Most of the responsible hunters/gun owners I know (and admittedly, there aren’t many) resigned from the NRA years ago when their radicalism went over the top. Probably on the heels of “cold dead hands” philosophy.

They do indeed have blood on their hands. Unfortunately the knee jerk reaction that “we have to do something about guns” isn’t very helpful and to some extent it can exacerbate the problem.

As do people that buy into fear mongering around gun tragedies and suggest bans as an answer. There’s ratcheting pressure on gun nuts up and ratcheting it down, and right now it is very irresponsible to talk about banning guns.

Focus on how to identify and get help for people that are at risk for “going postal”.

Focus on people that are inflaming fear that guns will be taken away – on both sides.

Changing the attitude of gun owners about their right to own guns isn’t worth attempting right now, all it will do is divide us further.

I take your point, but do you foresee any time in the future when talk of gun control would not ratchet up the pressure?

The NRA uses fear to fill their coffers. People like Beck use it to boost their ratings.

Worth noting that the better educated people are, the less likely they are to be easily herded. Improving education in the U.S. must remain a top priority.

They’ve got blood on their hands today. Period.

Absofuckinglutely

And they need to be hounded on this, HOUNDED.

Why don’t we call Poplawski and Wong and all those other killers terrorists? This would be the headline:

NRA Arms More Terrorists, More Americans Die Meaninglessly

OT

Has anyone made note that the author of “The Quiet Coup” (former IMF ecoomist Simon Johnson’s article on financial oligarchy & politics) works for the Peterson Institute?

This is a different organization from the Peterson Foundation which bankrolled I.O.U.S.A distribution and David Walker’s fiscal wake up campaign.

Both the Institute and Foundation share Peter G Peterson as a benefactor. It seems odd that a well written attack on financial/political power is funded by the same guy that’s regarded as wanting to dismantle Social Security by many firepups. Something just seems a bit off.

There is something in this story that I have not seen anyone pay much attention to – and that is the “domestic incident” that precipitated the whole mess.

I don’t see BT’s post as promoting gun bans; not speaking for his opinion on the matter, just don’t see it in the post.

Everyone should email Beck today.

Referring to all the right-wing militias in the U.S. as “sleeper cells” would be fairly apt.

Wondering if the NRA is taking a position on gun trade with Mexico?

Sometime in Obama’s second term. That is if we get a second Obama term.

I don’t see widescale disarming of US citizens starting. period. people that own guns are going to be keeping them and to some extent trading them.

Some restriction on gun trading may happen in Obama’s second term. Individual states may change their laws as well. I’d think the tragedy in Binghampton might lead to some policy discussion on how to identify a licensed gun owner prior to their “going postal” and get help for them in order to prevent the tragedy. There are a lot of civil liberties issues in this though, and I’d lean towards privacy protections.

I don’t see it in BT’s post either. I’m making a point that it is a foolish knee jerk reaction that we should be wary of having.

You mean this?

PITTSBURGH (AP) — A 911 call that brought two city police officers to a home where they were ambushed, and where a third was later killed during a four-hour siege, was precipitated by a fight between the gunman and his mother over a dog urinating in the house.

So, it turns out he was stark raving bonkers. Who knew?

Yes, there are crazy people out there with guns. Which is why people who have large microphones need to act responsibly with them.

The NRA used the VT disaster as an excuse to promote students to be able to carry guns on campuses.

I was a little surprised his friend said he was “really into” the First and Second Amendments. Didn’t realize the wingnuts cared about the First Amendment. I’d be willing to bet their support is limited to Beck, Rush, O’Reilly, Hannity, Bachmann and the like being allowed to speak freely.

Beware the morons (LaPierre) & maniacs (Beck). God help us all

PITTSBURGH (AP) — A 911 call that brought two city police officers to a home where they were ambushed, and where a third was later killed during a four-hour siege, was precipitated by a fight between the gunman and his mother over a dog urinating in the house.

So, it turns out he was stark raving bonkers. Who knew?

He ambushed police coming in response to a 911 call? That’s suicidal.

The “First Amendment” support is in the guise of opposing the “Fairness Doctrine”, i.e., the Fairness Doctrine would impinge on Rush’s/Becks/BillO’s rights to inflame the citizenry.

I don’t think so, he had taken time to put on body armor. Anyway, he is still alive and facing charges. So many lives lost and lives ruined.

“But Beck is the last angry runt of the airwaves, and only he knows the truth that is out there!”

…What a toolish dunce.

;>)

Well, if he can use “air quotes” he must know what he’s talking about…

Is there special significance to the picture of cradle-robber and late GOP congresscritter Sonny Bono over Beck’s right shoulder?

Body armor? Ok, he wasn’t suicidal, he just wanted to spend his life in prison. So you calling him “bonkers” is accurate.

I think he wanted to martyered. Bulletproof vest just allowed him to stay alive longer to kill more cops.

Clearly he didn’t really know what the Second Amendment said either…that stuff about being a part of the “organized militia” must have gone right through the nether zone between his ears. How can one have an “organized militia” if the militia is disobedient (like throwing stuff) to their officers, are mentally ill or are known to have uncontrolled agressive impulses, have criminal records, refuse to register, use weapons in unauthorized manners, etc. Furthermore…how can the government rely on a militia if the individuals have themselves expressed that they want to take down the Government, would participate in insurrections, and lend assistance to rebellions?

[See also US Constitution Article II Part 3 “Powers of Congress” on the role of militias to “suppress insurrections”; and the 14th Amendment Article 2, 3 and 4]

Suspect that he wanted to take his own life, after taking out as many “jack-booted thugs” as he could.

So is now the appropriate time to throw the concept of police/terrorist profiling, detention without review, and warrantles wiretapping back in the faces of those on the political right?

As I see it, lots of these clowns, by their own standards, should be getting rounded up and interrogated right about now.

I am not advocating such a reaction, only pointing out the irony.

-G

IMO Licensing of guns is perfectly appropriate if there is to be an “organized militia”. And many forms of mental illness and depression would be a disqualifying factor in obtaining a license or in the suspension of one. Gun rights are conditional…Article II states that Congress has the right to formulate laws to regulate, train, organize and discipline the militia.

Guns of an “inactive” militia member should not be allowed out of the household unless broken down and part of it placed in the trunk, the other in a locked box in the glove compartment. Mentally ill or violent folks should be on a database that excludes them from owning weapons. If they want to challenge that they should have to come before a court.

In this case there should have been notice that guns were in the Household. Yeah, I know the NRA would hate registration…but the whole point of an organized militia is that it is NOT INSURRECTIONARY…it is there to suppress insurrections and prevent invasion. The NRA logic on this is that registration and licensing would prevent people FROM fighting the government. But that is clearly not what the role of the militia was to be in the Constitution.

This is the most ignored, and IMHO, the important part of the 2nd amendment:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”

Why important? – because it’s the first part in the amendment, and the important stuff comes first!

IMO Licensing of guns is perfectly appropriate if there is to be an “organized militia”. And many forms of mental illness and depression would be a disqualifying factor in obtaining a license or in the suspension of one. Gun rights are conditional…Article II states that Congress has the right to formulate laws to regulate, train, organize and discipline the militia.

The Supreme Court said in 2008 that gun ownership is an individual right. Changing that decision will take more than new laws on militia ownership of guns.

Sonny saw the black helicopters, ratfood…Right before “they” got him.

;>)

Mexican Official said,

“There were 29,000 guns recovered at Mexican crime scenes in the last two years (2007 + 2008).

About 5,000 of these guns were traced to the United States, or 17%.”

If you wonder why the nut cases are paranoid there are 6 bills pertaining to gun control pending in the H.of R.They are H.R.45,96,257,297,1022,1784 and two pending in the Senate,S1237 and S1331.According to the BATFE there are already 22,000 gun laws on the books.If you research the facts as published by the FBI you simply cannot deny that the area’s with the highest crime rates have the most gun control.As an aside,anyone have a theory of how the first election in Georgia was close enough to warrant a run off that Chambliss won by 12%?

ProgressivePeach.com is reporting that the weapon involved (AK-47) was among those banned by the Assault Weapons Ban that was allowed to expire in 2004 by President Bush and the GOP Congress.

The areas with the highest crime rates try to deal with it by passing gun laws…subsequently struck down by the Conservatives on the Supreme Court. And as these municipalities realize, passing these laws is a bit likeKing Canute trying to hold back the sea…guns are simply acquired in neighboring States….borders are open between States with no mandatory checks.

If one really wants to look at statistics where government entities can control the inflow of weapons one would have to look at Europe…vs. the militia states of Lebanon or elsewhere in the Middle East. In Lebanon people also had the right and need for guns “for protection” from others with guns. Gun control was a major priority of US Forces in Iraq and everywhere else they have been involved in. I wonder why if guns are simply used for personal safety, lower crime, and used for hunting?

“If you research the facts as published by the FBI you simply cannot deny that the area’s with the highest crime rates have the most gun control.”

Unfortunately the FBI does not release the figures on on how many of those crimes are committed by firearms, what types, the number of fatalities or injuries that occur as a result of firearms and a host of other statistics (such as how many of those occurred with registered weapons, stolen weapons, those purchased at gun shows, etc.).

Why? Because the NRA heavily lobbied Congress and the Republicans and Blue-Dogs blocked the release of any statistics compiled on these subjects. Seems someone doesn’t want the facts out.

District of Columbia vs. Heller ” “[l]ike most rights, the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” This decision “should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” In a footnote Scalia indicated that the list was not intended to be exhaustive, comprehensive or limiting in scope as to what might be proper regulation.

Heller specific limited D.C.’s power to ban handguns from the home, and to require trigger-locks. It didn’t deal with registration, individuals that might be restricted from possession as a CLASS, or other requirements.

Go to http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius200…..icide.html There are 15 different tables of specific info.The idea that the facts are not out there is false.

The fact of 22,000 laws already on the books shows that the 2nd amend. is not unlimited.The point is that for a minority of the voting public there will never be enough regulation.Some people just will not acknowledge the fact that if concealed carry permits were allowed in places like Detroit,Philly,Chicago and D.C. the crime rate would be reduced.The media said concealed carry would result in a return to “the wild west”.It didn’t happen.Violent crime was reduced substantially in every case.The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology states that firearms are used 2.5 million times annually for self defense in the U.S.In Afghanistan and Iraq I can tell you that when we did weapon searches we weren’t confiscating personal weapons.We were looking for RPG’s,crew served weapons and explosives.They are allowed their fully automatic AK’s.The only personal weapons I saw “confiscated” were taken off the bodies of those dumb enough to fire on us or found in large numbers in weapons caches.So again,the idea that we were implementing gun control is more fallacious info.

Umm, Lott’s research is not widely accepted. Personally I find it makes sense, but not many here will agree.

You’d think you’d have basically no crime, given how many people you’ve locked up.

Lott is a fake, as everyone knows, who cites his own work under pseudonyms — like, for instance, McBride?

All I know is, a guy I know (no longer a friend – just can’t talk to him about this or Obama anymore) is proud of the fact that he’s taking his two young daughters to the NRA convention to hear Sarah speak. He’s NASCAR, he’s got multiple gun safes and thinks that ‘Walker, Texas Ranger’ is right for calling for an internal insurrection.

Try to argue second amendment with him is like trying to herd cats. The talking points are the same as any NRA magazine you’ll find out there.

I seriously asked him why he thought Obama would try to manage gun control when he had so many other issues on the plate that were far more important. He said it was the AG Holder who was pushing for it and there were tons of bills in committee.

Fool doesn’t know that Holder can’t make laws apparently. And he couldn’t tell me much about the bills either.