Terry, You are correct. For the background checks there is broad support... it might actually prevent arms from getting to some of the wrong people. I'm good with this. The rest of that legislation is less clear on it's result, but could lead to other things which is why I say far fewer support it than your first point. Mag restrictions... I personally wouldn't be too worried about it, except I don't trust the current administration. It won't affect me, but I'm not for it simply because Obama and Co are for it. The rest is bunk, and needs to be dropped. On Tom's point. If we are going to be "punished" for what we MIGHT do ... I'd never be allowed in my F250 again cuz I've considered running over many an idiot who has cut me off or done something stupid near me while driving.
On Tom's point, if the honor system were effective in dealing with bad guys, there would be no need for the prison system and many other costly mechanisms in our society. But it ain't and the general welfare of the people would suffer..... Had the First Amendment had an advocacy group as well-funded and hence connected and $influential$ politically as the NRA, there would be no prohibition on yelling fire in a crowded theater, joking of weapons in a TSA security line not to mention laws against libel and slander and other similar assaults on our constitutional rights..... :wink:
I guess it depends on who's doing the polling...how they word the question, and perhaps even which "NRA members" you poll. http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2013/1/survey-finds-nra-members-united.aspx Full Study; http://www.nraila.org/media/10850041/113topline.pdf My belief is that background checks (a good idea and supported by the NRA when initially imposed) are already pretty strong...if enforced as written. Yes, they have failed us because of failure of compiling databases of those who should not be able to purchase (partly because of failure to follow the law and partly because of reluctance to report medical/mental health info). http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/fact-sheets/2013/private-sales-restrictions-and-gun-registration.aspx?s=&st=&ps= Is is difficult to debate some of these things (for me) because NONE of us want guns in the hands of wrong people, and because the laws that are on the books now are very convoluted and difficult for me to understand what exactly the legal issues are in, for instance, the following article; http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/fact-sheets/2000/batf-records-demand-ruled-illegal.aspx While I admire and respect our law enforcement and justice officials, I have seen first hand how zealous they can be in going after folks. It is very tempting to fall into the "I have nothing to hide and the justice system is only interested in justice" crowd...but the world does not always work that way. I believe that "expanded/universal background checks" cannot work without gun registration. Otherwise, how are you going to keep me from transferring a rifle my daddy gave me to my son or my next door neighbor. Sure, you can make it illegal, but do you want to do that? Will it be in any way enforceable without requiring that gun to be registered? You have to make it illegal to possess that weapon unless you went through a background check first, and the only way to do that, and to prove that it really happened...is for registration. If that is something that you support, then we have nothing to debate, because it probably WOULD be effective (at least in ensuring that law-abiding citizens all get background checks and have their guns registered.) If you (they) can come up with a universal background check that would be effective and NOT involve gun registration, then I could support that, and I suspect that most NRA members might as well. Gun registration to me is a scary idea...what happened in Australia (and yes, in England) is something I find appalling. Most of my guns are "registered" anyway...in that they are listed somewhere in purchase records from registered dealers. If they were used in a crime (only after being stolen, I hope) I'm sure they could be traced back to me as the purchaser. The fact that they are registered in that sense doesn't really bother me...but to have every (lawfully owned) gun sitting on a registry list by owner...well, you know where I am coming from. I'm sure you will point out what I am missing here but that is pretty much where I stand. I don't care much for polls. Forget the fact that most of them are fishy because of who is being polled and how the questions are worded. We act like our fricking elections are horse races. We act like our politicians ought to be following what the poll numbers say instead of doing what they think is right (to a certain extent they have to and they should...but the polls are not end-all.) We even act as if poll numbers should rule everything, forgetting that we are not a winner-take-all democracy but a constitutional republic.
That was pretty funny...I cut and pasted the rules and regulations (above) and there was the "cool" emoticon right in the middle of them...looked really stupid. Look at the quote "(person under age 18 )" above...I had to stick a space in between the "18" and the ")" or it came out "(person under age 18)."
Don't disagree entirely, but like most any other tool, properly utilized, they can be quite valuable and are a proper tool in the box of any seeking data on public opinion and as such can't be ignored. That said, I agree, poorly designed, used in an inappropriate manner, they can be worse than worthless. Poll numbers shouldn't rule everything, but to the degree that they reflect public opinion, over time they do in fact rule....our elections are polls. Votes on legislation in Congress are polls, etc..... At the end of the day, simple-minded guy that I am, my simple view is this..... 1) We have a massive problem and the costs to our society are unacceptable and unsustainable 2) Doing nothing to begin to address the problem is not a viable option for a civilized society and efforts to obstruct viable solutions are contrary to the interests of we, the people, and to the clear intent of the Constitution 2) There is legislation currently under debate in Congress that will be a step forward in addressing problem - though we can argue about the magnitude of its impact, it is the only option we have at present - and I will be supportive of its passage
I am a numbers guy Tom and I am certain that the solutions proposed in the present legislation will be demonstrably more productive in addressing the problems facing our country than any of the nonsense put forth by the gun lobby. There will come a point in time at which the people come to the obvious conclusion that the interests of the gun lobby are not aligned with the interests of the people.....in my view we are here now. I mentioned very early on in this debate that unless the gun lobby proposes viable solutions to the problem, they will have to take what they get......they chose to be obstructionist and part of the problem rather than part of the solution and we are left with what we've got.....they have no interest in being part of any solution. Their predominant interest is selling guns and ammo.....that is where their money lies, follow the money. The flag-waving, constitution carrying NRA "patriots" are being played like a fiddle and they need to appreciate that fact.......
didn't answer the question Terry. My heartache with this is that you are being sold the bill of goods and you are not even questioning the numbers. If Zero of those 2693 deaths were caused by the people using "assault weapons", wouldn't you have to admit that the ban would fix NOTHING???
I've enjoyed the talk, and the different points of view but I'm done with this one. I do not support what Congress is doing - they are not looking for a compromise solution that will actually address the problems. They are just throwing out crap to see what they can get through that will look good when it's time to address their voters again - whichever side they are on.
Terry, I find that to be somewhat offensive, though knowing you I will choose to believe that you are not trying to offend but to make your point. That cover (and your posting of it) implies (to me) that anyone who disagrees with you about this issue does not care about the lives of those precious children. I find that reprehensible. You are normally one to debate things with reason. On this issue you have added in adjectives, emotion, and "Facebook type" posters. So be it. I realize that the other side has as well.
No intent to offend whatsoever.....although I do appreciate that there are those that would find it offensive and they should, we all should. In hindsight I should have included some commentary...... Tom raised the question about assault rifles and Scott expressed his disappointment with Congress over their efforts. This was not a "Facebook type" poster but rather the front page of the New York Daily News from 5 days ago. The Daily News has the 4th largest circulation of any daily paper in the country and as such is seen by millions around the country each and every day. It would not be unreasonable to suggest therefore that there are millions of citizens/voters with whom their views and sentiments resonate strongly. If our elected officials do not put forth serious consideration to a position that is strongly held by so many of their constituents, our problem is more serious than we can possibly imagine......
I'm not offended, because Terry's intellectual honesty is long-ago established, but I still have a difficult time seeing his point on this one. Exactly which of those children was killed by a sane, law-abiding gun owner? If the government had taken away every weapon, of every caliber, from every sane, law-abiding citizen in the eastern United States, how many of those kids would be alive today? Is it just a coincidence that gun violence is highest in those cities with the strongest gun laws? Or are the disarmed law -abiding citizens at the mercy of the criminals?
Jim, I'm clearly not communicating my point well.....I posted the page not in an effort to advance any legislative agenda in this case, but rather to respond to Tom and Scott's questions as the 1) why assault weapons, 2) why is congress concerned.....they are concerned and addressing the issue because there are millions of their constituents who are concerned and seek solutions I don't fundamentally believe that a "city" centric view can provide any meaningful conclusions on the issue given the ease of getting in a car and travelling a few miles out of town......more meaningful comparisons to me would encompass a broader geographic scale - i.e., a state and national level. Data that I have seem establish pretty clearly on a state level and with certainty at a national level that the greater is the prevalence of guns, the greater is the prevalence of gun deaths......e.g., we have the most relaxed gun control laws in the developed world and we are far and away the leader in the developed world with respect to gun deaths and murder rate of any type and the data with respect to children is even more dramatic and heart-breaking