NRA is a Domestic Terrorist Group

[andysayshi]

I doubt any such ban will pass as law. There is simply no support for it. Just like after the last few massacres in the US, there'll be some political to-ing and fro-ing, maybe a committee will be formed, a bill will not be passed, and nothing of any conviction or lasting value will happen. There's no support for gun bans, and there's no money for meaningful mental health reform.

Six months from now we'll be having the same conservation, just relating it to a different mass killing.

[xbuzzerx]

^Yup. No dispute.

[Kulindahr]

There's no support for gun bans, and there's no money for meaningful mental health reform.

And no one with enough gumption to actually tackle the issue via the concept of militia held at the time of the Revolution.

[Ninja108]

mentla health reform has never been a priority. If nothing else,society is going more and more towards punishing them.

[lambdaboy]

Wonder when so called gun lovers will have patriot or execet missles in tehre back yard what a poor excuse for a dick a gun is. Guns do not kill people the NRA Does

[JB3]

Wonder when so called gun lovers will have patriot or execet missles in tehre back yard what a poor excuse for a dick a gun is. Guns do not kill people the NRA Does

If you're going to post nonsense, at least have the decency to check your spelling and grammar first.

[Rolyo85]

Ah, now that HR is not posting, we have another Supreme Adjudicator of Nonsense...

[Stardreamer]

Ah, now that HR is not posting, we have another Supreme Adjudicator of Nonsense...

The post was nonsense though, it has become one of the tired old running jokes of this subject tossed out time and again long past the point it had any meaningful point to make the poster feel like he is witty.

[boywhore]

wow rolyo, only someone from chicago (my former home), a place with the strictest gun control in the country and also the highest gun crime in the country could spew such nonsense. News flash, look at Great Britain, Australia and Mexico. They all outright banned guns and look how it went for them. Crime through the roof, criminals with access to firearms even law enforcement no longer has access to, people afraid in their homes because robbers don't even care if they are home anymore. The NRA is a organization that protects your freedom and the checks and balances guns create, even if you are too foolish to accept it. Gun bans? Yes, lets ban ar-15's. I can name you 7 common rifles off the top of my head manufactured in the 1800's that are more lethal and faster firing but by all means go after a couple that look scary and pat yourself on the back. Never mind that the sandy hook shooter wasn't even old enough to own a gun in his state, lets rally behind our governments solution to ban gun features, surely that will stop the next irresponsible bitch from leaving access to weapons for her unstable child. Lets make bans on large magazines, the columbine kids had no problems switching out small magazines (during the last assault weapons ban btw) but what the hell, couldn't hurt. Lets just ignore that there are 320 million guns already out there in this country and make some feel good legislation to put a bandaid on a broken leg.

Reality check, the penn state killer killed more people with a .22 that the total death toll at sandy hook, no gun is non lethal and if you think you can get rid of them all you are beyond naive. Guns serve as a deterrent to utter lawlessness. Don't believe me? There was a newspaper in new york recently that published who owned all the registered guns in the city and where they lived, I'll give you 2 guesses what kind of spree resulted on the people with out them. I'm against gun control, why? because everywhere it's been tried it makes matters worse. Having gun free zone signs on schools and disallowing security from being armed just makes them a soft target for the worst people out there. I defy you to tell me you would put your money in a bank that advertised they were unarmed. Every other liberal sentence starts with "the time has come" and ends with "for the children" but not once does someone ask why the hell it was no ones job to protect them in school. Why every other government building is protected by armed guard but the ones we deem the most precious. I'm not even inconvenienced by the proposed new gun laws, but they infuriate me, knowing that they are nothing more than fluff to pretend we have done something. Disarming honest citizens only means we give criminals a boost of bravado, knowing less people can defend themselves. Banning an item people find as desirable as guns only serves to create a violent black market, as we see through the last hundred years from prohibition to the war on drugs. Banning types of guns? Is it honestly someones opinion that someone with the desire to kill would be stopped by altering what tools are available? Am I really expected to be so stupid I don't notice that the only guns we go after are the ones we see in movies firing full auto when they are in fact semi auto? Am I not supposed to notice that we ignore what is deadly to go after aesthetics? Even you in Chicago, under the harshest gun laws in the country can walk into a sporting goods store and buy a .50 cal BMG capable of plucking a passenger jet from the sky, this is something no one should own. Will we ever take them off the market? No. They don't look as scary as the guns that look like machine guns so why bother. Maybe instead of going for the easy answer we look at our society as a whole and ask how we got to the point that we created these monsters and ask how we can change. Maybe we can look at how the sandy hook and columbine shooters actually got their guns and say how about a law where if you leave access to your guns to your kids we will do more that make you watch us cry. Maybe we look at the penn state shooter with his laundry list of documented mental health problems and ask the ATF how the fuck this guy was not red flagged. How about we stop the pie eyed dreams of a non-violent utopian world and look at reality for solutions that are practical and possible.

[xbuzzerx]

We have one of the highest violent murder rates in the world, substantially higher per population size than the countries with gun control. I'm not going to go through and respond to every single claim in that post but the one about guns being an effective deterrent to crime is nonsense.

[boywhore]

well, I barely have to google to prove you wrong buzzer. Here you can see what gun control did to Great Britain and whales.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...89-decade.html
Here is Australia checking in
http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp
I'll just assume you know whats going on in Mexico after the ATF's fast and furious debacle.

[xbuzzerx]

That article showed an increase in gun crime in the UK. It mentioned no comparison to US violent murder rates.

[boywhore]

That was the point. Said guns are illegal in the U.K. The rate in which they were used in violent crime skyrocketed shortly after they became illegal. My point is this, where on earth do you find the highest concentration of criminal enterprises? Right here. From gangs to mafias, biker clubs to cartels America has serious crime problems. I know better than to think gun violence will stop if we outlaw guns because I know almost every criminal organization here would damn near have cartoon dollar signs over their eyes if we made them illegal. They exist, there will always be a way for someone who doesn't care about the law to acquire them.

But a bigger question is what is it you hope to accomplish? Do you think the streets would be safer if only police were armed? No track record of abuse to make you think twice on that? Or are we ultimately to be protected by armed military? Trust me, someone will still be holding guns in the name of our safety, how does this play out?

[Rolyo85]

Dear, um, boywhore... I don't know which right wing nut-blog you get your info from, but as someone who has been in some of the places you mention, I observed nothing of the panic, fear and desperation you describe. On the contrary - people are confident in the protection their laws give them, and live happy and free of the paranoia that is rampant in the US.

As for Chicago - it is meaningless to comment on Chicago's gun laws when it's a matter of a 40 minute drive outside of the city to get out of the gun control zone and buy guns to your heart's content.

[boywhore]

Rolyo, I don't entirely disagree with you, I think Chicago is a bad example as guns are available so close by, but a good example for just how many criminals give a damn about what the law says. I don't subscribe to the right wing news or the left wing news, I just want facts not spin. An estimated 2.5 million Americans defend themselves from a violent crime with a firearm every year, of that number about 400,000 show they were under a imminent threat to their life. Those numbers don't come from fantasy land, they come from the Journal of Quantitative Criminology and U.S. Department of Justice studies. There are lovely places in the countries that have banned guns, there are also places where the situation has deteriorated. There will always be good and dangerous places no matter where you go, it seems foolish to compare one place to another to make a point, but all we can do is look at what has been done and ask did it work anywhere it has been tried. Chicago is no different now, you may feel safe in the loop, but run for your life in you find yourself in Englewood. Don't get me wrong, if you honestly could tell me if I turned in my gun nothing like this school shooting would ever happen again, I'd say good riddance and saw it in half myself. The problem is that all we ever do is make meaningless public gestures, that only effect the people honest enough to abide by them knowing that anything else is near logistically impossible.

The sad truth is that as long as there are ignorant or violent people in our society we need to allow people the means to defend themselves. Like you, I am from Chicago. I have plenty of good friends in boystown. I find no comfort in the fact police will show up 5 minutes after some toothless fuckwit rolls into that town looking to "beat him a queer" with a bat or knife someone, and yes it's happened plenty. I can't even count the number of incidents I've seen up there where some jackass had to spread their hate just while eating meals at the ihop, and that is in a gay community. I can't even begin to tell you the horse shit I've seen around the country, don't even get me started on southern republican values. It is my belief that someone who is being attacked for any reason should have the right and means to defend themself, and innocent kids should be protected at all costs.

Below you will find a link to hard data about gun control. You could easily use it to make a argument for either side, but I cant help but think that the raw data shows just how misleading our media can be by trying to paint this topic in black in white to suit their political agendas be they to the left or right.

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

[Ninja108]

Here's the only problem I have with that site,there are other factors that have led to reductions in crimes besides just guns. Those include longer sentences for the really bad people in our society,the decline of the crack epidemic among other things.
THese laws play a part but to paint them as the only reason crime has gone down is a joke.

[JayHawk]

The decline of crack has only lead to an explosion of Meth..... maybe we should just legalize pot. That keeps everyone mosly mellow and not shooting at each other.

[Kulindahr]

The decline of crack has only lead to an explosion of Meth..... maybe we should just legalize pot. That keeps everyone mosly mellow and not shooting at each other.

No "maybe" about it -- it should never have been made illegal. The "War on Drugs" has been nothing but counterproductive, causing people to keep inventing new drugs to try to stay ahead of the curve, making ever-more-powerful substances. Rather than being a "gateway drug", MJ is a "why do I need more?" drug, where many people would stop if it was legal.

[xbuzzerx]

No "maybe" about it -- it should never have been made illegal. The "War on Drugs" has been nothing but counterproductive, causing people to keep inventing new drugs to try to stay ahead of the curve, making ever-more-powerful substances. Rather than being a "gateway drug", MJ is a "why do I need more?" drug, where many people would stop if it was legal.

A COMPLETE side note about legalizing pot-- there are many Indian reservations in arid and semi-arid poor farmland regions who've been trying to get the government to legalize COMMERCIAL hemp-- hemp wtih TCH content far too low to be used effectively for recreation-- for decades because it could be grown in many areas that can't grow better commercial cash crops. The ban on pot has covered most forms of hemp growing and this has resulted in a lack of opportunity or an ability for self-sufficiency for many tribes that were removed to lands that really can't grow better things, and has tied their hands.

It would have a lot of positive economic benefits.

[frankfrank]

Also quoting Kulindahr:

Are you aware of the book THE EMPEROR WEARS NO CLOTHES by Jack Herer? He talks about the reasons that it was made illegal in 1937, as well as all the uses and potentials for that plant. I can send, if you want.

Rather than being a "gateway drug", MJ is a "why do I need more?" drug, where many people would stop if it was legal.

There is a quintessential gateway drug, but it IS NOT pot. I've been to at least twenty parties where some pot was available. At least three times I was aware that there was cocaine, crack, hashish, or ecstasy. (I don't remember being at any party where heroin, meth, etc. were available.) What EVERY one of these parties had in common, was ALCOHOL.

I've also been in situations when at least one illegal drug was available, but that person wasn't a pot smoker. I suspect, however, that there was alcohol in the house.

For me, pot is definitely a "Why do I need anything better?" drug, and that thought (along with my lifetime consumption of it) would have had the same result if it had always been legal. In fact, the thought wouldn't have changed if EVERYTHING was legal (yes heroin, crack, etc.)! I would STILL be sticking only to pot. Nowadays it's something extremely rare anyway, but I had some dank skunk only three days ago.

[Kulindahr]

A COMPLETE side note about legalizing pot-- there are many Indian reservations in arid and semi-arid poor farmland regions who've been trying to get the government to legalize COMMERCIAL hemp-- hemp wtih TCH content far too low to be used effectively for recreation-- for decades because it could be grown in many areas that can't grow better commercial cash crops. The ban on pot has covered most forms of hemp growing and this has resulted in a lack of opportunity or an ability for self-sufficiency for many tribes that were removed to lands that really can't grow better things, and has tied their hands.

It would have a lot of positive economic benefits.

Bureaucrats are morons.

BTW, I've never met anyone smoking pot who was interested in a firearm. Maybe if we flooded NRA HQ with THC....