Supreme Court ruled Monday in a long-sought victory for gun rights advocates."

"...But Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., who wrote the opinion for the court's dominant conservatives, said: "It is clear that the Framers . . . counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty."

"The decision extended the court's 2008 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller that "the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home." That decision applied only to federal laws and federal enclaves such as Washington; it was the first time the court had said there was an individual right to gun ownership rather than one related to military service." - Emphasis mine.

I've never said otherwise.

I've only pointed out the vast majority of Americans want tighter laws governing gun ownership, access, possession, but that we can't get such laws because of a fanatical single-issue minority subculture of gunslingers.

I'm afraid your posts do a Dick Cheney - with your own gun you shoot another hunter.

You need to be more attentive and careful. Lives depend on it.

In your post just above, you said "a tiny minority, a subculture...votes in large numbers..."

Who is confused? Who needs to be more attentive and careful?

Your side always loses because of something we call majority rule.

You don't like the outcome so you spin the facts until even they are dizzy.

Last April, 54 of 100 US Senators voted IN FAVOR of more strict background checks for gun buyers but the measure still lost. That's minority rule

The Senate on that particular vote required a SUPER MAJORITY of 60 of the 100 Senators voting in favor. And that's absurd.

That's minority rule or, more accurately, minority obstructionism, interposition, nullification.

That's due to a fanatical single-issue small absolutist subculture of gunslingers who won't accept any change to laws governing gun purchasing, gun ownership, gun possession despite the repeated murderings of children in their schools, the D.C. sniper randomly killing people and too many mass killings to mention here.

I've said many times I can produce dozens and dozens of polls by reputable polling organizations over the past 20 years that prove the vast majority of Americans demand tighter laws governing gun purchases, gun ownership, gun possession.

And, unfortunately - tragically - I can produce instance after instance of the fanatical single-issue minority absolutist gun subculture that votes in force and uses huge amounts of money in election campaigns to foil a needed and necessary tightening of gun laws.

Absolutists don't bend in the breeze, so one day a huge wind is going to knock you guys over. It happened with gay rights, it happened with civil rights, it's happened with women's rights and in many other instances in the history of the United States. And it's going to happen in respect of the rights of US citizens to be safe from mass gun killings.

Our time will come, and your time will be gone forever.

As you continue to ignore, it is well known that the people that design and execute these "dozens and dozens of polls" that you fanatically and repeatedly keep referring to can use the language of the poll questions and the method of polling to construct the results that they want. The only poll on this subject that matters is the election of those Senators to represent their respective states. That's it. That is when the people speak! Those Senators are doing what they are supposed to be doing; representing their States. Not blindly following the latest fad poll.

It gives me a good laugh when you start with your " fanatical single-issue minority absolutist gun subculture" schtick. Do you realize that you forgot to include little grey aliens from Alpha Centauri in your description?

And exactly when did voting become such a dirty act for you. Voting happens to be one of our rights. Along with the right of free speech and the right of assembly, such as joining a citizen activist group like the National Rifle Association. See, you and I are going to have to differ on this. I happen to believe that citizens voting, exercising their free speech rights, and their right of assembly are admirable activities.

[Publicus]

The major problem with US democracy is that it's controlled by wealthy single-issue special interests groups, such as the NRA, that have a disproportionate and negative affect on decision making in the Congress.

When 54 of 100 US Senators vote for more strict laws governing gun access, ownership, possession, and that majority vote fails, that is a dysfunctional democracy. The disfunction is caused by the disproportionate influence of the fanatical single issue gun lobby that absolutely refuses to accept any change whatsoever to any gun law.

You blindly choose to ignore or to disparage the dozens and dozens of scientific polling done by reputable polling organizations over the past 20 years that refute your position. You continue to enable gun mass killings in the name of democracy, which is wrong.

I happen to believe clean and honest politics and government are admirable, desirable and, so long as the NRA has money and votes, impossible.

[Chicog]

The political strength of the NRA comes from the collective will and voice of FIVE MILLION plus members. That's right; over five million dues-paying voluntary members. Contrast that with the money-throwing antics of Nanny Bloomberg and other elitists like him, but please - you can put lipstick on a Bloomberg.

According to my rudimentary arithmetic, that is a shade over 1.5% of the population.

Which makes it all the more amazing that they are allowed to manipulate the political system with impunity (oh, I forgot, they aren't "breaking any laws").

You say "allowed to manipulate the political system with impunity". By "manipulate" you mean that we use our freedom of speech and freedom of assembly as citizens of the United States. There's that pesky Bill of Rights again!

By manipulate I mean use money to buy seats for its favoured politicians.

[NeverSure]

Wow, are you tilting at windmills.

"Supreme Court affirms fundamental right to bear arms" The Washington Post

Tuesday, June 29, 2010

"The Second Amendment provides Americans a fundamental right to bear arms that cannot be violated by state and local governments, the Supreme Court ruled Monday in a long-sought victory for gun rights advocates."

"...But Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., who wrote the opinion for the court's dominant conservatives, said: "It is clear that the Framers . . . counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty."

"The decision extended the court's 2008 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller that "the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home." That decision applied only to federal laws and federal enclaves such as Washington; it was the first time the court had said there was an individual right to gun ownership rather than one related to military service." - Emphasis mine.

I've never said otherwise.

I've only pointed out the vast majority of Americans want tighter laws governing gun ownership, access, possession, but that we can't get such laws because of a fanatical single-issue minority subculture of gunslingers.

I'm afraid your posts do a Dick Cheney - with your own gun you shoot another hunter.

You need to be more attentive and careful. Lives depend on it.

In your post just above, you said "a tiny minority, a subculture...votes in large numbers..."

Who is confused? Who needs to be more attentive and careful?

Your side always loses because of something we call majority rule.

You don't like the outcome so you spin the facts until even they are dizzy.

Last April, 54 of 100 US Senators voted IN FAVOR of more strict background checks for gun buyers but the measure still lost. That's minority rule

The Senate on that particular vote required a SUPER MAJORITY of 60 of the 100 Senators voting in favor. And that's absurd.

That's minority rule or, more accurately, minority obstructionism, interposition, nullification.

That's due to a fanatical single-issue small absolutist subculture of gunslingers who won't accept any change to laws governing gun purchasing, gun ownership, gun possession despite the repeated murderings of children in their schools, the D.C. sniper randomly killing people and too many mass killings to mention here.

I've said many times I can produce dozens and dozens of polls by reputable polling organizations over the past 20 years that prove the vast majority of Americans demand tighter laws governing gun purchases, gun ownership, gun possession.

And, unfortunately - tragically - I can produce instance after instance of the fanatical single-issue minority absolutist gun subculture that votes in force and uses huge amounts of money in election campaigns to foil a needed and necessary tightening of gun laws.

Absolutists don't bend in the breeze, so one day a huge wind is going to knock you guys over. It happened with gay rights, it happened with civil rights, it's happened with women's rights and in many other instances in the history of the United States. And it's going to happen in respect of the rights of US citizens to be safe from mass gun killings.

Our time will come, and your time will be gone forever.

Polls don't vote. Did you know that 73% of all statistics are made up?

I can spin a poll any way I want by how I ask the questions if I have an agenda. Ignore polls.

Look at the ballot box. Look at what just happened in very liberal Colorado where two state representatives were recalled by a majority of liberals over just one issue - guns. Those liberals want their guns.

And as for Senators and a supermajority vote, that is to allow small states to have as much say as large states. Remember, the US is NOT a democracy. It is a republic of states, with each of the 50 states having 2 senators, for a total of 100 senators. So the smallest state has as much say in the senate as the largest state. That's to keep the big states and big cities from forcing their wills on smaller states. It was planned that way from the beginning.

So your references to any national polls are irrelevant. It's irrelevant in the Senate. It's only relevant when the majority of states want something.

Polls, Schmolls.

[Publicus]

Last April, 54 of 100 US Senators voted IN FAVOR of more strict background checks for gun buyers but the measure still lost. That's minority rule

The Senate on that particular vote required a SUPER MAJORITY of 60 of the 100 Senators voting in favor. And that's absurd.

That's minority rule or, more accurately, minority obstructionism, interposition, nullification.

That's due to a fanatical single-issue small absolutist subculture of gunslingers who won't accept any change to laws governing gun purchasing, gun ownership, gun possession despite the repeated murderings of children in their schools, the D.C. sniper randomly killing people and too many mass killings to mention here.

I've said many times I can produce dozens and dozens of polls by reputable polling organizations over the past 20 years that prove the vast majority of Americans demand tighter laws governing gun purchases, gun ownership, gun possession.

And, unfortunately - tragically - I can produce instance after instance of the fanatical single-issue minority absolutist gun subculture that votes in force and uses huge amounts of money in election campaigns to foil a needed and necessary tightening of gun laws.

Absolutists don't bend in the breeze, so one day a huge wind is going to knock you guys over. It happened with gay rights, it happened with civil rights, it's happened with women's rights and in many other instances in the history of the United States. And it's going to happen in respect of the rights of US citizens to be safe from mass gun killings.

Our time will come, and your time will be gone forever.

Polls don't vote. Did you know that 73% of all statistics are made up?

I can spin a poll any way I want by how I ask the questions if I have an agenda. Ignore polls.

Look at the ballot box. Look at what just happened in very liberal Colorado where two state representatives were recalled by a majority of liberals over just one issue - guns. Those liberals want their guns.

And as for Senators and a supermajority vote, that is to allow small states to have as much say as large states. Remember, the US is NOT a democracy. It is a republic of states, with each of the 50 states having 2 senators, for a total of 100 senators. So the smallest state has as much say in the senate as the largest state. That's to keep the big states and big cities from forcing their wills on smaller states. It was planned that way from the beginning.

So your references to any national polls are irrelevant. It's irrelevant in the Senate. It's only relevant when the majority of states want something.

Polls, Schmolls.

54 US Senators of 100 total US Senators is a majority, yet they lost. That's a vote, not somebody's opinion. On tightening gun laws, a majority vote is suddenly not a win.

Thanks for the Civics lesson about the Constitution in respect to the United States Senate. Actually, no thanks, because you're wrong. The majority rules. A majority of 100 US Senators is 51 Senators. The background check proposal got 54 votes of the 100. But it still lost.

Your mumbo-jumbo post about the Senate is a waste of everyone's time. It's arcane at best and flat out wrong as you present it. The House is based on population, not the Senate.

The fact remains that a majority of 100 is 51. The proposal in the Senate to improve and expand background checks got 54 votes, but it lost. Now, thanks to the gunslingers, in the United States the majority loses.

[NeverSure]

Polls don't vote. Did you know that 73% of all statistics are made up?

I can spin a poll any way I want by how I ask the questions if I have an agenda. Ignore polls.

Look at the ballot box. Look at what just happened in very liberal Colorado where two state representatives were recalled by a majority of liberals over just one issue - guns. Those liberals want their guns.

And as for Senators and a supermajority vote, that is to allow small states to have as much say as large states. Remember, the US is NOT a democracy. It is a republic of states, with each of the 50 states having 2 senators, for a total of 100 senators. So the smallest state has as much say in the senate as the largest state. That's to keep the big states and big cities from forcing their wills on smaller states. It was planned that way from the beginning.

So your references to any national polls are irrelevant. It's irrelevant in the Senate. It's only relevant when the majority of states want something.

Polls, Schmolls.

54 US Senators of 100 total US Senators is a majority, yet they lost. That's a vote, not somebody's opinion. On tightening gun laws, a majority vote is suddenly not a win.

Thanks for the Civics lesson about the Constitution in respect to the United States Senate. Actually, no thanks, because you're wrong. The majority rules. A majority of 100 US Senators is 51 Senators. The background check proposal got 54 votes of the 100. But it still lost.

Your mumbo-jumbo post about the Senate is a waste of everyone's time. It's arcane at best and flat out wrong as you present it. The House is based on population, not the Senate.

The fact remains that a majority of 100 is 51. The proposal in the Senate to improve and expand background checks got 54 votes, but it lost. Now, thanks to the gunslingers, in the United States the majority loses.

You don't really need to be insulting.

The measure lost by the laws and rules of the Senate. It was the real thing.

Yes the House is based on population, but both houses have to agree, as does the President, for a bill to pass. The House is strongly Republican and it probably wouldn't even have voted on the issue and it would have died even if the Senate had passed it.

At most the House would have voted and shot it down by a simple but wide majority.

It was a dead on arrival.

Give it up.

[Publicus]

Polls don't vote. Did you know that 73% of all statistics are made up?

I can spin a poll any way I want by how I ask the questions if I have an agenda. Ignore polls.

Look at the ballot box. Look at what just happened in very liberal Colorado where two state representatives were recalled by a majority of liberals over just one issue - guns. Those liberals want their guns.

And as for Senators and a supermajority vote, that is to allow small states to have as much say as large states. Remember, the US is NOT a democracy. It is a republic of states, with each of the 50 states having 2 senators, for a total of 100 senators. So the smallest state has as much say in the senate as the largest state. That's to keep the big states and big cities from forcing their wills on smaller states. It was planned that way from the beginning.

So your references to any national polls are irrelevant. It's irrelevant in the Senate. It's only relevant when the majority of states want something.

Polls, Schmolls.

54 US Senators of 100 total US Senators is a majority, yet they lost. That's a vote, not somebody's opinion. On tightening gun laws, a majority vote is suddenly not a win.

Thanks for the Civics lesson about the Constitution in respect to the United States Senate. Actually, no thanks, because you're wrong. The majority rules. A majority of 100 US Senators is 51 Senators. The background check proposal got 54 votes of the 100. But it still lost.

Your mumbo-jumbo post about the Senate is a waste of everyone's time. It's arcane at best and flat out wrong as you present it. The House is based on population, not the Senate.

The fact remains that a majority of 100 is 51. The proposal in the Senate to improve and expand background checks got 54 votes, but it lost. Now, thanks to the gunslingers, in the United States the majority loses.

You don't really need to be insulting.

The measure lost by the laws and rules of the Senate. It was the real thing.

Yes the House is based on population, but both houses have to agree, as does the President, for a bill to pass. The House is strongly Republican and it probably wouldn't even have voted on the issue and it would have died even if the Senate had passed it.

At most the House would have voted and shot it down by a simple but wide majority.

It was a dead on arrival.

Give it up.

Screw the House. The strengthened background check legislative proposal originated in the Senate because it didn't have a prayer in the House - everyone knew that.

The point is 54 of 100 US Senators voted IN FAVOR of tighter and more extensive background checks but the proposal lost.

54 of 100 is a majority. Yet the majority lost.

Thank you NRA and to the fanatical single-issue minority subculture of gun absolutists who will not allow any change to any gun law no matter what.

The tiny gun subculture of the United States has turned democratic government inside out and upside down. Now the minority rules on gun issues.

[sustento]

America - guns -

[NeverSure]

-snip-

The tiny gun subculture of the United States has turned democratic government inside out and upside down. Now the minority rules on gun issues.

"Tiny." Like the 100 million Americans who own 300 million guns?

Yep. I've never heard of such a "Tiny" "subculture" in my whole life.

I guess I learn something every day.

[Scott]

If you wish to discuss the topic, feel free to do so. If you wish to take pot-shots (no pun intended), please go elsewhere. This thread has been unusually civil for this type of debate, let's try to keep it that way.

[F430murci]

If you wish to discuss the topic, feel free to do so. If you wish to take pot-shots (no pun intended), please go elsewhere. This thread has been unusually civil for this type of debate, let's try to keep it that way.

Fer sure. I think the only way to settle this dispute is we line up on each side of the field and shoot this one out.

[Scott]

Thaivisa doesn't permit advocating violence. Perhaps bumguns at dawn?

[Publicus]

-snip-

The tiny gun subculture of the United States has turned democratic government inside out and upside down. Now the minority rules on gun issues.

"Tiny." Like the 100 million Americans who own 300 million guns?

Yep. I've never heard of such a "Tiny" "subculture" in my whole life.

I guess I learn something every day.

Well then 74% of NRA members disagree with their leadership on the background checks issue.

And 87% of non-NRA gun owners support tighter laws concerning gun ownership, gun access, gun possession.

You can deny reputable scientific surveys until kingdom come, but that doesn't invalidate the dozens and dozens of reputable scientific surveys over the past 20 years that show Americans consistently support tighter gun laws.

You of course are among the 26% minority of the NRA and the 13% minority of American non-NRA gun owners who oppose the tighter background checks proposal. You belong to a fanatical single-issue absolutist subculture minority that enthusiastically distorts the political process in the ways I've pointed out above and which are referenced directly in the article below.

Significantly, of your 100 million gun owners in the United States, only 5 million belong to the NRA. The 95% bulk of the 100 million US gun owners don't belong to the NRA. We 95 million gun owners who don't belong to the NRA don't want anything to do with the fanatical single-issue minority NRA subculture of absolutist gun owners who oppose any law and every law to tighten gun ownership and purchasing.

You are in a distinct and dubious tiny minority fanatical subculture of gun owners in the United States. The mouse that roared.

NEW POLL OF NRA MEMBERS BY FRANK LUNTZ SHOWS STRONG SUPPORT FOR COMMON-SENSE GUN LAWS, EXPOSING SIGNIFICANT DIVIDE BETWEEN RANK-AND-FILE MEMBERS AND NRA LEADERSHIP

Gun Owners Believe Protecting Second Amendment Goes Hand-in-Hand with Keeping Guns Out of the Hands of Criminals

Overwhelming Support for Background Checks for All Buyers; Barring Terror Suspects from Firearm Ownership; and Requiring Reporting of Lost and Stolen Guns – Measures Opposed by the NRA’s Washington Office

Mayors Against Illegal Guns today released the findings of a survey by GOP pollster Frank Luntz showing that NRA members and gun owners overwhelmingly support a variety of laws designed to keep firearms out of dangerous hands, even as the Washington gun lobby prepares to spend unprecedented millions supporting candidates who pledge to oppose any changes to U.S. gun laws.

The poll also dispels the myth among many Washington pundits that there is a lack of public support for common-sense measures that would help keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people and keep Americans safe.

74 percent of NRA members and 87 percent of non-NRA gun owners support requiring criminal background checks of anyone purchasing a gun.

http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/media-center/pr006-12.shtml

Edited September 28, 2013 by Publicus

[Baloo22]

-snip-

The tiny gun subculture of the United States has turned democratic government inside out and upside down. Now the minority rules on gun issues.

"Tiny." Like the 100 million Americans who own 300 million guns?

Yep. I've never heard of such a "Tiny" "subculture" in my whole life.

I guess I learn something every day.

Well then 74% of NRA members disagree with their leadership on the background checks issue.

And 87% of non-NRA gun owners support tighter laws concerning gun ownership, gun access, gun possession.

You can deny reputable scientific surveys until kingdom come, but that doesn't invalidate the dozens and dozens of reputable scientific surveys over the past 20 years that show Americans consistently support tighter gun laws.

You of course are among the 26% minority of the NRA and the 13% minority of American non-NRA gun owners who oppose the tighter background checks proposal. You belong to a fanatical single-issue absolutist subculture minority that enthusiastically distorts the political process in the ways I've pointed out above and which are referenced directly in the article below.

Significantly, of your 100 million gun owners in the United States, only 5 million belong to the NRA. The 95% bulk of the 100 million US gun owners don't belong to the NRA. We 95 million gun owners who don't belong to the NRA don't want anything to do with the fanatical single-issue minority NRA subculture of absolutist gun owners who oppose any law and every law to tighten gun ownership and purchasing.

You are in a distinct and dubious tiny minority fanatical subculture of gun owners in the United States. The mouse that roared.

NEW POLL OF NRA MEMBERS BY FRANK LUNTZ SHOWS STRONG SUPPORT FOR COMMON-SENSE GUN LAWS, EXPOSING SIGNIFICANT DIVIDE BETWEEN RANK-AND-FILE MEMBERS AND NRA LEADERSHIP

Gun Owners Believe Protecting Second Amendment Goes Hand-in-Hand with Keeping Guns Out of the Hands of Criminals

Overwhelming Support for Background Checks for All Buyers; Barring Terror Suspects from Firearm Ownership; and Requiring Reporting of Lost and Stolen Guns – Measures Opposed by the NRA’s Washington Office

Mayors Against Illegal Guns today released the findings of a survey by GOP pollster Frank Luntz showing that NRA members and gun owners overwhelmingly support a variety of laws designed to keep firearms out of dangerous hands, even as the Washington gun lobby prepares to spend unprecedented millions supporting candidates who pledge to oppose any changes to U.S. gun laws.

The poll also dispels the myth among many Washington pundits that there is a lack of public support for common-sense measures that would help keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people and keep Americans safe.

74 percent of NRA members and 87 percent of non-NRA gun owners support requiring criminal background checks of anyone purchasing a gun.

http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/media-center/pr006-12.shtml

The well-funded elitist playtoy of Nanny Bloomberg, "Mayors Against Illegal Guns", has a poll that says what they want. What a surprise!

Classic example of what I have described multiple times. A poll designed to produce a specific result. It is well known that the people that design and execute these polls can and do use the language of the poll questions and the method of polling to construct the results that they want.

The only poll on this subject that matters is the election of those Representatives that are chosen to represent the citizens of their districts and the Senators chosen to represent their respective states. That's it. Those Representatives and Senators are doing what they are supposed to be doing; representing the citizens in their Districts and States. Not blindly following the latest fad poll.

If so many of the members of the National Rifle Association were unhappy with that fine citizen/voluntary-membership organization, then they would be quitting it in droves. Instead the NRA's membership numbers (all voluntary) are increasing and this May surged past five-million voluntary members. The National Rifle Association is a fine example of citizen activists assembling together to exercise their right of free speech and right to assemble.

Edited September 28, 2013 by Baloo22

[NeverSure]

-snip-

The tiny gun subculture of the United States has turned democratic government inside out and upside down. Now the minority rules on gun issues.

"Tiny." Like the 100 million Americans who own 300 million guns?

Yep. I've never heard of such a "Tiny" "subculture" in my whole life.

I guess I learn something every day.

Well then 74% of NRA members disagree with their leadership on the background checks issue.

And 87% of non-NRA gun owners support tighter laws concerning gun ownership, gun access, gun possession.

You can deny reputable scientific surveys until kingdom come, but that doesn't invalidate the dozens and dozens of reputable scientific surveys over the past 20 years that show Americans consistently support tighter gun laws.

You of course are among the 26% minority of the NRA and the 13% minority of American non-NRA gun owners who oppose the tighter background checks proposal. You belong to a fanatical single-issue absolutist subculture minority that enthusiastically distorts the political process in the ways I've pointed out above and which are referenced directly in the article below.

Significantly, of your 100 million gun owners in the United States, only 5 million belong to the NRA. The 95% bulk of the 100 million US gun owners don't belong to the NRA. We 95 million gun owners who don't belong to the NRA don't want anything to do with the fanatical single-issue minority NRA subculture of absolutist gun owners who oppose any law and every law to tighten gun ownership and purchasing.

You are in a distinct and dubious tiny minority fanatical subculture of gun owners in the United States. The mouse that roared.

NEW POLL OF NRA MEMBERS BY FRANK LUNTZ SHOWS STRONG SUPPORT FOR COMMON-SENSE GUN LAWS, EXPOSING SIGNIFICANT DIVIDE BETWEEN RANK-AND-FILE MEMBERS AND NRA LEADERSHIP

Gun Owners Believe Protecting Second Amendment Goes Hand-in-Hand with Keeping Guns Out of the Hands of Criminals

Overwhelming Support for Background Checks for All Buyers; Barring Terror Suspects from Firearm Ownership; and Requiring Reporting of Lost and Stolen Guns – Measures Opposed by the NRA’s Washington Office

Mayors Against Illegal Guns today released the findings of a survey by GOP pollster Frank Luntz showing that NRA members and gun owners overwhelmingly support a variety of laws designed to keep firearms out of dangerous hands, even as the Washington gun lobby prepares to spend unprecedented millions supporting candidates who pledge to oppose any changes to U.S. gun laws.

The poll also dispels the myth among many Washington pundits that there is a lack of public support for common-sense measures that would help keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people and keep Americans safe.

74 percent of NRA members and 87 percent of non-NRA gun owners support requiring criminal background checks of anyone purchasing a gun.

http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/media-center/pr006-12.shtml

Who is Frank Luntz?

"Mayors for..." Well if Bloomberg is behind it... He personally, as mayor of New York, donated a ton of losing money in Colorado in the successful recall of two anti-gun state representatives. Bloomberg is a super wealthy left wing extremist.

How were the question worded, and why aren't the questions published? Why instead are only supposed conclusions published? You can easily skew a poll by the way you ask questions.

As Baloo22 said, why, if this "Luntz" is so smart, are NRA members growing in numbers so fast instead of deserting?

By the way, I read the whole thing. I read each item that so many people "support." Out of the many, all but two of them are already law!! I support them too.

I support keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, suspected terrorists, and these items on Bloomberg's bullet list, and they are already law.

• 75 percent of NRA members believe concealed carry permits should only be granted to applicants who have not committed any violent misdemeanors, including assault.

• 74 percent of NRA members believe permits should only be granted to applicants who have completed gun safety training.

• 68 percent of NRA members believe permits should only be granted to applicants who do not have prior arrests for domestic violence.

• 63 percent of NRA members believe permits should only be granted to applicants 21 years of age or older.

Whoever cooked that up had a big agenda.

Asking people if they support the law as it has been all of my adult life, as if it needs to become law but somehow can't.

What a joke.

[chuckd]

Last April, 54 of 100 US Senators voted IN FAVOR of more strict background checks for gun buyers but the measure still lost. That's minority rule

The Senate on that particular vote required a SUPER MAJORITY of 60 of the 100 Senators voting in favor. And that's absurd.

That's minority rule or, more accurately, minority obstructionism, interposition, nullification.

That's due to a fanatical single-issue small absolutist subculture of gunslingers who won't accept any change to laws governing gun purchasing, gun ownership, gun possession despite the repeated murderings of children in their schools, the D.C. sniper randomly killing people and too many mass killings to mention here.

I've said many times I can produce dozens and dozens of polls by reputable polling organizations over the past 20 years that prove the vast majority of Americans demand tighter laws governing gun purchases, gun ownership, gun possession.

And, unfortunately - tragically - I can produce instance after instance of the fanatical single-issue minority absolutist gun subculture that votes in force and uses huge amounts of money in election campaigns to foil a needed and necessary tightening of gun laws.

Absolutists don't bend in the breeze, so one day a huge wind is going to knock you guys over. It happened with gay rights, it happened with civil rights, it's happened with women's rights and in many other instances in the history of the United States. And it's going to happen in respect of the rights of US citizens to be safe from mass gun killings.

Our time will come, and your time will be gone forever.

Polls don't vote. Did you know that 73% of all statistics are made up?

I can spin a poll any way I want by how I ask the questions if I have an agenda. Ignore polls.

Look at the ballot box. Look at what just happened in very liberal Colorado where two state representatives were recalled by a majority of liberals over just one issue - guns. Those liberals want their guns.

And as for Senators and a supermajority vote, that is to allow small states to have as much say as large states. Remember, the US is NOT a democracy. It is a republic of states, with each of the 50 states having 2 senators, for a total of 100 senators. So the smallest state has as much say in the senate as the largest state. That's to keep the big states and big cities from forcing their wills on smaller states. It was planned that way from the beginning.

So your references to any national polls are irrelevant. It's irrelevant in the Senate. It's only relevant when the majority of states want something.

Polls, Schmolls.

54 US Senators of 100 total US Senators is a majority, yet they lost. That's a vote, not somebody's opinion. On tightening gun laws, a majority vote is suddenly not a win.

Thanks for the Civics lesson about the Constitution in respect to the United States Senate. Actually, no thanks, because you're wrong. The majority rules. A majority of 100 US Senators is 51 Senators. The background check proposal got 54 votes of the 100. But it still lost.

Your mumbo-jumbo post about the Senate is a waste of everyone's time. It's arcane at best and flat out wrong as you present it. The House is based on population, not the Senate.

The fact remains that a majority of 100 is 51. The proposal in the Senate to improve and expand background checks got 54 votes, but it lost. Now, thanks to the gunslingers, in the United States the majority loses.

Filibusters have always been allowed in the Senate. The practice dates back to the 1780's.

The rule of cloture was enacted within the Senate in 1917 as a means to close off debate by requiring a 67% majority to vote to stop debate. The 67% requirement was later reduced to 60% by the Democratic Party when they were in power.

Your magic number of 51% is applicable only on matters concerning the Federal budget. All other matters and issues fall under the 60% rule if any Senator indicates a filibuster is being considered.

You must have slept through your Civics 101 class the day filibusters and the rule of cloture were discussed.

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Cloture_Rule.htm

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/a/filibuster.htm

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Filibuster_Cloture.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_States_Senate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloture

[Publicus]

Well there's a parade of three among the 16% of members of the National Rifle Association who oppose improved and expanded background checks of Americans who want to buy guns. Or, if they're not members of the NRA, which has a fanatical extremist leadership, then perhaps they should be.

Remember that 95% of we 100 million Americans who own guns choose not to be members of the NRA, the major reason being its fanatical and extremist leadership. The NRA leadership ignores civics, pursuing instead only its sectarian compulsions.

The three are among the tiny minority of all Americans who opposed the legislation in the Senate, which to their pleasure and effort was unsuccessful, to improve and expand background checks of people like the Washington Navy Yard mass murderer Aaron Alexis, who, hearing voices controlling him from his microwave oven, bought a devastating shotgun to murder by massacre 12 employees of the Yard. The enhanced background checks proposal was supported by 87% of Americans.

The people who deny the dozens and dozens of scientific polls of the past 20 years that consistently show the vast majority of Americans support tighter gun ownership laws deny science. In these particular polls, the gun extremists see only cynical and sinister purposes, designs and intents. This is their attitude toward scientific surveys conducted over a score of years by diverse reputable scientific survey research organizations which also have been consistently accurate in their public polling of a number of presidential elections.

There is nothing good in the fullibuster. With gridlock the rule in a paralyzed and obstinate Congress, rules, processes and procedures such as the filibuster - which require a 60 vote SUPER MAJORITY to overcome - are outdated, outmoded, deconstructive. It provides the minority party in the Senate disproportionate leverage that is negative in contemporary society and government. If my party is in the minority in the Senate, I don't want it to have the filibuster available to it. I don't want the filibuster regardless of which party is in the minority of the Senate. The destructive gridlock of the Congress has to stop, and to stop now.

The one clear matter concerning this issue is that gun extremists comprise a tiny minority subculture of the United States who, because of their jihadist-like zeal, combined with millions of dollars in political campaign money, wield disproportionate negative power over the Congress and thus the country.

I've never recommended a reading to anyone at this site, but in the matter of Congressional gridlock which allows the extreme minority to work its peculiar will, I would recommend others consider reading the book by Democrat Thomas Mann and Republican Norm Ornstein, It's Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided with the New Politics of Extremism. The fillibuster rule by its nature opposes compromise, discourse, civility, efficacy.

Edited September 28, 2013 by Publicus

[Credo]

Politicians have a gun being held to their head, so to speak. And it's the NRA holding it.

Even if there were reforms in gun laws, the US is not going to be a society without guns for a very long time. A lot of people forget that those people living in the wilder areas do have some pretty unsavory creatures to contend with. Not every creature has to be killed, but a couple of shots in the air can sometimes avert a major problem.

[lomatopo]

Never, ever confuse what NRA members, or the public in general, want/think with what NRA leaders want.

Obviously the folks who manufacture firearms, and ammunition, have a lot to lose here so I wouldn't expect any changes.

The PLCAA law (2005) which indemnifies/protects gun dealers and manufacturers from being sued when the firearms they sell are later used in crimes needs to be repealed - it won't be of course - before there are any subsequent changes in gun ownership laws.

Even individuals are protected, in most cases, from liability in the case of gun injury/death, although it's hard to imagine the "Founding Fathers" extending the Second Amendment that far?

[Baloo22]

Well there's a parade of three among the 16% of members of the National Rifle Association who oppose improved and expanded background checks of Americans who want to buy guns. Or, if they're not members of the NRA, which has a fanatical extremist leadership, then perhaps they should be.

Remember that 95% of we 100 million Americans who own guns choose not to be members of the NRA, the major reason being its fanatical and extremist leadership. The NRA leadership ignores civics, pursuing instead only its sectarian compulsions.

The three are among the tiny minority of all Americans who opposed the legislation in the Senate, which to their pleasure and effort was unsuccessful, to improve and expand background checks of people like the Washington Navy Yard mass murderer Aaron Alexis, who, hearing voices controlling him from his microwave oven, bought a devastating shotgun to murder by massacre 12 employees of the Yard. The enhanced background checks proposal was supported by 87% of Americans.

The people who deny the dozens and dozens of scientific polls of the past 20 years that consistently show the vast majority of Americans support tighter gun ownership laws deny science. In these particular polls, the gun extremists see only cynical and sinister purposes, designs and intents. This is their attitude toward scientific surveys conducted over a score of years by diverse reputable scientific survey research organizations which also have been consistently accurate in their public polling of a number of presidential elections.

There is nothing good in the fullibuster. With gridlock the rule in a paralyzed and obstinate Congress, rules, processes and procedures such as the filibuster - which require a 60 vote SUPER MAJORITY to overcome - are outdated, outmoded, deconstructive. It provides the minority party in the Senate disproportionate leverage that is negative in contemporary society and government. If my party is in the minority in the Senate, I don't want it to have the filibuster available to it. I don't want the filibuster regardless of which party is in the minority of the Senate. The destructive gridlock of the Congress has to stop, and to stop now.

The one clear matter concerning this issue is that gun extremists comprise a tiny minority subculture of the United States who, because of their jihadist-like zeal, combined with millions of dollars in political campaign money, wield disproportionate negative power over the Congress and thus the country.

I've never recommended a reading to anyone at this site, but in the matter of Congressional gridlock which allows the extreme minority to work its peculiar will, I would recommend others consider reading the book by Democrat Thomas Mann and Republican Norm Ornstein, It's Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided with the New Politics of Extremism. The fillibuster rule by its nature opposes compromise, discourse, civility, efficacy.

That is quite a piece of fantasy/fiction that you have written there. I never realized that I was so powerful !!

You rant against the U.S. Senate and also, in another post of yours, say "Screw the House". These institutions, that you so despise, have served our people well for over 224 years. Over 224 years of civilian governance with regular elections, no dictators, and no military coups. I think that I'll stick with them!

The current rules of the U.S. Senate requiring a "super-majority" of sixty votes to close debate is part of a system of "checks and balances". These are critical in preventing, or at least limiting, what is known as a "tyranny of the majority". I did not particularly like every instance of its use when the Democrats were in the minority. But I still have the intelligence and maturity to realize why that rule is there and its critical importance.

One clear matter concerning this issue is the fact that the National Rifle Association is truly an admirable example of a citizen activist group. It compels no one to join but rather is a truly voluntary organization. Those five million plus members join the NRA voluntarily and pay their dues voluntarily. It is truly an fine example of citizens using their free speech rights and their right of assembly.

The NRA does not have "fanatical extremist leadership". That allegation is total fiction. What influence the NRA has comes from the citizen activism of its members as they vote, and exercise their rights of free speech and free assembly. A free citizenry in action.

[Publicus]

Well there's a parade of three among the 16% of members of the National Rifle Association who oppose improved and expanded background checks of Americans who want to buy guns. Or, if they're not members of the NRA, which has a fanatical extremist leadership, then perhaps they should be.

Remember that 95% of we 100 million Americans who own guns choose not to be members of the NRA, the major reason being its fanatical and extremist leadership. The NRA leadership ignores civics, pursuing instead only its sectarian compulsions.

The three are among the tiny minority of all Americans who opposed the legislation in the Senate, which to their pleasure and effort was unsuccessful, to improve and expand background checks of people like the Washington Navy Yard mass murderer Aaron Alexis, who, hearing voices controlling him from his microwave oven, bought a devastating shotgun to murder by massacre 12 employees of the Yard. The enhanced background checks proposal was supported by 87% of Americans.

The people who deny the dozens and dozens of scientific polls of the past 20 years that consistently show the vast majority of Americans support tighter gun ownership laws deny science. In these particular polls, the gun extremists see only cynical and sinister purposes, designs and intents. This is their attitude toward scientific surveys conducted over a score of years by diverse reputable scientific survey research organizations which also have been consistently accurate in their public polling of a number of presidential elections.

There is nothing good in the fullibuster. With gridlock the rule in a paralyzed and obstinate Congress, rules, processes and procedures such as the filibuster - which require a 60 vote SUPER MAJORITY to overcome - are outdated, outmoded, deconstructive. It provides the minority party in the Senate disproportionate leverage that is negative in contemporary society and government. If my party is in the minority in the Senate, I don't want it to have the filibuster available to it. I don't want the filibuster regardless of which party is in the minority of the Senate. The destructive gridlock of the Congress has to stop, and to stop now.

The one clear matter concerning this issue is that gun extremists comprise a tiny minority subculture of the United States who, because of their jihadist-like zeal, combined with millions of dollars in political campaign money, wield disproportionate negative power over the Congress and thus the country.

I've never recommended a reading to anyone at this site, but in the matter of Congressional gridlock which allows the extreme minority to work its peculiar will, I would recommend others consider reading the book by Democrat Thomas Mann and Republican Norm Ornstein, It's Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided with the New Politics of Extremism. The fillibuster rule by its nature opposes compromise, discourse, civility, efficacy.

That is quite a piece of fantasy/fiction that you have written there. I never realized that I was so powerful !!

You rant against the U.S. Senate and also, in another post of yours, say "Screw the House". These institutions, that you so despise, have served our people well for over 224 years. Over 224 years of civilian governance with regular elections, no dictators, and no military coups. I think that I'll stick with them!

The current rules of the U.S. Senate requiring a "super-majority" of sixty votes to close debate is part of a system of "checks and balances". These are critical in preventing, or at least limiting, what is known as a "tyranny of the majority". I did not particularly like every instance of its use when the Democrats were in the minority. But I still have the intelligence and maturity to realize why that rule is there and its critical importance.

One clear matter concerning this issue is the fact that the National Rifle Association is truly an admirable example of a citizen activist group. It compels no one to join but rather is a truly voluntary organization. Those five million plus members join the NRA voluntarily and pay their dues voluntarily. It is truly an fine example of citizens using their free speech rights and their right of assembly.

The NRA does not have "fanatical extremist leadership". That allegation is total fiction. What influence the NRA has comes from the citizen activism of its members as they vote, and exercise their rights of free speech and free assembly. A free citizenry in action.

Pulp fiction.

[Baloo22]

Never, ever confuse what NRA members, or the public in general, want/think with what NRA leaders want.

Obviously the folks who manufacture firearms, and ammunition, have a lot to lose here so I wouldn't expect any changes.

The PLCAA law (2005) which indemnifies/protects gun dealers and manufacturers from being sued when the firearms they sell are later used in crimes needs to be repealed - it won't be of course - before there are any subsequent changes in gun ownership laws.

Even individuals are protected, in most cases, from liability in the case of gun injury/death, although it's hard to imagine the "Founding Fathers" extending the Second Amendment that far?

Your post is nonsense. A distortion of the facts.

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005 was in response to various elitist groups attempting to bankrupt and destroy firearms manufacturers via multiple frivolous civil lawsuits. Their intent was to use sheer numbers of civil lawsuits and the cost to the manufacturers in defending themselves to destroy those companies. Their actions were clearly a abuse of the civil judicial system.

The act prohibits such reckless lawsuits against manufacturers and sellers of firearms or ammunition if the suits are based on criminal or unlawful use of the product by third parties who are totally beyond the control of the manufacturers.

Even now, after passage of the act, both arms manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, and other actions for which they are directly responsible.

[Scott]

Posts with personal comments have been deleted. Continue to do so and you will be suspended.

[Publicus]

*Deleted Post edited out*

There is nothing in the Constitution that provides for filibuster. So filibuster is not a sacred institution of government in the United States. The history of the use of the filibuster is atrocious, such as racial segregationists Senators from the South having tried to obstruct civil rights legislation.

Filibuster is a rule of the Senate, established by the Senate.

The House doesn't have it, never has had it.

The Senate can abolish any rule it has established for itself. The Senate should abolish the filibuster rule. The gridlock and paralysis of Washington must be seriously addressed lest the nation become unable to govern itself.

In the contemporary world, the filibuster contributes significantly to gridlock in Washington. Its time has passed, if it ever did have a time. Its purpose has never been good and in contemporary politics and government the filibuster is a powerful factor in government dysfunction.

.

Edited September 28, 2013 by Scott

[Publicus]

Well there's a parade of three among the 16% of members of the National Rifle Association who oppose improved and expanded background checks of Americans who want to buy guns. Or, if they're not members of the NRA, which has a fanatical extremist leadership, then perhaps they should be.

Remember that 95% of we 100 million Americans who own guns choose not to be members of the NRA, the major reason being its fanatical and extremist leadership. The NRA leadership ignores civics, pursuing instead only its sectarian compulsions.

The three are among the tiny minority of all Americans who opposed the legislation in the Senate, which to their pleasure and effort was unsuccessful, to improve and expand background checks of people like the Washington Navy Yard mass murderer Aaron Alexis, who, hearing voices controlling him from his microwave oven, bought a devastating shotgun to murder by massacre 12 employees of the Yard. The enhanced background checks proposal was supported by 87% of Americans.

The people who deny the dozens and dozens of scientific polls of the past 20 years that consistently show the vast majority of Americans support tighter gun ownership laws deny science. In these particular polls, the gun extremists see only cynical and sinister purposes, designs and intents. This is their attitude toward scientific surveys conducted over a score of years by diverse reputable scientific survey research organizations which also have been consistently accurate in their public polling of a number of presidential elections.

There is nothing good in the fullibuster. With gridlock the rule in a paralyzed and obstinate Congress, rules, processes and procedures such as the filibuster - which require a 60 vote SUPER MAJORITY to overcome - are outdated, outmoded, deconstructive. It provides the minority party in the Senate disproportionate leverage that is negative in contemporary society and government. If my party is in the minority in the Senate, I don't want it to have the filibuster available to it. I don't want the filibuster regardless of which party is in the minority of the Senate. The destructive gridlock of the Congress has to stop, and to stop now.

The one clear matter concerning this issue is that gun extremists comprise a tiny minority subculture of the United States who, because of their jihadist-like zeal, combined with millions of dollars in political campaign money, wield disproportionate negative power over the Congress and thus the country.

I've never recommended a reading to anyone at this site, but in the matter of Congressional gridlock which allows the extreme minority to work its peculiar will, I would recommend others consider reading the book by Democrat Thomas Mann and Republican Norm Ornstein, It's Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided with the New Politics of Extremism. The fillibuster rule by its nature opposes compromise, discourse, civility, efficacy.

That is quite a piece of fantasy/fiction that you have written there. I never realized that I was so powerful !!

You rant against the U.S. Senate and also, in another post of yours, say "Screw the House". These institutions, that you so despise, have served our people well for over 224 years. Over 224 years of civilian governance with regular elections, no dictators, and no military coups. I think that I'll stick with them!

The current rules of the U.S. Senate requiring a "super-majority" of sixty votes to close debate is part of a system of "checks and balances". These are critical in preventing, or at least limiting, what is known as a "tyranny of the majority". I did not particularly like every instance of its use when the Democrats were in the minority. But I still have the intelligence and maturity to realize why that rule is there and its critical importance.

One clear matter concerning this issue is the fact that the National Rifle Association is truly an admirable example of a citizen activist group. It compels no one to join but rather is a truly voluntary organization. Those five million plus members join the NRA voluntarily and pay their dues voluntarily. It is truly an fine example of citizens using their free speech rights and their right of assembly.

The NRA does not have "fanatical extremist leadership". That allegation is total fiction. What influence the NRA has comes from the citizen activism of its members as they vote, and exercise their rights of free speech and free assembly. A free citizenry in action.

Given that the National Rifle Association is led by fanatical absolutist gun-happy extremists who always oppose any legislation that would tighten laws to further protect the public against mass murderers and common everyday homicides, the 96% of we 100 million gun owners in the United States who choose not to belong to the NRA should form and organize a moderate gun owners organization of our own.

In that way, we 96 million who own guns but who choose not to join the NRA could have an alternative organization to represent the moderate gun owner's point of view in Washington, where there is only the NRA and its rich and powerful gun lobby that protects gun manufacturers and spends time falsely terrifying its 4 million gun owner members about honest gun legislation.

This is more than something to consider. For the public safety and in the public interest, it may well be a necessity given the power, wealth and extremism of the NRA in Washington.

In respect to the quote below, I myself gave up hunting many years ago because I believe it is cruelty to animals and a crime against nature. Nature can maintain its own balance without humans popping off innocent and defenseless animals indiscriminately. (In some really rural communities shooting a wild animal can be self protection or self defense, or can be necessary to preserve one's livestock or crops.)

A moderate sporting organization could oppose knee-jerk proposals like banning “semiautomatic” guns (a class that includes many legitimate sporting arms) while supporting common-sense steps to improve public safety, including the strict regulation of — or even prohibition against — the sale of large-magazine firearms that have no legitimate sporting use.

At the same time, such an organization could take on all the issues of more immediate concern to sportsmen than the Second Amendment, in particular the loss of wildlife habitat. The NRA and its even more radical cousins are pretty much exclusively focused on maintaining access to all kinds of firearms and ammunition. It’s an economic agenda to preserve the interests of the companies that make these products, not a pro-sportsmen’s agenda to preserve natural resources and open space; the gun lobby frequently supports politicians with horrendous records on environmental issues. Its narrow focus, as Field & Stream columnist George Reiger observed a few years ago, could lead us to become a nation where people can have “a closet full of guns with no place but a shooting range to use them.”

A Sportsman’s Viewpoint: We Need a Moderate Alternative to the NRA

Many hunters would support sensible reforms against large-magazine firearms but have no organization that speaks for them

Mass shootings may grab our attention, but day-to-day gun violence is the major reason why homicide is the second leading cause of death, after accidents, among young adults.

The solution to our gun problem is not to try to fight through the same old politics — rather, it’s to change the political landscape.

That’s why if philanthropists and influential leaders really want to do something about gun safety, they should launch an advocacy group for sportsmen that will provide a legitimate alternative to today’s gun lobby.

Read more: http://ideas.time.com/2012/12/19/viewpointwe-need-a-moderate-pro-gun-alternative-to-the-nra/#ixzz2gC1KERyq

Edited September 28, 2013 by Publicus

[chuckd]

*Deleted Post edited out*

There is nothing in the Constitution that provides for filibuster. So filibuster is not a sacred institution of government in the United States. The history of the use of the filibuster is atrocious, such as racial segregationists Senators from the South having tried to obstruct civil rights legislation.

Filibuster is a rule of the Senate, established by the Senate.

The House doesn't have it, never has had it.

The Senate can abolish any rule it has established for itself. The Senate should abolish the filibuster rule. The gridlock and paralysis of Washington must be seriously addressed lest the nation become unable to govern itself.

In the contemporary world, the filibuster contributes significantly to gridlock in Washington. Its time has passed, if it ever did have a time. Its purpose has never been good and in contemporary politics and government the filibuster is a powerful factor in government dysfunction.

.

Uhhh. It takes a 2/3rd majority of those Senators voting to change the rules on cloture. In other words, it could require more votes to change the rules on cloture than to actually pass a cloture motion.

Edited September 28, 2013 by chuckd