Candid Questions for the NRA

[Harsh_77 718]

Obviously you do not! Or you would have known if Patriot has one or not (psychic powers and all!)

Read the posts before making comment unless you are just blabbering.

Read post 118, I never claimed CCW gives you psychic power.

[Martyshk 137]

Read the posts before making comment unless you are just blabbering.

Read post 118, I never claimed CCW gives you psychic power.

So...dense...must...facepalm....

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Dude your tin foil is worst than pathetic.

As per the CCW holder’s account the gunman looked at him and knowing he was confronted he took his own life.

CCW owner did not had to shoot but he was ready to if he had too.

You just don’t want to agree that CCW can save lives and that’s perfectly ok as you continue to live in the bubble.

He stared him down? Is that what you're suggesting? You're a hoot.

By the way, the reported testimony of said CCW holder was that he was NOT going to take a shot because he felt that he could have inadvertently injured or killed an innocent person. So he decided to retreat instead. Right decision for sure. But that report just doesn't amount to anything any rational person would characterize as a confrontation. Unless, of course, you want to go down that road that the CCW holder looking at the perp made the perp just off himself. That's funny.

[VanessaTony 3,567]

1. Allow ANY person the ability to carry concealed handguns anywhere without a permit or license. We do this in Vermont and these things DON'T happen in Vermont. And stop asking me why I carry a handgun to go grocery shopping at Pricechopper in Vermont. THIS is why!

Why would anyone NOT want to follow the example of the state with the lowest crime rate? The state which is safest for CHILDREN!

Vermont isn't the lowest. http://247wallst.com/2012/04/26/americas-most-and-least-peaceful-states/3/ Maine has the lowest number of violent crimes per 100,000 and New Hampshire has the least number of murders.

[MyLittlePony 340]

NRA can lick it.

[himher 634]

Yes. Personal accountabilty is holding those who misuse guns personally accountable for their actions. Perhaps you should explore it yourself.

You however appear to wish to classify a group under one umbrella and somehow hold that group, innocent or not, accountable for the actions of a nut.

The logic outlined above falls so far outside the concept of "personal liability" that it doesn't even show up on the radar screen. You speak of a dead shooter who you can't punish so you then wish to go after innocent, uninvolved gun owners and hold them accountable for the actions of that dead shooter.

The shooter is dead. Death penalty. What more do you want to do? Drag him through the streets behind motorcycles like Hamas does? <re-shakes head>

It was earlier asked how many guns are enough. Here is your answer. There will be enough guns on the street when a shooter, any time and any where, lifts a gun and subsequently gets popped as soon as he pulls the trigger. Streets get cleared one perp at a time. There are, currently, not enough guns on the street to clear them or to protect the children on them.

did i say that? you suggested punishing only people that misuse their guns. considering there's a good percentage of people who end up dead via that same misuse - i asked how you propose punishing dead people?

you might explore the concept of personal responsibility. gun ownership is a pretty big deal and not to be taken lightly. it's unfortunate that so many people can't own up to the full liability of owning a gun.

[decocker 7,198]

The logic outlined above falls so far outside the concept of "personal liability" that it doesn't even show up on the radar screen.

you got that right.

There will be enough guns on the street when a shooter, any time and any where, lifts a gun and subsequently gets popped as soon as he pulls the trigger. Streets get cleared one perp at a time. There are, currently, not enough guns on the street to clear them or to protect the children on them.

i respect the 2nd amendment, but i also respect the need for regulation. i support the second amendment. but i don't see the harm in trying to reign this mess in. i don't want to live in a world where everyone has a gun on them, ready to pop off in an instant. that sounds like living in escape from l.a. or something.

the immediate knee jerk from extremists 'THAR TAKIN OUR GUNS, FTW' - is not a display of personal responsibility. it's an ignorant, emotionally based reaction. a responsible adult sees the need for regulation and also accepts that regulation is not going to effectively stop mass shootings from occurring altogether. it's called reason, i try to apply it while living in reality.

[kwakun 23]

The shooter is dead. Death penalty. What more do you want to do? Drag him through the streets behind motorcycles like Hamas does? <re-shakes head>

Oh! That's great news! I wonder why the parents and family of the victims are still in anguish and pain since the problem is finally solved! It makes absolutely no sense for them to want anything more. Shooter is dead, yay!!!!

I'm sure they are also delighted and feel so much safer because the NRA plans to push policies to ensure that any other nut- bag that shoots and kills another member of their family will him/herself be shot. Justice will be served and everyone will be happy once again. Woohoo!!!

Plus they get to buy flowers and have annual visits to the gravesides of their loved ones for a fancy flower decoration party. Fun! Fun!! Fun!!!

Edited December 21, 2012 by kwakun

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The shooter is dead. Death penalty. What more do you want to do?

How about resuscitating him and killing him again and then repeat that 25 more times.

[kwakun 23]

How about resuscitating him and killing him again and then repeat that 25 more times.

Make that 100 more times...

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

We should push regulation on other elements of the bill of rights as well. To save money, we should allow the quartering of troops in private homes as a trade off for tax cuts so long as the budget remains unbalanced.

[Ban Hammer 13,408]

We should push regulation on other elements of the bill of rights as well. To save money, we should allow the quartering of troops in private homes as a trade off for tax cuts so long as the budget remains unbalanced.

and rap music - the singers can be sued for offending someone's ears. they'll need 1st amendment insurance.

[himher 634]

Yes the shooter is dead. Halas. There is no more to take.

If the parents want more or if you want more then they and you will need to look for it somewhere besides in my home or in my pocket or in the home or pocket of anyone else who is totally, completely uninvolved in this for justice for their loss.

This family and this community (as it turns out) knew that this kid had problems and did NOTHING. That, unfortunately, is what it boils down to and everything else is a smokescreen. I know this for a fact - the next spooky kid in that community who a parent says "don't turn your back on for a minute" won't get left alone in a basement in a house full of guns playing Call of Duty all day. Tough lesson for that community and a tough lesson we should all learn from. Extrapolate that to hundreds of other kids in hundreds of other communities and you might just find the answer you are looking for.

Raising a kid has a much heavier liability than owning a gun. You people never fckin talk about that though.

Oh! That's great news! I wonder why the parents and family of the victims are still in anguish and pain since the problem is finally solved! It makes absolutely no sense for them to want anything more. Shooter is dead, yay!!!!

I'm sure they are also delighted and feel so much safer because the NRA plans to push policies to ensure that any other nut- bag that shoots and kills another member of their family will him/herself be shot. Justice will be served and everyone will be happy once again. Woohoo!!!

Plus they get to buy flowers and have annual visits to the gravesides of their loved ones for a fancy flower decoration party. Fun! Fun!! Fun!!!

[Brother Hesekiel 2,236]

I think it's great that the issue of guns is being discussed in this country. But it needs to be done in a fruitful manner.

Nobody wants that our children get killed in school, not the anti-gun parent, and not the NRA member. Nobody.

We also all agree that crazy people should not have access to guns.

Where the anti-gun and the pro-gun folks are divided is in the approach to the problem.

The anti-gun folks claim that if there are no guns in the U.S. or if there are only very few guns and access to them is as difficult as robbing a bank, then the chance of a crazy guy running into a school and shooting 26 people, 20 of them children is greatly reduced.

The pro-gun folks claim that if a crazy gunman runs into a school and can't possibly know that if he opens the door and points a gun at kids that not a teacher will shoot at him before he can shoot at the kids. At least, they will say, he won't be able to shoot 5 or 10 or 20 people if there are several teachers who have guns and know how to use them. To enforce this argument, you could say that a gun man may run into a school and shoot, but even a crazy gun man will not run into a police station or military compound and try to shoot several people there.

But wait, say the anti-gun folks, that's exactly what happened not too long ago.

In response the pro-gun folks will point out that the shooter in CT would not have been stopped by a background check as he used his mom's guns.

So let's not speculate how things would have been or could be if we had no guns in America. Accept that the 2nd Amendment is something that will not be amended as there is nowhere near the needed overwhelming 3/4 majority in this country to ratify such an Amendment. Accept also that there will always be guns. Instead, try to figure out how we can improve the system. And if we can get this discussion on a national level, it's possible that some good will come of it.

I, personally, don't have the answer to this. Clearly, stronger background checks would not have prevented the CT shooting. Can we require gun owners to keep their guns under lockup at home and hide the key? Probably not.

I also don't think that arming teachers is a solution. If we turn schools into fortresses, the next crazy gunman will do his Christmas celebration in an overcrowded mall. But if over half of the mall shoppers carry, wouldn't we risk a big shootout in a crowded mall?

Again, I don't have the answers, but I hope we'll find them anyway.

[himher 634]

In November alone, more than 2 million such point-of-sale investigations were performed nationally on people seeking to purchase firearms

By comparison:

The PLA is the world's largest military force, with approximately 3 million members, and has the world's largest (active) standing army, with approximately 2.25 million members

You people need to step back and look at what specifically leads to these shootings and start from there. It is a HUGE mistake to think that we who are parents and community members and pay taxes and attend church and vote and serve the country both here and overseas to protect a set of principles and are not afraid of any armed force on the planet are going to trade our right to protect ourselves and our own children and our own homes to the group of self-serving pu$$ies in washington who you elect to be your mouthpiece but and yet can't even sweep the streets of their own city.

http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/dc/washington/crime/

You believe the people who can't protect the neighborhoods around the White House can protect yours? Or if they can't protect their own neighborhoods you actually think they can disarm America for you? If you want America disarmed here is what you need to do. Pick up a weapon, build a wall, stand on it, and get it done. Because, unlike soaking the rich or passing huge self-serving benefit packages this will take real work and somehow and speaking for the averge gun owner I don't think you anti-gun folks quite have the pair of scuds it takes to get it done. The reason I dont think you have them is because the people you elect to be your mouthpiece don't have the scuds to get it done in their very own independent and personal city and you anti-gun folks of course expect them to send someone over to get it done for you.

Summary: Dream on

Edited December 22, 2012 by himher