New York Times puts gun control editorial on Page 1

[OMGImInPattaya]

Regarding the second amendment:-

In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the applicability of the Second Amendment to the federal government.^[9] In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"

Maybe you gun nuts should get educated on what the 2nd amendment is all about. Here's a clue; well regulated militia.

Nice try but your 150 and 75 year old case-law is moldy and dusty. Try reading Heller, a case from this century, wherein The Supremes said the Amendment's right to bear arms is an individual, not collective, right.

[GOLDBUGGY]

Regarding the second amendment:-

In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the applicability of the Second Amendment to the federal government.^[9] In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"

Maybe you gun nuts should get educated on what the 2nd amendment is all about. Here's a clue; well regulated militia.

Benito Mussolini had a well regulated regular militia to. He called them the "Brown Shirts". Adolf Hitler had them to, He called them the "Black Shirts" which was later changed to the "Gestapo". So I think it is you who is missing the main point here. ,

Getting your history wrong doesn't give the rest of your post much credibility.

Mussolini's militia was called the Black-shirts. Hitler's was called the Brown-shirts and they certainly did not become the Gestapo. They became irrelevant after their leader, Ernst Rohm was arrested and executed during the "Night of the long knives" in 1934. They were superseded by the SS.

On an internet forum, you can't just make stuff up and expect to get away with it.

Excuuuuuse me for being Color Blind. What difference does it make which shirt color each were wearing? You missed the whole point as in having a regulated militia by the government does not mean it rules out Tyrants from taking control over them, and as you claimed it doesn't. The point I tried to make from your previous post was to show that a regulated militia does not assure you of a safe government,. .

But if you think that you posting a court case that took place in the USA 139 Years ago, which said citizens are not allowed to bear arms, and they still do, then more power to you.

[KarenBravo]

So why didn't you just say that in the first place instead of bringing your botched history lesson into it.

Not just colour-blind. Are you forgetting your weird Gestapo statement?

Frankly, when it comes to gun control, health care and abortion, the rest of the world just scratches it's collective head at the USA. All non-issues in the rest of the civilized world.

Edited December 6, 2015 by KarenBravo

[Linky]

Until the gun control populace comes up with some new positions, the same old BS arguments can be used.

For all you whiners (Not you, NMS) out there, precisely what bill would you propose be passed to solve the problem?

Try to be specific. Generalizations will get you nowhere, as you all must know by now.

Anybody?

I'll bite.

For a start, put this back.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

Fantastic idea.

In 2013 the FBI Crime Report indicates there were 285 murders using rifles, of any kind.

However, during 2013 this same report shows there were a total of 428 murders with hammers or clubs as the primary weapon of choice.

It had little impact before but maybe, perhaps it will work wonders this time.

Try again. I was hoping for some fresh new ideas.

How many mass murders by those wielding clubs and hammers?

I must have missed your contribution on what law could be proposed that would solve the gun control issue to your liking.

Please repost it.

You do have a serious contribution to make...don't you?

How about following what gun control works in other countries. Or do you prefer to live in the gun culture where hundreds are shot every year for no other readon that you think you have a right.

Ate you afraid something different might work?

Speaking of serious contribution, how about actually answering the question to your serious contribution, how many mass murders have been by hammer and club wielding people. Or was your post not a serious contribution?

[notmyself]

NRA Demands Repeal of All Traffic Laws, Says Laws Wont Stop Bad Drivers

Washington, D.C. The NRAs Wayne LaPierre is on the offensive following the nations most recent gun tragedy. This time LaPierre is doubling down on his belief that any kind of gun law is a violation of the second amendment and a step towards a tyrannical Nazi-esque America, regardless of statistical evidence, the opinion of the NRAs own members, his wife, the Pope, his butcher, the American people or plain old common sense.

http://thisshouldbethenews.com/2015/10/05/nra-demands-repeal-of-all-traffic-laws-says-laws-wont-stop-bad-drivers/

[chuckd]

<<snip>> because of screwed up quotes.

How about following what gun control works in other countries. Or do you prefer to live in the gun culture where hundreds are shot every year for no other readon that you think you have a right.

Ate you afraid something different might work?

Speaking of serious contribution, how about actually answering the question to your serious contribution, how many mass murders have been by hammer and club wielding people. Or was your post not a serious contribution?

I don't know of any mass murders committed by hammers I once saw a movie that featured lots of chain saw massacres though.

Now, putting the pedantic nonsense aside, what gun controls work in other countries and how could they be applied to the US with 319 million people and 300 million guns spread out in an area of 9,526,468 square kilometers?

Exactly what is your proposal that is different and might work? I haven't heard anything from anybody yet.

Precisely how are you going to get this under some sort of control that you might be comfortable with?

[KarenBravo]

The Singapore way. Confiscate all guns (or, a buy-back scheme). Automatic death sentence for any crime involving a gun.

Edited December 6, 2015 by KarenBravo

[MiKT]

Any Congressman or woman who even hints at restricting profits from weapons sales will have the NRA put a bullseye target on them. That will be the end of their political career. The American public will start chanting NRA pro gun slogans and the second amendment for many decades to come. America is no longer run 'by the people for the people' it is run by Corporate America for Corporate America. Guns are a $15 billion a year industry and it isn't going anywhere soon. Mass shootings are good for gun sales the last thing the NRA wants is any legislation that stops them. One mass shooting a day is good for profit margins.

Such cynical wrong headed nonsense ... First the NRA is not the major player it used to be in fighting those who would try to take away our 2nd Amendment Rights. Several other groups collectively have just as much clout. And the REAL RESISTANCE to Gun Grabbers is the close to 100 Million American Citizens who will fight tooth and nail against those who would attempt to confiscate guns and take our Constitutional Rights. Also the NRA is not associated with making profits from gun manufacturers ... The NRA and several other large gun enthusiast groups - combined represent many millions of gun owners - not gun producers.... As a result - members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate listen very closely to the opinions of gun owners and those who defend the U.S. Constitution... America is a Representative Republic and voters decide who gets elected to REPRESENT their wishes ... And no sane member of Congress is going to go too far afield and fight the people they represent .... It is the voice of the people - not the voice of the NRA or other gun groups that have the clout to keep Gun Control under wraps...

Your silly misconception is what drives gun sales .. it is not mass shootings ... it is Hussain Obama who drives gun sales... IT HAS BEEN PROVEN ... Every time President Obama spouts off about Gun Control -- Gun sales skyrocket - a graph can be plotting depicting Obama's speeches about Gun Control and Gun Sales ... Americans are not going to allow the government to confiscate guns ...

It may come as a surprise to you but Gun Ownership Rights are not related to sporting use, hunting or target practice ...and even self protection is not the primary motivation to own guns... The provision in the 2nd Amendment to Bear Arms is to protect the citizenry against a ROGUE GOVERNMENT ... which is what we have today in America... The unrelenting drive of President Obama to confiscate guns is to have free reign to dominate and subdue the American population. And Obama's seething anger at this issue is that he cannot find a way to take away guns and make the American population defenseless against his plans....

Before a rogue government could possibly confiscate the guns from nearly 100 Million Americans who own nearly 300 Millions guns - it would take an occupying army of at least 10 to 20 times bigger than the American Army is now - even counting the National Guard... therefore it is NOT going to happen.

So you see the NRA is not the bogey man out making millions from gun sales... The NRA and other large gun groups rake in tens of millions of dollars from American gun owners who are vowed and intent on NEVER EVER allowing anyone to take away the right to bear arms...

Obama is angry because he realizes the futility of a plan he once thought would be a knock dead cinch ...

What gives Americans the right to think that their so called Bill of Rights is right? Its just a bunch of "rules" written to suit the times. It's no more right than the Koran and the Koran ain't right for today. Both totally outdated.

[Publicus]

It's just the same old BS arguments against any form of gun control time and time again.

Until the gun control populace comes up with some new positions, the same old BS arguments can be used.

For all you whiners (Not you, NMS) out there, precisely what bill would you propose be passed to solve the problem?

Try to be specific. Generalizations will get you nowhere, as you all must know by now.

Anybody?

precisely what bill would you propose be passed to solve the problem?

Or was your post not a serious contribution?

More than enough members of the House and Senate are more than enough well paid by the NRA and other gun lobbies to assure that any legislation about guns gets shot down to crash and burn. (National Rifle Association) Individual gun nuts throw money at the congress too. (Anyone here know any such people?)

When even a majority of the Senate votes for gun legislation but can't succeed, no one should expect TVF posters to craft legislation that would satisfy the extreme gun advocates, or even to propose conceptually any such (doomed) initiatives or proposals.

In 2013 a majority of the Senate voted for background checks yet the legislation failed. It did not get the required 60 votes to succeed. A majority of the Senate is 51 votes. The background check proposal got 54 votes and it failed due to the 60 vote requirement. Opponents, i.e., extremists and other Republicans, won the vote with 46 votes of the Senate universe of 100 votes.

Consequently, the demands presented on us in the post are frivolous, assinine, insincere, rediculous. The demands are moreover unrealistic not to mention overbearing.

Here is Gallup relative to the Senate vote of April, 2013.

These data are from Gallup Daily tracking conducted April 22-25, about a week after the Senate's April 17 vote on the background check measure, which failed when 54 senators voted "yea," short of the 60 votes needed to avoid a filibuster and pass the measure.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/162083/americans-wanted-gun-background-checks-pass-senate.aspx

Don't ask us to do what the congress maximus can't or won't do. And don't ask us to do what the extreme rightwing gun nuts themselves neither can nor will do. It is a bogus demand to place on us. It is not a serious contribution to the issue or to the discussion of it.

[lostboy]

It's just the same old BS arguments against any form of gun control time and time again.

Until the gun control populace comes up with some new positions, the same old BS arguments can be used.

For all you whiners (Not you, NMS) out there, precisely what bill would you propose be passed to solve the problem?

Try to be specific. Generalizations will get you nowhere, as you all must know by now.

Anybody?

precisely what bill would you propose be passed to solve the problem?

Or was your post not a serious contribution?

More than enough members of the House and Senate are more than enough well paid by the NRA and other gun lobbies to assure that any legislation about guns gets shot down to crash and burn. (National Rifle Association) Individual gun nuts throw money at the congress too. (Anyone here know any such people?)

When even a majority of the Senate votes for gun legislation but can't succeed, no one should expect TVF posters to craft legislation that would satisfy the extreme gun advocates, or even to propose conceptually any such (doomed) initiatives or proposals.

In 2013 a majority of the Senate voted for background checks yet the legislation failed. It did not get the required 60 votes to succeed. A majority of the Senate is 51 votes. The background check proposal got 54 votes and it failed due to the 60 vote requirement. Opponents, i.e., extremists and other Republicans, won the vote with 46 votes of the Senate universe of 100 votes.

Consequently, the demands presented on us in the post are frivolous, assinine, insincere, rediculous. The demands are moreover unrealistic not to mention overbearing.

Here is Gallup relative to the Senate vote of April, 2013.

These data are from Gallup Daily tracking conducted April 22-25, about a week after the Senate's April 17 vote on the background check measure, which failed when 54 senators voted "yea," short of the 60 votes needed to avoid a filibuster and pass the measure.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/162083/americans-wanted-gun-background-checks-pass-senate.aspx

Don't ask us to do what the congress maximus can't or won't do. And don't ask us to do what the extreme rightwing gun nuts themselves neither can nor will do. It is a bogus demand to place on us. It is not a serious contribution to the issue or to the discussion of it.

Classic baiting. It's been done before in numerous threads and will continue. We are being asked to provide targets just for the anti-gun control mob to shoot down. They also now expect the ammunition. Countless reasonable, rational and successful strategies on gun control that have been implemented in other countries are posted and all of them rejected. Now with the internet, every non-immigrant, immigrant living in the jungles of Thailand under a strict gun control regime for foreigners, can access the millions, if not billions of words generated by well funded pro-gun think tanks that exist in addition to those linked to the NRA, to attack any proposal.

The simple fact is that gun control measures have worked in other countries. Land size, population size, government structure, presence of non-white people, even countries with dangerous critters like snakes and furry animals with big teeth whose heads adorn many a Texan living room - all of these issues can be and have been overcome.

This baiting just serves to prolong the endless reciprocation of argument. I find it quite dishonest. I would even say, intellectually dishonest, but some people bristle at this term. How can there be any sensible discussion of the issue when the game has evolved to such a farce.

There is a link between America's gun culture and the prevalence of mass shootings. There are gun control strategies that have been implemented in other countries that are working and satisfy the needs of both gun users and people who want to live in a safe and secure environment.

Edited December 7, 2015 by lostboy

[OMGImInPattaya]

The Singapore way. Confiscate all guns (or, a buy-back scheme). Automatic death sentence for any crime involving a gun.

Thank you for making your position clear...your honesty is refreshing...none of this "gun control" obfuscation.

[DM07]

Regarding the second amendment:-

In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the applicability of the Second Amendment to the federal government.^[9] In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"

Maybe you gun nuts should get educated on what the 2nd amendment is all about. Here's a clue; well regulated militia.

Benito Mussolini had a well regulated regular militia to. He called them the "Brown Shirts". Adolf Hitler had them to, He called them the "Black Shirts" which was later changed to the "Gestapo". So I think it is you who is missing the main point here.

There is just so many people today who are willing to give up there "Rights" at the drop of a hat, and even more who want them taken away from other people, forgetting that many countries like America had to fight for these "Rights".

Personally I think that ever average man or woman has the right to defend themselves, property, and family, without having to take 10 years of Karate or Boxing to do this. I also think that if you are going to take away this "Right" from people you had better have a damned good reason, other than Guns Kill People.

The problem I have with Strict Gun Control is that nobody has presented to me, or anybody else, a damned good reason. A Police Report stating that Shooting Deaths are down but the Murder Rate is up, doesn't cut it with me.

.

,

"The problem I have with Strict Gun Control is that nobody has presented to me, or anybody else, a damned good reason. "

355 mass shootings in not even as many days or 21 dead school-children are not "a damned good reason"?

Interesting view of the world!

But shutting down Planned Parenthood over made up, trumped (sic!) up or completely wrong charges...those are "damned good reasons"?

Shutting down Obama- care over bullshit, is?

Taking away or minimizing social- services over fake statistics like" many poor own a microwave", is?

How about the US starting to be "pro life" AFTER birth?

That would be a damn good reason!

[OMGImInPattaya]

It's just the same old BS arguments against any form of gun control time and time again.

Until the gun control populace comes up with some new positions, the same old BS arguments can be used.

For all you whiners (Not you, NMS) out there, precisely what bill would you propose be passed to solve the problem?

Try to be specific. Generalizations will get you nowhere, as you all must know by now.

Anybody?

precisely what bill would you propose be passed to solve the problem?

Or was your post not a serious contribution?

More than enough members of the House and Senate are more than enough well paid by the NRA and other gun lobbies to assure that any legislation about guns gets shot down to crash and burn. (National Rifle Association) Individual gun nuts throw money at the congress too. (Anyone here know any such people?)

When even a majority of the Senate votes for gun legislation but can't succeed, no one should expect TVF posters to craft legislation that would satisfy the extreme gun advocates, or even to propose conceptually any such (doomed) initiatives or proposals.

In 2013 a majority of the Senate voted for background checks yet the legislation failed. It did not get the required 60 votes to succeed. A majority of the Senate is 51 votes. The background check proposal got 54 votes and it failed due to the 60 vote requirement. Opponents, i.e., extremists and other Republicans, won the vote with 46 votes of the Senate universe of 100 votes.

Consequently, the demands presented on us in the post are frivolous, assinine, insincere, rediculous. The demands are moreover unrealistic not to mention overbearing.

Here is Gallup relative to the Senate vote of April, 2013.

These data are from Gallup Daily tracking conducted April 22-25, about a week after the Senate's April 17 vote on the background check measure, which failed when 54 senators voted "yea," short of the 60 votes needed to avoid a filibuster and pass the measure.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/162083/americans-wanted-gun-background-checks-pass-senate.aspx

Don't ask us to do what the congress maximus can't or won't do. And don't ask us to do what the extreme rightwing gun nuts themselves neither can nor will do. It is a bogus demand to place on us. It is not a serious contribution to the issue or to the discussion of it.

Classic baiting. It's been done before in numerous threads and will continue. We are being asked to provide targets just for the anti-gun control mob to shoot down. They also now expect the ammunition. Countless reasonable, rational and successful strategies on gun control that have been implemented in other countries are posted and all of them rejected. Now with the internet, every non-immigrant, immigrant living in the jungles of Thailand under a strict gun control regime for foreigners, can access the millions, if not billions of words generated by well funded pro-gun think tanks that exist in addition to those linked to the NRA, to attack any proposal.

The simple fact is that gun control measures have worked in other countries. Land size, population size, government structure, presence of non-white people, even countries with dangerous critters like snakes and furry animals with big teeth whose heads adorn many a Texan living room - all of these issues can be and have been overcome.

This baiting just serves to prolong the endless reciprocation of argument. I find it quite dishonest. I would even say, intellectually dishonest, but some people bristle at this term. How can there be any sensible discussion of the issue when the game has evolved to such a farce.

There is a link between America's gun culture and the prevalence of mass shootings. There are gun control strategies that have been implemented in other countries that are working and satisfy the needs of both gun users and people who want to live in a safe and secure environment.

There is really nothing to talk about as each side fundamentally rejects the premise of the other...that guns are a problem in American society. And we have the Second Amendment so you loose.

[jpinx]

Until the gun control populace comes up with some new positions, the same old BS arguments can be used.

For all you whiners (Not you, NMS) out there, precisely what bill would you propose be passed to solve the problem?

Try to be specific. Generalizations will get you nowhere, as you all must know by now.

Anybody?

precisely what bill would you propose be passed to solve the problem?

Or was your post not a serious contribution?

More than enough members of the House and Senate are more than enough well paid by the NRA and other gun lobbies to assure that any legislation about guns gets shot down to crash and burn. (National Rifle Association) Individual gun nuts throw money at the congress too. (Anyone here know any such people?)

When even a majority of the Senate votes for gun legislation but can't succeed, no one should expect TVF posters to craft legislation that would satisfy the extreme gun advocates, or even to propose conceptually any such (doomed) initiatives or proposals.

In 2013 a majority of the Senate voted for background checks yet the legislation failed. It did not get the required 60 votes to succeed. A majority of the Senate is 51 votes. The background check proposal got 54 votes and it failed due to the 60 vote requirement. Opponents, i.e., extremists and other Republicans, won the vote with 46 votes of the Senate universe of 100 votes.

Consequently, the demands presented on us in the post are frivolous, assinine, insincere, rediculous. The demands are moreover unrealistic not to mention overbearing.

Here is Gallup relative to the Senate vote of April, 2013.

These data are from Gallup Daily tracking conducted April 22-25, about a week after the Senate's April 17 vote on the background check measure, which failed when 54 senators voted "yea," short of the 60 votes needed to avoid a filibuster and pass the measure.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/162083/americans-wanted-gun-background-checks-pass-senate.aspx

Don't ask us to do what the congress maximus can't or won't do. And don't ask us to do what the extreme rightwing gun nuts themselves neither can nor will do. It is a bogus demand to place on us. It is not a serious contribution to the issue or to the discussion of it.

Classic baiting. It's been done before in numerous threads and will continue. We are being asked to provide targets just for the anti-gun control mob to shoot down. They also now expect the ammunition. Countless reasonable, rational and successful strategies on gun control that have been implemented in other countries are posted and all of them rejected. Now with the internet, every non-immigrant, immigrant living in the jungles of Thailand under a strict gun control regime for foreigners, can access the millions, if not billions of words generated by well funded pro-gun think tanks that exist in addition to those linked to the NRA, to attack any proposal.

The simple fact is that gun control measures have worked in other countries. Land size, population size, government structure, presence of non-white people, even countries with dangerous critters like snakes and furry animals with big teeth whose heads adorn many a Texan living room - all of these issues can be and have been overcome.

This baiting just serves to prolong the endless reciprocation of argument. I find it quite dishonest. I would even say, intellectually dishonest, but some people bristle at this term. How can there be any sensible discussion of the issue when the game has evolved to such a farce.

There is a link between America's gun culture and the prevalence of mass shootings. There are gun control strategies that have been implemented in other countries that are working and satisfy the needs of both gun users and people who want to live in a safe and secure environment.

There is really nothing to talk about as each side fundamentally rejects the premise of the other...that guns are a problem in American society. And we have the Second Amendment so you loose.

The positions are so entrenched that even a civil war would not change them, let alone a mass-shooting, which did absolutely nothing except increase gun sales. How many people need to be killed in the next mass shooting to make everyone realise that there is a major problem?

USA seems to be between a rock and a hard place -- they arm the police but the police seem to be out of control and let fly with minimal common-sense, and they allow the public to be armed but that does nothing to reduce the number of mass killings. The criminals who have the guns obviously got them from somewhere, so there is a major problem with the control of the flow of arms and ammunition. The gunmakers have absolutely zero moral stance on anything that affects their profits and ability to buy the politicians votes. The general population are either increasing their domestic arsenals to levels that Al Capone would be jealous of, or they're almost terrified to go out of their house because they don't have the confidence to own or use a gun. One looks down the road to a bleak outcome if the two sides do not sit down and start talking, instead of shouting rhetoric.

[samsensam]

to all the americans who complain about the tragic loss of life on the roads in thailand and see absolutely nothing being done about it the same can be said of gun control in the usa. thousands of people needlessly killed and no one doing anything about it.

[up2u2]

Actually, no, he rebuts your "point beautifully." Any person who assigns a value to others that they seek to profit off mass murder disqualifies themselves as having no real contributions in the public space. I too have grave character doubts about the motivations of those who espouse gun control but people like me try to check our disdain and wrap our contempt around the issue offered, the means of the politics, and the behaviors as a political movement to enact gun control- deception, crisis manipulation, fear mongering, etc. You actually illustrate the point in opposition to you, beautifully, in fact.

Actually he doesn't. It is just the same old right wing NRA gibberish. The NRA actually rates politicians on their pro gun conduct in Congress. You think they do this for the benefit of American society. A person would need his head read. Firstly it's about the money, secondly it is about the money. Recently the Republicans voted down a Bill that would see arms sales to terrorists with 'no fly' flags on them and the mentally ill. Do you think that was in the best interest of the American public? Of course not, it is about Republicans bought and paid for by the NRA. As plain as gumboots on a duck. What you need to check is your contempt for common sense.

Everything you said was a fine enough rebuttal, but like a narcissist Freudian signature that demands to be printed, leftists are incapable of suppressing their "contempt" for others with pejoratives somehow working into their analysis- always personal, always character based, invariably showing their own weakness.

I don't see how presenting a well thought out and articulated response becomes 'a narcissist Freudian 'signature'(?) that demands to be printed'. I am not sure who leftists are, nor do I have 'contempt' for anyone personally. I certainly have contempt for regurgitated NRA diatribe that the Republican right wing parrot endlessly. To suggest that the NRA has no power on the issue of gun control is simply absurd. Even a Crocodile couldn't swallow that.

Republicans vote down a Bill that would restrict weapons sales to people on terrorist 'no fly' list and the mentally ill. Why? Fact is any politician that votes in favour of ANY legislation that affects weapons sales will be de funded by the NRA and targeted for special attacks in their electorate. Once again Congress acts in the best interest of Corporate America and not the people they are elected to represent.

[OMGImInPattaya]

Actually, no, he rebuts your "point beautifully." Any person who assigns a value to others that they seek to profit off mass murder disqualifies themselves as having no real contributions in the public space. I too have grave character doubts about the motivations of those who espouse gun control but people like me try to check our disdain and wrap our contempt around the issue offered, the means of the politics, and the behaviors as a political movement to enact gun control- deception, crisis manipulation, fear mongering, etc. You actually illustrate the point in opposition to you, beautifully, in fact.

Actually he doesn't. It is just the same old right wing NRA gibberish. The NRA actually rates politicians on their pro gun conduct in Congress. You think they do this for the benefit of American society. A person would need his head read. Firstly it's about the money, secondly it is about the money. Recently the Republicans voted down a Bill that would see arms sales to terrorists with 'no fly' flags on them and the mentally ill. Do you think that was in the best interest of the American public? Of course not, it is about Republicans bought and paid for by the NRA. As plain as gumboots on a duck. What you need to check is your contempt for common sense.

Everything you said was a fine enough rebuttal, but like a narcissist Freudian signature that demands to be printed, leftists are incapable of suppressing their "contempt" for others with pejoratives somehow working into their analysis- always personal, always character based, invariably showing their own weakness.

I don't see how presenting a well thought out and articulated response becomes 'a narcissist Freudian 'signature'(?) that demands to be printed'. I am not sure who leftists are, nor do I have 'contempt' for anyone personally. I certainly have contempt for regurgitated NRA diatribe that the Republican right wing parrot endlessly. To suggest that the NRA has no power on the issue of gun control is simply absurd. Even a Crocodile couldn't swallow that.

Republicans vote down a Bill that would restrict weapons sales to people on terrorist 'no fly' list and the mentally ill. Why? Fact is any politician that votes in favour of ANY legislation that affects weapons sales will be de funded by the NRA and targeted for special attacks in their electorate. Once again Congress acts in the best interest of Corporate America and not the people they are elected to represent.

You talk about the NRA like it is some all powerful organization from outer-space or something, when it is in fact one of the largest voluntary membership organizations in the United States. Its issue happens to be guns and supporting gun owners rights and there is nothing wrong or nefarious about that. It is no different than other organizations like the ACLU, NAACP, or AARP in that it represents the views of its members and of course supports politicians who agree with them, opposes those that don't, and lobbies the government on legislation regarding guns that affect its members.

So sorry, just putting the letters "N" "R" "A" in every post isn't gonna convince anyone of the merits of your argument.

[Linky]

It's just the same old BS arguments against any form of gun control time and time again.

Until the gun control populace comes up with some new positions, the same old BS arguments can be used.

For all you whiners (Not you, NMS) out there, precisely what bill would you propose be passed to solve the problem?

Try to be specific. Generalizations will get you nowhere, as you all must know by now.

Anybody?

precisely what bill would you propose be passed to solve the problem?

Or was your post not a serious contribution?

More than enough members of the House and Senate are more than enough well paid by the NRA and other gun lobbies to assure that any legislation about guns gets shot down to crash and burn. (National Rifle Association) Individual gun nuts throw money at the congress too. (Anyone here know any such people?)

When even a majority of the Senate votes for gun legislation but can't succeed, no one should expect TVF posters to craft legislation that would satisfy the extreme gun advocates, or even to propose conceptually any such (doomed) initiatives or proposals.

In 2013 a majority of the Senate voted for background checks yet the legislation failed. It did not get the required 60 votes to succeed. A majority of the Senate is 51 votes. The background check proposal got 54 votes and it failed due to the 60 vote requirement. Opponents, i.e., extremists and other Republicans, won the vote with 46 votes of the Senate universe of 100 votes.

Consequently, the demands presented on us in the post are frivolous, assinine, insincere, rediculous. The demands are moreover unrealistic not to mention overbearing.

Here is Gallup relative to the Senate vote of April, 2013.

These data are from Gallup Daily tracking conducted April 22-25, about a week after the Senate's April 17 vote on the background check measure, which failed when 54 senators voted "yea," short of the 60 votes needed to avoid a filibuster and pass the measure.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/162083/americans-wanted-gun-background-checks-pass-senate.aspx

Don't ask us to do what the congress maximus can't or won't do. And don't ask us to do what the extreme rightwing gun nuts themselves neither can nor will do. It is a bogus demand to place on us. It is not a serious contribution to the issue or to the discussion of it.

Classic baiting. It's been done before in numerous threads and will continue. We are being asked to provide targets just for the anti-gun control mob to shoot down. They also now expect the ammunition. Countless reasonable, rational and successful strategies on gun control that have been implemented in other countries are posted and all of them rejected. Now with the internet, every non-immigrant, immigrant living in the jungles of Thailand under a strict gun control regime for foreigners, can access the millions, if not billions of words generated by well funded pro-gun think tanks that exist in addition to those linked to the NRA, to attack any proposal.

The simple fact is that gun control measures have worked in other countries. Land size, population size, government structure, presence of non-white people, even countries with dangerous critters like snakes and furry animals with big teeth whose heads adorn many a Texan living room - all of these issues can be and have been overcome.

This baiting just serves to prolong the endless reciprocation of argument. I find it quite dishonest. I would even say, intellectually dishonest, but some people bristle at this term. How can there be any sensible discussion of the issue when the game has evolved to such a farce.

There is a link between America's gun culture and the prevalence of mass shootings. There are gun control strategies that have been implemented in other countries that are working and satisfy the needs of both gun users and people who want to live in a safe and secure environment.

There is really nothing to talk about as each side fundamentally rejects the premise of the other...that guns are a problem in American society. And we have the Second Amendment so you loose.

What you refuse to see is that you lose too, all American society loses.

[jpinx]

I am quite sure that even with this article as reference...

http://www.businessinsider.com/gun-industry-funds-nra-2013-1

... the two sides of this campaign will read it differently.

It's as if they are speaking a different language.

There is nothing wrong with owning a rifle -- there's a clue in the name of the NRA -- but neither semi-automatics, pump-action shotguns, nor a plethora of pistols are anything to do with hunting deer or whatever.

The red mist comes down on the mere mention of "gun control", but there already is some considerable gun control in USA, it's just not done very well, and there are too many loopholes in it. If USA actually enforced the laws that exist - - that would be a first step to allowing the illegal guns to be identified and tracked down.

[up2u2]

You talk about the NRA like it is some all powerful organization from outer-space or something, when it is in fact one of the largest voluntary membership organizations in the United States. Its issue happens to be guns and supporting gun owners rights and there is nothing wrong or nefarious about that. It is no different than other organizations like the ACLU, NAACP, or AARP in that it represents the views of its members and of course supports politicians who agree with them, opposes those that don't, and lobbies the government on legislation regarding guns that affect its members.

So sorry, just putting the letters "N" "R" "A" in every post isn't gonna convince anyone of the merits of your argument.

Absolutely I do, without ANY reservation. You just have to look at how the media and right wingers parrot their propaganda endlessly. The NRA has 5M members which is at best a fringe group but a very shrewd fringe group. The NRA Civil Rights Defence Group where it funds court cases to set legal precedents to protect its profits, the NRA Foundation where it promotes its deadly product, the NRA Freedom Action Foundation where it coordinates its membership to vote down politicians that don't support its product, the NRA Political Victory Fund where it bribes and threatens politicians.

It is an insidious cancer on American society.

[chuckd]

You talk about the NRA like it is some all powerful organization from outer-space or something, when it is in fact one of the largest voluntary membership organizations in the United States. Its issue happens to be guns and supporting gun owners rights and there is nothing wrong or nefarious about that. It is no different than other organizations like the ACLU, NAACP, or AARP in that it represents the views of its members and of course supports politicians who agree with them, opposes those that don't, and lobbies the government on legislation regarding guns that affect its members.

So sorry, just putting the letters "N" "R" "A" in every post isn't gonna convince anyone of the merits of your argument.

Absolutely I do, without ANY reservation. You just have to look at how the media and right wingers parrot their propaganda endlessly. The NRA has 5M members which is at best a fringe group but a very shrewd fringe group. The NRA Civil Rights Defence Group where it funds court cases to set legal precedents to protect its profits, the NRA Foundation where it promotes its deadly product, the NRA Freedom Action Foundation where it coordinates its membership to vote down politicians that don't support its product, the NRA Political Victory Fund where it bribes and threatens politicians.

It is an insidious cancer on American society.

Hmmm. Rather like the ACLU, SPLC, PETA, NAACP, KKK, PP and many others too numerous to list.

[chuckd]

It's just the same old BS arguments against any form of gun control time and time again.

Until the gun control populace comes up with some new positions, the same old BS arguments can be used.

For all you whiners (Not you, NMS) out there, precisely what bill would you propose be passed to solve the problem?

Try to be specific. Generalizations will get you nowhere, as you all must know by now.

Anybody?

precisely what bill would you propose be passed to solve the problem?

Or was your post not a serious contribution?

More than enough members of the House and Senate are more than enough well paid by the NRA and other gun lobbies to assure that any legislation about guns gets shot down to crash and burn. (National Rifle Association) Individual gun nuts throw money at the congress too. (Anyone here know any such people?)

When even a majority of the Senate votes for gun legislation but can't succeed, no one should expect TVF posters to craft legislation that would satisfy the extreme gun advocates, or even to propose conceptually any such (doomed) initiatives or proposals.

In 2013 a majority of the Senate voted for background checks yet the legislation failed. It did not get the required 60 votes to succeed. A majority of the Senate is 51 votes. The background check proposal got 54 votes and it failed due to the 60 vote requirement. Opponents, i.e., extremists and other Republicans, won the vote with 46 votes of the Senate universe of 100 votes.

Consequently, the demands presented on us in the post are frivolous, assinine, insincere, rediculous. The demands are moreover unrealistic not to mention overbearing.

Here is Gallup relative to the Senate vote of April, 2013.

These data are from Gallup Daily tracking conducted April 22-25, about a week after the Senate's April 17 vote on the background check measure, which failed when 54 senators voted "yea," short of the 60 votes needed to avoid a filibuster and pass the measure.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/162083/americans-wanted-gun-background-checks-pass-senate.aspx

Don't ask us to do what the congress maximus can't or won't do. And don't ask us to do what the extreme rightwing gun nuts themselves neither can nor will do. It is a bogus demand to place on us. It is not a serious contribution to the issue or to the discussion of it.

Classic baiting. It's been done before in numerous threads and will continue. We are being asked to provide targets just for the anti-gun control mob to shoot down. They also now expect the ammunition. Countless reasonable, rational and successful strategies on gun control that have been implemented in other countries are posted and all of them rejected. Now with the internet, every non-immigrant, immigrant living in the jungles of Thailand under a strict gun control regime for foreigners, can access the millions, if not billions of words generated by well funded pro-gun think tanks that exist in addition to those linked to the NRA, to attack any proposal.

The simple fact is that gun control measures have worked in other countries. Land size, population size, government structure, presence of non-white people, even countries with dangerous critters like snakes and furry animals with big teeth whose heads adorn many a Texan living room - all of these issues can be and have been overcome.

This baiting just serves to prolong the endless reciprocation of argument. I find it quite dishonest. I would even say, intellectually dishonest, but some people bristle at this term. How can there be any sensible discussion of the issue when the game has evolved to such a farce.

There is a link between America's gun culture and the prevalence of mass shootings. There are gun control strategies that have been implemented in other countries that are working and satisfy the needs of both gun users and people who want to live in a safe and secure environment.

Thank you, Sam, for quoting Publicus. I have him on ignore so I normally rest easy at night knowing I don't have to wade through his bloviating.

Having said that I feel compelled to respond to his post chiding me for asking a question that somehow perplexes him. He claims my question to the general readership to provide a sensible law, to add to the 20,000 to 30,000 gun laws currently on the books, is somehow either unfair or unscrupulous.

My response to that criticism would be, if one has no answers, then why address the question in the first place. Simply keep their flying fingers away from the keyboard and remain silent.

KarenBravo at least provided a suggestion. Sadly her suggestion will only get guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens and does not address the criminal element, other than to guarantee them the death penalty if caught committing a crime using a gun.

My first reaction to the automatic death penalty is we would have many more fire fights between the bad guys and local police if an arrest is imminent. Going out in a blaze of glory and all that.

Anyway, the question remains for all to see. Ignore it if you wish, but attacking the question merely points out the obvious fact you have no real answer either.

[SgtRock]

The UK is one of the most restrictive firearms laws in the world.

So it makes headlines when it has an 18% drop in firearm related deaths.

Quote

Britain records 18% fall in gun deaths

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/britain-records-18-fall-in-gun-deaths-1232069.html

All laws have flaws. What they will never do is deter determined criminals.

[Chicog]

[chuckd]

The Singapore way. Confiscate all guns (or, a buy-back scheme). Automatic death sentence for any crime involving a gun.

There have been a few buyback programs in the US. Wikipedia is used for brevity's sake but here are a couple of examples,

1. Oakland/'San Francisco, CA

Purchased 600 weapons for $200 each = $120,000

2. Maryland

Purchased 13,500 weapons at a cost over $660,000

3. Massachusetts

Purchased 1,000 weapons in exchange for $200 gift cards from Target = $200,000

4. Michigan

Purchased 365 guns for $16,820

There were others but the article provides no cost totals for comparison purposes.

However, looking at this tiny sample, a total of 15,465 weapons were removed from the streets at a total cost of $996,820. An average cost of $64.46 each.

There are an estimated 300 million personally owned firearms in the US. A buyback program would cost $19.2 Billion using the above average purchasing price and I don't know many people that would sell their weapon for only $64.46.

A gun confiscation is yet another story, reinforcing the reason for the 2nd Amendment...protection against a dominating government.

Anyway, thank you for responding.

[Artisi]

Momentous occasion, and not before time.

I trust it will be well written and invoke some serious soul-searching amongst the gun-nuts.

Soul searching amongst the gun- nuts, yeah sure, like where can I buy something bigger and better, preferably by internet.

[gudtymchuk]

Winston Churchill once said Americans arrive at the right course of action after exhausting all other options.

Perhaps you are not aware the rest of the world regards the American attachment to the Second Amendment as irrational, if not insane.

When are you going to grow up? Keep going the way you are, and the USA will be in a death spiral.

Out of curiosity did ole Winston make this profound commentary before or after begging the US to come bail out the Great British Empire?

The American public really doesn't give a rats rear end what the Aussies, Euros or any other continent thinks.

[Publicus]

In a Playboy interview cited below, the respected researcher and professor at a respected university in Atlanta discussed his well researched and documented book that demolishes the same-o same-o claims of the gun mythologisers in the USA. The book has only some focus on the NRA (which is always strongly represented by its advocates who everywhere permeate the world of discourse).

Prof Bellesiles documents from public records of the time that the people of the 13 British colonies had no gun culture. Few of 'em had guns at all.

Arming America: when did we become a gun culture?

Michael Bellesiles, a professor of history at Emory University, published the groundbreaking book Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture.

Bellesiles' research calls into question the National Rifle Association's argument that guns are part of our heritage, that the founding fathers wanted a musket in every home, that the Second Amendment created a personal right to bear arms.

He went looking for evidence of gun use in early America and found that "when the brave patriot reached above the mantel, he pulled down a rusting, decaying, unusable musket, not a rifle, or he found no gun there at all."

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_bellesiles_plby.html

America began in fact to become a nation with a gun culture only after the Civil War, not before then. After the war millions of former combatants of both sides kept their weapons which is when the gun culture began, not before then. This rightwing and NRA stuff about the Revolution and the Founders and the Second Amendment are nothing more than mythology, fantasy, a bizarre and misconceived romanticism.

Prof Bellesiles points out that a major reason the American Revolutionary war lasted eight years is that the colonists had had virtually no guns, so they had little or no knowledge of firearms. It was only during the two years leading up to the war that colonists, primarily in Boston, began to purchase muskets and ammunition from Europe and began to learn about their use and maintenance. The purchases began shortly after the British Navy had blockaded the already rebellious city of Boston, two years before the Declaration of Independence.

A Playboy interview with most people is almost always a fascinating read. This one is of a historical nature on an urgent topic, i.e., the history of guns in the colonies that became the United States as a sovereign nation under the Constitution and the rule of law. The interview is accurately informative, educational, and uses public records and accounts to document fact to separate it from mythology and historical revisionism.

In fact, the very recent SCOTUS ruling cited by the gun nuts reversed 200 years of SCOTUS case law precedent concerning the Second Amendment. SCOTUS and constitutional courts in Western jurisprudence are sensitive about violating or reversing the judicial doctrine of Stare Decisis, ie., honoring precedent. Sometimes reversals do happen, but they are rare.

The recent SCOTUS 5-4 vote to radically reverse 200 years of case law precedent concerning the Second Amendment is offensive to the integrity of American jurisprudence and to the Constitution. But that has not stopped the rightwing gun nuts in their present and ongoing obsessive compulsive pursuit of more bullets flying around throughout the United States killing at will, often in mass numbers, by other gun nuts who should never be allowed anywhere near the weapon of mass destruction that guns have become in contemporary America.

The Playboy interview is a fascinating read for anyone who is trying to deal with the rightwing gun nuts and their tired old false fantasies and claims about settlers ca 1620-1870. Indeed, the book which is the basis of the interview points out that most people who have had guns in the USA were anti-immigrant groups, anti-prohibition mobsters, KKK and (in my own terminology) other more contemporary rightwingnuts of the rightwingnutosphere.

Edited December 7, 2015 by Publicus

[lostboy]

Classic baiting. It's been done before in numerous threads and will continue. We are being asked to provide targets just for the anti-gun control mob to shoot down. They also now expect the ammunition. Countless reasonable, rational and successful strategies on gun control that have been implemented in other countries are posted and all of them rejected. Now with the internet, every non-immigrant, immigrant living in the jungles of Thailand under a strict gun control regime for foreigners, can access the millions, if not billions of words generated by well funded pro-gun think tanks that exist in addition to those linked to the NRA, to attack any proposal.

The simple fact is that gun control measures have worked in other countries. Land size, population size, government structure, presence of non-white people, even countries with dangerous critters like snakes and furry animals with big teeth whose heads adorn many a Texan living room - all of these issues can be and have been overcome.

This baiting just serves to prolong the endless reciprocation of argument. I find it quite dishonest. I would even say, intellectually dishonest, but some people bristle at this term. How can there be any sensible discussion of the issue when the game has evolved to such a farce.

There is a link between America's gun culture and the prevalence of mass shootings. There are gun control strategies that have been implemented in other countries that are working and satisfy the needs of both gun users and people who want to live in a safe and secure environment.

Thank you, Sam, for quoting Publicus. I have him on ignore so I normally rest easy at night knowing I don't have to wade through his bloviating.

Having said that I feel compelled to respond to his post chiding me for asking a question that somehow perplexes him. He claims my question to the general readership to provide a sensible law, to add to the 20,000 to 30,000 gun laws currently on the books, is somehow either unfair or unscrupulous.

My response to that criticism would be, if one has no answers, then why address the question in the first place. Simply keep their flying fingers away from the keyboard and remain silent.

KarenBravo at least provided a suggestion. Sadly her suggestion will only get guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens and does not address the criminal element, other than to guarantee them the death penalty if caught committing a crime using a gun.

My first reaction to the automatic death penalty is we would have many more fire fights between the bad guys and local police if an arrest is imminent. Going out in a blaze of glory and all that.

Anyway, the question remains for all to see. Ignore it if you wish, but attacking the question merely points out the obvious fact you have no real answer either.

Not very nice of you Charles. Now I feel so used. You took my post to let Publicus know that he is still on your ignore list. That is the second time I have seen that statement in the past few weeks. Is not the ignore list for ignoring bilaterally? Or is the game to find ways to remind people that they are being ignored. Particularly good that you then respond to his points in a classic ignoring posture. But I can understand the position of having to respond to someone trained and gifted in the rhetorical arts challenging a natural, life-long autocrat on issues. No leverage over Publicus to keep him under control so to avoid frustration, choose ignore. Wise choice.

And despite using my post, you didn't respond to my points. You ask for anybody to provide you with substantive plans and I tell you that gun control has been successfully implemented in many countries and these strategies can work irrespective of size of land mass, size of population, presence of non whites, federalist governmental structures etc. If this was a serious debate in a non-absurdist community, I would offer some of these strategies for comment. But in this environment it is just red meat for the crazies. With multiple gun threads running, it is quite tiring to deal with the gun free zones; this is our business not yours and you have no say; other countries don't have blacks (including Obama); the founding fathers gave us our 2nd amendment rights to defend against rouge government etc etc.

So for the sake of creating a little frisson for you, let me ask, what is wrong with gun buy back programs to help reduce the number of guns?; what is wrong with stricter controls i.e. a ban on guns in urban environments matched with stiffer penalties for crimes involving guns; what is wrong with requiring all gun owners in urban environments to have guns in a regulated, locked storage space and only allow usage at regulated venues with the transportation of the weapons similarly regulated? There are very few reasons that guns should be prevalent in urban environments. There are numerous strategies that can work over time to reduce the number of guns by reducing the need for people to feel that they should own guns for personal protection. Criminals can access guns in Australia, UK and other places with strict gun controls but the penalties for their use are high and the number of incidents and instances of gun usage is small and manageable.

Anyway, there are a few choice cuts for you and the others to know down, trivialise and get offended about.

By the way, I am flattered to be mistaken as the person you think I am. if I discuss this further, the delete fairies may appear and exorcise or excise my post. Perhaps I will send you a PM on that issue since you don't believe me. Be assured by mistaking me, you are causing consternation in the person who you think I am but not for the reasons you think! I love it. Please continue calling me Sam. This can only get better over time with big reveals promised for the future.

[HenryB]

I am glad about this bill and than the Muslim Terrorist will not have guns

I heard even the Mossard shall not use guns when this law is passed