Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

News & Politics News & Politics

The NRA has America living under the gun

Posted by   + Show Post

The NRA has America living under the gun

"The arsenal of democracy has been transformed into the arsenal of death"

The NRA has America living under the gunFILE - This April 19, 2012, file photo shows Eric Thompson’s Green Bay, Wis., based company, TGSCOM Inc., which sold guns or accessories to the killers in the Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University mass shootings as well as a man who opened fire at a Pennsylvania health club. Police say the Wisconsin online weapons dealer quietly shut down the business in May, 2012, amid scores of complaints from customers in nearly every state accusing the company of billing without delivering their orders. (AP Photo/John Touscany, File)

You might think Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of and spokesman for the mighty American gun lobby, the National Rifle Association, has an almost cosmic sense of timing. In 2007, at the NRA’s annual convention in St. Louis, he warned the crowd that, “Today, there is not one firearm owner whose freedom is secure.” Two days later, a young man opened fire on the campus of Virginia Tech, killing 32 students, staff and teachers.

Just last week LaPierre showed up at the United Nations Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty here in New York and spoke out against what he called “anti-freedom policies that disregard American citizens’ right to self-defense.”  Now at least 12 are dead in Aurora, Colorado, gunned down at a showing of the new film, “The Dark Knight Rises,” a Batman movie filled with make-believe violence. One of the guns the shooter reportedly used was an AK-47 type assault weapon that was banned in 1994. The NRA pressured Congress to let the ban run out in 2004.

Obviously, LaPierre’s timing isn’t cosmic, just coincidental and unfortunate; as Shakespeare famously wrote, the fault is not in our stars, but in ourselves. In other words, people — people with guns. There are some 300 million guns in the United States, one in four adult Americans owns at least one and most of them are men. According to the British newspaper The Guardian, over the last 30 years, “the number of states with a law that automatically approves licences to carry concealed weapons provided an applicant clears a criminal background check has risen from eight to 38.”

Every year there are 30,000 gun deaths and perhaps as many as 300,000 gun-related assaults in the U.S. Firearm violence costs our country as much as $100 billion a year. Toys are regulated with greater care and safety concerns than guns.

So why do we always act so surprised?  Violence is our alter ego, wired into our Stone Age brains, so intrinsic its toxic eruptions no longer shock, except momentarily when we hear of a mass shooting like this latest in Colorado. But this, too, will pass as the nation of the short attention span quickly finds the next thing to divert us from the hard realities of America in 2012.

We are a country which began with the forced subjugation into slavery of millions of Africans and the reliance on arms against Native Americans for its westward expansion. In truth, more settlers traveling the Oregon Trail died from accidental, self-inflicted gunshots wounds than Indian attacks – we were not only bloodthirsty but also inept.

Nonetheless, we have become so gun loving, so gun crazy, so blasé about home-grown violence that far more Americans have been casualties of domestic gunfire than have died in all our wars combined. In Arizona last year, just days after the Gabby Giffords shooting, sales of the weapon used in the slaughter – a 9 millimeter Glock semi-automatic pistol – doubled.

We are fooling ourselves. Fooling ourselves that the law could allow even an inflamed lunatic to easily acquire murderous weapons and not expect murderous consequences. Fooling ourselves that the Second Amendment’s guarantee of a “well-regulated militia” be construed as a God-given right to purchase and own just about any weapon of destruction you like, a license for murder and mayhem. A great fraud has entered our history.

Maybe you remember a video you can still see on YouTube. In it, Adam Gadahn, an American born member of al Qaeda, the first US citizen charged with treason since 1952, urges terrorists to carry out attacks on the United States.  Right before your eyes he says, “America is absolutely awash with easily obtainable firearms. You can go down to a gun show at the local convention center and come away with a fully automatic assault rifle without a background check, and most likely, without having to show an identification card. So what are you waiting for?”

The gunman in Colorado waited only for his opportunity. So there you have it – the arsenal of democracy has been transformed into the arsenal of death. And the NRA? The NRA is the enabler of death — paranoid, delusional and as venomous as a scorpion. With the weak-kneed acquiescence of our politicians, the National Rifle Association has turned the Second Amendment of the Constitution into a cruel and deadly hoax.

 

by on Jul. 21, 2012 at 10:42 AM
Replies (51-58):
Kate_Momof3
by Platinum Member on Jul. 22, 2012 at 4:47 PM
What exactly am I demanding? "You people"? You make zero sense.
Quoting dl42272:

You people don't debate. You demand.


Quoting Kate_Momof3:

Debating Stand Your Ground laws (which have clearly been such a success) and assault weapons bans isn't bullshit.

Tolerating and buying into manufactured outrage created by those who directly benefit from lax gun laws is bullshit.

Quoting dl42272:

Every time something like this happens, the left starts up with their gun control bs! (Trayvon Martin, The politician from Arizona). I personally do not own any guns. Don't want them.




Quoting Kate_Momof3:

Grow up. This isn't a liberal versus conservative issue, it's about what is reasonable. Owning an assault rifle is not reasonable. If the argument is protection, that's nonsense. A handgun will suffice in that case.

No one is going to take your guns. 

Grow. Up.

Quoting dl42272:

So, when is that UN Treaty going to go into effect? I am sure the liberals will be happy when our rights are illegally taken away.





Posted on CafeMom Mobile
Carpy
by Platinum Member on Jul. 22, 2012 at 6:28 PM

The Myth of the Assault Weapons Ban

Catherine Coule

Americans see or hear something about guns almost every day. Sometimes they see drive-bys on the news, sometimes they watch gun fights in a movie, and sometimes they read about another shooting in the newspaper. This hasn't changed in decades, but there are groups who aspire to lessen the number of these occurrences by tweaking or creating laws. Most often, lawmakers and gun control advocates attempt to reduce crime by placing bans on guns; however, many of these restrictions are completely futile.

One of the most publicly endorsed - and subsequently misunderstood - bans is the so-called "Assault Weapons Ban." The official US Department of Justice study of the Assault Weapons Ban concluded that the ban's "impact on gun violence has been uncertain, due perhaps to the continuing availability of grandfathered assault weapons, close substitute guns and large capacity magazines, and the relative rarity with which the banned weapons were used in gun violence even before the ban." Perhaps this is true, but maybe it was simply because the ban really had no purpose. Issuing an Assault Weapons Ban did no more than give Americans a false sense of security.

First, the title of the bill was misleading. The Department of Defense definition of an assault weapon is "one capable of both automatic fire (many shots per trigger pull) and semiautomatic (one shot per trigger pull)." In reality, this was a ban on certain semi-automatic rifles with military characteristics or add-ons such as folding stocks, pistol grips, large ammunition clips and attachments for bayonets. At that, all it did was disallow the manufacture and importation of such weapons with these few military embellishments. This changes the surface appearance but not the function. Even the Violence Policy Center was quoted as saying that there really would be no change in anything once the law expired, and that all the law did was restrict some cosmetic accessories on rifles. The weapons that they refer to are hardly ever used in crimes. In New Jersey, they are used in less than .0003% of crimes. In Dade County, Florida, only 3 out of 217 homicides involved these accessories.

Additionally, this ban did not reduce the number of assault weapons out there, nor was it necessary to do so. Hollywood, with it's depiction of criminal drug dealers and drive-by shooters, and the media portray machine guns (fully automatics) as easily obtained and frequently used weapons. Since 1934, in order to legally own a machine gun, a person must pass a series of rigorous background checks, get a Federal collector's license from the U.S. Department of Treasury, and pay a hefty fee. There are only about 103,000 machine guns legally in private hands. In fact, a legally owned machine gun has not been used in a violent crime in the past fifty years, and since passing the National Firearms Act in 1934, which regulated ownership of machine guns, there has only been one incident where one was used violently, and that was by a police officer.

Finally, the public was deliberately misled into believing that this was a ban on ownership of machine guns. The following documented quote is what Josh Sugarmann of the Violence Policy Center, wrote in 1988 about how they could mislead the public with a new ban; "Assault weapons-just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms-are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons - anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun - can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons." When the ban was about to end, CNN's award winning reporter John Zarella falsified a report that the banned "assault" weapons became far more destructive with the use of military attachments by showing a police officer firing the same weapon, but with attachments the second time, at a concrete brick. The brick was undamaged when "shot at" the first time, but with the addition of attachments, the brick was destroyed. NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre pointed out the falsehood of this allegation to CNN the following day. CNN initially claimed that Zarella would never do such a thing, but days later, admitted that these reports were false and that the brick hadn't even been fired on the first time. "ABC News" further exaggerated the lies surrounding the ban when it showed footage of a full-auto rifle being used in a crime while claiming that lifting the ban would put these weapons back on the street. Still, the media did such a good job convincing the public that an Assault Weapons Ban was about machine guns that polls showed that as high as 70% of the public favored the continuation of a ban on machine guns. This law did what it was supposed to - it fooled the public into blurring the lines of fact and fiction in favor of gun control.

The assault weapon ban was so filled with loopholes as to be essentially a worthless, feel-good bill that had little appreciable effect on crime. John Reagan, a 56-year-old gun rights activist said, "I own eight guns. I'm all for the second amendment, but I would love to see the government apply its laws more strictly. It's just too bad that the ways they try, like the assault weapons ban, are completely in vain."

Kate_Momof3
by Platinum Member on Jul. 23, 2012 at 8:01 AM

I think it's a state issue. As demonstrated in this article, which I agree with, the federal government is good for feel-good legislation, but not much more.

The states have always carried the burden for enforcement. The feds, unless called by the states are vastly disconnected from enforcing laws overall. That's a local job.

And...I think gun laws should be determined by the states. I live in a state where there is an assault weapons ban so debating this for the national level is moot for  me. I also live in the state that made a vast majority of American guns--Winchester and Colt. I grew up with guns and parents who were gun enthusists. My best friend has a gun. 

I'm clearly not disgusted by guns or their owners. I see the purpose behind them and, frankly, they bring a lot of people joy (as bizarre as they may seem to the "liberal" mentality). 

What I stand behind and support is MY state's position on assault weapons: we acknowledge the right to own a gun, we support gun ownership (through safety regulations and certification programs), BUT we find there is no reasonable need for an assault weapon. End of story. We drew the line and none of my gun-owning friends and family have been affected in the least.

Quoting Carpy:

The Myth of the Assault Weapons Ban

Catherine Coule

Americans see or hear something about guns almost every day. Sometimes they see drive-bys on the news, sometimes they watch gun fights in a movie, and sometimes they read about another shooting in the newspaper. This hasn't changed in decades, but there are groups who aspire to lessen the number of these occurrences by tweaking or creating laws. Most often, lawmakers and gun control advocates attempt to reduce crime by placing bans on guns; however, many of these restrictions are completely futile.

One of the most publicly endorsed - and subsequently misunderstood - bans is the so-called "Assault Weapons Ban." The official US Department of Justice study of the Assault Weapons Ban concluded that the ban's "impact on gun violence has been uncertain, due perhaps to the continuing availability of grandfathered assault weapons, close substitute guns and large capacity magazines, and the relative rarity with which the banned weapons were used in gun violence even before the ban." Perhaps this is true, but maybe it was simply because the ban really had no purpose. Issuing an Assault Weapons Ban did no more than give Americans a false sense of security.

First, the title of the bill was misleading. The Department of Defense definition of an assault weapon is "one capable of both automatic fire (many shots per trigger pull) and semiautomatic (one shot per trigger pull)." In reality, this was a ban on certain semi-automatic rifles with military characteristics or add-ons such as folding stocks, pistol grips, large ammunition clips and attachments for bayonets. At that, all it did was disallow the manufacture and importation of such weapons with these few military embellishments. This changes the surface appearance but not the function. Even the Violence Policy Center was quoted as saying that there really would be no change in anything once the law expired, and that all the law did was restrict some cosmetic accessories on rifles. The weapons that they refer to are hardly ever used in crimes. In New Jersey, they are used in less than .0003% of crimes. In Dade County, Florida, only 3 out of 217 homicides involved these accessories.

Additionally, this ban did not reduce the number of assault weapons out there, nor was it necessary to do so. Hollywood, with it's depiction of criminal drug dealers and drive-by shooters, and the media portray machine guns (fully automatics) as easily obtained and frequently used weapons. Since 1934, in order to legally own a machine gun, a person must pass a series of rigorous background checks, get a Federal collector's license from the U.S. Department of Treasury, and pay a hefty fee. There are only about 103,000 machine guns legally in private hands. In fact, a legally owned machine gun has not been used in a violent crime in the past fifty years, and since passing the National Firearms Act in 1934, which regulated ownership of machine guns, there has only been one incident where one was used violently, and that was by a police officer.

Finally, the public was deliberately misled into believing that this was a ban on ownership of machine guns. The following documented quote is what Josh Sugarmann of the Violence Policy Center, wrote in 1988 about how they could mislead the public with a new ban; "Assault weapons-just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms-are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons - anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun - can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons." When the ban was about to end, CNN's award winning reporter John Zarella falsified a report that the banned "assault" weapons became far more destructive with the use of military attachments by showing a police officer firing the same weapon, but with attachments the second time, at a concrete brick. The brick was undamaged when "shot at" the first time, but with the addition of attachments, the brick was destroyed. NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre pointed out the falsehood of this allegation to CNN the following day. CNN initially claimed that Zarella would never do such a thing, but days later, admitted that these reports were false and that the brick hadn't even been fired on the first time. "ABC News" further exaggerated the lies surrounding the ban when it showed footage of a full-auto rifle being used in a crime while claiming that lifting the ban would put these weapons back on the street. Still, the media did such a good job convincing the public that an Assault Weapons Ban was about machine guns that polls showed that as high as 70% of the public favored the continuation of a ban on machine guns. This law did what it was supposed to - it fooled the public into blurring the lines of fact and fiction in favor of gun control.

The assault weapon ban was so filled with loopholes as to be essentially a worthless, feel-good bill that had little appreciable effect on crime. John Reagan, a 56-year-old gun rights activist said, "I own eight guns. I'm all for the second amendment, but I would love to see the government apply its laws more strictly. It's just too bad that the ways they try, like the assault weapons ban, are completely in vain."


dl42272
by on Jul. 23, 2012 at 8:38 AM

I wasn't talking about you in general. I was referring to the left. Sorry you thought otherwise.

Quoting Kate_Momof3:

What exactly am I demanding? "You people"? You make zero sense.
Quoting dl42272:

You people don't debate. You demand.


Quoting Kate_Momof3:

Debating Stand Your Ground laws (which have clearly been such a success) and assault weapons bans isn't bullshit.

Tolerating and buying into manufactured outrage created by those who directly benefit from lax gun laws is bullshit.

Quoting dl42272:

Every time something like this happens, the left starts up with their gun control bs! (Trayvon Martin, The politician from Arizona). I personally do not own any guns. Don't want them.




Quoting Kate_Momof3:

Grow up. This isn't a liberal versus conservative issue, it's about what is reasonable. Owning an assault rifle is not reasonable. If the argument is protection, that's nonsense. A handgun will suffice in that case.

No one is going to take your guns. 

Grow. Up.

Quoting dl42272:

So, when is that UN Treaty going to go into effect? I am sure the liberals will be happy when our rights are illegally taken away.






Kate_Momof3
by Platinum Member on Jul. 23, 2012 at 8:53 AM

Why jump to the conclusion that I'm on the left?

Quoting dl42272:

I wasn't talking about you in general. I was referring to the left. Sorry you thought otherwise.

Quoting Kate_Momof3:

What exactly am I demanding? "You people"? You make zero sense.
Quoting dl42272:

You people don't debate. You demand.


Quoting Kate_Momof3:

Debating Stand Your Ground laws (which have clearly been such a success) and assault weapons bans isn't bullshit.

Tolerating and buying into manufactured outrage created by those who directly benefit from lax gun laws is bullshit.

Quoting dl42272:

Every time something like this happens, the left starts up with their gun control bs! (Trayvon Martin, The politician from Arizona). I personally do not own any guns. Don't want them.




Quoting Kate_Momof3:

Grow up. This isn't a liberal versus conservative issue, it's about what is reasonable. Owning an assault rifle is not reasonable. If the argument is protection, that's nonsense. A handgun will suffice in that case.

No one is going to take your guns. 

Grow. Up.

Quoting dl42272:

So, when is that UN Treaty going to go into effect? I am sure the liberals will be happy when our rights are illegally taken away.







dl42272
by on Jul. 23, 2012 at 9:48 AM

Oh, please show me where I said that YOU were on the left!

Quoting Kate_Momof3:

Why jump to the conclusion that I'm on the left?

Quoting dl42272:

I wasn't talking about you in general. I was referring to the left. Sorry you thought otherwise.

Quoting Kate_Momof3:

What exactly am I demanding? "You people"? You make zero sense.
Quoting dl42272:

You people don't debate. You demand.


Quoting Kate_Momof3:

Debating Stand Your Ground laws (which have clearly been such a success) and assault weapons bans isn't bullshit.

Tolerating and buying into manufactured outrage created by those who directly benefit from lax gun laws is bullshit.

Quoting dl42272:

Every time something like this happens, the left starts up with their gun control bs! (Trayvon Martin, The politician from Arizona). I personally do not own any guns. Don't want them.




Quoting Kate_Momof3:

Grow up. This isn't a liberal versus conservative issue, it's about what is reasonable. Owning an assault rifle is not reasonable. If the argument is protection, that's nonsense. A handgun will suffice in that case.

No one is going to take your guns. 

Grow. Up.

Quoting dl42272:

So, when is that UN Treaty going to go into effect? I am sure the liberals will be happy when our rights are illegally taken away.








Sisteract
by Socialist Hippie on Jul. 23, 2012 at 11:07 AM

DUH- connect the dots- The numbers do not lie- 

It seems the crazies are attracted to the most caustic weapons like flies are drawn to fetid pile of fresh dung-

Quoting dl42272:

Every time something like this happens, the left starts up with their gun control bs! (Trayvon Martin, The politician from Arizona). I personally do not own any guns. Don't want them.

Quoting Kate_Momof3:

Grow up. This isn't a liberal versus conservative issue, it's about what is reasonable. Owning an assault rifle is not reasonable. If the argument is protection, that's nonsense. A handgun will suffice in that case.

No one is going to take your guns. 

Grow. Up.

Quoting dl42272:

So, when is that UN Treaty going to go into effect? I am sure the liberals will be happy when our rights are illegally taken away.




jcrew6
by Jenney on Jul. 23, 2012 at 12:16 PM

This!

Quoting Fields456:

Sorry but the bad guys will always find a way to get the weapons they want and need and i want the right to protect myself against them. You want to give up your right to bare arms be my guess I will keep my guns thank you very much


Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN