90.9 WBUR - Boston's NPR news station
Top Stories:
PLEDGE NOW
The Power Of The NRA In America’s Gun Debate

How the NRA conquered America’s gun debate, and how it’s fighting tooth and nail right now not to lose it.

National Rifle Association President David Keene listens at right as NRA Chief Executive Officer Wayne LaPierre, left, sits at the witness table on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, Jan. 30, 2013, during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on gun violence. (AP)

National Rifle Association President David Keene listens at right as NRA Chief Executive Officer Wayne LaPierre, left, sits at the witness table on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, Jan. 30, 2013, during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on gun violence. (AP)

For all the American agony over gun violence and the massacre of little children at Newtown, it’s easy to feel overwhelmed by America’s gun reality.  So many guns, so fiercely protected by law, by lobbyists, by gun makers.  An ocean of guns and gun rights trumping lots of other rights.

It wasn’t always that way.  And it didn’t happen by accident.  My guest today says look to the NRA.

It’s big-money alliance with gun makers.  Its ever-escalating demands for gun freedom, gun presence.

This hour, On Point:  How the NRA conquered America’s gun debate, and how it’s fighting right now not to lose it

-Tom Ashbrook

Guest

Tim Dickinson, national affairs correspondent and contributing editor at Rolling Stone. His big piece is “The NRA vs. America: How the Country’s biggest gun-rights group thwarts regulation and helps put military-grade weapons in the hands of killers.” (@7im)

From Tom’s Reading List

Rolling Stone “Billing itself as the nation’s ‘oldest civil rights organization,’ the NRA still claims to represent the interests of marksmen, hunters and responsible gun owners. But over the past decade and a half, the NRA has morphed into a front group for the firearms industry, whose profits are increasingly dependent on the sale of military-bred weapons like the assault rifles used in the massacres at Newtown and Aurora, Colorado.”

USA Today “The National Rifle Association says proposals such as universal background checks for gun buyers won’t work and the nation must enforce the laws it has. But lobbying records and interviews show the organization has worked steadily to weaken existing gun laws and the federal agency charged with enforcing them.”

The Washington Post “A number of readers have wondered about the NRA’s claim that it has more than 4.5 million members. As can be seen above, just in the space of six months, the NRA’s estimate of the size of its membership jumped by 500,000, an increase of more than 12 percent.”

Please follow our community rules when engaging in comment discussion on this site.
  • Mike_Card

    The NRA is a lobbying organization for the gun manufacturing industry.  It refuses to present itself as such because it wants to hide behind its façade of being some sort of recreational collection of enthusiasts.  NRA is a lying fraud hiding behind a corrupt interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Paolo-Caruso/1778940602 Paolo Caruso

      This is where most Americans are mistaken regarding guns.  It is my understanding that the constitution was written to protect Americans against the extreme power of government.  And after this  9/11 scam, the power of the US government has never been so oppressive and menacing.

      • nj_v2

        Your “understanding” is entirely wrong. The Second Amendment was written to empower state militias as the means of organized, civil protection in lieu of a standing, national army which most of the founders opposed.

        The state militias were soon used to enforce slavery, an essential economic institution, so the Second Amendment took on a level of economic importance.

        There is virtually nothing in the history of the founding that argues for or supports your “understanding.”

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          yup except the supream courts rulings

          • sickofthechit

             Only one case in the last 20 years that flipped the original meaning.  So don’t say “rulings”.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            which case are you talking about the Mcdonald case or the Heller case? looks like at least two to me

      • Bill D

        Assuming that your (NRA’s) interpretation of 2A is correct (and I do not),  do you -really- think the Gov’t is going to try to take 300 million guns away from US citizens?

        ( I own several of those 300 mil)

        Or so you think that your AR15 could defend you against a SWAT team or some drone sent by the “menacing” government?

        I suppose that if you believe that 9/11 was a scam, there’s not much I can say, but try reading something not written by the NRA or the extreme right wing.

  • WHW111

    Surely the NRA won’t fight to the last First Grader.

    • Jasoturner

      Clever.  Alas, they probably will…

      • WHW111

        My brother is also one who looks for exquisit (sp) solutions. His idea of gun control is not just the Weaver Stance.

  • WHW111

    Of course not…

  • Pingback: Facts, Figures and Fallacies: The NRA’s Misuse Of Gun Statistics | Cognoscenti

  • Coastghost

    Just curious: but how many deaths has Rolling Stone magazine contributed to over the decades (directly or no) with its endorsements and advertisements for immoderate drug consumption? how many rock ‘n’ roll wannabes have succumbed to overdoses, vehicular crimes owing to varying levels of intoxication, even mental derangements resulting in homicide or suicide–all because of RS’s status as “front group” for the recording industry and the broader entertainment industry?
    Compelling journalism indeed.

    • MadMarkTheCodeWarrior

      Dude, there was drug consumption on a grand scale long before RS magazine, the Stones or R&R. Read up on the true cost of… Alcohol. The beverage industry, organized sports… Madison Avenue are elements of the vastly larger corporate marketing machine pushing alcohol. Get some real perspective. Beer has been around since before the pyramids were built.

      • Coastghost

        You’re right: Rolling Stone also has carried numerous advertisements for the alcohol industry over the years. Back in the day, I suspect they even ran ads for the cigarette manufacturers. Just dastardly behavior all around, hunh?

        • JobExperience

           Bizmocracy dictates that all enterprises descend to the most exploitative level.

      • Coastghost

        You might want to read up on the costs associated with that stellar exercise of democracy known variously as “the Eighteenth Amendment” or “Prohibition”. (Perhaps on today’s show, we’ll learn whether the NRA has a position on present-day drug prohibitions.)

        • MadMarkTheCodeWarrior

          Prohibition, be it alcohol or other drugs, was, is, and will continue to be a farce, wasting tax revenues and resources on the prison industry… And then there are the facts such as we have put more people in prison than any other nation in the world, drugs are cheaper than ever, an we don’t collect any taxes on revenue that funds turf wars between drug gangs and cartels. Kinda like shooting ourselves in th foot!

          • Coastghost

            I agree that we have learned precious little from the Eighteenth Amendment (and the Twenty-first).

          • Bill D

            Or from the recorded history of mankind….
            ’tis a pity.

      • Bluejay2fly

         Guns have been around for hundreds of years. Even if you made them all illegal tomorrow the hundreds of millions of them still out there would be bootlegged for decades. People like guns just like some people like drugs and beer. Instead of fighting human nature work with it.

    • jefe68

      What? There are so many misconceptions and absurdities in this comment. By trying to change the subject by attacking a magazine might seem prudent in your view, the article is about the power of the NRA.

      This is pathetic and if you want to defend the NRA why not at least come up with more than this diatribe.

      • Coastghost

        And I didn’t even say anything about all the lousy music Rolling Stone has helped pedal over the years . . . .

        • JobExperience

           Google this: Matt Tiabbi.
          (Gun owners: Listen to Matt or you’ll soon be pawning the old shooting  iron to buy more beans.)

        • jefe68

          I see you’re a music critic as well as one on the media. 

          So you don’t like the Rolling Stones or Hendrix, or David Bowie to name a few.
          Should have guessed. 

          • Coastghost

            Hendrix and the Stones I like just fine. I’m not so keen on Bowie, not so keen anymore even on the Beatles. (And, lest you wonder, I’m not exactly any kind of fan of Ted Nugent’s.)

    • nj_v2

      ^ Pathetic, pseudo-intellectual trolling

      • Coastghost

        And ad hominem slurs are all you can counter with? No less pathetic, by objective standards.

        • nj_v2

          You post an idiotic, irrelvant attack on the source publication that has nothing to do with the substantive content of the subject at hand and you’re complaining about ad hominem attacks?

          Yep, that’s trolling, that’s pathetic, that’s pseudo intellectual.

  • Jasoturner

    That snippet from Rolling Stone sounds about right.  The only way the NRA amasses as much money and power as it has is through corporate backing.  Gun owners who think the NRA is worried about their rights have been duped, in my opinion.  Any organization that discourages intellectual engagement and honest debate is an affront to our independence as human beings.  Submitting blindly to the NRA is still submitting.  Not befitting an American.

    • Coastghost

      As befitting as submitting blindly to NPR, I suppose.

      • Jasoturner

        If I find a drone who blindly accepts everything on NPR, I will certainly ask.

        • Coastghost

          “On Point” fora are a great place to start.

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

            Lemme guess your next gambit: “NPR is liberal”.

          • Coastghost

            Not quite but close: NPR and its parent CPB clearly are beneficiaries of contemporary statism, as their take of Federal, state, and local taxes shows and as their continuous support or advocacy of statist “solutions” to political disputes also shows. 

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

            Taken out of the hothouse, your “data” wilts.

            And “statist” is a cute word. It shows where you’ve been.

          • jefe68

            Well that puts some perspective on your comments. 

            And you own a gun as well. Great.

      • d clark

        You are an NRA drone plant on this sight with the blood of children on your hands. God Damn YOU!

        • Coastghost

          Sorry, I’m no NRA member. God bless you, too.

          • d clark

            You are a liar and a fraud and God’s curse does lie upon you even with your faux blessing upon me. And yes you are an NRA plant, demon!

          • Coastghost

            Then have Mr Ashbrook cue the “Twilight Zone” theme for the upcoming break.

          • d clark

            You will never shut us up NRA MURDERER!!!!!!

          • Coastghost

            I’m no demonic logician, either, but imputing guilt by association qualifies as a logical fallacy. You don’t have enough information from my posts to establish any probablity concerning the extent of my sympathy or association. I simply repeat that I’m no NRA member.

          • d clark

            LIAR

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Paolo-Caruso/1778940602 Paolo Caruso

          JUST WHY DID YOUR USA KILL ALL THOSE CHILDREN IN IRAQ ???
          Supposedly to bring them freedom from a dictator. 

          I think many parents in Iraq would rather still  be stuck with Saddam and STILL HAVE THEIR CHILDREN.

          I am not a gun fanatic,  but there are too many hypocrites talking about restricting freedoms in the US for the blood of children, while saying nothing about US foreign policy. 

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          as an NRA member i have been dissapointed in their willingness to accept restrictions

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/QYPLKPVC4YRRTU2W2HQWLIYVJE Paul

      Well even if the NRA was just a front for the small-arms industry, that industry’s interests are pretty closely aligned with their customers’ interests. One wants to keep making their product, the other wants to be allowed to buy it. Not much of a conspiracy.

      • Don_B1

        A gun owner’s interest lies most in being able to have a gun that is useful for hunting or self-defense and target-shooting, possibly in competitions, and just in having and being able to look at and handle.

        But a desire to have a gun essentially the same as the most powerful used by soldiers in war is a desire that does NOT need to be honored by the rest of the citizens of the country who have the right to live without being threatened by such weapons of mass killing when they come into the possession of those who do not use them responsibly.

        Justice Scalia has said that NO decision by the Supreme Court prevents reasonable restrictions on gun ownership by type or by certain individuals who display the inability to use them responsibly.

        But the NRA is advocating for the selling of more and more guns to everyone, no matter what their qualifications or eventual use.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          not really, you need a much more powerful gun than a .223 for hunting unless its small game

      • hennorama

        Paul – you state that “even if the NRA was just a front for the small-arms industry, that industry’s interests are pretty closely aligned with their customers’ interests.”

        Are the interests of any manufacturer “pretty closely aligned with their customers’ interests” if the manufacturer and its lobbyists actively work to suppress research on the potential dangers involved in the use of its products?  Would you make the same statement if research on vehicle safety or food safety was actively being suppressed by the auto and food industries?

        The NRA and firearms manufacturers have actively suppressed and discouraged research into firearms safety and firearms deaths.  The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) was effectively barred from such research since 1996, when the following sentence was inserted into the law that funded the CDC:

        “Provided further, That none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.”

        See:http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-104publ208/pdf/PLAW-104publ208.pdf

        This restriction changed only due to Pres. Obama’s Executive Order directing the Centers on Disease Control to start studying “the causes of gun violence” again.

        The CDC is not the only Federal agency impacted by NRA and firearms manufacturers’ efforts to restrict the availability of info about firearms.  Believe it or not, the ATF is also restricted in its ability to release trace data on firearms due to the Tiahrt Amendment (TA)

        Under TA, the ATF is restricted from publicly disclosing both firearms trace data (on firearms used in crimes), and analysis of patterns of sales of firearms used in crimes.  For instance, due to TA, it is nearly impossible to know how many Bushmaster .223s are used in crimes.  This is like prohibiting the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration from disclosing the makes and models of vehicles with safety defects.

        TA also requires that the Dept. of Justice (DOJ) destroy certain criminal background check records after only 24 hours.  The Justice Department Inspector General found that the 24-hour destruction policy makes it easier for corrupt dealers “to falsify the NICS check to hide a knowing transfer of a gun to a prohibited person” (Department of Justice, 2004).”  

        TA prohibits the ATF from requiring annual gun dealer inventories.  If a gun dealer is corrupt, they can claim that firearms are stolen or lost, then sell them “off the books,” making these firearms practically untraceable. 
        For example, former gun dealer and National Rifle Association (NRA) Board Member Sandy Abrams, who eventually lost his license after being cited for more than 900 violations of federal gun laws, had 422 guns missing in one inspection, more than one-quarter of his inventory, and his shop had over 483 firearms traced to crimes (Brady Center, 2006).

        Perhaps the NRA should do background checks on their board members.

        See:http://www.bradycampaign.org/legislation/gunlobbybacked/Tiahrt

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          the funding for gun control studies was pulled because it funded studies that were intentionally misleading

          • hennorama

            Futo Buddy – oh uh huh. Please provide a source or any other basis for your statement ” it funded studies that were intentionally misleading.”

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            look up the 1986 kellerman study its where the false statistic that you are 43 times more likely to be killed by your own gun baloney came from and has been retracted by its own authors because it was bunk. thats why the funding got pulled because they wanted the same guy to do more bogus studies.

        • http://profile.yahoo.com/QYPLKPVC4YRRTU2W2HQWLIYVJE Paul

          You are saying that the NRA board does not represent what the NRA members’ interests *should be,* not what their interests actually are. Even if the NRA members’ interests are unwise, if those interests are consistent with small-arms industry interests, then choosing industry people for the NRA board is a rationale decision for an NRA member.

          (I am not an NRA member)

          • hennorama

            Paul – TY for your response. I understand and respect your views.

            I make no claim of knowledge of what NRA members’ interests are or should be. My point is that an industry that works to prevent the dissemination and analysis of product safety data and/or the consequences of the use of its products is acting contrary to the interests of any and all consumers of the industry’s products. This is true regardless of the consumer’s membership in any particular group.

            Similar circumstances abound – the tobacco industry fairly leaps to mind as another example.

      • Jasoturner

        I agree to an extent, though the industry’s interest is probably in the selling more than the manufacturing.  It’s all about the Benjamins on their side.

        On the other hand, why such a commercial relationship leads to vociferous NRA opposition to any oversight or regulation – in the absence, I might add, of reduced availability – remains unanswered.  It’s an almost theological refusal to brook any dissent or opposing worldview.

  • arydberg

    It is not what you think.    It is not liberals against conservatives.     It is not gun owners against those without guns.   There is a third party.    The party of evil.    For these people 20 first graders mean nothing.    For these people the downfall of the middle class is something to celebrate.   For these people the constant war between conservatives and liberals is a tremendous victory.   For these people the five nuclear plants being built in the United States are a victory.  For these people the patriot act was a victory.    And on and on and on…..   

  • jefe68

    Here is list of organizations, companies, media outlets, celebrities, and individuals that the NRA considers anti-gun.Notice the huge amount of health organizations on the list.

    http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/fact-sheets/2010/test.aspx?s=celebrities&st&ps

    • Ray in VT

      Is that the list that they pulled down from their website recently?  I saw some reference to it having been disappeared.

      • jefe68

        Yes indeed, that is the very same list.

  • gorilla monsoon

    The NRA is a wealthy group and makes generous donations to the Republican Party.  I want all guns banned.  Look how the guns get transferred illeagally for person to person.  No background check.  Danger, danger, unchecked danger!

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

      Effective gun control is sorely needed, along with actual enforcement of laws (rather than the two-faced undermining at every turn by the NRA).

      But I ask you not to be that “one primate on the internet” whom Fox News will point at and say “See? NPR and Liberals want to BANALLGUNS111!!!one!.

      Thanx

      • hennorama

        TF – don’t you mean “BANANA ALL GUNS” in this particular case?

  • Bluejay2fly

    I am a law enforcement officer, Navy retiree, and a military guns owner. While I do support the rights of people to own certain types of weapons I also favor an attempt to keep them out of criminal hands. The problem is both the pro gun lobby and anti gun advocates are delusional in their approaches. Neither side looks at statistics or has any deep intellectual approach to solving this problem. One side wants to ban guns because they are evil, unnecessary, and they hate them while the other side opposes every restriction no matter how how many lives it would save. Insurance companies put more thought into scheduling their rates and deductibles than we do when creating gun laws ,and that is because they do not have this childish approach. The Federal Assault Weapons ban of 1994 was a disgrace. It attacked the looks of military style weapons without preventing them from being sold. I bought my AR/15 under that ban and to make it compliant all I had to do was lose the flash hider and bayonet lug, how stupid is that!!! If you want solid gun laws you must first start with people who respect all gun owners and their motives while understanding how to balance that with public safety. As to date that has not happened.

    • Vandermeer

       Thanks for Bluejay for your service and your comments… but I do think there are more than 2 sides on this issue. I think that most Americans want gun safety laws… ones that are comprehensive and deal not only with what types of weapons should be banned but also with what types of background checks are needed. And yes, we need to be more concerned with the mental health of young people.

      • JobExperience

        Change must come if our quality of life is valued. That change means guns will diminish in importance culturally and that restrictions and tracking will increase. Guns are obsolete. Technology, especially communications, has eclipsed their efficacy and utility. To advocate for gun ownership and use is to move backward toward the primitive. Don’t let an addiction to violent images and sadism cloud your understanding. The He-man is as extinct as the Neanderthal. Our oppressors need gun toters more than they fear them. What our oppressors fear most is being abandoned.

        • Vandermeer

           hmmm JobExperience … what have you been smoking?

        • Vandermeer

           JE, what are you smoking these days?

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          well you tweet at a home invader and let us know how that works out

      • Bluejay2fly

        Absolutely, I am in favor of making all secondary market sales mandated through a FFL dealer with a background check. I also would like to see a tracking system for guns and dealers via a Bureau  with strong oversight. Age limits that are reasonable are also a good idea. However, insane laws like Lautenberg, or banning weapons based on appearance or because they are not suitable for hunting (IE Military) have to go. You can never draft enough laws to prevent the next Newtown any more than you could to prevent a horrific DWI crash. Balance, it’s all about balance. 

        • Don_B1

          The first “assault weapons” law (1994) definitely was not well-written, mostly out of ignorance about how the industry would maneuver around it. But it did, by limiting magazine sizes, etc., result in a slight decline in gun massacres, which are now increasing since the law was not renewed in 2004.

          I have not seen the new Assault Weapons bill, but I expect it will be much better written. But limiting magazine size and bullet type and quantity purchases will do more to decrease gun violence than the Assault Weapons ban.

          • Bluejay2fly

            Wringing your hands over every gun massacre is as unproductive as doing so for every drunk driving crash. As long as there are cars and alcohol somebody is going to drive drunk and kill somebody. In NYS we have a Common Law DWI. What that means is if you drink but not enough to register impaired (your legal) and the officer thinks the alcohol contributed to your bad driving YOU GET CHARGED WITH A DWI !!!. Basically your charged with a crime when you did not meet the statutory limit for DWI. Why at that point even have laws if a policeman can just say your drunk? At some point the zealots need to back off or else we live in a police state. I like the idea of magazine capacity limits but people will argue its too easy to get illegal magazines and still push for the ban. Until you can live with the fact that occasionally someone is going to do something stupid and not try to prevent human nature you are going to create totalitarian laws. DWI and Child Abuse Laws are classic cases in point.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            not really

        • sickofthechit

           What about Auctions?  Here in Kentucky tens of thousands of guns are sold annually without background checks via auctions.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            are these conducted by FFL dealers?

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          so you know those laws would not have helped but you support them anyways?

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        banning is foolish. how has it worked for drugs? background checks are also a fools errand why would a criminal do a background check?

    • HarryAnchorite

      Bluejay-

      One of the elements that destroys the effectiveness of gun control that focuses on controlling supply, eg. assault weapons bans, background checks, registration, etc., is the fact that most guns involved in crime are not purchased at gun shops, gun shows, or any other outlet in legitimate retail commerce.  They come instead from the underground black market supplied by the estimated 500,000 firearms stolen each year. Have a look at 

      Kleck&Wang The Myth of Big-Time Gun Trafficking . . . http://www.uclalawreview.org/?p=100

      or Kates and Kleck The Great American Gun Debate.

      Something else to consider:  If the law enforcement did actually manage to dry up the domestic supply of “assault weapons,” – highly unlikely – they would just be smuggled in from Mexico where the cartels have a ready supply coming in from China, elsewhere in Latin America, or stolen from the Mexican military.  (Search on Stratfor, The 90% Myth.)  And these Mexican imports would be fully automatic.

      • Don_B1

        A lot of those guns in Mexico come from the “reverse traffic” (to smuggled immigrants) from the United States, where they are purchased for the Mexican drug cartels.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          correct much of our crime and violence here and mexico is caused by prohibition of certian drugs

        • Mike_Card

          It seems I hear that story about people getting smuggled into the US to buy guns to sneak back into Mexico an awful lot.

          It just doesn’t seem like a sane business proposition–is it really being done?  Or is it just another “urban–or rural, in this case–legend?”

        • HarryAnchorite

          What do you mean by “a lot?” The knowledgeable estimates I have read for the number of US guns involved in the Mexican drug wars is in the range of 13%-17%.   Did you by any chance the Stratfor site and their report on “the 90% Myth?”  Do you refute their account? If so, on the basis of what data?  If not, then your uninformed opinion is really not worth very much.

    • hennorama

      Bluejay2fly – TY for your past and current service, and your perspective.

      One comment – you state “Neither side looks at statistics or has any deep intellectual approach to solving this problem.”

      It’s difficult to look at statistics due to the suppress of information.  The CDC was barred from using any funds to “to advocate or promote gun control” since 1996.  This only changed due to Pres. Obama’s recent Executive Order.

      Also, the Tiahrt Amendment has sevely restricted the ATF from publicly disclosing both firearms trace data (on firearms used in crimes), and analysis of patterns of sales of firearms used in crimes.

      Finally, FBI statistics on firearms crimes are incomplete due to the fact that two states (Alabama and Florida) don’t report their data to the FBI.

      This means that the recent Alabama incident involving the kidnapping and holding of a child in an underground bunker, and the murder of the bus driver who tried to prevent these crimes, may not show up in FBI statistics.

      TY again for your service.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      i think its because they do not want to face the fact that we have a gang problem in americaand that most “gun crime” is in fact gang crime that we created with our prohibition policies

  • Fredlinskip

    “If safety was about more guns, America would be safest nation on the planet”- 
    Philadelphia Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey, 2/4/13, PBS news

    U.S has 2 times ownership rate & about twice gun- related death rate as Switzerland
    US has nearly 3 times O.R.     &   3 times      GRDR   as Sweden
    U.S. has      3X  O.R.            &  >5 times     GRDR as Canada
    U.S. has nearly 3 times O.R.   &   7 times     GRDR  as France
    US has   3X  O.R.                 &    >9X         GRDR as Germany
    US has nearly 6X                  &   >10X       GRDR as Australia
    US has over 100X O.R.          &   >100 X      GRDR as Japan
    Seems to be a pattern here.
    Seems these countries need get with program and get more guns, because they’re not keeping up & killing themselves ANYWHERE near enough.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      whats the total homicide rates in those nations?

      • Fredlinskip

        Suicides and accidents are not relevant, then?

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          nope suicides are inevitable. look at japan they have a super high suicide rate and no guns. are you claiming guns cause suicides?  there is no such thing as a gun accident just failure to follow the safety rules.

          • Fredlinskip

            Let me rephrase then: 
            Are you saying gun suicides and “failure to follow safety rule” gun deaths not relevant then?

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            suicides relevent to the current gun control debate? not really. for them to be relevent to gun control at all it would have to be the case that guns cause suicides. I dont think that makes any sense do you? as far as the current debate a 30 round magazine ban is irrelevent to suicide since you generally only shoot yourself once.  And you could kill yourself with an AR but its not especially suited to it and banning them would not affect that one bit because almost any other gun would work better. is wanting to kill yourself going to show up on any possible “universal” background check? if they do get stopped from obtaining a gun from a backgroundcheck is there any reason that would remove their desire to kill themself or would they just steal, borrow or buy a gun on the black market  or just go ahead and slit their wrists or jump off a bridge?
              I think we have done a huge disservice to our children by not teaching gun safety,those deaths from improper handling would not be affected by the current proposals but they could be prevented with a little education. we teach kids about drugs,strangers,traffic,sex, fatty foods and bullys. Why not spend a few minutes teaching kids about gun safety? The NRA has a whole curriculum they will provide all the materials free of charge to any program that will take them so its pretty awful we allow those children to die because of lack of education. Why do you think we don’t teach the kids gun safety in schools anymore?  I for one would support a law to require kids are taught the appropriate gun safety information. Thats just a common sense reccomendation that would actually save kids lifes unlike the current proposals.

  • Fredlinskip

    Anyone who attempts to by “AW” or specific multiple round magazines should be classified as “mentally ill” immediately on purchase. That would clarify issue considerably.
    -You need not shoot someone 50 times in self-defense.

      If you like to “play” with such a weapon as a hobby, one should be willing to sacrifice that right, with understanding that you are helping prevent someone else from exercising their “freedom” to commit mass murder.
    Even more efficient weapons of MM will be invented in future. 
    At what point do we draw the line at what citizens need to “protect themselves”?

    • Bluejay2fly

      Most mass murders can easily be done with hand guns (IE Virginia Tech).

      • Fredlinskip

        With multiple round magazines I presume?

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          so now you are for single shot only guns? i guess obomas over under shotgun should be banned right?

          • Mike_Card

            No, it’s a single shot gun.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            that was clearly an over under and if the president was actually shooting skeet as he claimed part of the game is shooting two clays that are launched at the same time. it requires a gun that holds 2 shells like an over under. thanks for proving you don’t have any idea what you are talking about

          • Mike_Card

            I have owned a Browning over/under 12 guagr for 30 years and have shot thousands of blue rocks.  There are 2 triggers, one for each barrel; i.e., single shot gun.  You’re welcome.

      • Don_B1

        And that is where magazine size is important, because it it then that an attacker can be separated from his weapon and the killing stopped.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          um what if they just have a second gun or 9? the larger a magazine the greater liklihood of a jam so these oversized magazines are much less dangerous when used improperly to commit crimes. a better way to stop the shooting, instead of waiting for them to run out of bullets, would be to shoot them

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        bombs work much better like oklahoma city or the first world trade center

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      actually much more efficent means of mass murder are readily available and have each been used to kill more people than all mass shootings combined. one is fuel oil and fertalizer the other is an airliner. should i quit playing baseball so that bats can be banned so no one ever gets beaten to death with one again?  Maybe people who feel irrational fear of the rights of their fellow citizens should be declared insane

  • toc1234

    this should be a well-balanced show… Tom and an anti-NRA rolling stone writer one on one…  I wonder how many different ways Tom can say “You’re so right, Tim..”  I guess we are going to find out… 

  • MrNutso

    I see that the erudite NRA representative Theodore Nugent will be in the audience at the State of Union address as a guest of Texas Republican Representative Steve Stockman.  Stock you may recalled expressed the belief that the President should be impeached for the high crimes or misdemeaners of issuing executive orders to strengthen gun control laws.

    • sickofthechit

       I can’t believe the Secret Service is going to allow Nugent anywhere near the President.  Dollar to a dime if he is there he will shout something out. charles a. bowsher

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        god forbid someone shout something. i guess free speech is the next right to be targeted

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

      I know that “nothing succeeds like success nepotism” in politics, but is that fellow any relationship to David (I came to my senses at some point) Stockman?

      And Ted Nugent should be tackled and tasered by the Secret Service. If he’s not a threat to President Obama, I don’t know what is.

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        yes people who speak their minds are a threat. why not a drone strike premptivly?

  • twenty_niner

    The NRA is only as powerful as the breadth of its membership. If Americans weren’t interested in owning guns and evangelizing ownership, there would be no NRA in its current form.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

      You left out the gun-industry pimping.

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        where do you think the gun industry gets its money from?

  • djeddieo

    did I just hear Tom refer to David Gregory as “Dick” Gregory??? My wife does that all the time!

  • Ken Donovan

    I’m a long time RS subscriber and Tim has been doing some incredible reporting (so good I gave up my subscription to Mother Jones!).

    This article is an excellent report on the dark money that now funnels through the NRA, corrupting their original mission and poisoning our social fabric.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      “dark money”? do tell

  • Scott B

    The NRA used to be an organization that was about gun education and safety, whereas now it’s nothing but a shill for the gun-makers lobby.  They “forget” that not so long ago they wanted

    They keep calling for enforcement of laws that don’t exist because the lawmakers, who campaigns they financed, had NRA lawyers writing out the legislation that repealed those laws.

    They keep yammering about “legal gun owners” being punished. While there are always criminals will find a way to get gun illegally, the guns , ammo, and high capacity magazines, involved in the mass killings were obtained through legal sales, even if it was through a loophole, like the gun show loophole.

    • MrNutso

      The better control measure would be to limit the manufacture of weapons, rather than their sale or purchase.

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

        Limit in scope, number or both?

        Because (I’m sure you know) guns don’t wear out like other things which roll out of factories. When something like the NRA exists to support an industry, the end result is predictable: Everything to keep someone, anyone, buying that stuff coming off the assembly line. Can’t have it piling up in the warehouses.

        • MrNutso

          The type of weapons.

      • Scott B

         If you take away the market, then they’re not going to make them. No sales, no profit, no reason to make them.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          so how will you eliminate the demand for firearms?

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        yeah because there is not several hundred million guns already in existance and no one would smuggle new ones in.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      any evidence the alleged gun show loophole was used to obtain any of the firearms used in any mass shootings?

  • WRB2

    The NRA is the most powerful PAC in our country.

  • Magyar641

    I don’t have a problem with owning guns. I have an old rifle my grandfather gave me (I have never shot it). But I DO NOT want to live in an armed society. I do not want people walking around carrying guns. I don’t that is unreasonable.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      me neither, so as soon as the police and criminals give up their guns so will I.
      maybe you should move to japan

  • geraldfnord

    I’m all for reasonable pride in your ancestors and their ways, but I feel that a mass of people with grievances going back to the Highland Clearances and the forced creation of an embattled Protestant colony in Ireland have taken to having so little embarrassment that they would, if they could, add ‘Lookin at me funny,’ to the Constitution’s enumerated capital offences.

    Just as my own people, for sanity’s and safety’s and decency’s sake, should know that not every threat is a new Hitler, the crowd James Webb lauded need to understand that the Evil Gummint is there for more than taking their land, and in fact can play a rôle in keeping you safer than can your gun—government can be a useful technology, and the technology of valuation called ‘The Market’ were not completely to be trusted.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      it is not the job of the police to protect you, not that they could anyways

  • sickofthechit

    If “they” are going to get to keep all their assault weapons and 30, 50, and 100 capacity rounds then I demand that they provide me with armor to protect myself.  But for them and their weapons, I would not be at risk. charles a. bowsher

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      go buy some what’s stopping you?

  • Roy-in-Boise

    Fly-by-Night  gun shops that sell out the back door is not the problem of the manufacturers. It is the problem of the US Department of Treasury’s BATF.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

      The ATF hadn’t been without a leader since, what, 2007? How can that have happened? Whocoodanode how that could be that Gun-Totin’ manlyman George W Bush’s pick wasn’t good enough?

    • JMACZ

      Yes but they seem to really prosper in cities like Chicago, Detroit, DC, Baltimore, etc.  All democrat controlled cities with rigorous gun control laws.  Why is that?  

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        lol and gun stores are banned in chicago

    • Don_B1

      I believe it has been shown that the gun manufacturers knowingly sell guns to disreputable dealers, without caring where the guns go, just as long as they get their sales.

    • hennorama

      Roy-in-Boise – I presume you’re referring to former gun dealer and National Rifle Association (NRA) Board Member Sandy Abrams as an example of “Fly-by-Night  gun shops that sell out the back door.”

      Abrams, who eventually lost his license after being cited for more than 900 violations of federal gun laws, had 422 guns missing in one inspection, more than one-quarter of his inventory, and his shop had over 483 firearms traced to crimes (Brady Center, 2006).

      Perhaps the NRA should do background checks on their board members.

      The ATF cannot even require annual inventories from firearms dealers due to the restrictions imposed under the Tiahrt Amendment (TA).  Believe it or not, the ATF is also restricted in its ability to release trace data on firearms due to TA.

      Under TA, the ATF is restricted from publicly disclosing both firearms trace data (on firearms used in crimes), and analysis of patterns of sales of firearms used in crimes.  For instance, due to TA, it is nearly impossible to know how many Bushmaster .223s are used in crimes.  This is like prohibiting the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration from disclosing the makes and models of vehicles with safety defects.

      TA also requires that the Dept. of Justice (DOJ) destroy certain criminal background check records after only 24 hours.  The Justice Department Inspector General found that the 24-hour destruction policy makes it easier for corrupt dealers “to falsify the NICS check to hide a knowing transfer of a gun to a prohibited person” (Department of Justice, 2004).”  

      TA prohibits the ATF from requiring annual gun dealer inventories.  If a gun dealer is corrupt, they can claim that firearms are stolen or lost, then sell them “off the books,” making these firearms practically untraceable.  For example, former gun dealer and National Rifle Association (NRA) Board Member Sandy Abrams, who eventually lost his license after being cited for more than 900 violations of federal gun laws, had 422 guns missing in one inspection, more than one-quarter of his inventory, and his shop had over 483 firearms traced to crimes (Brady Center, 2006).

      See:http://www.bradycampaign.org/legislation/gunlobbybacked/Tiahrt

  • Scott B

    Why should the 2nd Amendment be held sacrosanct, when every right given
    to us in the Constitution come with limits.?  Alcohol, voting, speech,
    religion, citizenship, et al. Point at something in the Constitution and it comes with a long list of “cans” and “can’ts”

    Many states require more hoops to
    jump through to own and drive a vehicle with registration, licensing,
    insurance, and inspections.  No one complains because they don’t want
    anyone, or any car, that’s unsafe to drive on the road hurting and killing anyone. We’re talking about guns. A weapon.

    Vehicles
    are meant to get people from point A to point B. While there have been
    tragedies of people being deliberately run over, sometimes, though
    rarely en masse, we don’t hear about that person stockpiling cars and
    gasoline, with extra large gas tanks, driving their way into a school,
    and having a stand-off with cops. 

    I’m not trying to just be
    flippant, but we’re talking about a gun and what it’s designed to do,
    which is to put a hole is something or (and more significantly) someone.
    No one’s talking about gun laws because 26 watermelons were killed
    before their time at a shooting range in Connecticut.
     

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/KVRA3BOCYF5IJUKIGGWFFRLIAU Dale

      What makes you tink that there are not already limits to gun ownership?  I would call over 25,000 laws “limits”.  A search of CT statutes shows 1,114 gun laws.  Did any of them stop Adam Lanza?

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/KVRA3BOCYF5IJUKIGGWFFRLIAU Dale

      What makes you tink that there are not already limits to gun ownership?  I would call over 25,000 laws “limits”.  A search of CT statutes shows 1,114 gun laws.  Did any of them stop Adam Lanza?

      • Scott B

         I didn’t say there weren’t. My point is that the NRA they seem to not want any, no matter how reasonable.  Some people are not going to throw any red flags in a background check, but does that mean background checks should be done away with because it won’t catch everyone? There’s no law, or product even, that I can think works that way.

        My fuel filter doesn’t catch all the impurities in my gas; but I still want it there, and the manufacturer won’t honor any warranty if I don’t use it properly. But the NRA’s effectively saying, “We don’t need any kind of filter [background check] because it’s not going to guarantee to stop everyone.” 

        The idea is to throw some kind of speedbump, even modest ones, in the way of those that would seek to get a gun for nefarious reasons. If they know they can’t get a gun quick and easy at a gun show, or through a private seller, because they don’t have go through the few, and low, hurdles of a background check and, hopefully, a waiting period, then they might take time to think about cooling off, about what they’re doing, or at least make it damn hard in a lot of ways to find a gun.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          would you fuel filter be effective if all contaminated gas was allowed to bypass it and it only filtered gas without impurities?

  • nj_v2

    Thanks for shedding light on these dangerous, sociopathic extremists.

  • Peter Duveen

    I am not a member of the NRA, but am severely tempted to join after the way the tragedy in Connecticut (what we know of it) was spun by the government and its media minions, including NPR, to embark on a gun confiscation program. The last resort in America to retain our democracy is an armed electorate, and these arms must naturally be competitive with what the nation’s overbloated armed forces uses. That’s the rock bottom basis for our democracy. Power comes from the barrel of a gun, unfortunately.

    • Elizabeth_in_RI

       What “gun confiscation program”? Can you point to a credible organization that has documented that program??

      • Ray in VT

        I wonder if it has anything to do with those 300,000 Russians in the hills of Georgia.  Do you remember that caller from a month or so ago?

        • Mike_Card

          She was certain there were 400,000, because she heard it on “the radio.”

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            so how many russians is it?

          • Mike_Card

            Don’t know; I wasn’t there to count.  It had to do with confusion about Georgia the southern state near Alabama, and Georgia, the country near Russia.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            maybe palin could see them from her house

          • Ray in VT

            Meh.  What’s a 100,000 Russians give or take?

          • Mike_Card

            I spoke with every one of them; everybody asked me, “Where’s Gregg?”

          • Ray in VT

            Good one.  I ran into one, but he justed wanted to know where we kept our nuclear wessels.

      • Peter Duveen

        I did not say there was a gun confiscation program. If a certain class of firearms are declared illegal, it will be a pretext for a gun confiscation program.

    • jefe68

      There is no and never was any gun confiscation program in place. There is a huge difference between common sense regulations and laws regarding gun ownership and some law enforcement agency knocking on your door to confiscate guns. Unless of course you have done something to lose that right and privilege   

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        yeah they need a national registration before they can do that

    • Don_B1

      The “spinning” is that of the NRA and the other members of the “gun lobby” who make up conspiracy theories to inflame the emotions of people (apparently including you) who do not follow the issue closely for any number of reasons.

      The ability of even groups of people to use force to oppose the government in any serious way is way overblown. While they are something around 300 million guns owned by about 80 million people, the number that actually would take up arms to fight the local police, the state police, the F.B.I., and eventually the armed forces is minuscule, and their success is about as likely as that of those at Waco.

      This is a fantasy that only survives because people do not think critically about what such an effort would take and how many people would be willing to give up everything they have for some pie-in-the-sky “liberty.”

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        yeah no americans have ever sacrificed their lives for liberty

    • hennorama

      This idea of “the government and its media minions, including NPR, to embark on a gun confiscation program” is pure nonsense.
      Let’s look at machine guns.  Current number of machine guns registered in the US:  488,065.  So much for “confiscation.”

      See:http://www.atf.gov/publications/firearms/050412-firearms-commerce-in-the-us-annual-statistical-update-2012.pdf

      These weapons have not been confiscated from the general public.  They have been conficated only when used in crimes, or when discovered as being unregistered or illegally smuggled, etc.

      In 1934, the National Firearms Act ” imposed a tax on the making and transfer of firearms defined by the Act, as well as a special (occupational) tax on persons and entities engaged in the business of importing, manufacturing, and dealing in NFA firearms. The law also required the registration of all NFA firearms with the Secretary of the Treasury. Firearms subject to the 1934 Act included shotguns and rifles having barrels less than 18 inches in length, certain firearms described as “any other weapons,” machine guns, and firearm mufflers and silencers.”

      Source:http://www.atf.gov/firearms/nfa/

      The NFA has been amended multiple times, most recently in 1986 under the Firearm Owners’ Protection Act.  According to the ATF “In 1986, this Act amended the NFA definition of “silencer” by adding combinations of parts for silencers and any part intended for use in the assembly or fabrication of a silencer. The Act also amended the GCA to prohibit the transfer or possession of machineguns. Exceptions were made for transfers of machineguns to, or possession of machineguns by, government agencies, and those lawfully possessed before the effective date of the prohibition, May 19, 1986.”

  • J__o__h__n

    Of course the NRA counts the dead “life members.”  They need to keep the government from taking their guns from their cold dead hands. 

    • sickofthechit

       Why hasn’t anyone ever pointed out that when Charlston Heston uttered that famous phrase he was holding a muzzle-loader?  That is what is meant by “…the right to keep and bear arms.”

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        why hasent anyone pointed out that under the “one feature” test a historic muzzle loader would be considered an “assault weapon”? (bayonet lug)

  • Coastghost

    And who, Messrs. Dickinson and Ashbrook, benefits from highly touted Rolling Stone exposes?

    • sickofthechit

       The readers, society, future generations.  Need I go on?

      • Coastghost

        You might be more sanguine about posterity’s chances than I am.

    • jefe68

      I got it. You don’t like Rolling Stone magazine.

      If you don’t like the show don’t listen as the other NRA member announced. 

      Personally I find what the NRA does is above and beyond the 2nd amendment. 

      How about my freedom not to have to deal with idiots who alos happen to own guns. 

      • Coastghost

        I submit you have no such freedom: the world is full of idiots, on both sides of every issue.

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        where is that freedom in the constitution? how have you had “to deal with idiots who also happen to own guns.”? what lawful use of guns harmed you in any way?

  • Elizabeth_in_RI

    I understand that people are concerned about the idea of infringement of our Constitutional rights – but we have managed to create common sense limitations on other rights (such as hate speech meant to incite crimes, etc.) without ending the freedoms of America. Sadly, as a nation until we learn to love our children as much as we love our guns, the nightly news will continue to document the ridiculous response of so many of us to resort to guns as a simple way of dealing with our problems. The argument “guns don’t kill people – people do” needs to be put in the correct context of “people with guns kill people” at a much higher rate than people with any other weapon.

    Does anyone truly believe that George Zimmerman would have gotten out of his car to confront Trevon Martin without the false courage of a pistol in his pocket. How many more need to be senselessly killed or maimed before we wake up America?

    • sickofthechit

       Maybe he would have listened to the dispatcher who told him to quit following the “suspect”.

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        as long as we are playing the maybe game, maybe he would have had his head smashed into the pavement untill he died and never made the news

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      maybe george would have been killed? that probably would not have made the news though. its just speculation though right? The argument “guns don’t kill people – people do” needs to be put in the correct context of “people with guns kill people” at a much higher rate than people with any other weapon. so you would be happy if more people were pushed out windows or stabbed to death? the problem is homicidal people not the means they use to commit their crimes

      • Elizabeth_in_RI

        So this kid who wasn’t doing ANYTHING wrong (except maybe purchasing junk food) was going to suddenly turn on Zimmerman who would likely not have left his vehicle (as directed by the police dispatcher) without the courage of his gun for no apparent reason and become a homicidal maniac?

        That convoluted reasoning is why this issue gets so out of control. Independence is an extraordinary thing, but when it becomes the sole focus of being (i.e. “no one can tell me what to do”) we become a nation of spoiled brats using the mantra “it’s not my fault – he started it”. We’re now only looking out for ourselves, and the hell with everyone else – just like many developing nations. Our national sense of optimism is being devoured by our fear (of each other, of our government, of our future – you name it!) Not a hopeful sign.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          who knows that that stoned thug was doing or what he might have done?

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

            “Stoned thug”.

            You lose, sucker. THis isn’t the Foxhole where phrasing like that moves the proverbial needle.

            And, please, more of your “Reefer Madness”-level analysis of what pot does to people.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            you seem upset. not sure why you are calling names or what needle you are reffering to or what i lose. not sure what the foxhole is. you are not making a lot of sense. im sorry if i offended stoned thugs whats the politically correct WBUR listener approved term for a stoned thug?

  • sickofthechit

    IF we at least get “Universal” back-ground checks, can we at least make sure we use “lawyer-ease” to completely cover all sales, transfers, barters, exchanges, auctions, giveaways, etc., so that there are no back-doors like the straw purchases?  Auctions are a huge loophole here in Kentucky, and no background check at all takes place. charles a. bowsher

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      sounds like you should work to change kentucky law. sick can you think of a law that will stop one gangbanger from selling a gun to another?

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=644943450 Eric Miller

    Is it worth asking whether the NRA has any ties to gangs or other organized crime or is that too conspiratorial? Arguably these groups might benefit MORE from weapons being illegal but would there be no benefits to them if they were legal?

    • JMACZ

      No that would be Eric Holder and the DOJ.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      the answer is yes to both.

  • sickofthechit

    Did anyone hear the NRA lobbyist who said something along the lines that “…we will need to lay low for a while because of the Connecticut effect.”  How disgusting is that.

    • JMACZ

      Please substantiate that or is that another lib straw man?

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      less disgusting that parading a bunch of kids around during your press conferance

  • Ray in VT

    As someone who grew up with guns, whose family has and does hunt, as a gun owner myself and as someone who has worked for a gun company, I have never felt that that the NRA has represented me or my interests as a gun owner.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      its easy for you because you live in a state with almost no restrictions on gun rights. for people who don’t live in vermont the govt infringments of our rights are troublesome on a daily basis

  • sickofthechit

    Is it true that the NRA gets $1.00 from every gun sale and $1.00 from every ammunition purchase?

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      nope

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/KVRA3BOCYF5IJUKIGGWFFRLIAU Dale

    I am a NRA member.  The comments about “military grade weapons” is ridiculous.  Military grade weapons are very different from thos available to the public.  The NRA defends our Constitutional rights.  Of course the NRA has on its board firearms professionals.  Your reporting is so obviously biased I had to shut it off so that is all I heard. 

    • WRB2

      BUNK.  Only difference between an AR-15 and the current issued version for the Army is the Army version can be automatic.

      • J__o__h__n

        The Army version probably costs twenty times more. 

        • WRB2

          No, within 20% at most.

      • MarcusXH

        the Army hasn’t had a fully automatic M16 rifle in a long long time – the M16A1. 

        The ones used by most of the Army currently has a “burst” function which fires 3 bullets at a time – the M16A2, M16A4 & M4 models.

        AR15s are all semi-fire only.

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        and you don’t think thats significant? that and they have grenade launchers and ammuntion thats not available to  the public

    • Peter Duveen

      Incredibly biased, as is all of NPR’s reporting, although I do like many of these Onpoint programs, probably the only program on NPR I can tolerate for more than a few seconds.

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        i applauded their interview with the author or “more guns, less crime”

    • http://www.facebook.com/john.m.cogswell John M Cogswell Jr

      Dale I am also a member, but I think it’s important to contribute here meaningfully so that our concerns are heard.  Language is the primary concern here, people seem to apply it arbitrarily.  “Military style” weapons could go anywhere.  As a NRA member I am not concerned about hunting.  I own a collection of weapons each for different purposes.  A bolt action rifle for hunting, a shotgun, semi-auto rifle (a tricked out Mini-14 which would certainly be considered as military style) and a pistol for home defense.

      I’m not prepared to forfeit my 2nd Amendment Rights until and unless we have a guaranteed right of police protection, which is physically impossible in our (and perhaps any) society.

      The NRA to me represents the most agressive defense of my rights and I have no problem paying my annual dues for their legal protections.

      Thugs and gangsters will never comply with any gun laws at all, and so for them, these laws only serve to punish men and women like me, disarming us and making us better victims for them.

      Sandy Hook sickens me, and I do want to know what we can do to protect our children. My family’s safety comes first over anyone’s squeamishness over firearms ownership. Period.

      • nj_v2

        Kind of a bogus rationalization. Statistically, kids are much more likely to be injured by a gun in homes that have guns compared to those that don’t.

        http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.abstract

        Guns in the Home and Risk of a Violent Death in the Home: Findings from a National Study

        • http://www.facebook.com/john.m.cogswell John M Cogswell Jr

          Better to have it and not need it, than to need and not have.  And I do make use of an effective child-proof safe.

          Your rationalization would not have done me any good 2 years ago with an attempted home invasion.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          you understand the difference between correlation and causation right? if so then you are being disingenious. if not you should go learn about it

      • Fredlinskip

        There are very few “law-makers” (Congressmen) trying to take your guns away. 
        Some are talking about restricting the sales of weapons & clips capable of firing dozens of shots in seconds. The argument is that one shouldn’t need that many shots in self-defense.
        No weapons that are not sold will ever wind up in a “criminal’s” hands- no studies are needed to prove this.
        But you’ve a right to your opinion- no doubt.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          on the state level many lawmakers are proposing this and have succeeded in NY. also fienstien has said she would like to make americans “turn em all in”

          • Fredlinskip

            I say “You go girl”. 
            Not gonna happen though.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/KVRA3BOCYF5IJUKIGGWFFRLIAU Dale

    No most retailers will allow you to make a $1.00 donation to the NRA.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/QYPLKPVC4YRRTU2W2HQWLIYVJE Paul

    Gun industry people are a rationale choice for an NRA member voting for members of its board. The member is a consumer and wants to be able to purchase the products they want. The gun industry wants to be able to sell the products to meet that demand. Tim’s message seems to be that NRA members are being duped by their leadership, but he fails to consider that the leadership may be a very close proxy for the members interests.

  • Ray in VT

    I heard some comedian say that a survey showed 92% of people supporting background checks for all gun sales, while the other 8% are convinced that the poll was a distraction that would allow the government to sneak in and take their guns while they looked the other way, or something to that effect.  I don’t think that that is very far off regarding some of that 8%.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      how exactly was the poll worded and when was it conducted? maybe some of us relise that a universal background check is a pipe dream because criminals wont submit to it when they buy their crime guns

      • Ray in VT

        I think that this is the poll that the comedian was referening:

        http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-34222_162-57564386-10391739/9-in-10-back-universal-gun-background-checks/

        It maybe true that criminals won’t submit to background checks, but it seems like we could at least make it more difficult for someone who has something on his or her record that would prohibit him or her from purchasing a firearm easily.  Probably most people who intend to commit crimes go to the black market anyways, but at least we could force them to do so.  I’m not sure how much it would help, but we could also do something that would crack down on gun stores who lose track of guns.  The article that I saw said 62,000 since 2008 (from a 2011 article).  I know that that is a relatively small number, but I’ve always been of the mind that any little bit helps.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          well untill there is a reason to believe it will actually help i dont think thats a good enough reason to restrict basic human rights. if you want to crack down on stores if they are doing something illegal enforce the current laws!

          • Ray in VT

            I would hardly call mandatory background checks a restriction of basic human rights, and so long as one is has not run afowl of the law in such as way as to be considered to be potentially dangerous or mentally ill, then one need not worry as far as I’m concerned.  I certainly have reason to believe that it would prevent some potentially dangerous people from obtaining a firearm.  Just because one is able to circumvent the law and obtain an item illegally does that mean that we should not even make attempts via the law to prevent some certain groups of people, such as convicted felons or the certifiably mentally ill, from being able to walk into a gun store and buy anything that their heart desires and their wallet can pay for?  I think not.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            so you would feel better as long as they buy whatever their heart desires from the trunk of someones car?

          • Ray in VT

            Yup.  If they’re criminals, then they’re going to do it anyways, right?  I don’t think that a paroled bank robber or a schizophrenic should be able to slap down a few bills and waltz out of any Walmart with a shotgun.  We should also be taking measures to crack down on the black market as well, but that’s a separate, although related, issue.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            yes much better if they buy it out of the back of a car with no records kept that way there will be more black markets and more undesirable people getting guns than there are now. heck since they are buying them from the back of a car why not a full auto mac 10? forget the shotgun  

          • Ray in VT

            So you would rather have the mentally ill and convicted felons buying their guns in stores, where they may not be subjected to a background check?  Your argument doesn’t make any sense to me.  If one doesn’t have a problem in their background, then one need not have a problem passing a background check, so would not the only people actively seeking to avoid such checks be those who might have something going on with them that might prevent them from such a check?  I’m totally fine with background checks, in part because I’ve never done anything to run afowl of the law.  I’ve had to pass various background checks to get several jobs that I have had, and it has never been a problem, because I’ve kept my nose clean.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            well if we both agree they will just buy them anyways on the black market isn’t it a moot point? at least if they buy them in a store there is a record and a limit on what they may buy and they are not feeding into the black market.  In theory background checks are great but in reality they seem useless.  What I would really rather have is the mentally ill recieve effective and appropriete care so they dont do these crazy things.  I would like to see felons rehabilitated before they are released into society so they are no longer a threat to society when they are released.  But i guess no one is interested in “common sense” soultions

  • nj_v2

    Here’s where we’re going. Check out the Neanderthal gun nuts noble protectors of the Constitution advancing the arc of civilized life:

    http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/02/pro-gun_demonstrators_bring_th.html

    Pro-gun demonstrators bring their message and weapons inside Oregon Capitol

    SALEM — Some gun-toting demonstrators have taken their protest and their weapons inside the Capitol building.Oregon law allows people who have concealed handgun licenses to openly carry weapons inside public buildings, including the Capitol.

    (clipped)

    http://crosscut.com/2013/02/09/olympia-2013/112894/support-guns-few-unusual-suspects/

    In support of guns? A few unusual suspects
    As Dems gear up to pursue their gun control priorities, an Olympia gun rights rally draws a diverse crowd.

    “While many at the event carried rifles or full-sized shotguns, Brown, Holmes and Napua also stood out for their armament: Brown carried two large pistols, one in his hand, one tucked into his pants, while Holmes carried a compact, stockless weapon with a banana clip and Napua a black pump-action shotgun with a pistol grip. While others carried their weapons slung across their backs, Holmes and Napua carried theirs in their hands, or casually over their shoulders.”

    (excerpt)

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      and did anything bad happen?

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/KVRA3BOCYF5IJUKIGGWFFRLIAU Dale

    Much better to have Obama, Feinstein, and Pelosi parade out kids from Newtown.  I don’t know exactly what comment you refer to, but there is an emotional overreaction any time there is a tragedy.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/KVRA3BOCYF5IJUKIGGWFFRLIAU Dale

    No.  Gangs and cartels get their guns from illegal sources.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      hey stop looking at the elephant in the room we are talking common sense restrictions on law abiding folks liberty for the children! LOL

  • sickofthechit

    All guns in a household trigger locked and cabinet locked except one which would need to be trigger locked.  Ammunition kept locked separately.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      yes that is already the current law in mass anyways

  • WRB2

    If the NRA said that no magazines over 30 round for rifles, 20 for pistols.  No more 50 caliber anything.  Start the slow journey that MUST include mental health reform.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      has a crime ever been committed with a .50 bmg? why should there be a ban on a firearm that has never been used in a crime?

  • StilllHere

    There are lots of examples of powerful special interest groups. 

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/KVRA3BOCYF5IJUKIGGWFFRLIAU Dale

    Straw purchases are already illegal.  There are hidden purposes to Feinstein’s version of background check.  It will be used for a national registry, which is historically a precursor to confiscation.

    • MrNutso

      Correct on straw purchases.  I propose that the “jack booted thugs” go door to door to every domicile in American and demand that anyone with a gun prove that it was purchased legally.

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        well thats coming if they get a registry then only the gangbangers will go unmolested

  • http://www.facebook.com/rick.cooper.399 Rick Cooper

    My dissatisfaction with the NRA comes from their past willingness to ‘compromise’ that has led to the steady erosion of the Second Amendment.  Since when do you need a license to exercise a RIGHT?  How did that ever happen?  We only need one gun law: It is against the law to carry a firearm with criminal intent.  Everything else is a RIGHT.

    • Fredlinskip

      I am for restricting the “right” and the “freedom” to commit mass murder. 
      It is often the case that a person is not labeled “mentally ill” until AFTER they start pulling trigger.
      Witness all the “Temporary insanity” pleas in America.

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        good news! murder is illegal. In all these recent cases of mass shooters everyone who knew the people thought they were crazy and you can tell they are crazy just by looking at any picture of them.

        • Fredlinskip

          Looks can be deceiving. There’s a lot of goofy looking people out there. 
          Are you for profiling and arresting all of them?

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            nope but i am not selling them any guns either. none of their guns were obtained in private sales or from the “gun show loophole”, whatever that means. and its not just that you can tell they are crazy just by looking at them its that everyone who knew them also could tell they were crazy and had oppurtunities to stop them from committing their crimes.  the guy in CO sent detailed crazy plans to his shrink yet no one did anything for whatever reason. one report said the kid in CT was about to be instutionalised and thats what set him off so there were clearly warnings there too and clearly many mistakes made by the mother.  It was failures by individuals not the system that failed in these cases made worse by the existance of “gun free zones” that allowed the killers to kill without fear. so the only logical change to  the laws we could make would be to eliminate gun free zones so this does not have to happen again

    • sickofthechit

       Driver’s license, fishing license, hunting license, liquor license, gaming license, etc. etc..

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        are those things rights enshrined in the bill of rights?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Carlo-Danese/100002305865604 Carlo Danese

    When Milosevic was brought before the UN he sounded like a complete buffoon, he was so used to speaking in front of adoring, ultra partisan, uninformed crowds – La Pierre sounds like that – But I’m not laughing – if a loved one of mine is killed by a weapon equipped with a multi round clip I will hold him personally responsible and act accordingly - 

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      so you would rather they were pushed out a window? or shot with a gun with only one round capicity?  what would you do carlo?

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

         Bosnia, Srebrenica 1995. The UN set up an alleged “safe Zone” in 1993 and stripped all the Bosnian men of their guns and ability to defend themselves. They were allegedly under the protection of UN guns and need not worry about self defense right?

  • PithHelmut

    It’s unbearable listening to NPR at this time of the year. I love roses but the constant barrage of sweet-sounding coercion is as irritating as commercial radio. I feel sorry for the announcers who have to play whore. This is not public radio – with a Koch brother on the board of trustees, wbur is a smokescreen for subliminal persuasion ie: that climate change is not serious, that we have plenty of time. Tom Ashbrook is a gem but NPR is no longer the incisive news outlet it once was even a couple of years ago. This is how the fossil fuel industry infiltrates the minds of unsuspecting listeners.

    • Peter Duveen

      Here here!

  • MrNutso

    Thanks for reminding us of how Smith and Wesson episode.  I had forgotten about that.

    • DeJay79

       I was most shocked by that. I did not know this before and I like the idea that a company wanted to be responsible and make reasonable changes to their business, yet the NRA said “i think not”. just sick

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1007739731 Renee Masiello

    What about the role of the NRA is how the ATF is funded, (or unfunded) and how they have helped craft legislation to make the ATF very ineffective?  Learned this on Jon Stewart, wish I heard more details on “real” news shows, thank you Tom for your coverage.

    • WRB2

      Their funded representatives in congress also limit the ability of the ATF.  All it takes is a few and a big bully to fund the removal of any representative that goes against them.

      NRA is a way too powerful PAC.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      good thing they were underfunded or who knows how many guns they would have given to cartel members

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/KVRA3BOCYF5IJUKIGGWFFRLIAU Dale

    There are no legal restrictions to free speech, you can say any word you want.  If you use it with criminal intent, such as inciting to riot or disturbing the peace, you have broken the law.  A right has no limits.

    • northeaster17

      False

    • Mike_Card

      Something in there about “Fire!” in a crowded theater.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      why is this so hard to understand for folks?

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1007739731 Renee Masiello

    Most Americans may not be aware of how NRA has hampered enforcement of common sense gun laws

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      really? like what?

  • Ray in VT

    The mention of the waiting period made me think of this great clip from the Simpsons:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIpLd0WQKCY

    Best line:  “Waiting period?  But I’m mad now.”

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      i thought ” this must be how god feels when he is holding a gun” was pretty funny from that episode

  • nj_v2

    http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2013/02/08/1561241/nra-backed-senate-republican-predicts-senate-wont-produce-any-legislation-expanding-background-checks-for-gun-purchases/?mobile=nc

    NRA-Backed Republican: Senate Won’t ‘Produce Any Legislation’ Expanding Background Checks For Gun Purchases

    Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO) — a top recipient of campaign donations from the National Rifle Association — poured cold water over ongoing bipartisan negotiations in the Senate to expand background checks for all gun purchases, insisting that lawmakers are unlikely to act on the proposal.

    The senators involved in crafting the compromise — Tom Coburn (R-OK), Mark Kirk (R-IL), Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY) — hope to “effectively require background checks on private gun purchases made with non-licensed gun dealers” while addressing “privacy concerns of gun owners” and exempting family transfers from the checks.

    But during an interview with KMBZ News 98.1 FM on Friday morning, Blunt rejected the growing consensus — among the public and gun owners and dealers — for sensible background checks. Despite the near universal support for requiring buyers to undergo a review before acquiring a firearm, Blunt predicted the Senate would not “produce legislation” to address the matter:

    (clipped)

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      “the near universal support” is that from baised polling? you can get any answer you want in a poll depending on how you ask the question

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1056601746 Kevin Collins

    So you will run a segment with just one viewpoint?  Shameless!

    • nj_v2

      NRA was asked to participate. They didn’t respond. Your outrage seems misplaced.

      • Coastghost

        The guest conceded in the first segment that the NRA does in fact have millions of members. An informed NRA member couldn’t be found? (Views contrary to the guest’s don’t HAVE to come from an NRA board member.)

        • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

          “Informed NRA member”?

          Is that like a unicorn? Or just NPR opening itself up to the charge that “NPR went and found the craziest NRA member* they could”.

          *There is a lot of competition for this title, I admit.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            its not hard to show how foolish the gun control proposals are. the tricky part is remaining calm when uninformed people are trying to steal your liberty but a calm person would not make a good radio segment right?

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1056601746 Kevin Collins

        With over 4 million members, SOMEONE would have responded.  They didn’t invite me…

        • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

          You want to take another go at that?

          The NRA has a phalanx of lawyers and media relations experts, and even then they haven’t kept their crazee off the mainstream media.

          There’s a reason the NRA has embargoed themselves from the media: They prefer Fox Fluffing, the right-wing advocacy blowjobs.

        • nj_v2

          Yeah, they could have got one of these guys:

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            are they bothering anyone?

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        the should have asked GOAL but if they said no i would not mind going on the radio to explain the folly of new gun control

    • MrNutso

      They said several times that the NRA was invited and got no response.

  • Coastghost

    It has been a while, a long while, since I even picked up a copy of Rolling Stone. Does it no longer run advertisements? It has no economic motivation for its reportage?

    • nj_v2

      ^ Pathetic trolling. What’s the “economic advantage” in reporting on the NRA? What factual errors do you find in the reporting?

      • Coastghost

        Just guessing: at least in part, the economic advantage in RS reportage on the NRA is to sell copies of RS to NPR subscribers, supporters, and partisans.

        • nj_v2

          That’s stupid, even for you.

          • Coastghost

            Hmmm: maybe I STILL listen too much to NPR . . . .

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1056601746 Kevin Collins

    This guy has SO MUCH information that is just wrong.  NPR should never have aired the segment without another viewpoint.  This guy can just ramble on unchallenged…

    • MrNutso

      How about some examples?

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1056601746 Kevin Collins

        The NRA didn’t lead the S&W Boycott.  Gun owners did.  The round-up program is completely voluntary means of NRA contributions.  Membership polling proved that NRA membership is overwhelming behind the NRA administration.  Basically every point he made needed to be rebutted.

    • BHA_in_Vermont

       The NRA declined to be on the show. Kind of hard to hear their side if they stay home.

    • nj_v2

      What were the five or six things that you consider the best examples of what was “just wrong”? Should be easy for you since there was SO MUCH.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/KVRA3BOCYF5IJUKIGGWFFRLIAU Dale

    The agenda that you are pushing clearly shows that you are a shill for the present administration, Tom.  You have clearly biased guests touting false “facts”, hyperbole, and innuendo.  You have lost all credibility.

    • DeJay79

       shill nothing! He offered the NRA a fair and equal share of this show. They said ” … ”

      They know they can’t defend themselves because their position is undefendable.

  • soundfriend

    For the best description of Wayne LaPierre see Christopher Dorner’s manifesto, about three quarters through the document.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      never mind the source right?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_Y6CO5C2HE4WM2OYGCDVWGPRXXM oldman

    NRA platform is pretty simple – anything that increases sales of guns. 

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      oboma has caused more gun sales than the NRA ever could

  • jpg913

    When we speak of gun violence in this country, we seem to only focus on the firearms themselves. The murder rate in the U.S.  is not only a failure of our gun regulations, but also and more importantly of our penal system, and out mental health system. How has the NRA influenced these debates regarding prisons and mental health care.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      they are all for more prisons and mental health funding

  • JMACZ

    I’m an NRA member and have been for over 20 years.  Weapons will continue to be sold in record quantities because of our imperious, lack of “common sense gun control” president.  He’s the reason why weapon sales are so brisk.  I find it particularly interesting that you are willing to demonize the NRA when your progressive friends at DOJ ran illegal weapons into Mexico resulting in numerous deaths, including border agents.  But I guess that that’s OK since progressives endorse illegal immigration.  

    I live outside of New Orleans and have seen first hand the descent of society when things get bad.  I carry and here I feel it’s almost necessary because the police are only minutes away when seconds count.  I’m glad that I had my AR.  Tim Dickinson should stick to his liberal interests.  The NRA is doing well because of people like him.  I have noticed that you never have taken on any of George Sorros’ nefarious activities. I guess because he’s a fellow progressive and supporter of this morally corrupt administration.

    People should boycott Winston’s Flowers because they support WBUR.

    • jefe68

      Wow. The words of right wing extremist spouting every right wing meme that one can fit into two paragraphs.

      Here’s a tip, using veiled threats against people who voice opinions different than yours does not bode well to support your right wing ideology.

    • MarcusXH

      Your response is indicative of the approach the NRA is currently using: don’t be constructive, be condescending.

      If the NRA members had even answered the invitation to this program, maybe they could have shed some insight to what it is they’re thinking.  As it stands, their only position is combative towards any kind of changes, spreading fear and looking out for the interests of the people who support them – the gun companies.

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        i am not a gun company and i send my dues in.

    • JGC

      I heard Limbaugh shilling for 1-800-flowers on his show.  Maybe you should get your sweetheart a dozen Valentine roses from there instead.  Cuz nothing says “I love you, darling,” like flowers with the RUSH promo code. 

  • WRB2

    The volume of weapons is not the problem.  The easy of purchase by people who should NEVER have firearms is the problem.

    • BHA_in_Vermont

      The shooter in Newtown didn’t buy the weapons, his mother did.

      Guns don’t kill people, guns bought by someone’s mother kill people.

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        yup good point about the folly of background checks

      • WRB2

        That is one of thousands of shootings that happen every year.  Addressing just the mass shooting will not help the overall problem.  

        We need mental health reform as well as some basic logical baselines for firearm ownership set up.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      do you think expanding the black market will make it easier or more difficult for undesirables to have guns? In some states its easy to buy guns in some its very very difficult

      • WRB2

        I think making it less easy for people who should not have them get them.  You are very correct that this is a state issue but the vast disparity between states is why the Feds need to set a new baseline.  Same way interstate commerce is regulated.

        No one wants to increase the black market but that is inevitable for any market regulated at the federal level.  Fact of capitalism.   

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          it depends we dont see nearly as much(much more popular in “dry counties”) untaxed liquer since it has been legalised. compare that to cannabis which is not taxed and billions are spent to eradicate it and yet it is more available to school children than alcohol. i am all for updating the background check info to include all the legal records that was supposed to be done a while ago but i dont think creating stronger demand for black market guns will do anyone any good

  • BHA_in_Vermont

    “Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre likes to claim (*) that the group’s four million members “represent the 100 million law-abiding Americans who own firearms.” ”

    4% of the gun owners belong to the NRA and the US adult (therefore eligible to vote) population is something over 230 million.

    Therefore, then NRA represents only 1.7% of eligible voters.

    The tail is truly wagging the dog. Too bad the politicians can’t do math.

    * http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/12/whom-does-the-nra-really-speak-for/266373/

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      have the other gun owners created a group to advocate against gun rights?

  • jim_thompson

    It is time for members of the NRA and the general public to speak up and demand common sense safety protections and the 2nd amendment.  I am a lifetime, Charlton Heston autographed silver bullet carrying member of the NRA and a Concealed Weapon Permit holder and I DO support total background checks, regsitration of guns and a ban on assault weapons.  This argument about being fearful of the government is just silly and those advocating such non-sense should be called out for it.  I speak up and make calls to the NRA and government officials and go to Town Hall meetings and speak up.  The time is now…otherwise this chance to make these needed changes will slip by.

    Jim in Fort Mill,SC

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1056601746 Kevin Collins

      The problem is that common sense is that it is not common.  Every time I hear a politician use the phrase “common sense” something really stupid follows.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      total background checks? do you think that will prevent a gangbanger in chicago from buying a gun?  So none of your guns have a capacity of more than 7 rounds? What is your definition of a “assault weapon”? Will a ban prevent a gangbanger from getting one? Yeah its silly to be afraid of this govt if they decide to murder you with a drone you wont even see it coming. Really what many gun owners fear is not that the govt will become more oppressive but that it will fail to protect them during a riot or civil unrest or during a disaster, these things have all happened in recent history and if people are concerned about them thats their choice. And the police have proved in court that protecting you is not their job. This means people need to protect themselves.  If people choose a semi automatic rifle with a synthetic stock what is wrong with that? would it change anything if that firearm has a wood stock? only if you are diane feinstien. I hope this blows over too

      • sickofthechit

         The idea behind total background checks is that it will cut down on the total number of guns available to criminals. It will not cut down on the number of guns available to law-abiding citizens.  Though why anyone “needs” dozens of guns as some of my acquaintances own is beyond me. If the gangbangers gun is traceable then we will begin to be able to root out the less scrupulous gun dealers and straw purchasers thus cutting down on the numbers of guns in the wrong hands.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          maybe you should ask your friends why they have several guns. its because they all have different uses. if guns only came from criminal dealers and not theft and importation that might reduce the total but with hundreds of millions already in circulation the horses have already left the barn so closing the door wont help. heck now they can just print out guns on 3d printers so its beyond too late for that to help keep guns from criminals

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/KVRA3BOCYF5IJUKIGGWFFRLIAU Dale

      So-called “assault weapons” are no different than any other semi-auto used for hunting or target shooting.  They just look scary.  Just because you don’t want one doesn’t mean that I shouldn’t have one.

      • sickofthechit

         Are hunters really that bad that they need more than one shot?

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          obomas gun holds 2 rounds. there are many different applications for firearms some of which require multiple shots

          • sickofthechit

             Actually I think it is three with one in the chamber.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            it looks like an over under in the photo but since he “shoots skeet all the time” maybe he has more than one lol

  • http://twitter.com/tallpaulman Paul Schmidt

    The NRA touts the second amendment, which STARTS OUT saying “A WELL REGULATED MILITIA..”  So how does the NRA say we should be in compliance with this?  How about every gun owner HAS to join the State Guard and actually show up for training and duty.

    You don’t have a right to a gun, you have a right to own a gun IF you are in the militia and in no way otherwise do you have a RIGHT to a gun. 

    Plenty of good reasons to own a gun, but you don’t have a RIGHT to own one for personal protection, hunting, or recreation.  Get over it!!

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      paul you don’t remember signing up for selective service? we are all in the militia. Our rights are not limited by the bill of rights the bill of rights is not designed to limit our rights but limit the rights of the government.  Its very good that the supream court disagrees with you on this one

    • OnPointComments

      Until you can be addressed as Supreme Court Justice Paul Schmidt and have persuaded four of your fellow justices to side with you, you’re wrong.  The Supreme Court has stated that there is an individual right to own a gun.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/KVRA3BOCYF5IJUKIGGWFFRLIAU Dale

      It says “well regulated militia”, which means trained. It is a preparatory clause and not the main clause. The main clause says “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”  The militia was every man.

    • HarryAnchorite

      Have you heard of the Supreme Court’s Heller decision?

      Or, have a look at Sanford Levinson’s The Embarrassing Second Amendment or 

      Roger Roots, “The Approaching Death of the Collective Right
      Theory of the Second Amendment,” 
      Duquesne Law Review 39 pp. 71ff   http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/death_collective_right_theory.pdf

  • GKoenig

    I’m glad to hear a program where part of the message is “follow the money.”  This isn’t about rights.  It’s about big business and profits!  Add “Big Gun Companies” to the rest, the “Big Oil Companies” and the “Big Banks” which are what’s wrong with the USA by now.  Power corrupts.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      for those of us who are concerned about our rights its 100% about rights and I thank god we do have some moneyed interests to back us up because they are the only way we can retain our liberties against those who would try to abolish our god given rights. since you are aware power corrupts why would you want to diminish the power of the people and make the power of the government more absolute?

      • Vandermeer

        FB, Next time someone breaks into your home, don’t call the absolute government.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          someone will need to haul off the corpses. lol if i depended on them it might be my corpse. when seconds count the police are only minutes away. they take ten minutes to show up to an elementary school shooting how long do you think it will take to get to your house? the police are not there to protect you, it is not their job and they have proved it in court.  so go ahead and call they will have a nice recording of you being killed down at the dispatchers

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/KVRA3BOCYF5IJUKIGGWFFRLIAU Dale

      You have been seriously deluded and led by the media.  Don’t believe every idiot you hear on the radio.

  • JMACZ

    What exactly are “common sense gun laws”?  Nothing that I’ve seen from this or the previous democrat administration.  The so called “assault weapons ban” was a complete failure.  More of that?  There already are background checks.  How about enforcing the laws regarding physicians’ failure to accurately report those considered mentally imbalanced. 

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      yup they always call scrapping our liberties “common sense”

  • http://www.facebook.com/emily.h.lacroix Emily Harvey Lacroix

    It bothers me that the NRA represents its self as supporting a constitutional right. They support the second amendment, but not as it is worded in the constitution. We do not live in a society with a “well-ordered militia.” We need to protect the second amendment as it stands in the living, evolving Constitution.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      did you forget about the 9th amendment?

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/KVRA3BOCYF5IJUKIGGWFFRLIAU Dale

      It says “well REGULATED militia”, which means trained.  It is a preparatory clause and not the main clause.  The main clause says “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

    • nj_v2

      We do have a well-regulated militia. It’s called the National Guard.

  • sickofthechit

    Want to prevent school shootings? Why not
    “Teachers with Tazers” ?

    • MrNutso

      The easy solution is to get rid of schools.

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        actually that will happen sooner or later anyways. just another reason why public schools need to go online

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      tazers are illegal for citizens in Mass. sounds like a good idea to give teachers the option if they are uncomfortable with having a gun

  • http://twitter.com/Counselor_Meyer Aaron J. Meyer

    Because the NRA doesn’t have the guts to come on and present their “position”

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/KVRA3BOCYF5IJUKIGGWFFRLIAU Dale

      I don’t blame them  What’s the point of arguing with anti gunners on an obviously biased media?

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        we need to make sure that there is some kind of a counterpoint because there is so much ignorance and false information being used to promote the theft of our liberty

  • JMACZ

    Indeed they’re hacks for the Double-Obamanoids.

  • nj_v2

    Although it will be difficult—but i believe possible—the only permanent solution to this problem will be to amend the Constitution to rewrite the Second Amendment—which, in its current form is an anachronism—in a way that does not allow regressive extremists like the NRA to abuse it in a way that endangers everyone.

    • jefe68

      This will never happen.

      • nj_v2

        Perhaps not in the current climate. But if the current trends of violence continue, i think we’ll get to the point where a majority will reject the agenda of groups like the NRA enough to take the action necessary.

        • http://profile.yahoo.com/KVRA3BOCYF5IJUKIGGWFFRLIAU Dale

          Trends of violence?  Do some research.  The murder rate has reduced by half in the last 10 years.

          • nj_v2

            Yet nonfatal injuries from gun assaults have increased in the past few years.

            And states with highest gun death rates have higher percentages of gun ownership:

            http://www.spontaneoussymmetry.com/blog/archives/339

            An isolated statistic proves nothing.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            yup just like”states with highest gun death rates have higher percentages of gun ownership” proves nothing

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1056601746 Kevin Collins

      That’s just what we need.  The current crop of liberal hacks rewriting the 2nd Amendment.  I’m sure they would be content to stop there.

      • jefe68

        Just what we need. A bunch of paranoid right wing extremist telling the majority what to do.

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1056601746 Kevin Collins

          You label those who want to protect their rights as “extremist” but at the same time are in favor of rewriting the 2nd Amendment?  Who is extreme?

          • distractedriver

             Bad amendments (e.g. 18th amendment) have been amended (e.g. 21st amendment).  These amendments sound familiar to you, or is your head still in the sand?

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      lets get rid of that pesky freedom of speech too. what other rights should we get rid of? please tell me how the 2nd amendment is no longer relevent today

      • distractedriver

        If you haven’t notice, there ARE restrictions on “free speech” already.  If there can be a restriction of the first amendment, why not the second amendment?  Your rationale is irrational.

        • http://profile.yahoo.com/KVRA3BOCYF5IJUKIGGWFFRLIAU Dale

          Theer are no restrictions on the first amendment.  There are no words that are prohibited, no background checks before you can speak, no limit of 10 words, etc.

          • distractedriver

            250 U.S. 616 (1919)
            ABRAMS ET AL.
            v.
            UNITED STATES.

            No. 316.

            Supreme Court of United States.

            Argued October 21, 22, 1919.

            Decided November 10, 1919.
              Each of the first three counts charged the defendants with conspiring, when the United States
            was at war with the Imperial Government of Germany, to unlawfully
            utter, print, write and publish: In the first count, “disloyal,
            scurrilous and abusive language about the form of Government of the United States;” in the second count, language “intended to bring the form of Government of the United States
            into contempt, scorn, contumely and disrepute;” and in the third count,
            language “intended to incite, provoke and encourage resistance to the United States…”

            Come again?  You say there aren’t any restrictions on the first amendment? pwnd!

      • nj_v2

        Your invocation of the First Amendment is irrelevant.

        The Second Amendment was intended to provide for the maintenance of state militias in lieu of a national, standing army (which was prohibited at the founding). State militias were also used as part of the enforcement of slavery, which further institutionalized them.

        It’s imperfect, but the modern analogue to the militias of that time is the National Guard. If you’re a member of the Guard, then own all the weapons you want.

        The original intent was never to rationalize weapons for either personal protection, or, as the most delusional of the current extremists claim, protection against a tyrannical government.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_Y6CO5C2HE4WM2OYGCDVWGPRXXM oldman

    I’m a little confused – Obama is getting blamed for explosive gun sales and new NRA memberships. NRA wants increased gun sales and memberships. Maybe a big thank you is in order?

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1056601746 Kevin Collins

      The fear of the Federal Government banning certain firearms let to “panic buying”.  Mainly semi automatic rifles and normal capacity magazines that hold over 10 rounds.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_Y6CO5C2HE4WM2OYGCDVWGPRXXM oldman

        Per the NRA, that’s a good thing, isn’t it?

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1056601746 Kevin Collins

          That’s wasn’t your question.  I correctly explained the escalation in gun sales are a direct response to the fear of certain firearms being banned by the Obama Administration.  This happened before the NRA ever issued any press releases.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_Y6CO5C2HE4WM2OYGCDVWGPRXXM oldman

            Actually these scares followed by accelerated buying happen over and over.

        • http://profile.yahoo.com/KVRA3BOCYF5IJUKIGGWFFRLIAU Dale

          Where do you get the idea that the NRA is for more or unlimited gun ownership?  That is not true at all.  The NRA is about educatin and protecting the second amendment.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      the gun makers love oboma he is their best salesman ever

      • Vandermeer

         The President’s surname is Obama.

        • Coastghost

          –until we discuss his predilection for lethal aerial drones, at which point we can perhaps legitimately call him Obomber.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          oh, who called the grammer police?

          • Vandermeer

            you mean grammar Futo?

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            i see the spelling constable is in town too

    • HarryAnchorite

      Yes.  The NRA should send him a bowl of fruit.

  • Peter Duveen

    Yes, gun ownership will put money in the arms industry, but that is inevitable, and good. That does not mean that the driving force for gun ownership is the gun manufacturers. It’s like saying that bread makers are driving the bread market. The argument the guest is making is rather thin and one-sided, to say the least.

    • GKoenig

      Please!  The arms industry has used the NRA to lobby for legislation to shush up studies on gun use and gun violence?  That’s like bread makers taking the ingredients list and nutrition label off the wrapper and then baking anything into the bread they want.  Sorry, your metaphor doesn’t hold any better than mine.  Get real.  It’s about money, money, and more money.
      And it’s about jobs. If we crank down the hysteria, and stop making so many unneeded guns, workers in the arms industry will have to find other employment.  So let’s get going on new work for them to do!

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/KVRA3BOCYF5IJUKIGGWFFRLIAU Dale

        And it’s not about restricting the rights of over 100 million gun owners?  Manufacturers of course have an interest in preserving second amendment rights as well as the rest of us.  They are gun owners too.

    • MarcusXH

       It isn’t a thin argument when you look at it objectively.

      The NRA spreads fear of government ineptitude and doomsday scenarios in order to sell guns.  It’s quite simple, effective, and abhorrent.

      • Peter Duveen

        Many people have come to the same conclusions independently of the NRA. What you are trying to do is discredit people’s views by saying they are mere puppets of the NRA. You must be out of touch. How about your views, then? Maybe they are merely the programming of the US government and its vast propaganda network, funded in the billions of dollars by the poor American taxpayer.

        • MarcusXH

          My point is that the NRA has no solid message other than “guns will save you because the government can’t” 

          Because of this lack of transparency on their part, they should not have the disproportionate amount of influence that they do.  They’ve blocked reporting of shooting statistics at the congressional level.  Please don’t tell me in this age of free information that that makes our country safer or our rights any more secure.

          Not to mention their confusing back and forth stance over the years on how to handle tragedies like mass shootings. 

          Any institution that uses the President’s children as leverage in an argument is grasping at straws and legitimacy.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            but the president using dead kids and kids at his press conferance is not?

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/KVRA3BOCYF5IJUKIGGWFFRLIAU Dale

        Marcus, you know not of what you speak.  The NRA was very right in predicting Obama’s gun push after the election.  The NRA is against any infringement on gun rights.  We don’t lose rights in one fell swoop, we lose them little by little.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1056601746 Kevin Collins

        The government doesn’t need anyone’s help to spread the fear of ineptitude.  Obama is doing more to sell guns that the NRA ever could.

  • ToyYoda

    The LAPD recently just shot two elderly women delivering newspapers thinking that they were cop killers.  The elderly women were in an SUV that was blue, the cop killer drives a black SUV.

    Here’s a case of good guys with guns, with extensive training with guns and hostile situations, and yet they go and shoot two elderly women delivering newspapers.

    You know, I respect the Second Amendment, but some of the reasoning of the NRA is complete bonkers.

    • http://www.facebook.com/kyle.rose Kyle Rose

      Presuming that law enforcement officers are necessarily “good guys” is your first mistake. The fact that they shot at two people who were clearly not the suspect should have been your first clue.

    • jefe68

      This says more about the LAPD, the fear that the cops involved in the shooting had, and dare I say a lack of training might also be at play here.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/KVRA3BOCYF5IJUKIGGWFFRLIAU Dale

      The NRA or Second Amendment has NOTHING to do with police shootings.  I agree that many police, especially in large urban areas, are too quick to shoot.  Some of the bills in front of legislatures want the police to have access to more guns than non-police can access.

    • Rich4321

      Even in trained hands such as police officers, guns can hurt and kill innocent bypassers, image what guns can do in the hands of average, untrained civilian?

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        do we need to imagine? there should be lots and lots of stories if thats true right?

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      so by your reasoning should we have banned those cops from having ar15s?

  • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

    An ocean of guns and gun rights trumping lots of other rights. How is me exercising my right to own a gun affecting anyone’s rights? The NRA has millions of dues paying members so saying they are only supported by the manufacturers is ludacris.

    • MarcusXH

       I guess you weren’t listening to the same segment I was. 

      My take on it was that while the NRA is pulling in money from all over, the people who are making the policies and decisions for the NRA are directly tied to the gun manufacturers.

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/KVRA3BOCYF5IJUKIGGWFFRLIAU Dale

        OF COURSE you would want gun professionals on the board.  If you owned a large corporation, would you not want professioals running it?

        • MarcusXH

          Of course you want professionals, just hopefully objective professionals.  People who work only for the NRA, or people who USED to work for big gun companies.

          When you have people who are making money on a good also having a massive amount of influence on the rules dictating how those goods are regulated, sold and produced, that’s known as a conflict of interests. 

          It’s a conflict of interest because the people who are making the money can make up rules or delete rules along the way in order to make a maximum profit for themselves.

    • Vandermeer

       Hi Futo… calm down. Noone wants to take your gun away. But there needs to be safety regulations. This is not a black and white issue. It’s complicated.

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        we have many many regualtions and in the states people are in fact trying to take guns away even if that has not happened on a federal level, yet. its not that complicated if we can be honest about the debate.

  • distractedriver

    Putting regulations and rules around what firearms/ammunition can/cannot be owned is not an outright infringement or revocation on a “right.”  For example, our first amendment right isn’t unfettered.  You cannot speak hateful speech with the aim to insight violence, or falsely yell fire in a crowded gathering place.  These REASONABLE restrictions on a “right” are in place to protect the society and is for the GREATER GOOD.  The right to vote, upheld by the 15th and 19th amendments are also subject to restrictions, for the GREATER GOOD.  There is no greater good to allow unrestricted ownership of weapons designed for spraying bullets.  Sure, own a handgun for protection or a bolt-action rifle for hunting.  But no, an AR15 is not used for any greater good.

    • Vandermeer

       All rights have certain restrictions I agree. The greater good is known as “the common welfare” in our Constitution.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/KVRA3BOCYF5IJUKIGGWFFRLIAU Dale

      Who’s to decide the “greater good?” – you?  There are many reasons for owning an ar-15, target shooting, hunting, collecting.  Just because you don’t choose to own one doesn’t mean no one else should have one.  Very self-centric view.

      • jefe68

        So is yours. I know hunters in Vermont and not one of them has ever used an AR 15 for hunting.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          vermont does not have a feral pig problem does it? .223 is far too underpowered to hunt deer or bear with and its illegal to do so in most states and unethical otherwise. speaking of vermont they have almost no restrictions, not even requireing a permit to concealed carry, why dont they have a crime problem then if guns cause crime and killing?

      • distractedriver

         Reasonable people determine The Greater Good, and obviously does not include you. Per Barron’s Law dictionary,
        citing the Restatement of Torts 2d, defines a reasonable person as
        “someone who uses such qualities as attention, knowledge, intelligence
        and judgment which a society requires of its members to protect their
        own interests and the interests of others.”  You’re only out to protect the interests of a select few.

      • nj_v2

        I want a surface-to-air missile for target shooting.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          sounds like fun, why not?

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      so all the people we kill with them in other countries is not for the greater good? ( i think they are not but we seem to keep doing it) a little hippocritical.  protecting agriculture from being destroyed by feral pigs is definatly for the greater good

      • distractedriver

         You’re confusing the situation.  We’re talking about limiting guns for private citizens.  When you talking about killing people in other countries, this is usually left to the military.  Or do you know of some place in a foreign country where they offer “ultimate hunting” for tourists, i.e. hunting man for sport?  As for killing feral pigs, why would you need an AR15?

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          so killing people is fine as long as they live in another country? ok. I am a pacifist so i don’t ever think murder is right reguardless of where the person lives.
           Personally i dont think a .223 is enough for pigs i would rather a AK-47 type 7.62 rifle with a 30 rnd clip but thats what some people like to use.  According to  the DHS AR15 are “suitable for personal defense” and are very popular for self defense amoung law enforcement so they must be good for self defense right? not my first choice personally but i support a woman’s (or a man’s) right to choose what they think will work best for them

  • manganbr

    You draw the line where you draw the line! That’s what we do with laws, that what all laws are!  .. the slippery slope is not an argument it’s a logical fallacy: if that’s all you got, you got nothing. Go to school and do your homework folks.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1056601746 Kevin Collins

      The only way to make 100% background checks work is if 100% of people’s firearms are registered with the Federal Government.  Gun owners (myself included) are very uncomfortable with the government having that information.

      • WRB2

        In many states they have that when you buy a gun for a licensed dealer now.  Problem is gun show loop holes.

        I do not like it either.  But if it will stop even one shooting, I can live with that level of management.

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1056601746 Kevin Collins

          Even when you buy from a licensed dealer, the government does not keep those records.  All NICS people know is that you were approved to buy a handgun or long gun.  They serial number is on file with the FFL dealer, not the government.  They have to get a court order to get those records.  Now were are talking about 100% registration where the government is responsible for registering every firearm.  Government firearms registry has been historically disastrous.

          • WRB2

            Then why not say yes to background checks but NO to 100% registration   Make registration a state matter.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            yup they have had registration for many years in hawaii and it has not helped them solve one crime so whats the point?

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          oh will it stop one shooting?

      • manganbr

        Yes, and as the caller indicated, this discomfort is partly related to whether the government would  also have the power to then confiscate guns from anyone for arbitrary or illegitimate reasons. What I’m saying is that we live in a society with laws that draw just such fine distinctions around a whole range of issues; you cannot demonstrate that if we pass such a moderate law (one that even the NRA once supported) it would then LIKELY lead to some dystopian future. The problem with this type of reasoning is that one can always flip it around–I could say, for instance, that the lapsing of the assault weapon ban is a slippery slope to people privately owning nuclear arms or chemical weapons. It’s arguing in bad faith to say that if I support x, then I must also be in favor of y and z; y an z are never inevitable because we live in a democracy and have to legislate every step of the way. The slope is simply not slippery: if anything, any political change in this country is an uphill hike. So I’m asking you to seriously consider whether your discomfort has any foundation in a RATIONAL view of this situation. I have discomfort with private citizens owning non-hunting related weapons period; but I’m not basing my argument on vague emotions.

         

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1056601746 Kevin Collins

          “Slippery Slope” is not a fantasy.  Feinstein (and her ilk) would confiscate guns if they could get the votes.  She has said so publicly.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          let me know when the temporary income tax expires. or the tolls on the pike.

        • HarryAnchorite

          The registration of firearms has been shown to be of no effect in reducing violent crime since the criminal class is notoriously uncooperative.  

          The next step then is confiscation.   Have a look at: 
           
          A Frazer Institute Report by Gary Mauser, 
          “Guns and Crime, the Failed Experiment,” 
          Covering the experience of Australia, Canada, Britain, and Wales, with
          restricting guns and rising crime.  http://www.gunsandcrime.org/faildxprmt.pdf

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        and no one decides to make their own or smuggle on in from elsewhere

  • Vandermeer

    I wish people would get at stirred up by discussing Climate Change as gun rights!

  • Davesix6

    Don’t politicians that go against any lobbying group face a challenge for their political seat?
    It seems as though Mr. Dickenson is merely trying to present the NRA as the big bad wolf.

    • jefe68

      He did a pretty good job in my opinion.
      I’ve been wary of the NRA since the mid 80′s and they have become such an extremist organization since then that I now loath them. Wayne LaPierre sounds like an extremist who is more interested in promoting fear and paranoia than common sense. If you want to support this kind of organization that’s your business. However they keep digging a huge ditch here and it’s getting deeper with every one of Wayne LaPierre’ statements.
      He makes the NRA sound like nut jobs.

      • Davesix6

        If by extremeist organization you are referring to the NRA standing up for their members Second Amendment rights, then more power to them.

        It has been said that if the left interpreted the Second Amendment in the same way they infer rights from the other Amendments, all citizens would be required to own and bare arms.

        • jefe68

          You see you’re tying the 2nd amendment to the NRA as if they were somehow the be all and end all in this regard. However they are not and are really a minority in terms of gun owners. 

          As far as Amendments go there were changes to abolish slavery and to allow women and all minorities the right vote.
          Amendments can be changed and amended. That’s kind of the idea behind the Constitution, at least that’s how a lot of legal scholars interpret it. 

          Why should the 2nd Amendment be so sacred that it cannot be amended to deal with the 21′st century instead of the 18th when it was written?

          Of course I don’t see this ever happening however.

          • nj_v2

            [[ Of course I don't see this ever happening however. ]]

            If you think you can, or if you think you can’t, you’re right!

        • Fredlinskip

          Constitution reads that everyone has a right to keep and bear arms because of need for a disciplined militia in case we “need repel invasions” or “suppress insurrections”- at discretion of Congress.

            This would include insurrection of a bunch of nut job NRAers who rise up to defend the right to own weapons that nobody in right mind could ever need to “defend themselves”.

          Signed up for any local militias lately?

        • hennorama

          Typos as Freudian slips that make me chuckle, Part 4:

          “…all citizens would be required to own and bare arms.”

          http://rlv.zcache.com/the_right_to_bare_arms_attitude_tank_top_tshirt-p235240751172458669qn8v_400.jpg

          http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/Wife%20beater.jpg

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/KVRA3BOCYF5IJUKIGGWFFRLIAU Dale

        EXTREMIST ????  DEFENDING YOUR CONSTITTIONAL RIGHTS?

        • jefe68

          I don’t respond to people who use all caps.
          It’s online yelling.

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/KVRA3BOCYF5IJUKIGGWFFRLIAU Dale

            Grow up.

        • Rich4321

          What about the innocent men, women and children were hurt or killed by guns, what about their rights to live?

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            um, no one is killed by guns. guns just sit there unless someone picks them up and does something with them. would you rather those poeple were all pushed out of windows? are you one of these right to lifers?

          • MarcusXH

            Your sarcasm isn’t helping the discussion. 

            You know full well what he means by killed by guns.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            nope i have never heard of a case of a gun killing someone by itself or when used legally and following the simple rules of gun safety. the point is that we dont have a “gun violence” problem we have a violent people problem and gun control does not address that at all. as long as we blame the guns we are barking up the wrong tree and our misguided efforts will fail

          • Rich4321

            Oh Futo, havn’t you heard that Apple and Google are coming out with smartgun that can walk and choose its target??? :p

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            lol i have not heard that but i did see an ad for a GoPro drone that costs $700.  has the apple/google T1000 come out yet?

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            too bad you have to pay for each round on itunes

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            guns are not the problem people are. people can be violent guns are indifferent inanimant tools. when someone is stabbed to death no one rails against “knife violence” when someone is strangled no one calls for restrictions on fingers. why are guns so special?

  • Davesix6

    There are no restricitions on Free Speech, there are only restrictions on how Free Speech is used.
    You can’t yell FIRE in a crowded theater.
    Likewise it is against the law to commit murder with a gun or any other weapon.

  • jer_dna

    The answer to a bad guy with a gun is “a good guy with a gun”… until the good guy turns bad.  Look at what happened to ex LA cop Dorner.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/KVRA3BOCYF5IJUKIGGWFFRLIAU Dale

      So the answer is to take it out on the 100 million law-abiding gun owners?

      • Gordon Green

        Yes.  No one needs a gun in this day and age.  We should amend the constitution and get rid of this ridiculous practice.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          is this sarcasm or are you being serious?

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          as soon as the military and police and gangbangers and criminals get rid of theirs and we no longer have any wildlife then i will give mine up too

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      this is why we need to disarm the police, right?

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/IUI2ZHCXXGVBXQ6CBYMXCC6D3I James

    Excellent discussion that really got to core issues.   Guns, unlike toasters or TVs, last for decades; your grandfather’s shotgun probably works as well today as it did in 1955.  So the gun manufacturers need to create need — thus the new “tactical” push, where everyone needs a military-style rifle.  I have resigned from the NRA after being a member for 40 years due to the NRA leadership’s uncompromising stand against even common-sense restrictions.

    • WHW111

      The NRA won’t fight to the last First Grader surely.

      What if, a shooter fires in a crowded space. There are five other armed citizens who pull their weapons looking to defend the innocent. They will each spot 5 other people with firearms. Should/would/will they shoot? (The second person to shoot will be perceived as the original shooter and those around him/her will receive return fire.)
      Who’s the first target and if this produces counter-fire who’s next? Who’s the bad guy? Who decides (not God, he will just weep maybe ‘regretting’ giving us free will)?

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        i guess we will have to cross that bridge when we come to it. in actual reality CCW holders use their guns very carefully. for example a CCW holder did not fire his gun when the person shot gabby giffords because he did not have a clean shot

        • MarcusXH

           We are “at that bridge” right now. With atrocities such as Columbine, Virginia Tech, Newtown just to name a few it’s time that we as Americans admitted we have a problem with gun control, and looked for solutions to it. 

          Having one of the most powerful voices (the NRA) act so obstinately and share only their corrosively antiquated ideas makes the issue that much more complicated and frustrating. 

          Rather than turn their back on every single rule and law proposed, it would help if they would at least try to find some middle ground in this issue.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            we already have 25,000+ laws so forgive me for thinking that some of these idiot ideas none of which would affect the shootings they are a knee jerk reaction to are not going to work. the problem with gun control we have is thinking that it is the solution to any of these “atrocities”. which of their antiquated ideas do you find most corrosive? 

      • HarryAnchorite

        To the best of my knowledge your hypothesis has never occurred.    On the other hand, even Ann Coulter could find half a dozen examples of good Samaritans with guns stopping what might have been mass shootings.  Obviously she is rather ahead of the many of the brilliant ones opinionating here.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/KVRA3BOCYF5IJUKIGGWFFRLIAU Dale

      Common sense restrictions?  There are over 25,000 firearms laws in this country.  They haven’t stopped any misuse of a firearm any more that driving laws haven’t stopped people being killed by cars.  Common sense will tell you that no amount of laws will stop people from being killed.  There already is a law against murder.

      • nj_v2

        By your stupid “reasoning,” we should just do away with all traffic laws since they’re obviously not working.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          in germany they have removed all traffic controls in some citys and those have much fewer accidents than other cities because it frees people to use commonsense while driving

          • jefe68

            That is a load of bunk.
            If you speed you will get a ticket most likely in the mail as they use cameras, a lot.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            oh on the autobahn? have they placed a speed limit on it? must be new. i was not talking about the highway i was speaking of cities that had experimented with removing all signage and other traffic controls from the cities resulting in less accidents and traffic. why bother with a comment like that when you don’t know what you are talking about?

        • HarryAnchorite

          In a free, non fascist society, the burden is on those who would promulgate new restrictions to do a cost-benefit analysis and prove that their proposals do more good than harm.  This is the great boulder over which the gun control crowd stumbles in a heap every time.   Rather than calling someone else stupid, please give us one example of gun control that has been effective in reducing violent crime.

          • jefe68

            Australia comes to mind.

          • HarryAnchorite

            Perhaps you have not checked the Australian data recently, or have simply relied on media reports.

            In fact, in spite of their confiscatory gun control, their violent crime stats are now trending up again.  Have a look at the Frazer Institute Report by Gary Mauser, 
            “Guns and Crime, the Failed Experiment.”  
            http://www.gunsandcrime.org/faildxprmt.pdf

        • MarcusXH

           I agree with your point but you don’t have to call anyone (or their arguments) stupid – detracts from the discussion.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          are they working? i guess i did not notice that people stopped having accidents

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      actually the first AWB caused 2x as many black guns to be sold during it as in all time before it. so where is the sense in that?

  • Davesix6

    There are no restricitions on Free Speech, there are only restrictions on how Free Speech is used.
    You can’t yell FIRE in a crowded theater.

    Likewise it is against the law to commit murder with a gun or any other weapon.

  • Davesix6

    The law enforcement officer who called in made an excellent point concerning calling 911, the majority of those calls are made after a crime has been committed, and the damage is done.
     
    I also agree with his and the others accretion that the Second Amendment very much guarantees the right to self defense.
     
    No doubt the “stand your ground” laws now being passed have a lot to do with attempting to define and protect this right under the Second Amendment

    • jefe68

      Well it would seem that some studies do show that there is an increase in gun deaths due to the “stand your ground” laws. 

      http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2012/06/11/study-says-stand-your-ground-laws-increase-homicides/?mod=e2tw

    • nesselbush

      “Stand your ground” is the antithesis of law. It simply guarantees that whoever is bigger, stronger, or better armed will win. You don’t need a law for that–it is what happens when there is no law at all. It’s called the law of the jungle.

      • OnPointComments

        The impetus for “Stand Your Ground” laws is to counter “Obligation To Flee” laws which require someone to retreat if possible, regardless of where the attack takes place.  Imagine that you’re peacefully sitting in your home when you hear someone break down the door.  As you silently go and grab your pistol, the criminal comes into the room and sees you, and you shoot.  In states without a Stand Your Ground law, the burden of proof could shift to you to prove that you couldn’t have left the scene.  It is Obligation To Flee laws that are the antithesis of law and common sense, not Stand Your Ground laws.

  • MarcusXH

    I was absolutely disgusted with the NRA’s response to the calls for gun control after the murder of 26 people in Newtown.

    I had always thought that the NRA was about responsible gun control, but now their position seems to be “hoard guns and ammo to prepare for the imminent collapse of society”…pure garbage.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_Y6CO5C2HE4WM2OYGCDVWGPRXXM oldman

      The position is much simpler – it’s just “buy – many and often”.

      I’d like to see the NRA admonish buyers who don’t learn gun safety, don’t train and don’t practice. But it will never happen.

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        the NRA sends me training and safety materials all the time

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/KVRA3BOCYF5IJUKIGGWFFRLIAU Dale

      Marcus, show me your reference where they said that.  Guns are selling like crazy because of widespread panic over what laws may be passed.  The NRA has nothing to do with it.

      • MarcusXH

         http://www.nrapublications.org/index.php/15012/stand-and-fight/

      • sickofthechit

         Guns began selling like crazy as soon as we elected an African/American President.  The sales picked up at the now fevered pitch as soon as it was clear he was going to be re-elected.

        There is “widespread panic” because people who should be exercising reasoned judgement are instead allowing themselves to be whipped into various conspirational/irrational frenzies.

        The more guns we have, the further away we are from what Jesus died for our sins for.  And if you don’t believe in Jesus then the closer we are to killing each other randomly.  Imagine how many people would be shot at one of these “gunshows” if a realistic tape of repeated gunfire were played from various corners of the hall.  Wonder how smart concealed carry would look then?

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      i was disgusted by the complete lack of attention for the 900 people murdered in chicago by criminals with illegally owned guns

  • Fredlinskip

    Recently there was gun incident in Georgia where women in her house put 5 bullets in an intruder and the guy “took a licking and kept ticking” ,which has been used ad infinitum to support need for weapons capable of firing lots of bullets quick. Unfortunately no one mentioned that 1 or zero bullets would have been enough because burglar was completely surprised when he came across her and unarmed.
       Now I’m not saying she hadn’t a right in her own house to do what she did, but it seems that what mostly occurred is that she panicked, which in circumstances was her right, but is certainly not reason enough to have capability of putting 30 more bullets in guy- which she tried desperately to do.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/KVRA3BOCYF5IJUKIGGWFFRLIAU Dale

      You know Fred, it’s easy to second-guess from a safe, insulated distance.

      • Fredlinskip

        It is.
          It’s also easy to distort one isolated incident totally out of proportion to justify one’s opinion. Which IMhumbleO is what happened in this instance.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          yup 50 cent got shot 9 times and did not die. so hopefully someone weaker than him tries to invade you home if you only have 10 round magazine and he comes alone

          • Fredlinskip

            ALWAYS shoot to kill first- 
            Ask questions later.

      • Bill D

        Just use a nice simple 12 ga shotgun loaded with buckshot.  Big pattern = likely hit.  Big noise = run like heck.  Buckshot = lotsa pain for the attacker.

        No need for assault-type weapons if you are really concerned about home invasions.  Shotguns would work better.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          different strokes for different strokes . i bet many of our female veterans are comfortable with using their ARs for home defense

          • jefe68

            I’m curious, have you ever shot anyone? You seem very cavaler about it which begs me to believe you have not. If you have, then your cavaler attitude towards using this kind of last ditch defense is noted.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            i am in no way cavelier about it and i find your suggestion offensive, I pray all the time that i will never ever have to use my firearm for self defense. how many people have you shot? what does it have to do with the NRA or gun control debate?

          • Fredlinskip

            .

          • WRB2

            It should NEVER be our choice of what weapon should use, that is personal to each gun owner.  That is one of the things that FREEDOM is about.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      yup she was very lucky he did not kill her when she ran out of rounds

      • Fredlinskip

        How many Eastwood, Stallone, and Schwarznegger flicks have you watched in your life? 
        You need get out more. 
        It ain’t as bad as all that.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          i dont know how many i have watched. i do know that since i have become a gun owner those scenes are much more shocking and i note how many images of gun use you see even in commercials for those movies. I know of a number of people who have been victims of home invasion in all but one there were several attackers. the man in that case after he was shot 5 times lead the police on a high speed chase and a foot pursuit. he was hardly incapacitated and she was lucky he did not kill her and that he was not armed and that he was alone or it may have been a much different story

          • Fredlinskip

            That’s a lot of ifs. 

            I don’t believe that the man ever intended to kill anyone. He was looking for stuff to burgle and he opened a door to find to his amazement someone home. 
            I know you wish the man dead. 
            Who knows maybe that man will live to do something positive.
            IT AIN”T ALL ABOUT KILLING FOLKS.

            Is it?

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            I dont wish anyone dead. Thats absurd and offensive. If you are just an “innocent burgler” you run away as soon as you relise someone is home. if you preceed in after that then its safe to assume you mean to do the inhabitants bodily harm.  Its about defending oneself and one’s family. there are some more ifs for you. Are we talking about the guy in georgia? 

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/KVRA3BOCYF5IJUKIGGWFFRLIAU Dale

    Hey Tom, why don’t you tell everyone that, according to a study by Gary Kleck, et al, 2.5 million people are saved by a gun each year.  Don’t like that fact huh?  80% of the time the gun is not even discharged.

    • nj_v2

      http://vacps.org/public-policy/the-contradictions-of-kleck

      The Contradictions of the Kleck Study

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/KVRA3BOCYF5IJUKIGGWFFRLIAU Dale

        Kleck maintains his is the most accurate. Interesting you would refer to an obviously biased critique, but read what it said.  Kleck used police shootings and defense against animals, other studies only looked at specific types.  Kleck looked at defensive uses of firearms, period.

        • nj_v2

          http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/hemenway1.htm

          SURVEY RESEARCH AND SELF-DEFENSE GUN USE: AN EXPLANATION OF EXTREME OVERESTIMATES

          Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz conducted a survey of civilian defensive gun use in 1992. In 1993, Kleck began publicizing the estimate that civilians use guns in self-defense against offenders up to 2.5 million times each year. [1] This figure has been widely used by the National Rifle Association and by gun advocates. It is also often cited in the media [2] and even in Congress. [3] The Kleck and Gertz (K-G) paper has now been published. [4] It is clear, however, that its conclusions cannot be accepted as valid. [Page 1431]

          …Self-report surveys of rare events easily lead to huge overestimates [Page 1444] of the true incidence of such events, particularly if the event in question has some potential social desirability. Researchers who claim that such survey incidence data are accurate must show how they have eliminated the enormous problem of false positives. Kleck and Gertz do not accept, let alone meet, this burden of proof. Their survey methodology does not ensure a Specificity rate of well over 99%. Attempts to determine the external validity of their estimates only buttress the presumption of massive overestimation. The conclusion seems inescapable: the Kleck and Gertz survey results do not provide reasonable estimates about the total amount of self-defense gun use in the United States.

          • HarryAnchorite

            There have been at least a dozen surveys which support Kleck’s conclusions.  

            There is one that does not, namely the NCVS which was never designed to elicit defensive uses of guns.  The efforts by the left to tease out this data from it is unreliable.  See Kates and Kleck, The Great American Gun Debate, ch. 6, for an extensive analysis.

  • gorilla monsoon

    There is something very alarming about the fact that gun sales have increased.  We may see more meshuganahs( nut cases) trying their sharpshooting skills on innocents.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/KVRA3BOCYF5IJUKIGGWFFRLIAU Dale

      Lanza didn’t buy a gun legally.  Inevitably you find that in most crimes done with guns, if present laws were enforced, the shoother shouldn’t have been able to get a gun.

      • WRB2

        Nice try but not quite.  There are thousands of hand guns in major cities shooting people that are purchased through the loop holes.  Not illegally, but with no background check.  I lived in NYC and Chicago for over 30 years.  Nice try, go to a gun show in Indiana and come back to Chicago with a couple of Glocks for your friends.  No FOID, No check, no problem.  All perfectly legal in Indiana where you purchase the guns, but when you cross state lines to Illinois it’s illegal to own them in Chicago, but they already have them.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          so that law doesnt work but another one would?

          • WRB2

            Because it would be written differently…..?!?

            If we make it so that every purchase requires a background check, NOT registering anything more than a check mark that one is being purchased.  That tag is deleted 15 days after the purchase.  If someone has more than say three in one day then we flag that person to local police and let them decide if they want to visit or not.  Not state cops, no feds, just the local LEOs where the guns will reside.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            and will gangbangers also be required to do the check when they sell guns to each other? will smugglers or poeple who print theirs on 3d printers?

    • Peter Duveen

      People feel they have to be ready to defend themselves against a government that has implemented laws abrogating their basic constitutional rights. I personally do not own a gun.

    • WRB2

      Gun sales have dramatically increased because of the lack of transparency about all conversations and proposals.  It’s also because of the crap that the NRA has been feeding and absorbed as gospel by the more extreme supporters of the 2nd amm.  

    • WRB2

      Gun sales have dramatically increased because of the lack of transparency about all conversations and proposals.  It’s also because of the crap that the NRA has been feeding and absorbed as gospel by the more extreme supporters of the 2nd amm.  

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        i did not think it made sense to fear oboma coming after guns, after all in his first term he passed sensable gun laws removing silly restrictions on gun possesion. but lo and behold as soon as he get reelected gun control becomes his #1 priority

    • HarryAnchorite

      Indeed, President Obama has done more to promote the sales of firearms and ammunition than all the advertising of Smith and Wesson, Ruger, Bushmaster, and all the lobbying of the NRA.  In fact, this has been one of his most effective forms of economic stimulus.  

      On a more serious note, ignorant, ill-conceived legislation often produces effects directly counter to what was intended.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      yup they have sold millions of these guns in the last few months where is all the carnage they are supposed to cause? shouldent it sky rocket? why has it not?

  • gorilla monsoon

    Down with the NRA!  They are rich men who give generously to the Repuglican party.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/KVRA3BOCYF5IJUKIGGWFFRLIAU Dale

      Gorilla, contribute something intelligent or go away.

      • distractedriver

         He speaks the unblemished truth.  You’re a denier of the obvious.

      • jefe68

        I could say the same in regards to your comments. But alas I don’t because it’s a First Amendment Right, free speech. You are very selective about which Amendments you want to support.

      • gorilla monsoon

        Dale, it sounds like you do not wish any sort of gun control.  The massacres we have had to endure in USA are hideous.  However, the problem is mental illness that propels these killers.  How can we control that?

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      i am a nra member and i am not “rich” and i have never given a dime to any republican candidate or cause. way to generalise

  • Bill D

    NRA = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_Institute

    Just like Big Tobacco. In this case gun manufacturers have fooled many NRA members into thinking they are just quietly in the background. Baloney.

    Same song, just a different verse, except in this case the NRA can wave the 2nd Amendment and scare gun owners into thinking “the Gov’t’s gonna take all my guns.” What a lot of poppycock.

    BTW, I do own several guns.

    • HarryAnchorite

      The “Tobacco Institute thinking” is found on the gun control side.  They are the ones that ignore all research, and logic, and continue to harp on regulations that have been proven ineffective time after time.   Do a little reading.

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        what would you suggest?

        • HarryAnchorite

          For reading material on gun control, its effectiveness, etc., Prof. Gary Kleck, Point Blank:  Gun Violence in America, is basic.  Kleck is a liberal Democrat and he believes in the efficacy of gun control.  He has done the basic research on gun control, area by area, looking for something that works; so far he has found nothing.  He has also done the research that indicates some hundreds of thousands of defensive gun uses per year.  

          More accessible is Kates and Kleck, The Great American Gun Debate.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      right now we are just concerned for some of our guns they will wait till later for the rest if that dosent stop the “gun violence ” right?

  • http://www.facebook.com/gordon.swan3 Gordon Swan

    The NRA’s adulterated interpretation of freedom prompts permission for many, such as Christopher Domer, the L.A. fired police officer, to kill people for whatever reason is haphazardly and pervertedly decided. That is imprisonment in mayhem. Oh, if we could realize, only when we love others as we are freely loved by our creator, are we free!

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      our creator gave us the right to own firearms

      • Fredlinskip

        Adam had an AK.
        Eve settled for a multi-round hand gun- too bad it jammed talking to that dang snake.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          yup too bad adam did not ban rocks just think how he could have avoided tragedy

  • Rich4321

    In this debate, I heard all kinds of absurd “reasons” and “justifications” to own gun.
    Among them, are:
    1. If the jews had guns, they could have saved themselves from the Holocaust – The Nazi would have loved it. The SS could shoot the Jews on the spot in the name of self-defend, perfect justification. 
    2. The Armenians could have saved themselves from the Genocide- the Turks would have loved it too, for the same reason.
    3. The minutemen took up arms to fight against King George.
    Ok, I go with these “logics”, I guess President Obama and the liberals are orchestrating some kind of Holocaust or Genocide against the U.S. citizens? Take note Secret Service, these people are taking up arms to fight against King Obama!
    4. Owning guns can protect them from the bad guys. Well, I have news for them, the bad guys have much more real life practice in gun handling, if they think they can out-gun the bad guys, think again.  
    Gees, what kind of delusional universe do NRA and the gun advocates live in?

    • HarryAnchorite

      As for items 1, 2, and 3  right, the Federal govt. would never act against US citizens.   Exercise some care when explaining this to Japanese Americans, especially those who spent WWII in the camps.

      As for 4:  Check Prof. Gary Kleck, Point Blank: Gun Violence in America, the definitive research on gun control.  Firearms are used to defend life and property some hundreds of thousands of times a year, much more often than to maim or kill.  This helps explain why jurisdictions with little gun control generally have lower rates of violent crime than those with stringent gun control.

      It is a pity you have nothing to bring to the discussion but an emotional rant.

      • rich4321

        “Exercise some care when explaining this to Japanese Americans, especially those who spent WWII in the camps.”
        Wake up!! this is is 2013, not 1942! 
        What would you say if the Japanese took up arms to resist? 

        • HarryAnchorite

          Thank you I am quite wide awake.    And I can see that a little irony is lost on you when you are having a hissy fit.  No, I would not have advised Japanese Americans to take up arms.

          But what if there is some kind of general breakdown in social order. We all hope this does not happen, just as we hope that we won’t have a fire, but the sensible among us do buy fire insurance.  Do we turn to you for protection?  You would be completely useless.  No, you instead would have to turn to one of LaPierre’s good guys with guns.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            i like to think of it as a seatbelt or a fire extinguisher when it comes to self defense. a safty device that when used properly and with some luck can save your life in a dire situation

  • twenty_niner

    Bottom line, Americans are voting with their wallets – buying guns and ammo at an accelerating rate as well as donating to the NRA. Looking at the violent-crime statistics, the bloodbath predicted by the left has yet to materialize.

    • jefe68

      This only points to the paranoid tendencies of people that are believing the scar mongering perpetrated by the NRA and other right wing pundits, such as Rush Limbaugh. 

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/KVRA3BOCYF5IJUKIGGWFFRLIAU Dale

        The NRA was right.  They said Obama would push his anti-gun agenda after the election.

        • Fredlinskip

          That is not correct. NO  ONE is pushing an anti-gun agenda except a couple on extreme fringe. 
          No one’s coming for your guns.

          • WRB2

            I can see both sides.  Problem is that there is no transparency on either side of the argument.  If Obama wants to make this happen he need to bring all sides up to Camp David to shoot skeet over a week or so.

          • Fredlinskip

            Good point- there really isn’t much of a focused message out there and without one  I don’t think common sense legislation is going to occur.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            yeah its a conicidence all the “guests” at the state of the union who are “victims of gun violence”

        • jefe68

          From reading this comment I get the feeling that you ascribe to conspiracy theories about gun laws and the federal government. Have you ever heard of James Yeager. Well he found out that owning a gun while being a right also has some responsibilities. 

          I think being less paranoid is healthier.
          http://www.tennessean.com/article/20130112/NEWS21/301120020/West-TN-man-loses-gun-carry-permit-after-video

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            yup that perfectly illustrates how current laws can be used to keep unstable people from legally carrying firearms

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Pocono-Shooting-Range/100001567268553 Pocono Shooting Range

      Very true that we vote with our wallets. The left has nothing to offer except “feel good” laws.

  • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

    if the NRA does fail, we will be fighting tooth and nail

    • Fredlinskip

      NRA- our last great defenders of the “freedoms” of all those who feel they need to be able to kill dozens of people in seconds.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Pocono-Shooting-Range/100001567268553 Pocono Shooting Range

        If the NRA fail… then it will likely come to civil war. Imagine the collateral damage then…

        Liberty is worth the risk of death.

        • Fredlinskip

          R U one of those “mentally ill” folks about to go on shooting rampage against alleged “tyranny”? If so Constitution will not help you in court of law.
          Seek help soon.

        • jimino

          Just who do you envision will be on the respective sides of the civil war you foresee?  What will they be fighting over?

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        oh? when did they start defending tim mcveigh? when have hundreds of people died in any shooting incident in america? are you saying an AR15 can do that?

        • Fredlinskip

          you’re right- I edited.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            well now you have lowered the bar. should we ignore the mass murderers who have killed hundreds to focus on those who have killed dozens? if we do so will it make people more or less likely to turn to truck bombs?

  • twenty_niner

    Also,

    The myth that crimes aren’t thwarted by gun owners has been completely dispelled:

    From a recent Forbes article referencing Newsweek:


    On the other hand, Newsweek has reported that law-abiding American citizens using guns in self-defense during 2003 shot and killed two and one-half times as many criminals as police did, and with fewer than one-fifth as many incidents as police where an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal (2% versus 11%).

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/02/21/disarming-the-myths-promoted-by-the-gun-control-lobby/2/

  • http://www.facebook.com/veronica.famira Veronica Eady Famira

    I was a prominent New York lawyer until I became a victim in a random shooting. I was not physically injured, but I watched as one person was killed and five people were injured, among them a woman whom I watched as she was shot repeatedly, her body ricocheting with each shot. I now have PTSD, and I’m unfit to work. I choose to live abroad in Germany, because I am terrified of gun violence in the USA. Each time a random shooting happens in the US, I am devastated and launched back into my own trauma. I’m glad that this conversation is happening. I wish it had happened sooner.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/KVRA3BOCYF5IJUKIGGWFFRLIAU Dale

      I hope you get treatment.

      • http://www.facebook.com/veronica.famira Veronica Eady Famira

        Thanks Dale. I have.

    • hennorama

      Veronica – TY for sharing your story.  I’m sorry that you’ve been so severely impacted.  Do you know what happened to the shooter?

      Your fears “of gun violence in the USA” are well-founded.  Since the Newtown Massacre, there have been at least 1,774 US deaths that involved a firearm.

      That’s an average of more than 30 firearms-related deaths per day, and the total is now almost 60% of the 2,996 September 11, 2011 deaths from terrorist attacks.

      Source:http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/12/gun_death_tally_every_american_gun_death_since_newtown_sandy_hook_shooting.html

      • Coastghost

        But if the 1774 deaths in c. two months follow annual trends closely, at least half of those deaths were suicides. (Murder-suicides with firearms do occur, but apparently with less frequency than either suicides or homicides occurring separately.) 

        • hennorama

          Coastghost – indeed. No doubt among the minimum 1,774 firearms-related deaths since the Dec. 14, 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School Massacre are some suicides, homicides, and accidental deaths.

          What’s your point?

          • Coastghost

            You cited “well-founded . . . fears of gun violence in the USA” just prior to invoking the 1,774 figure. This linkage overstates the case you purport to make, since if roughly half of this total has committed suicide by firearm (which is how annual firearm death totals add up, last I looked), the “well-founded” threat you imply is no more than half as large: most suicides seem not to occur in public and seem to pose no direct threats to co-habitants, neighbors, or the general public. The firearm-homicide rate is significant but not as large as you implied.

          • hennorama

            Coastghost – I see. You seem to want to distinguish suicide by means of a firearms as somehow non-violent. Or to lessen the impact of at least 1,774 firearms-related deaths, whether they were accidents, homicides or suicides.

            Or perhaps you simply wish to diminish the power of a firsthand account of a witness who “watched as one person was killed and five people were injured, among them a woman whom I watched as she was shot repeatedly, her body ricocheting with each shot.”

            All deaths by firearms are violent deaths, whether they are homicides, suicides or accidents. To claim otherwise is absurd.

          • Coastghost

            You’ve been dishonest in your representations already, so please don’t attempt to mischaracterize my views, thank you.
            Your misconstrual is not as innocent as you claim: Nothing in my argument suggests that suicide by firearm is “non-violent”. What I said is that most suicides by firearm pose no direct danger to anyone other than the suicide. I was not addressing Ms. Famira, I was addressing YOU, since I much doubt I have anything to say that would console her. (BTW: when I was 14 yrs. old, up close and personal I saw a man who’d been hit by a train: I won’t bore you with the gory details. I don’t need YOU to tell me what violence and tragedy consists of, though, thank you.)  

          • hennorama

            Coastghost – please point out where I said anything about “threats.” I said that Veronica Eady Famira’s FEARS “of gun violence in the USA” (her words, notably) are well-founded.

            Dishonest representations, mischaracterizations, and misconstruals indeed.

            VERY well done.

          • Coastghost

            You used the 1,774 figure to provide statistical “proof” of Ms. Famira’s level of perceived fear. That figure, tho, does not reflect the actual threat level, since over half of US deaths by firearm (in recent years, at least) consist solely of suicides, who pose no direct threat of violence to any but themselves. Had you cited a figure of almost half (say 900) your argument would have been proportionate to your “evidence”. You tried to take advantage of a higher figure that is not at all applicable to the argument you tried to make. Better luck next time. 

          • hennorama

            Coastghost – I guess I’ve missed where you pointed out my referring to “threats.” Care to try again?

            Also, do you believe it is impossible for one to fear firearms-related suicides, accidental deaths, homicides, or any other form, to quote Ms. Eady Famira again “of gun violence in the USA,” regardless of whether such activities pose any direct risk to one’s personal safety?

            To be clear, the preceding are rhetorical questions.

          • hennorama

            Coastghost – I also find your comments to be ironic, coming from someone who in the past has typed “(I vastly prefer corporal quotation to spiritual quotation, the semantic quanta are not as volatile.) ”

            see:http://onpoint.wbur.org/2013/02/01/week-in-the-news-230#comment-787426067

            You not only quoted my remarks out of sequence, you also failed to acknowledge that the words you cite as part of my post were themselves quoting another poster.

            Well done.

          • Coastghost

            I can hardly apologize for your being a naive literalist. Yet again: I was not responding to Ms. Famira, I was responding to YOUR posted response to Ms. Famira: I am under no obligation to make a direct attribution that YOU yourself failed to make (the quotation marks alone that YOU used don’t specify the source all by themselves).

          • hennorama

            Coastghost – hilariously deflective and unsurprising. Now your contention is that it was somehow impossible to discern from the following that I was not only directing my remarks to Veronica Eady Famira, I was also quoting her. This is the entirety of my post:

            “Veronica – TY for sharing your story. I’m sorry that you’ve been so severely impacted. Do you know what happened to the shooter?

            Your fears “of gun violence in the USA” are well-founded. Since the Newtown Massacre, there have been at least 1,774 US deaths that involved a firearm.

            That’s an average of more than 30 firearms-related deaths per day, and the total is now almost 60% of the 2,996 September 11, 2011 deaths from terrorist attacks.

            Source:http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/12/gun_death_tally_every_american_gun_death_since_newtown_sandy_hook_shooting.html

            Please note the use of Ms. Eady Famira’s first name, as well as the use of the words ‘Your fears’ followed directly of my use of her words.

            Nice try at justifiying your own contradictory actions. An utter failure, but a nice try nonetheless.

          • Coastghost

            I addressed your dishonest argument, the one appearing in your second paragraph. Not your grandmotherly, school-marmish consolation, not your vain curiosity concerning the shooter’s fate, not your juggling of percentages. If you are so dense you cannot determine which part of your post I am responding to, if you are in fact so obtuse,  or if you’re simply trying to be clever or cute, or if you are such a dedicated naive literalist, sleep tonight and wake tomorrow knowing that I can’t help you overcome these afflictions.

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        what other ways have people died? what % of overall deaths is that? how many of those guns were obtained leagally?

        • hennorama

          FutoBuddy – you can do your own homework. JAQing is not an effective argument. Let me know if you have an actual point.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            whats JAQing? the point is the statistic is meaningless out of context. was that hard to figure out?

          • hennorama

            Futo Buddy – Do you know what a search engine is? Have you used one before? Are you incapable of using one or are you just too lazy? Are you too busy posting to do your own research?

            That’s JAQing – Just Asking Questions. The more common and less polite phrasing includes another word – the opposite of “on” – but I chose to use a modicum of decorum in the forum.

            Still, please do your own homework/research. If you care to present a contextual argument using the answers to your questions, please feel free to do so.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            sorry i am not hip to your jargon thanks for providing an Example of JAQing

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Pocono-Shooting-Range/100001567268553 Pocono Shooting Range

      Liberty is worth the risk of DEATH. 

      • JGC

        You know, all that time spent cutting and pasting the same “Liberty is worth the risk of Death Blah Blah Blah” all over your many internet forums,  means less time for you to practice protecting our freedoms out on the shooting range. 

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          hey if his guns get banned he will have more time than he does now

    • WRB2

      Sorry to hear you had to head over to the EU.  There are many wonderful parts of the US that do not have the same level of gun violence as you find in NY, Chicago, LA.  

      While I am very happy we are continuing to talk about this I am not convinced we will end with any meaningful and material changes in the short term.  Nor to I think we have the stamina for a long battle without real leadership from the White House.  

      I can see a middle ground that IMHO works well for both sides but I am only one person.

      When we travel over in the EU we (wife and two kids) see LOTS of automatic weapons in major travel hubs which in the past got our kids concerned (they were 5 and 7 at the time).  Now not so much but I sadly think guns are everywhere in the world.

      Be safe, have fun and good luck.

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        Sorry to hear you had to head over to the EU. There are many wonderful parts of the US that do not have the same level of gun violence as you find in NY, Chicago, LA.  yeah places with out gun control are much safer

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      too bad there were no lawful gun owners at the scene. 2 of the 4 worst school shootings took place in Germany. better move to the south pole to be safe

      • JGC

        I hear your neighbors feel pretty safe.  Maybe we should all move in next door to you.  Howdy, neighbor!

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          we would feel safer if there was not a police chief who abuses his power to deny them pistol liscenses illegally

  • adamazing

    I get so tired of people quoting gun violence statistics in the US with no mention of VIOLENT CRIME statistics in other highly developed countries, such as the UK, where violent crime actually happens at a much higher rate.

    Your guest talks about manufacturing the need for guns within the population and then turns around and manufactures fear himself by being purposefully misleading with quotes about gun violence in Japan.

    Let’s not be purposefully obtuse and examine the entire problem.

    You think a rifle is the problem? I’m personally thankful this disturbed individual didn’t wipe out an entire GENERATION with gasoline and fertilizer.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1153402275 Jerome Griffin

      Please site your UK violent crime statistics or should I just trust you?

    • jefe68

      I can post links that show that our gun violence is pretty high. About 30,000 a year and climbing.

      I use to live in Scotland and I was shocked at how violent the streets became on the weekends, but this was due to drink, period.
      http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-19/american-gun-deaths-to-exceed-traffic-fatalities-by-2015.html

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        2/3 are suicides people who want to kill themselves can do fine with out a gun they can use a bridge or a rope.
        of the 9000 (this number has been dropping by the way since the end of the AWB not that i believe that has anything to do with it) or so who are murdered with guns how many are gang related? how many are domestic violence? do you believe that guns actually cause people to want to kill people or are the exclusive means to do so? alcohol is a huge problem but i think you know what happened when we tried to ban that

  • Carolinabound

    The proliferation of gun ownership because we must protect ourselves from the bad guys with guns is reminiscent of the arms race during the cold war.  Where does it stop?

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      its been going on since the dawn of time and will never stop

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/KVRA3BOCYF5IJUKIGGWFFRLIAU Dale

    I am very disappointed in NPR.  They try to present themselves as unbiased then they air trash like this.  NPR is so clearly biased that I, and others, may stop supporting them.

    • jefe68

      OK go ahead that’s your choice.
      By the way you are aware that the NRA declined to be on todays show.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Pocono-Shooting-Range/100001567268553 Pocono Shooting Range

      In the past I was not so sure of the NRA because they compromised too many of our rights away. I more favored the “NO Compromise GOA”. I am now very happy with the NRA and its new Non-compromising position. I have signed up my whole family as members. 

      I can assure you that more people have joined the NRA now that it has taken a more firm non-compromising stance then have left the NRA.

      I will not give up my AR-15, AK-47 and Hi-Cap magazines. The purpose of the Second Amendment is to protect against future tyranny. We need the tools to do this.

      • jefe68

        Supreme Court Interpretation of the 2nd Amendment:In the majority opinion authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court first conducted a textual analysis of the operative clause, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The Court found that this language guarantees an individual right to possess and carry weapons. The Court examined historical evidence that it found consistent with its textual analysis. The Court then considered the Second Amendment’s prefatory clause, “[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” and determined that while this clause announces a purpose for recognizing an individual right to keep and bear arms, it does not limit the operative clause. The Court found that analogous contemporaneous provisions in state constitutions, the Second Amendment’s drafting history, and post-ratification interpretations were consistent with its interpretation of the amendment. The Court asserted that its prior precedent was not inconsistent with its interpretation.
        The Court stated that the right to keep and bear arms is subject to regulation, such as concealed weapons prohibitions, limits on the rights of felons and the mentally ill, laws forbidding the carrying of weapons in certain locations, laws imposing conditions on commercial sales, and prohibitions on the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. It stated that this was not an exhaustive list of the regulatory measures that would be presumptively permissible under the Second Amendment.

        This would apply to you sir, and your AR-15, AK-47 and Hi-Cap magazines. You don’t get to decide this. Why? Because you’re not above the law. 
        That you seem to own a shooting range adds to the disturbing nature of your comments.

    • http://twitter.com/samyg SamyG

      I think that the host of a show might have some personal views about an issue. But what matters is whether (s)he is able to present the show in an unbiased manner. And if you remember, to keep the show unbiased, Tom mentioned that he had asked NRA to join the talk and they never got back to him.

    • jimino

      The NRA is too cowardly to appear in a venue in which they will be engaged in actual debate.  Cowards with lots of guns is a bad combination.

  • philoshop

    The guest’s article and his comments were directed more at  the issue of lobbying in Washington than at the nra. I’m armed and will remain that way.
    Direct the discussion towards the politicians, insurance companies, gas and oil companies, and the banksters, and it’d be a different argument. And a different radio show.

  • Beyond_The_Political_Spectrum

    Ordinarily, I believe in an American’s right to arm and defend themselves, but not to the point where people feel they have to justify possessing an arsenal against perceived “threats” (such as a “tyrannical government”).  If the government wanted to take our guns, 50 caliber military-style rifles/assault weapons won’t be much good against a cruise missile, an armed predator drone, or a tank! Some of these people’s reasonings are beyond insanity! And billing itself as a “civil rights organization…?”  Priceless! Appropriating that term to justify extreme views doesn’t make it a reality.  Gun-ownership should be based on means-testing.

    Gun Control…No! Responsible Gun Control…Yes!
    Guns…Let’s Use Some Common Sense!

    • jefe68

      Let alone a highly trained Ranger unit.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Pocono-Shooting-Range/100001567268553 Pocono Shooting Range

        If it comes to civil war to defend the Constitution… What makes you think that the military would not split and take side… like they normally do in all other civil wars.

        • jefe68

          One would hope it never does come to that. It would be horrific for our nation and the world at large.

          Yeah, that worked out well for the Confederate States in the 1860′s.

          Are those vintage Soviet weapons on your FB page?

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        are you suggesting that posse comitatus would be suspended?

    • hennorama

      Beyond_The_Political_Spectrum – don’t forget that according to the ATF, there are over 2 million (2,064,091) registered “Destructive Devices” (AKA  bombs, grenades, grenade launchers, rockets, missiles and artillery), as well as nearly a half million machine guns (488,065) registered under the National Firearms Act.  All legally owned.

      Regardless, logic is irrelevant to the beliefs and attitudes you describe.

      See:http://www.atf.gov/publications/firearms/050412-firearms-commerce-in-the-us-annual-statistical-update-2012.pdf  (pages 15 and 16)

      • WRB2

        Sadly true.  Would could ban 50 Cal period and say any magazines over 30 for rifles, 20 for pistols, ban them.

        Now we have to add each needs to receive a healthy income tax credit good for any time in the next say three years.  When I say healthy I say about 125% of purchase price.

        BTW, I’d like to do the same with all AK actions be it rifle or shotgun.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          what crimes have been committed with .50?

          • WRB2

            We are not allowed to know as all data on these things are kept under lock and key thanks to sneaky additions by some NRA funded congressmen made to bills that passed.

            It does not matter if a crime has been committed, why not avoid a problem or two if we can.  Frankly 50 cal  is IMHO in the same class of weapons as RPGs.  Actually my preference is not to ban any weapon at all.  I want to manage ownership through taxing and training requirements.  Tax at the federal level and training at the state level.  There might be some taxing or at least sharing of federal taxes with the states.  

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            well good news guns are already taxed and rounds of .50 cost over $5 each and the guns are also many thousands of dollars. the fact is a .50 has never been used in a crime shows that there is no problem to be avoided. they really are not good for crimes or suicide because they are huge and heavy and can only be fired accuratly from a prone position. its not at all like an rpg although i am not for banning those either. why worry about a problem that has not happened because it may happen when we have real problems to deal with? its a red herring. i am not against training for firearms ownership we have that in mass already. were you suggesting special training for .50 cal owners?

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      tell me more about .50 cal. you seem really knowledgable. how many crimes have been comitted with them? how much do they cost? how much do they weigh?
      “Gun-ownership should be based on means-testing.”
      Thanks for admitting the elitism of gun control.

      • Beyond_The_Political_Spectrum

        “Elitism” – Euphemism for “I can’t think rationally or logically, so I adhere to ideological dogma and bumper-sticker doctrines.”

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          so making things only available to elites is not elitism? the poster suggested means testing for fireams. what bumper sticker is that? (in mass i dont see to many anti gun control stickers)

          • jefe68

            Your the very person I would not want to see owning a .50 cal sniper rifle. 

            I’ll post this again so you can get it.

            The Court stated that the right to keep and bear arms is subject to regulation, such as concealed weapons prohibitions, limits on the rights of felons and the mentally ill, laws forbidding the carrying of weapons in certain locations, laws imposing conditions on commercial sales, and prohibitions on the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. It stated that this was not an exhaustive list of the regulatory measures that would be presumptively permissible under the Second Amendment.

          • Beyond_The_Political_Spectrum

            Exactly. These people hide behind the behind the 2 Amendment, but the 3rd Amendment “prevents the government from quartering soldiers in civilian’s homes during peace time without the consent of the civilian.” They were written at a time during the specter of an ACTUAL threat to American liberty (England). The point is that the 2nd Amendment can be just as out of date as the 3rd…subject to the flexibility of the times! These die-harders just cant seem to understand context!

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            why do you think we don’t have much of a problem with quartering soldiers?(in fact the 3rd amendment has been used succesfully to prevent the quartering of soldiers) we dont have to worry about it because we have the third amendment. There are still  plenty of threats to liberty as evidenced by the billions of people who live under tyranny and oppression worldwide. Our rights are not anacronistic at all if anything they are more relevent than ever. personally i would like to see the third used to disband our standing army which is a huge threat to our liberty for reasons the founders expounded on and we have seen happen as a result of our standing army. Its as bad as forcing me to feed or house them in my house forcing me to pay for them to be feed and quartered during peacetime so perhaps the 3rd has not yet had its day.

          • Beyond_The_Political_Spectrum

            “the 3rd amendment has been used succesfully to prevent the quartering of soldiers”  Really?  I’d like to know when

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            its facinating you should look it up

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            did i say its unconstitutional to  restrict .50 cal? i did not, nor did i mention that when you posted it before. thanks for being irrelevent. my point was that it is stupid and pointless to because they have never been used in a crime and are not well suited to being used in  a crime and thus worrying about them at all is stupid and irrational. seems like you missed the point again 

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_VAT4LG2IHFNM4CCUA3TEDKABGQ OldQuote

       How many Arab Spring dictators using USA high powered weapons are still in place against an unarmed populace?
      Syria, and he is backed by Russia.

      • Beyond_The_Political_Spectrum

        Syria is not America. An inaccurate comparison at best

    • observer69

       I laugh when I see the statement about 50 cal military style weapon won’t do much good against a cruise missile.  They are usually written by people who know nothing about weapons or tactics.  I’ve been in Afghanistan and you respect a guy a with a small arm.  I am not saying I want US to be like Afghanistan but it goes to show that an armed citizenry is a formidable force against high tech weapons and cruise missiles.  I love Ben Franklin: They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. 

      • Beyond_The_Political_Spectrum

        True. I havent been in the military in almost 30 years. However, I DO know that given our country’s military resources, if they actually wanted to disarm Americans, nothing a citizen has could actually stop them from taking them.  Small arms dont do any good when you dont even see it coming.  Just ask those well-armed terrorists who didint see (or hear) those drones…  ;)

    • Thinkfreeer

      Massachusetts passed a strict gun control law in 1998. All purchases of any kind of gun or ammunition are regulated. All gun owners get a background check every five years. They also submit to the National Instant Check System for each gun purchase, which is a different background check. This is far more restrictive that the proposals we are seeing at the federal level. What more could you possibly want? The effect has been to decrease the number of gun owners in Massachusetts from 1.5 million to 240 thousand, a decrease of 84%. It has not been effective, either. Over the same period, homicides by gun in Massachusetts have increased by 68%. Do you think the legal gun owners are doing this murdering?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Pocono-Shooting-Range/100001567268553 Pocono Shooting Range

    The purpose of the Second Amendment is to arm people in order to prevent future tyranny. They need the tools to do this. 

    The term “Well Regulated” in the Second Amendment meant “Well Manned and Equipped ” in 1791 as was determined in the 1939 United States v. Miller case after referencing the autobiography of Benjamin Franklin. The concept of Government Regulation, as we understand it today, did not exist at the time. 

    United States v. Miller also determined that the term “Arms” refers to “Ordinary Military Weapons” (not crew operated). American Citizens have the right to Keep and Bear, which means Own and Carry, any weapons that a soldier carries into battle. That includes past, present and future weapons. A Militia consisted of armed volunteers willing to fight with their personal arms and not under government control.

    The 2008 Heller v. Washington DC decision reaffirmed that the Right to Bear Arms was an Individual right. The 2010 McDonald v. Chicago decision reaffirmed it yet again and made it clear that it applies to every state, every city and every town in the United States.

    To limit the Second Amendment to muskets would be the equivalent of limiting the First Amendment to the 18th century Printing Press. 

    Liberty is worth the risk of death!

    • Mike_Card

      And your reference is…?

    • Fredlinskip

      The court rulings are what they are, but where does it say anywhere or in any ruling “The purpose of the Second Amendment is to arm people in order to prevent future tyranny.” This is a totally subjective interpretation of words that are not in constitution or B of R. Now there may be plenty of nut jobs that choose to believe the words are there and therefore reinforce your nut job opinion- but the WORDS AREN’T THERE.

      Here’s some words that ARE THERE:
      Constitution- “Congress is granted the power to use U.S. militia for three specific missions: .. to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions.”
      2nd Amend: “A well regulated (well-trained) Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State (country), the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” 
      Put the 2 together please- it’s not rocket science.
      Suppress invasions, repel insurrections, execute our laws- at he will of congress is a Far cry from “arm people in order to prevent tyranny”.  READ THE WORDS- DON”T MAKE STUFF UP!
      American Revolution ended a long time ago. Wake up!

      We don’t need people walking around with guns capable of killing dozens of folks in seconds.

      • TomK_in_Boston

        It’s clear that the “free state” is the GOVERNMENT. The citizens have a right to arms insofar as that is needed by the GOVERNMENT. It’s wingnut thinking to fantasize that the Constitution is building in a right to overthrow the government.

        When the arms are not related to serving in the WELL-REGULATED militia, the 2′nd is irrelevant. I think there is a right to have hunting rifles etc from tradition and common sense, but the 2′nd has nothing to do with it.

        • twenty_niner

          The founding fathers had just overthrown a tyrannical government and history shows more governments than not being corrupt and tyrannical. The 20th century witnessed 100s of millions dead at the hands of their own governments dictated by the likes of Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao, Pol pot, Idi Amin, and many others. And history, somehow, has a nagging way of repeating itself. 

          My advice: Go out and get a nice military-style weapon, and then join your local NRA-approved shooting club to learn the real meaning of gun control – rounds in the little X.

          • jefe68

            So you think that being armed would have stopped Hitler and the Third Reich? You know what gets me about this argument that pro gun advocates are so found of using, is that they leave out that that small detail that when the Wehrmacht crossed over the border of Poland in 39 they were met by an pretty well armed opposing military force that lost. They were no match for the German military and their new form of attack, Blitzkrieg.
            The same thing happened in France in 1940. Of course people did form up resistance movements, but that’s not my point. It’s that the argument that an armed populace could have stopped Hitler once he was in power is absurd. 

            Your argument is a red herring, in fact it defines the meaning of the saying.

          • twenty_niner

            An armed populace overthrew King George III, who had the most powerful military in the world.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          well tom then those guys who wrote the thing were wingnuts.
          Thomas Jefferson – “Occasionally the tree of Liberty must be watered with the blood of Patriots and Tyrants.”

          • jefe68

            The Supreme Court disagrees with you on the issue of regulating gun ownership.

            Supreme Court Interpretation:
            In the majority opinion authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court first conducted a textual analysis of the operative clause, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The Court found that this language guarantees an individual right to possess and carry weapons. The Court examined historical evidence that it found consistent with its textual analysis. The Court then considered the Second Amendment’s prefatory clause, “[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” and determined that while this clause announces a purpose for recognizing an individual right to keep and bear arms, it does not limit the operative clause. The Court found that analogous contemporaneous provisions in state constitutions, the Second Amendment’s drafting history, and post-ratification interpretations were consistent with its interpretation of the amendment. The Court asserted that its prior precedent was not inconsistent with its interpretation.

            The Court stated that the right to keep and bear arms is subject to regulation, such as concealed weapons prohibitions, limits on the rights of felons and the mentally ill, laws forbidding the carrying of weapons in certain locations, laws imposing conditions on commercial sales, and prohibitions on the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. It stated that this was not an exhaustive list of the regulatory measures that would be presumptively permissible under the Second Amendment.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            did anyone make that claim that the supream court recongnised an unlimited right?

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        congress is granted the power for those three reasons all powers not granted to congress are retained by the states and people respectively the statements are not to limit the power of the people but to define and limit the scope of the power of the government.  no gun is capable of killing anyone by itself and no law will eliminate the possiblity that someone will commit a mass murder. notice the words “free state” in the constitution also they are not there by accident

      • HarryAnchorite

        Please check the articles by Levinson and Root cited above.  Your reading needs to go beyond Washington Post editorials.

        • Fredlinskip

          Actually my reading is of the Constitution and BofR- these are the relevant documents.
          “Please check articles by..” Must I??
          The 1st one is a mile long and full of language only a Yale lawyer whose only purpose was to obfuscate issue could enjoy.
          The 2nd one is almost as bad and reflects author’s OPINION of what’s to come. His opinion SEEMS to be that monied interests are hard at work trying reinterpret constitution and B of R for their benefit. Well Hell they might just get away with it, but it really SHOULDN’T require a pack of geniuses to interpret a couple of lines!

          “Because we need a militia to protect our infant nation, y’all get to keep and bear your guns, just have ‘em ready when Congress calls on you” is essence of our Constitution. 

          How else can you reconcile these 2 sentences?:

          Constitution- “Congress is granted the power to use U.S. militia for three specific missions: .. to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions.”2nd Amend: “A well regulated (well-trained) Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State (country), the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” 

          • HarryAnchorite

            Well, you seem to be having difficulty with the 2nd Amendment. These are some articles which help explain it.  

            To simplify:  The 18th century understanding of a militia was essentially the whole free white male population, which could be called up as an armed force in time of need.  And each of these individuals was obligated to provide his own arms.

            The Founding Fathers, especially the Anti-Federalists at whose behest the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution, were particularly leery of a standing army – much better to have an armed citizenry available to act as a militia, as at Lexington and Concord. Like it or not, this was their context and meaning.  

            The 2nd Amendment gets complicated only when you try somehow to separate the militia from the armed citizenry; this is what ties the left up in knots.

          • Fredlinskip

            Strangely enough I agree with MOST of your assertions. 
            My comment began in response to Pocono who claimed “The purpose of the Second Amendment is to arm people in order to prevent future tyranny.” That’s the part I don’t believe is supported by these documents. Matter of fact such a belief is downright dangerous. Why does it say in Constitution: “militia (has) three specific missions: .. to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions.”  Whats more why does it say “Congress is granted permission to use this militia”. How can that be possibly construed to mean “the reason for right to bear and keep arms is to Defend oneself against one’s own government”. FF’s did not grant the right to be a traitor. No where is it so written.
               Just before Constitutional Convention occurred Shay’s Rebellion occurred. This was essentially a rebellion against tyrannical government and taxation and went on for almost a year. A militia was raised to put it down- just as is the written intent of our Constitution.

          • HarryAnchorite

            The right to self defense, “a man’s home is his castle,” and the right to the tools to do it with, go back to English Common Law, which is a collection of law and custom that underlies US law and was the familiar basis for legal thinking in colonial America.  Have a look at Joyce Lee Malcolm  -  The Right of the People to Keep and Bear
            Arms: The Common Law Tradition http://www.guncite.com/journals/maltrad.html

            As for the role of the militia, and the point at which it would move from being an agent of government to an agent of opposition to government, I cannot give a ready answer.  One could look at the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers, but first at the Declaration of Independence, where it is clear that sovereignty rests not with government but with the people.  I suspect the Founders saw the militia more as an expression of the People than of the Government, but this goes into unfamiliar territory.

          • Fredlinskip

            Prevent tyranny implies going beyond self defense- it implies possibility of offense. 
            D of I, although  of great historical significance, is largely a manifesto declaring independence from England, as it relates to a list of grievances in reference to English law.It does not set precedent in U.S. Court. It would be  relevant in English court discussing the legality of of that break.If people attempt to forcefully “to alter or to abolish (our gov), and to institute new Government”, D of I will NOT come to their aid in a court of law. 

      • nesselbush

        Well stated! When I hear people saying that the Second Amendment is designed to protect them from a tyrannical government, I begin to wonder how many anti-aircraft guns and rocket-propelled grenade launchers they are trying to construct in their basements.

    • TomK_in_Boston

      The second amendment, for those who perhaps have English as a second language, says that because the government needs a well regulated militia (“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State”), there is a right to bear arms. Not because you have a god-given right, not so you can get drunk and kill yourself or your spouse, but because the government might need you in the militia. If your bearing arms (spare me the musket diversion) is not related to militia service, there is no right.

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. 
        Seems pretty clear what they thought the source of our rights was.
        Tom has anyone asserted a right to kill themselves or others? thats already illegal
        The supream court has reaffirmed that there is in fact an individual right to bear arms. the second amendment also pretects your right to form a militia if necessary. the whole trying to limit our rights to the boundries of a militia ship has sailed besides we already have to register for military service so if you want to make that argument its easy to argue that selective service fills the requirement of militia service and i would have no problem denying firearms to anyone who does not register. no that women can serve in combat are they going to be required to register for selective service?

        • TomK_in_Boston

          LOL, more selective reading of a document.

          You’re right, the part you left out, right after your quote, states how they thought we secured our rights:

          “….That to secure these rights, GOVERNMENTS are instituted among Men”

          Deal with it.

          As I said, I have no problem with reasonable, “well regulated” gun ownership. It just doesn’t come from the 2′nd amendment. Since I don’t think the 2′nd applies to individuals, I’m not trying to limit it to militias.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            yes the governments job is to secure our rights not to restrict them. 
             the supream court disagrees about the individuals right to bear arms. our founders would have taken that as a given as even under british common law one has a right to defend their person

            i was going to punctuate my post with “deal with it” but i decided to rise above lol

          • RobertLongView

            i always draw my pistillo right after i say: “Deal with it!” you got to be fast

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            lol

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_VAT4LG2IHFNM4CCUA3TEDKABGQ OldQuote

             So 9 out of 10 amendments are about the individual, but not the 2nd?

      • HarryAnchorite

        How ironic that you live in the cradle of the War for Independence and are so ignorant of American History.   Have a look at  “The Embarrassing Second Amendment” by Sanford Levinson of the University of Texas at Austin School of Law  Reprinted from the Yale Law Journal, Volume 99, pp. 637-659.

        http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/embar.html

        Sorry to direct you to a pro-gun site, but that is where a copy of this article is available, since you probably do not subscribe to the Yale Law Journal. 

        You should also have a look at 
        Roger Roots, “The
        Approaching Death of the Collective Right Theory of the Second Amendment,”  Duquesne Law Review 39 pp. 71ff  
        http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/death_collective_right_theory.pdf
         

        And, since you appear to have been asleep for several years, I will mention Supreme Court Heller.

        And by the way, my ancestors began speaking English at least as early as 1663.

        • TomK_in_Boston

          I can read a sentence with 2 clauses without help from you or the supreme court.

          • HarryAnchorite

            Really?  It would be very interesting to see what kind of a freshman essay you could produce on the subject.

            Freedom, and the right to life and property, and the right to defend them and the right to the necessary weaponry for the same were widely understood to be unalienable rights in Enlightenment America of the late 18th century.  There were some who argued that there should NOT be a Bill of Rights attached to the Const. because it could imply that these inalienable rights were somehow derived from government.  

            You live surrounded by monuments to liberty.  What a pity you pay no attention to them.

    • jimino

      When Congress refuses to do what 90% of our citizens want it to do have we reached the point where your claimed second amendment remedies kick in? 

      Is that what you mean by “tyranny”?

      • Louis Savlen

        Right, and with geniuses like you who needs the likes of Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, Locke…  I mean really, what could those idiots know about tyranny or how to govern a country?! 

        • jimino

          So, super-genius, give me a realistic 21st century example of what you perceive as a potential act of tyranny by our government that would trigger you taking up arms.

          Your bizarre understanding of history is utterly back-asswards.  The second amendment is there so the government can call up the militia to suppress insurrection.  So you be careful who you pick a fight with.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            “The second amendment is there so the government can call up the militia to suppress insurrection.”
            sounds like the opposie of every thing i have ever seen quoted. They had after all just thorwn off the shackles of a tyrannical regime themselves.how did you come to that conclusion?
            As far as your first question. Have you heard of military coups, there have been a number in modern history. I wonder how many there have been where the populace is well armed?

          • Louis Savlen

            Buddy open your eyes and check yourself, because if you haven’t been outraged then you haven’t been paying attention. 
            Here’s a little something for you to chew on, while sipping down your Starbucks coffee and reading whatever it is you read… http://www.ted.com/talks/afra_raymond_three_myths_about_corruption.html

    • JGC

      Wait a minute! According to your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, citizens are in an ever-escalating, unlimited arms race (against? to help?) our government.

      And is that a Patrick Henry-style Liberty vs. Death cry, or is it a Cheney/Ashcroft/Chambliss/McConnell/Rove/Bolton/Wolfowitz/Kristol/O’Reilly/Hannity/Ailes/Limbaugh/ClarenceThomas/Scalia/NameYourFavoriteChickenhawkHere-style Liberty vs. Death cry?

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        when having a phaser is criminal only criminals will have phasers.

        • observer69

           I am a criminal and I desperately want the government to confiscate all phasers from my neighbors. 

      • JGC

        “Give me Liberty, or give me that Draft Deferment from Vietnam… Preferably Both!” – Wayne LaPierre, 1968.  

    • hennorama

      Pocono Shooting Range – so is Christopher Dorner an example of how to “arm people in order to prevent future tyranny” on the part of the LAPD and other law enforcement agencies?

      Does Christopher Dorner just “need the tools to do this?”

      Please elaborate on Mr Dorner’s use of firearms, his exercising his Second Amendment rights, and his prevention of the oppressive power exerted by the LAPD.

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        lol chirstopher dorner is why “only the police and military” should not be the only ones with AR15s. good point

    • RobertLongView

      any conservative that thinks we can regulate our country as if we still lived in the day of horse and buggies is wrong-headed.

    • Kahn1947

      wrong, wrong and wrong. Heller allows laws to limit or preclude carrying weapons away from the home, assault and other dangerous firearms, and required registration of firearms. Stop overstating the sate of the law!

  • JGC

    NRA supporters:  Don’t forget to order that lovely bouquet of roses from Winston’s Flowers and WBUR to send to LaPierre in time for Valentine’s Day. 

    • JGC

      Other folks: for Valentine’s Day send your support (financial and otherwise) to  americansforresponsiblesolutions.org

      (although I’m sure Wayne LaPierre would still like to get flowers from you through a WBUR contribution, as well.)

      • RobertLongView

        Since it’s Fat Tuesday in cajun country lets just go down there and have a few… then we can all go and shot out the lights on Bourbon street.  

  • HarryAnchorite

    Tom’s reading list is marvelous; three media sources known for their balance, objectivity, and depth of research.  

    And if you do not catch the irony here, you (and he) should do a bit of additional reading.  Kates and Kleck The Great American Gun Debate would be a good place to start, available at any decent library or Amazon.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_VAT4LG2IHFNM4CCUA3TEDKABGQ OldQuote

       Yup, ignore the facts.  Leave out the studies, Kates and Kleck and maybe a couple of others.

  • http://twitter.com/Prayer72 karen lavallee

    Its obvious any operation doing business the gun industry are making big money – expensive political donations & lobbying.  All this trash-talk about tyranny and slippery slopes.  The NRA  is trying to make me believe this is about freedom and individual rights, but the reality is that this industry is reaping big rewards for its efforts. All of us in this country are paying a price- even if your not a gun owner. Not just in lives, but the social costs are extraordinary.  It’s big business, and as long as we remain apathetic the cash will continue to fill their greedy pockets.  kfl

    • twenty_niner

      Has nothing to do with greedy pockets… It’s a big business because
      lots of people want the product and pay money for the product, the same
      way cheeseburgers and automobiles are a big business.

      Most of us
      who have jobs in the private sector, in fact, work for a business. Often
      times, when that business makes something really well, at a competitive
      price, that has lots of very eager and willing customers, it becomes a
      big business.

      • RobertLongView

        seems the NRA is a Madison Ave advertising agency too… a fortune 500 company must build its brand… everytime a dem gets in the White House the fear mongering begins and they run rabid to the pawn shops picking the shelves there clean… super size me!  keepin’ America rollin’.  runnin’ scared.  got to have a BIG gun.  stick ‘em up and shoot ‘em down, Grade-B cowboys.  Hell, even in the wild west you had to check your gun with the sheriff when you rode into to the saloon, cowpoke… 

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          then oboma is salesman of the year for sure

        • Bigfatty1

          Big guns solve big problems. You make me laugh..”Mr & Mrs America…turn them in”.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      ironically oboma’s agenda is why they are doing better than they could ever imagine. he has created an unprecidented ammo shortage and lines at gunshows around the block. just like how after the 1994 ban the sales of little black rifles skyrocketed to the point where 2x as many were sold during that decade as in all the time before

    • Bigfatty1

      Damn my ignorance! I always thought America was a capitalist society. The more money I make, the more guns and ammo I can hoard. To all of those who would love to see a communist system here,  well, never happen! Communism requires that all people contribute their share, by working. obunghole’s socialist ideals, a “nanny” society, is in direct opposition to this.   NRA rules, GOA too.   Thank You.

  • Imran Nasrullah

    The slippery slope argument is a red herring. It is always argued from an argument ad absurdem, i.e. if you institute one measure it will result in gun confiscation. Reasonable people want to balance public safety and the right to be protected from  public harm with a right to self defense.  But this falls on deaf ears among the gun community because the only argument the gun rights advocates seems to reduce down to is “I just want to have a gun”.  Like little children who insist on just wanting to have a toy. I think our safety should not be sacrificed on the alter of their selfishness.

    • hennorama

      Imran Nasrullah – it’s also completely contrary to all past experience.

      In 1934, the National Firearms Act ” imposed a tax on the making and transfer of firearms defined by the Act, as well as a special (occupational) tax on persons and entities engaged in the business of importing, manufacturing, and dealing in NFA firearms. The law also required the registration of all NFA firearms with the Secretary of the Treasury. Firearms subject to the 1934 Act included shotguns and rifles having barrels less than 18 inches in length, certain firearms described as “any other weapons,” machine guns, and firearm mufflers and silencers.”

      Let’s just look at machine guns, one type of weapon required to be registered under the NFA.  The latest ATF data shows the current number of machine guns registered in the US:  488,065.  So much for “confiscation.”

      See:http://www.atf.gov/publications/firearms/050412-firearms-commerce-in-the-us-annual-statistical-update-2012.pdf

      Logic and history have no bearing on these “slippery slope” arguments.  They are not quite reductio ad absurdum, as they lack the required element of logic.

      • RobertLongView

        i went to a machine gun social and a TEA Party broke out.  

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_VAT4LG2IHFNM4CCUA3TEDKABGQ OldQuote

         As CA is teeing up a bill to confiscate those registered guns from the previous anti-gun program.  And CA is one of the most violent States in the union being highly restrictive on gun types and ownership.  Much like Chicago and other areas of Illinois.   Which differ notably from Kennesaw, GA.

    • twenty_niner

      Slippery-slope arguments are employed equally by the left and the right. Abortion-rights advocates cite the “slippery slope” when defending barbaric procedures such as partial-birth abortions.

      • RobertLongView

        did he say Rad Hairing?

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

        What’s a partial birth abortion? I asked a gynecologist and got a blank stare in return.

        And if you’re going full BothSidesDoIt you really picked the biggest losing argument when referring to the left and women’s full healthcare.

        Now bend over while I insert this Virginia-approved device up your anus. Doesn’t matter what your physician says.

        • twenty_niner

          “What’s a partial birth abortion? I asked a gynecologist and got a blank stare in return.”

          Are you sure you were staring in his face?

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        it will be an invalid argument when there are no tolls on the turnpike as promised

    • Doug 560

       You have every right to your beliefs.  However your beliefs are not mine, yet you insist I and others like me kneel to your beliefs.  Lacking honor and integrity you see your failings in others.  You believe people like me are a threat to you, for you believe we are like you.
       
      My family and I have better things to do with our time.  My kids are being raised with honor and integrity following the examples my wife and I set in our dealings with those we come in contact with. We live by simple rules.  1.  No one has a right to initiate force.  2.  Everyone has the right of self-defense.  3.  Mind Your Own Business.  4.  Treat people the way we want to be treated.  5.  When possible, help those in need.

      In short, how a grownup deals with the world.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      why should the safety of my wife and grandmother be sacraficed on your alter of the illusion of security? the simplefied argument is not” i just want to have a gun” its “because its my right” and courts have found that thats all the reason you need

  • JGC

    “You can have my 36-year leadership position in the NRA when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.” – Wayne LaPierre, 2013

    • WRB2

      Reminds me of a snake oil salesman from years ago.

      • RobertLongView

        Cures everything including the shakes fastdraw.  Guaranteed or your money back as they ride out of town under the cover of darkness.  Ah be bak, baby… .

  • joseph clement

    loved the show today it opened my eyes to the NRA I had considered becoming a member now I am armed with information to help with my decision

    • WRB2

      Taurus USA gives away a free one year NRA membership with every gun purchased.  I will not be doing it as I have no reason to contribute in ANY way to ANY PAC.  Especially one that I disagree with 80% of what they do.

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        if its free you aren’t contributing much

        • WRB2

          i will not be contributing another number in a membership role that is inflated due to many of the good things that the NRA does.

          My bet is that Taurus only pays when someone signs up for membership.  So perhaps I’m helping to support the great folks at Taurus.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            i have always heard taurus pistols were crap. i hope you can throw that thing pretty hard if you need it. there are many gun rights organisations perhaps you should join one that more closely aligns with your beliefs and consider buying an american made gun. some of the finest guns in the world are made right here in MA and you could support the economy here instead of brasil

      • Bigfatty1

        I’m sure that Taurus and th NRA will be devastated on your decision. Next time you need a gun when your door is kicked in at 4:00 AM, call Diane Feinstein.

        • WRB2

          You know I was impressed with about half of one of your other replies (above).  Too bad this one made me question if it was just a passing moment.  I do not need a gun should God Forbid my door get kicked in at 4 AM.  

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

             chuck norris is that you?

          • Bigfatty1

            I wish that no one ever NEEDS a gun. I don’t “need” anything – maybe a bowl of rice , a roof and a pair of cheap  boots to walk to work. As an an animal lover, I have never hunted ,have  seen war and hated all of it and don’t carry always for self-defense. I just have always loved guns – the technology and deveopment, craftsmanship, beauty, the feel, the sport of long-range target shooting and plinking. Thats me!! I’m too old to change, have a fortune in guns, as will my relatives later on. I feel foolish for arguing this matter. They can restrict or ban all they want, but I will still have my guns, and so will everyone else.   Thank You. 

    • hennorama

      “armed with information” – intentional pun, Freudian slip, or “just an expression?”

    • Aaron_Flip

      sorry, issue with email verification..

    • Aaron_Flip

      .

    • Louis Savlen

      and once they take your guns, your information will be next, then you won’t have to worry about making decisions, they’ll make them all for you!

  • gorilla monsoon

    I understand that shooting at targets may be an interesting sport.  But shooting at humans is very uncivilized.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      thats why you are only allowed to shoot them in certian situations

    • WRB2

      You are only to shoot when there is no other option  for you.  If you can get away you are to do it before drawing your firearm.  Many people who shot targets do not carry on a daily basis.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      dont worry shooting at pictures of humans or human silhouettes is already banned in MA

      • jefe68

        You are one obtuse piece of work.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          so no longer even pretending to try to discuss the issue just vague foolish personal attacks? remind me not to bother with you again if i do

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/7BH47UWIFQYNYDR6T2XNKFB7WI M B

    we taken basic skills away from our children. Schools don’t teach shop or Home economics because parents thought it was beneath there children to learn those skills. It is the same as Gun Safety it was taken away from campers. I learned Gun safety at MIT day camp and Noble & greenough Day camp. We shot 22 rifles. In approx the last 10 days of January 2013 (3) chrildren died because of child abuse in eastern Mass. That got very little coverage. That was because it was not Middle Class Families. Approx 900 children died last year because of Hot Tubs and Swimming pools per National Product Safety Council. No one is screaming to outlaw pools. I lost a lot of my rights under Bush and the patriot Act. Now I’m going to loose more of what little rights I have had a Law abiding citizen as a Licenced Gun Owner for over 35 years in Massachusetts

    • gossipy

      Let’s not forget drunk drivers.  Basic skills and responsibility for one self are ignored these days.

  • Robert Newman

     I think the most dangerous part of gun ownership that is not talked about is it puts people in more dangerous situations that they would normally not put themselves in.

    The example of the Trayvon Martin shooting illustrates this. Zimmerman followed him with the security of his firearm, and an unarmed boy died as a result.

    “Gun rights” have become the new religion for many people. The notion that limiting guns rights makes you significantly less safe is absurd. You are so much more likely to die by what you eat, smoking, alcohol, driving, etc. yet these share none of the fears attached.

    • observer69

       I guess if you consider suicide that is true.  To say that the most dangerous part of a gun ownership is that people go looking for trouble would be an incredibly naive and ridiculous contention.  By most gun control advocates there are upwards of 300 million guns in the country.  There are 11000 gun homicides by 2010 statistics.  By my simplistic approach that is .0037% of the available guns were used in murder.  That means that 299,989,000 available guns were not used in murder.  I wish I had a comparable numbers for number kids who died in available swimming pools.  Probably a lot higher.  That doesn’t keep people from getting swimming pools. 

      Just like you say, you are more likely to die by what you eat, smoke, drink than by gun violence.  I wish Obama would inflame the public against obesity and diabetes.  Probably would save more lives.  

      • jefe68

        According to the FBI there were 12,996 murder victims in 2010, most (77.4 percent) were male. 

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          whats your point jefe?

          • jefe68

            His numbers were off. Much like most of your wacky comments.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            you are wrong again jefe. The statistic he quoted was”There are 11000 gun homicides by 2010 statistics.” You then quoted a wrong (but faily close) total for muders by all means. so it seems like the point was to try to make the poster look foolish but once again in your rush to do so you demonstrated that you  are not interested in a debate but in foolish oneupsmanship without even paying attention to what was said. the argument that a miniscule percent of guns are ever used to kill anyone would be what you would have addressed if you wanted a discussion.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      robert i think its a better case to illustrate that “stand your ground” laws, however well intentioned, are problamatic in practice. Also if he only acted as he did because he had a firearm why would any other weapon not provide the same false sense of security? I try to eat good food, don’t smoke or drink to excess, and wear my seatbelt, if there is lightning i go inside.  For me i see a gun like a seatbelt of a fire extinguisher, hopefully you never need to use it but when you do need it it may be the only thing to save your life and you cant use one after the fact.
      Also dont you think its a little irresponsible to try to determine what happened and why and use that determination to make policy decisions when the case is not even settled and we don’t know all the facts?

    • twenty_niner

      “You are so much more likely to die by what you eat, smoking, alcohol, driving, etc.”

      Good point, so let’s focus on those problems instead of guns.

  • Mikel Haug

    I am not a member of the NRA or any other gun rights organization nor am I a constitutional scholar.  That being said gun control advocates keep stating assault rifles are not needed for hunting.  That is correct.  However, the second amendment says nothing about hunting, it is about a militia.  The second amendment in my view is like the first and fourth amendments, designed to protect the governed from the government.  The 2008 Supreme Court ruling in the District of Columbia vs. Heller has upheld to a certain extent, that premise.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      whats an “assault rifle”? good point about hunting being an obfuscation though

  • eric perrine

    None of the firearms used in the Newtown, Conn. shooting were “assault weapons” as the guests calls them around 7:12 in the program. The weapons used were a Bushmaster AR-15 rifle and two handguns — a Glock 10 mm and a Sig Sauer 9 mm. None of these weapons have the ability to fire in a fully-automatic mode. They are all semi-automatic firearms. Even the Bushmaster AR-15 is semi-automatic. The AR-15 used fires a .223 caliber cartridge. The bullet fired from the cartridge is only slightly bigger than a .22 bullet many people shoot in the backyard for fun. People are convinced that “assault weapons” are being used, when they are not. 

    • jefe68

      How about you go to Newtown and repeat this in the faces of the
      parents how had to identify the bullet-ridden bodies of their children. 

      • metal_man55

        I never said it wasn’t a tragedy, or that I wasn’t horrified like all other Americans. I learned of the shooting while I stopped at my college to drop some paperwork off. As I walked by a TV broadcasting CNN, I stopped and didn’t move. I couldn’t understand what had happened. I didn’t want to think that another shooting had happened. But, I also think that it is important to know which firearms were used and which weren’t.  Injecting the fear of all firearms into Americans does not properly serve them. Target shooting and hunting are great activities enjoyed by millions of Americans. Owning guns to protect yourself and your family is also a right enjoyed by millions of Americans,too. I do not think it is ever OK for someone who suffers from a mental illness to use firearms to sort through his or her problems. However, I also think that firearms should not be banned and taken away from millions of law-abiding citizens because of the actions of a few criminals. If we employ this logic, we would all lose the rights of many things: alcohol, vehicles, knives and any other objects used to kill innocent people.   

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        However, Mark Mattioli (pictured, left), whose son James also died in the shooting massacre, disagreed. “The problem is a lack of civility,” Mattioli said. “We do not need complex laws. I am a big proponent of accountability and enforcement.”

      • J G

        I would.
        I’d never wish to cause more pain to the families of Newtown however your suggestion that speaking the truth when it hurts is taboo is insane.”The emporer wears no clothes” right?.The problem is that anti second amendment advocates react solely on emotion and not logic.With a lack of self discipline that is common among you,the average human could cave in the head of another individual for getting them upset.Acting solely on emotion with no restraint.Speaking the truth at the appropriate time (even if it hurts) is not taboo.

      • Bigfatty1

        Oh boo hoo hoo, tears and handwringing. Why not dig-up the corpse of adam lanza and piss on it 26 times. Guns-weapons- they are what they are. If you don’t like them, then don’t get one. I’ll go to hell before I let some ignorant fool tell me what I “need” or don’t. Lets stop this foolishness now! I’m spending a fortune on AKs AR.s and ammo now. Hell, I need to save something for the NRA and GOA., not to mention more 30and 50 round mags. Get real, mug a socialist.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          if they are not out of ammo

  • Louis Savlen

    I am a gun owner and an NRA member, and I would just like to say that listening to Tim Dickerson carry on about the NRA and gun ownership in this country, is the equivalent of Lt Col. Frank Slade (Al Pacino in “Scent of a Woman”) counseling us on the dangers of driving.  The one difference being Lt Col. Slade at least tried driving a car once, while the only gun Mr. Dickinson may have fired was probably tethered to an XBox.
    Seems anti-gunners have now focused their bullseye on discrediting the NRA as some sort of corrupted organization “putting weapons in the hands of killers”, while spotting cases like Newtown, Aurora, and Colorado; but let me ask you if Mr.Dickerson went out in his Mercedes 300 SL after tipping a few too many Appletini’s at one of his Rolling Stone parties, then proceeded to kills an innocent family while on his drive home, would we be calling for a ban on alcohol and cars that went too fast?  Gee, I don’t own a fast car. Why would anyone need a car that goes over the speed limit?  Fast cars have led to more deaths than guns. Then there’s alcohol, I mean here’s a street drug more prolific than cars, come on really?!
    No, the government want you to have your alcohol and your big gas cars, it fuels their pockets while sedating the American Joe. Let them have their cake!
    I thank the Stars and Stripes I sleep under for the NRA and the work they do for the “real” people of this country; for standing up to the Tim Dickerson’s who believe our government is looking out for the welfare of its peons, while the real corrupt lobby groups push the agendas of big business fat cats, many of who probably fear for their own safety these days, having crippled our economy with offshore dealings and underhanded tax evasions. 
    Why not put the truth on the table and tell it like it is, the peons of this country have been screwed over with bank bailout and American jobs sold-out to third world countries, and now the fat cats are coming for your last tooth.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      lol scent of a woman was on the other day the driving scene is pretty amazing and it is a good analogy too

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=52502251 Kevin Frost

         No it’s not. You can’t walk into a car show and drive out in a car without a license, proof of insurance, and registration. You can walk into a gun a show and walk out with a rifle. State DMV’s keep records of car ownership, is there such a department for gun ownership? The Auto Industry is held to safety standards designed to try to save lives, but the gun industry is allowed to sell bigger guns with a higher capacity to kill. I’m sick of this stupid, reductionist analogy between cars and guns.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          if you paid attention to the analogy i referred to he was saying that idiots with no experience with guns trying to make legislation about guns is like a blind man trying to drive a car, terrifying.
          the gun industry is held to very high standards of safety, especially in MA. In MA the state keeps records of firearms permit holders and firearms transfers. There is also no gun show loophole here.  maybe cars are chosen since so many people are so ignorant about guns but lots of people know about cars and cars kill way more people.  If you are so sick of the agrument why perpetuate it? Its a valid question why firearms are picked out of all the dangerous things that we have to be banned because some people use them wrong

        • J G

          Wrong.
          You can’t walk out of a car dealer with out a license just as you can’t walk out of a gun dealer without a N.I.C.That’s a FBI federal back ground check and is a requirement for gun retailers at a gun show as well for those of you who are ignorant to firearm purchasing requirements.
          The sale of a firearms from a private gun owner (Not a retailer) to another is similar to that of one private sale between a car owner and another.That’s because it’s private property.An auto dealer,gun shop,and gun vendor at a gun show all require documentation and background check.Get the facts straight instead of attempting to create them to fit the narrative.

        • Louis Savlen

          Have you ever even been to a gun show Kevin?

    • http://ericsilva.myopenid.com/ Eric

      Pools, cars, stairs, etc. They all kill people.

      But guns are *designed* to kill people.

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        guns are designed for a variety of reasons. very few were originally designed to kill people.  what they are designed for does not mean they kill people any “deader” than anything else. would you blame the swimming pool or an irresponsible owner or parent if a child drowned in one. what have you done to stop “stair violence”? (sounds kind of silly when you apply it to stairs right? thats how i feel when i hear about “gun violence” or “guns killing people” we would never say that about anything else

        • jefe68

          You are the king of the red herring argument.

          Guns were developed to kill people the moment Europeans figured out how to use gunpowder brought back from China.
          That a gun was more efficient than a long bow for hunting was an added bonus.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            are a lot of those matchlocks being sold these days? I was referring to modern firearms that people in america buy currently and are currently for sale.  you know, the ones that are being debated nationally.
            “Guns were developed to kill people the moment Europeans figured out how to use gunpowder brought back from China.”
            wrong, the chinese were using guns ,cannon, and exploding shells well before marco polo. how do you  come up with this stuff?
             If you want to call names feel free but they just show that you are out of your depth and unable to have a reasonable discussion like a grown up

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ryan-Morwood/504976850 Ryan Morwood

            Thats ridiculous you cannot completely glaze over the point previously made against your argument by reinforcing your previous statement and then go on to insult someone and say THEIR being unreasonable. You my friend are a fool. The fact remains that gun are designed to kill people. None of these mass killings have been down to the use of weapons that are not designed to take lives.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            really? the two biggest mass killings in america i can think of were accomplished by the means of an airliner( designed to be safe and not kill people) and fuel oil and fertalizer (designed to heat homes and grow food).  Guns are very seldom used to take lives of humans relative to their other uses. the intent of the design is meaningless anyways as it does not affect its dangerousness. Billions of rounds are fired off by american citizens every year if you were right billions of people should have been shot. thats not the case.
             the people who do get shot  would you rather all those people were pushed out of windows?

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ryan-Morwood/504976850 Ryan Morwood

            Your Country has had on average 1 mass shooting a month since 2009 and 900 in the past 7 years.. Guns are seldom used..?

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            1 a month? then why are we still talking about newtown from months ago?we should have 6 more to discuss. are you including familicides? we have 300 million of them so yeah i would say thats pretty seldom relative to the number of guns. you know what all mass killings have in common? they were all done by people and it would be foolish to blame airplanes ,guns or fertalizer

    • jefe68

      Interesting diatribe. And you own a gun or maybe a few.

      • Louis Savlen

        and your point is?

  • Fredlinskip

    Disqus

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/LY5DFDCKGXLGTWNTS4B5SQTFRI Michael

    I am an NRA member who is in the middle: I appreciate that now is a great time for significant dialogue regarding gun rights versus practical matters of safety. However, Tim Dickerson did a horrible job. He was so biased. He discussed the Barrett rifle so erroneously I was shocked. The Barrett is a specialized long range rifle that retails for $3-10 thousand. Mr. Dickerson said that with a special computerized scope anyone can shoot up to a mile accurately. What a load! Military marksmen who train with these rifles are an elite group of marksmen among other elite marksmen and thousands are spent on their training. Civilians spend a lot of time and money to become proficient and there are very few 1,000 yard ranges where they can train.  These are not the guns used in emotional applications of violence. To mention these as dangerous and of concern is so ridiculous that any knowledgeable responsible gun owner who would otherwise be open to engage in real dialogue would hear this and simply tune out. This talk is like all politics: not to engage in any real argument or conversation about important matters yearning to be addressed but instead to rally the emotion of troops who are already fighting on your side. It’s too bad, because a real discussion is more than necessary. And regarding firearms, Mr. Dickerson is so biased and unobjective I will listen to nothing he has to say. He is the boy who cried wolf many times, and the wolf is coming. I lump him together with “political studies” and pharmaceutical paid research: there may be something in there but so much of it is a lie anything worth while is indiscernible.

  • http://ericsilva.myopenid.com/ Eric

    The guest is correct: the NRA sells the fear, and the fear sells the gun. 

    It’s totally nuts. It must be miserable to believe the world is so dangerous that it’s necessary to carry a gun at all times. These people have been duped.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      it must be nice to live in a neighborhood or city were violent crime never occurs. i’m pretty sure newtown CT is a “safe” town. sadly not everyone lives in a place free of violent crime. 
       What really sells the guns is threats to purchasing them. Oboma has sold more guns than the NRA could ever dream of. The first AWB caused 2x as many black guns to be sold as had been sold in total in the 40 years prior. In the last few months literally millions of AR15 type guns have been sold along with tens of millions of 30 rnd magazines. Does wearing your seatbelt or owning a fire extinguisher ( i hope you have both) make you feel miserable or mean you are paranoid about fire or auto accidents? or do they reassure you though they may not be effective in all situations? carrying a gun is like wearing a seatbelt or owning a fire extinguisher, its a safety device.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ryan-Morwood/504976850 Ryan Morwood

        No, its a weapon..

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          clearly hurting people is not their prime function since 99.9+ are never used to harm anyone. weapons are things that harm people. 

  • sickofthechit

    Response to Dale responding to Marcus XH

    Guns began selling like crazy as soon as we elected an
    African/American President.  The sales picked up at the now fevered
    pitch as soon as it was clear he was going to be re-elected.

    There is “widespread panic” because people who should be exercising
    reasoned judgement are instead allowing themselves to be whipped into
    various conspirational/irrational frenzies.

    The more guns we have, the further away we are from what Jesus died
    for our sins for.  And if you don’t believe in Jesus then the closer we
    are to killing each other randomly.  Imagine how many people would be
    shot at one of these “gunshows” if a realistic tape of repeated gunfire
    were played from various corners of the hall.  Wonder how smart
    concealed carry would look then?
     

    • Bigfatty1

      Have you ever been to a gun show? have you ever fired an AR, or any kind of modern (or antique) firearm? Your statement abuut imagined  reactions at your imagined gunshow is ridiculously ludicrous. And why drag Jesus through your display of faith in mankind? I guess there were no killings during his short life! People love their guns for whatever reason.period. Killing, even threatening another person is a serious felony. But, liberal ” thinkers” don’t like to hold people accountable for their actions. Much safer to blame my guns or the devil NRA than poor little Adam Lanza et.al. You, are one parrot among many.  Have you ever considered thinking and reasoning for yourself? If you hate guns, then don’t get one.

  • NrthOfTheBorder

    So, what do we do now as members of a decent society?  Let the slaughter continue and just hope it doesn’t happen to us? 

  • http://freeourfreemarkets.org/ Steve Banicki

    It was the fourth branch of government that defeated the bill proposing universal background checks

    for anyone purchasing a gun. They accomplished this even though 90% of citizens were in favor of such legislation.

    This fourth branch is in the shadows and it is not controlled by the voters. Instead, it is controlled by money coming from special interest groups such as the National Rifle Association, the President’s “Organize For Action”, the Koch brothers, Sheldon Adelson, Citizens United, all labor union PACS and approximately 4,600 other political action committees.

    In the case of PAC’s, they in theory represent a group of voters who are supporting the PAC. This creates a problem that: 1). Not every voter belongs to a PAC and 2) Not all PAC’s are created equal. The more money the PAC has, the more influence they have. Further, the more one contributes to a PAC, the more influence that person has over the PAC.

    Making things worse, these organizations have control over the other three branches of our, tongue in cheek, government. Most of these PAC’S are controlled by a small group of individuals making the decisions. In addition to these Political Action Committees, our elected officials spend much of their time soliciting money from very wealthy individuals in the following industries: Wall Street, Banking, Entertainment, Energy, Home Building, Technology and others.

    Politics is the only industry I am aware of that allows its employees to take a paid leave of absence from performing their duties to look for another job; their reelection. I am very pessimistic. If we do not end this corruption the country will continue in its slow decline….  http://lstrn.us/12kXsML

  • Bigfatty1

    I’ve heard that 90% of all stupid people are also ignorant, and many today wear this as a badge of honor when it comes to modern firearms.  In c. 1993, Sarah Brady, speaking to the late communist rep.(Ohio) Howard Metzenbaum stated:” before socialism can be effected in America, we must first remove all guns from the hands of it’s citizens”. (Google up Howard Metzenbaum for yourself). Check out the quote for NY’s Bloomberg and Cuomo on gun confiscation and ditto NY’s Chuck Schumer, and don’t forget Diane Feinstein” Mr & Mrs America, TURN THEM IN”. The VP, Joe Biden stated c.1990,s “no one outside of police and military should be able to possess any firearm”.  I’m by far too old and tried to be a paranoid, however, I want to be well equipped and fully awake (if) the time comes to answer this challenge. I am fairly ingrained in the military community (however opposed to all recent US invasions),and know a fair number of police officers in my small community, and 98% of them are in diagreement with obama and his anti-gun efforts and socialism. Not long ago, we were paid to kill communists, remember?  Well, I didn’t go along with that either. But here in my country, that may be another matter.   Thank You.

  • http://www.facebook.com/vaughn.register Vaughn Register

    Yes…go NRA and GOA!!  Defeat ignorant proposals by the stupid.

ONPOINT
TODAY
Aug 27, 2014
Russian President Vladimir Putin, left, shakes hands with Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, right, as Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbayev, center, looks at them, prior to their talks after after posing for a photo in Minsk, Belarus, Tuesday, Aug. 26, 2014. (AP)

Vladimir Putin and Ukraine’s leader meet. We’ll look at Russia and the high voltage chess game over Ukraine. Plus, we look at potential US military strikes in Syria and Iraq.

Aug 27, 2014
The cast of the new ABC comedy, "Black-ish." (Courtesy ABC)

This week the Emmys celebrate the best in television. We’ll look at what’s ahead for the Fall TV season.

RECENT
SHOWS
Aug 26, 2014
Matthew Triska, 13, center, helps Alex Fester, 10, to build code using an iPad at a youth workshop at the Apple store on Wednesday, Dec. 11, 2013, in Stanford, Calif.  (AP)

Educational apps are all over these days. How are they working for the education of our children? Plus: why our kids need more sleep.

 
Aug 26, 2014
Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen, right, speaks with Ady Barkan of the Center for Popular Democracy as she arrives for a dinner during the Jackson Hole Economic Policy Symposium at the Jackson Lake Lodge in Grand Teton National Park near Jackson, Wyo. Thursday, Aug. 21, 2014.  (AP)

Multi-millionaire Nick Hanauer says he and his fellow super-rich are killing the goose–the American middle class — that lays the golden eggs.

On Point Blog
On Point Blog
Poutine Whoppers? Why Burger King Is Bailing Out For Canada
Tuesday, Aug 26, 2014

Why is Burger King buying a Canadian coffee and doughnut chain? (We’ll give you a hint: tax rates).

More »
Comment
 
Why Facebook And Twitter Had Different Priorities This Week
Friday, Aug 22, 2014

There’s no hidden agenda to the difference between most people’s Facebook and Twitter feeds this week. Just a hidden type of emotional content and case use. Digiday’s John McDermott explains.

More »
Comment
 
Our Week In The Web: August 22, 2014
Friday, Aug 22, 2014

On mixed media messaging, Spotify serendipity and a view of Earth from the International Space Station.

More »
Comment