I want to know one thing and this is pointed directly at BT: Who made this statement? "Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom." It wasn't anyone from the NRA...
I don't understand Tom? Exactly what is the point? I very much consider myself one of those people..... Personally, the notion that having a more effective regulatory framework for weapons as being an assault on our freedoms and a threat to our security is absurd. It is exactly the kind of classic, over-the-top political rhetoric that if it were coming from the left and not the gun lobby, would have your panties in a wad..... The issue to me is quite simple....we have massive and costly societal problem with our children being slaughtered on city streets at a rate that should be unacceptable to any civilized society. The vast majority of citizens in the country are seeking solutions to the problem and are asking their lawmakers to do the job for which they have been elected and are being paid. The problem needs to be addressed, the gun lobby has proposed nothing to solve the problem and and only seeks to stand in the way.....that is just not in the best interest of our society, is harmful to the general welfare of the people and is in direct and stark contrast to the original purposes of our Constitution. If they were TRULY interested in draping themselves with the flag and upholding the Constitution, they would spend more time being a part of the solution and less time as part of the problem
Terry, When the Dems led by mental midget Sen. Dianne Feinstein stop introducing gun ban bills, whether they will pass or not, why should the gun lobby be willing to compromise. When they push for only the items you say you want, then there is room for the NRA and NAGR to stand down.
Tom, I don't view taking steps and helping craft solutions that are in the best interests of the future of our society to be any compromise......I view it as being a responsible member of society and a duty.
Gun bans are not the solution and it is apparent by your comments here that you understand that. As long as the Dems are taking a hard line on the "solution", our freedoms suffer when those that oppose those hard lines give in. I guess that you think that when OSU's offensive line is having trouble keeping the opponents defense out of your backfield, the OL should just surrender in hopes that the defense will back off???
The problem here is that you are classifying those seeking to develop a solution as the enemy......they are not the enemy, Tom. They are simply seeking a solution to a shared and massive societal problem in a manner that is inconsistent with your desires. The ENEMY(s) are the forces at work that enable untold thousands and perhaps millions of weapons to reside in the hands of those unworthy of that responsibility....THAT is the enemy. We need everybody to be a part of the solution and I'll not fault those that are making an effort at a solution but will fault those that stand in the way without providing a superior alternative.....and doing nothing is not a superior alternative.
Do you not fault a government entity that uses the pain and suffering of a segment of its own population as the driving force to legislate their own agenda? The second amendment has been a target of liberal presidents and congress for as long as I can remember. I just don't believe in drawing a curtain up around a problem and not fixing it. You are in favor of a knee jerk reaction to push forward liberal agendas that will no in any way fix the problem. To me, those that support that "curtain" are the problem. We need to fix the problem and I am in favor of the background checks. I am not in favor of registration which just gives a liberal government a shopping list to go out and start gun confiscation. Are you aware that mental illness and criminal activity gives the police probable cause to break in your front door and confiscate firearms? Are you also aware that gun registration gives the government a road map to your house where probable cause is much easier to prove on the average innocent citizen just because they have a gun?
....of the people, by the people, for the people......I know not of what government entity that you may be addressing, but I do know that there are a wide majority of citizens in this country governed by the people, for the people that are seeking meaningful changes to confront a massive societal problem. They are making their desires known to their elected representatives and, as they should, the representatives are listening. That is not advancing a liberal agenda, that is proper governance. The notion that I am "in favor of a knee jerk reaction to push forward liberal agendas" is laughable at best. This isn't political, this is common sense. Confronting the slaughter of young innocents on our city streets in a manner inconsistent with that of a civilized and compassionate society is not a liberal ideal.....it is a human one. Glad to hear you're supportive of universal background checks - tell your pals at the NRA to let it happen. Personally, I would be supportive of a more effective framework that would include registration, but unless mistaken, I don't believe any of the existing bills under serious consideration contains any strict registration element and my guess is that if there is, it would be DOA.....I do believe it would be a helpful step but understand your concerns.
Then where is the outrage over knife killings, drunk driving slaughters, etc that kill more people every year exponentially than "assault weapons" ever have?
Do you think that is a reasonable justification to not continue to pursue more effective gun legislation that a majority of citizens are seeking and is currently being debated in both houses of Congress? I don't.....
Do you think it makes sense to go after something that my keep one or two people, if that, from being killed and not pay attention to the elephant in the room killing thousands each year?
The two are completely unrelated Tom.....it seems as if you are holding one hostage to the other and the benefit of which escapes me. There is no reason to deny support of one until or unless there is progress in another. In truth, society would benefit from improvements on both issues and we should take advantage of opportunities to address both....we have a meaningful opportunity (i.e, bills in congress) to address more effective gun control measures and there is no reason to not use it to our benefit. You have suggested before that you would be supportive of universal background checks and now it seems as are implying that you should withhold your support unless or until there is some federal legislation on drunk driving.....that makes no sense to me I believe the benefits are far greater and you and I will just have to disagree on that point.....
Terry, Let's say you are living paycheck to paycheck. Yo make things easier financiallyon your family, do you sell the boat that you are paying $500 per month or do you cut back on entertainment where you are spending $10 per month? If your goal is to save lives, do you inact something that will save thousands or maybe 2 or 3 lives? It is beyond my comprehension that anyone would scream over 2 or 3 lives and allow something that is taking thousands of lives each year. Right not, we simply punish drunk driving. That's too late for the ones killed by drunk driving. My belief is that they are going after guns with the loss of life excuse simply because they want to limit, register, and eventually confiscate guns. At the rate the bills are coming, all three steps could happen in my lifetime.
to me, perhaps this is too simplistic, but it all boils down to: -bad people are going to do what bad people do -mentally unstable people are going to do what mentally unstable people do There's no law that will fix either, yet we continue to throw straw men at each other, on both sides, in an attempt to protect what we have (allegedly) rather than face the reality that the country, the world, the universe is a cold, scary place that just gives no **** about us at all. We are only assured of 2 things. We were born and we will die. I've seen plenty of laws and regulations passed that wound up screwing us over in ways we never thought possible (or at least, taking away our freedoms). It's really quite a boon for politicians because you really can't point to a firm statistic that really proves/or disproves that the law saved a single life. You can suggest numbers, but everything can be manipulated or turned into yet another straw man. I wish we spent half the time treating the ill that we spent arguing about whether or not guns people.
Obama Signals He Will Support UN Treaty To Restrict Arms Kerry “We would not support any treatment inconsistent with rights of Americans under Constitution”? Except for the fact that this administration has run over the Constitution and the law repeatedly. Via Washington Post: The National Rifle Association, which is battling a raft of gun control measures on Capitol Hill, also has an international fight on its hand as it gears up to oppose a U.N. treaty designed to restrict the flow of arms to conflict zones.Negotiations open Monday in New York on the Arms Trade Treaty, which would require countries to determine whether weapons they sell would be used to commit serious human rights violations, terrorism or transnational organized crime. The gun lobby fears that the treaty would be used to regulate civilian weapons. Human rights activists counter that it would reduce the trafficking of weapons, including small arms such as the ubiquitous AK-47 assault rifle, to outlaw regimes and rebel groups engaged in atrocities against civilian populations.“This treaty is a common-sense alignment of the interests of governments, law-abiding citizens and individuals all over the world, who deserve the right to live free from harm,” said Michelle A. Ringuette, chief of campaigns and programs at Amnesty International USA. “Any step toward restraining the illicit sale and transfer of weapons used to commit horrific crimes is a good move forward, and the world could use a lot more steps in the direction of ending human rights abuses.” The Obama administration, which has wavered on the treaty, signaled Friday that it was willing to support the accord. “The United States is steadfast in its commitment to achieve a strong and effective Arms Trade Treaty that helps address the adverse effects of the international arms trade on global peace and stability,” Secretary of State John F. Kerry said in a statement. “We will not support any treaty that would be inconsistent with U.S. law and the rights of American citizens under our Constitution, including the Second Amendment.”
I have been mentioning drunk driving killing more people in one year than guns do in 10+. Am I expecting the politicians to switch the fight to drunk driving instead of guns? No! I do this to show that politicians have an opportunity to save more innocent lives by attacking drunk driving than would possibly be saved by gun control. What does that tell you? They don't give a rats ass about saving innocent lives. They care only about their own agenda and that is disarming America. Go ahead people... Let them herd you into the train. They're taking you to a better place. And that place is called Auschwitz. I wonder how many people it took drinking the cool-aid to convince people to get on that train. I'm not drinking the obama cool-aid. I'm not getting on that train!
Once again, our lawmakers cloak unpassable legislation in base-pleasing rhetoric The Senate Judiciary Committee last week approved a measure that would reinstitute the assault weapons ban. Big news, right? The bill will now head to the entire Senate for a vote... unless of course Republicans filibuster... but nevertheless, this is big, right? Wrong. The New York Times story detailing the measure's passage described the bill as "almost certain to fail if brought before the entire Senate." It "has almost zero chance of even receiving a hearing in the House." Nor should it be since all available evidence suggests that an assault weapons ban would have a negligible impact on safety. Of course, that point is one of substance, and nothing about the debate over the proposed AWB has anything to do with whether it will or will not work. Everything about the proposed renewal of the AWB is theatrics and serves as yet another example of the triumph of style at the expense of substance in our national politics. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) is a very bright woman and a very good politician. When she proposed the new AWB, she knew there was a zero percent chance that it would become law. But she also knew that the people who voted for her are, by and large, anti-gun. More importantly, as the author of the original Brady Bill, Sen. Feinstein is widely viewed as the darling of the anti-gun movement and its allies. By proposing the AWB, Sen. Feinstein can tell all of the donors who care about the gun issue that she fought for the most aggressive legislation possible, and that she will keep fighting — which will lead to more donations. Feinstein is not the only senator loving every second of coverage of the Senate's consideration of a bill that will literally never even get a vote in the House of Representatives. The most vocal members of the right are also loving it. Take Ted Cruz, for example. By now, you have probably seen the "heated" exchange between Feinstein and the fiery junior senator from Texas, in which Cruz lectures Feinstein about the Second Amendment and Feinstein snaps back that she is not a sixth grader. Well, that was gold, for both of the senators. Cruz is basically just the opposite of Feinstein in that he was elected and funded by people who love firearms and hate the Assault Weapons Ban with a visceral passion. So every time that clip of the two senators played on television, the people who donated (or might now donate) to Cruz's campaign to fight for guns cheered him for taking on the California liberal who they believe intends to eliminate all of their Constitutional rights. Feinstein's supporters applauded her for standing up to the gun-toting punk from Texas who does not care about the victims of Newtown or about the safety of Americans. So everyone wins, right? Wrong. The biggest loser is the American people. Political symbolism has value, but there are too many problems that Congress might actually have the capacity to solve for our leaders to be spending all of their time focused on proposals both sides know will never make it to the president's desk. That applies to House Republicans (stop repealing ObamaCare, it's a waste of time) and Senate Democrats (stop wasting time on gun control measures you know will not pass). Our leaders must get out of the habit of wasting taxpayer resources drafting, amending, debating, and voting on legislation that has no chance of becoming law. Solve the problems you can, and save the individual wish lists for public speeches and your Maddow/Hannity appearances. http://news.yahoo.com/assault-weapons-ban-case-study-politics-frivolity-111000176.html
:shock: A little TOO over the top for me Tom.....that kind of nonsense is just not productive and will solve nothing. In the face of that kind of rhetoric, you are conveniently overlooking - or at least not acknowledging - the most important fact in this entire debate.....a majority of citizens favor more strict gun control measures and an overwhelming majority (85%) want to see universal background checks. The notion that there is some vast left wing conspiracy intent on disarming the nation is just more black helicopter stuff coming from the gun lobby.....I'm no left-winger and my views have changed markedly after Sandy Hook as I have become better informed about the magnitude of our problem and its costs to our society and there are millions like me around the country......it's the people Tom. The people are speaking loud and clear that they want more strict gun control measures and in a representative democracy, if the people's elected representatives don't listen, they are replaced in favor of those that do......I know it's hard to believe, but they are simply doing their jobs as their jobs have been designed to do, for at the end of the day, we are a government of the people, by the people for the people.....listen to the people Tom and Wayne LaPierre is not representative of the people. He has no intention of helping us solve this problem, he's simply caring for the special interests of his masters......