Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I wonder if we could rename this thread "City-Data Members Caught Mocking Gun Owners."
The only groups in this thread that I see being mocked and dismissed with blanket statements, generalizations and dramatic accusations ("COMMITTED TO THE WHOLESALE DESTRUCTION OF JUST ABOUT ALL REMAINING VESTIGES OF HUMAN AUTONOMY!!!!!!!!!!") are "modern liberals", "typical liberals", "the left" (and their "ultimate goal"), New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and the Northeast. (And possibly WWE fans, but I don't think that was meant to be all that serious.) I also see mocking comments about a group of gun control advocates being referred to as "sh*t-cliques of weeping women" and "dopes".
In 6 pages of comments, I see exactly ONE comment generalizing and referring to gun owners as a group, saying that they are on the ideological fringe. (And that person didn't resort to profanity, name calling or partisan attacks. But who in this thread HAS resorted to partisan hackery? Don't worry. You don't have to answer.)
Considering the intent with which this thread was started (mocking gun control advocates by posting a sensationalistic YouTube video of a selective bit of audio that makes it sound like NJ Senators are calling for the confiscation, confiscation, confiscation of everybody's guns), I think it's hilarious that you think it's gun owners that are the ones being mocked in this thread. Even in all my back & forth with Montguy, I have never criticized his gun ownership.
Yes, I know that gun owners, conservatives and Republicans get plenty of insults and stereotypes hurled at them on the interwubz. But not in this thread. And in general, including on this forum, the bullschidt flows equally both ways. Don't be a martyr.
Although you've kindly put forth the effort to re-organize your source (which I'm guessing is this or some other variant?: This Is How The Gun Industry Funds The NRA - Business Insider), I'll simply post a link of my own in response, a source which I think was posted in response to this article and Sen. Chris Murphy's uncredited referencing of it:
While it's easy enough to identify that a political and finanical relationship does exist between the NRA and the lobbying arm of gun manufacturers, to only claim that corporations are "in bed" with the NRA is a wanton neglection of the fact that civilian donors are every bit as much "in bed" with (and represented by) the organization as corporate entities are.
And lastly on this topic, I can understand why a manufacturer would ally with the NRA in an instance where certain models of semi-automatic rifles (their frontline products in many cases) are subject to a federal ban rooted in Feinstonian idiocy.
You can review the NRA's financials if you'd like. In 2010, you'll find they had:
Total Revenue: $227,811,279
Total Expenses: $243,534,275
Salaries and comp:
$51,666,650
21 percent of expenses (this is pretty poor for a non-profit organization)
Professional Fundraising Fees: $7,989,955
3 percent of expenses (this is about avg for a non-profit)
Advertising and Promotion $28,506,230 11% of expenses
"ADDITIONAL INSTITUTE FOR LEGISLATIVE ACTION" $9,943,784 4% of expenses
i'll take a peek through the 990 in more detail later, but it'd be interesting to see what makes up their approx $100m in "contributions". 4 million members right? what else?
Although you've kindly put forth the effort to re-organize your source (which I'm guessing is this or some other variant?: This Is How The Gun Industry Funds The NRA - Business Insider), I'll simply post a link of my own in response, a source which I think was posted in response to this article and Sen. Chris Murphy's uncredited referencing of it:
While it's easy enough to identify that a political and finanical relationship does exist between the NRA and the lobbying arm of gun manufacturers, to only claim that corporations are "in bed" with the NRA is a wanton neglection of the fact that civilian donors are every bit as much "in bed" with (and represented by) the organization as corporate entities are.
And lastly on this topic, I can understand why a manufacturer would ally with the NRA in an instance where certain models of semi-automatic rifles (their frontline products in many cases) are subject to a federal ban rooted in Feinstonian idiocy.
Well this is really a matter of semantics isn't it? Half of NRA revenue comes from members, the other half comes from companies either through partnership programs or direct donations. Even the FactCheck piece basically ends it by saying that Senator Murphy was wrong because he said "salaries". Had he just left it that half of their "revenue" comes from gun manufacturers and affiliated programs he would have been absolutely correct. Technically, no one at the NRA has their salary paid by a gun manufacturer because that revenue is designated for other purposes, which include lobbying efforts. Since we are looking at a 50/50 split, then it is at least fair to say that the represent both, is it not?
Of course the manufacturers are going to ally with the NRA. Remember...gun manufacturers = evil soulless corporations selling death machines...NRA members = patriotic American sportsmen dedicated to preserving liberty. Which would you prefer to have fronting you in the debate? The NRA has carefully placed itself in the national debate and insullated the manufacturers. There is nothing wrong with this, it's just misleading to state that the NRA is only involved to represent the wants/needs/opinions of its members.
Quote:
The question of whether or not the open or concealed carry of weapons outside of the home is one which the SCOTUS refuses to answer (though I'm sure the precedent they set in DC v Heller would make it rather difficult for them to rule against it), it does remain the responsibility of states and municipalities to decide this, yes.
Yet is it constitutionally unlawful? Well, you tell me--the blackrobes won't answer.
I don't think anyone knows. The SCOTUS has upheld the right of a state to restrict and control the concealed carrying of weapons. By extension, one would assume they would have the right to restrict and/or control open carry in some manner. I suppose much of the argument would hinge on what is meant by the word "bear".
Quote:
At what point prior the 2A having been incorporated to the states by the 14A or following the 1876 SCOTUS ruling in U.S. vs Cruikshank would it ever have been "in spirit" of the consitution to allow blanket gun bans in any state? Am I misreading something here?
No, not misreading, perhaps misunderstanding. You were hedging towards that old "intent of the Founders" canard, I figured I would head it off by reminding you that the original "intent" meant that it only applied to the Federal government. A state, prior to the 14A could have imposed a universal firearm ban and it would not have been unconstitutional. Against the "spirit", perhaps, but not against it.
Quote:
Uhhh...Arkansas?
(Or for starters, maybe we'd just utilize oil/energy revenues and instate taxes on income and property which could fund a preferably weaker federal government similar to that established by the Swiss federal model...I don't know, if Iceland, for instance, can make it without funding from the NE, so could the remainder of the country).
Come on, I was just highlighting the wonderful symbiotic nature of the relationship between the northeast and your neck of the woods. We provide you with funding for roads, bridges, schools, etc. and you guy's provided us with the scenery for that gay cowboy movie we whining liberals loved so much.
Quote:
Well, then this is the problem with states' rights, isn't it? That without strict, uniform, NJ-style federal laws concerning firearms, New Jersey's citizens will always be victimized by states which refuse to conform their laws to those which New Jersey has implemented on the pretense of saving lives?
Well, we have quite the problem here don't we? It's pretty obvious to me that the issue requires a good deal of compromise and yes, Federal action to resolve. NJ is incapable of fixing NJ's problems and WV doesn't really care. Further, the ability of NJ to create "draconian" laws and the patchwork of state laws entirely makes it very hard to be a gun owner and travel. Things that are legal in PA are illegal in NJ, etc.
I would not argue that NJ style laws are needed, but I would argue that uniform laws are needed to eliminate confusion and allow for better enforcement. I cannot buy a handgun in NJ without completing a background check, even at a gun show, unless I make it an illegal purchase in the parking lot. Yet, I can go to WV, attend a gun show and as long as I don't buy from a licensed dealer at the show, I could purchase 50 handguns, no questions asked, no record of the transaction. That's a problem, because that is the gun-trafficking that happens everyday. We've posted the numbers on here before. Something like 85% of the guns used to commit crimes in NJ originated from out-of-state. 10% were stolen from legal gun owners. 5% were lawfully purchased.
Quote:
If you're implying that any large portion of blame for the ineffectiveness of NJ's gun laws belongs to neighboring states, then surely your states' rights position on the 2A won't be effective in suppressing gun violence in your state, at least not until NJ's state government takes its own sovereign initiative to end its prohibitionist gun policies (which you yourself claim to be "too strict and a little silly," at least in "some" cases).
There is no proven correlation between gun laws and gun violence. There are states, like NJ with very strict laws that still rank in the top-25 states for violent crime. On the other hand, there are states with extremely lax and/or gun friendly laws like Florida and Arizona that have some of the highest rates of violent crime in the country. More guns in the hands of more people has not been a proven deterrent to crime. One could imply from the data, that more guns actually equals more violence, but that would be disingenuous.
At the end of the day we all know that violent crime is primarily contained to certain communities. Arizona and Florida have high rates because of certain demographics. Same story in NJ, CA, etc. States like Montana and New Hampshire with very low rates, have them because of the low population density, not anything to do with their firearms laws. Based on the example, in populous states with crime issues, gun ownership is not a deterrent to crime and the correlative evidence points to lax laws and high ownership rates as exacerbating crime.
The goal is to keep the guns out of the hands of certain people who have a proclivity to use it to commit crime. The problem we have when it comes to doing that is that any logical attempt; whether it be a universal check or a registry that would, God forbid, make a gun owner responsible for what happens with their own gun; that attempt is blocked based on an unlegitimized fear that it will somehow lead to tyranny and confiscation.
Quote:
I'm glad that you aren't against the right to keep and bear arms, but it's troubling to me that you seem to be most accepting of this under preferred circumstances where the BATFE (presumably) has essentially granted us permission to do so under their regulatory authority, and, more disturbingly, you would oppose the Manchin-Toomey amendment'ss provision which further criminilized the databasing of gun owners beyond that which the Firearm Owners Protection Act already mandates.
So, to you the 2A provides an unlimited right and therefore any restriction or regulation is analogous to a violation of that right?
I respect that if it's your opinion, but it's imply not reality as all rights have limitations as is necessary for the functioning of society. I see nothing about the concept of universal background checks and registries that in any way impact someones ability to exercise the basic fundamental principle of their 2A rights.
Quote:
And while you can claim that registration has not let to confiscation in the U.S. historically (well, other than in certain instances in NYC and CA, to wit), the precedence for this concern has been established elsewhere in the developed world--it isn't farfetched to suggest that it indeed has happened and could happen under the right political climate.
It's a difficult question to resolve. If we registered all guns and then a law was passed banning certain guns, I would imagine the registery would be used to ensure that owners of said banned guns had turned them in. So, yes, a registry could be used to confiscate the weapons of those who did not comply with the law. The benefit of such a registry would be a complete undermining of the flow of blackmarket guns into the hands of criminals, meaning that only the "good guys" would have the guns for the most part. Would it eliminate all illegal gun trafficking, no, but it would seriously curb it.
For the "developed world" examples, please don't spewing out that old in 1928 Germany banned guns chain letter. I get sick of having to refute it.
Quote:
True enough (at least for now)--I just think that NJ's choice is an utterly stupid one, which I personally think could very well be emulated by federal law at some point in the distant (or near) future, depending on the exploitation value of another mass-shooting incident(s).
I do think NJ goes too far, but I also feel that it is a response to the situation we find ourselves in. As for NJ style laws being applied Federally, I doubt that will happen.
Quote:
I've acknowledged that "misheard" is popular speculation, based in part by a source that I linked myself (and one which Docendo is apparently hell-bent on browbeating me with).
Well, we all appear to be on the same page on that one.
Quote:
Also, it's sure interesting that pollsters have been able to identify an overwhelming majority of NRA members who support universal background checks, considering that no full list of NRA members has ever been disclosed by the organization to any media outlet or polling company, but yet, some of us choose to believe that polling outlets have identified nearly 5,000,000 members and included them in a polling sample.
I believe it was a simple question of "are you or a member of your houehold a member of the NRA?"
This one breaks it down pretty well where the polls came from and what they said. Both polls were done before the legislation that was tabled came out, so it is more of a general support for the idea, not any recent specific legislation.
Taking it a step further, plenty of national polls that were done irrespective of NRA membership status found that about 90% of Americans supported universal background checks.
Quote:
And if you're going to blame those demonic gun manufacturers for the failed passage of the UBC legislation, then answer this: What financial reason would any manufacturer (or licensed firearm dealer, for that matter) have to oppose such a law?
I'm not sure I agree 100% with the logic, but the "financial reason" would be that UBC's would limit the pool of customers they are selling to.
What I am interested in though is what changed to make the NRA oppose UBC's. In 1999 they ran ads saying:
"We think it's reasonable to provide mandatory instant criminal background checks for every sale at every gun show. No loopholes anywhere for anyone."
What is different today? Why does the NRA oppose UBC's that they were in favor of before? What logical reason is there to be against UBC's? How would they impact your 2A rights?
Quote:
So what, should I take this to mean that a revolver should be registered and controlled under the same NFA laws covering the possession of a machine-gun?
Revolvers are used in way more crimes and responsbile for a hell of a lot more deaths than machine guns and so called "assault rifles" are they not?
Quote:
If so, well, this is a glaring example of why I can't level with you people.
Why is that? Is it only "your way or the highway"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Montguy
Well, I can think of a certain Montanan who's not particularly crazy about myopic New Jerseyans who can't identify a clear difference between xenophobia and political distaste.
Hey now, I was just playing along. I do think xenophobia may be a better word than "political distaste" though. Political distaste would imply unpleasant disagreement. You have obviously crossed well into xenophobia based on your statements. No need for names though, unless you and Docendo want to keep on beating each other. I much prefer rational and logical discussion...unless you have a proclivity for simply shooting rational and logical people.
Owning firearms are my right... protecting myself with them is my right... target shooting with them is my right (And hunting). If you don't agree, then don't own one, don't protect yourself with one and don't go hunting or target shooting!!
What really grinds the gears of the people who practice their 2A right are the anti's who think how they 'feel' should become law and followed by others who don't agree... Thats the BS part that makes everyone angry!
Owning firearms are my right... protecting myself with them is my right... target shooting with them is my right (And hunting). If you don't agree, then don't own one, don't protect yourself with one and don't go hunting or target shooting!!
What really grinds the gears of the people who practice their 2A right are the anti's who think how they 'feel' should become law and followed by others who don't agree... Thats the BS part that makes everyone angry!
How many times have you been robbed in Monmouth Cty?
Owning firearms are my right... protecting myself with them is my right... target shooting with them is my right (And hunting). If you don't agree, then don't own one, don't protect yourself with one and don't go hunting or target shooting!!
What really grinds the gears of the people who practice their 2A right are the anti's who think how they 'feel' should become law and followed by others who don't agree... Thats the BS part that makes everyone angry!
It's a new time in the U.S. Your constitutional rights no longer matter. However, if you need something to keep you busy you can abort as many unborn babies as you like. Woo hoo!
It's a new time in the U.S. Your constitutional rights no longer matter. However, if you need something to keep you busy you can abort as many unborn babies as you like. Woo hoo!
It's funny when gun absolutists bring up the Constitution (most don't know more than one or two amendments). There have been relatively few "gun rights" cases decided by the US Supreme Court in 200+ years. Regulation by the states has always been the norm.
And militias meant something back before we had a huge military of 1 million+ people (a fairly recent invention necessitated by our military industrial complex and world-wide presence). You stored your weapon at an armory and it was kept track of and you practiced with it from time to time to potentially protect your country. You might've had a hunting rifle to get your dinner. But the idea that you could have a personal arsenal in your basement as a right "bestowed by God" was most definitely NOT the intention of the founders of this country.
@ Montguy: I just skimmed some of this, and almost walked away shaking my head. What kind of a person spends hours upon hours of their time writing to people he doesn't know, in another state, in passionate defense of their right to own something that has one use, and one use only: to kill.
If you that feel that crazy passionate about it, have you stopped to ask yourself why? Is it THAT important to you that you get to gun down Bambi? Does it make you feel like a real fella to know that on the off chance someone comes to rob you, can mow their ass down?
Your comment about the mothers was particularly short sighted. Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps mothers, who had to physically produce EVERY victim of gun violence, might have a take on this that bears listening to??? I always find it amazing the disparity between men and women when it comes to violence. There will always be exceptions to everything but for the most part, mothers seem to get, more than most, the sanctity of life.
Could they possibly have a point, a perspective that perhaps you have not considered? You seem pretty emotional about guns. Maybe, having birthed another live person, they might have a legitimate point that is, dare I say, equally emotional for them? Oh no, sorry I forgot: your right to hunt and hang your 2nd amendment definitely supersedes any feelings they might about their children. I forgot how you 2nd amendment crazies seem to think that guarantee trumps common sense and human decency.
The funny thing is--I am all for background checks and am okay with just that. But if pressed, I suppose I just think common sense mandates that guns should be banned. If the US government wanted to declare war on us, they have many means that would render your guns irrelevant: they control the media, have drones, M16s, can affect food production etc.
In the meantime, 30,000 citizens die annually due to gun violence. We went to war in two countries for a decade because of something that killed 10% of that number. But let's not let numbers and facts lead, right? Just pure illogical attachment to our rifles, our need to hung small animals and our deluded sense of safety should the government decide to go all angry-birds on us.
I know I am just small minded, non-exposition writing, bad accented NJ woman and all---and gasp, oh gaps, an emotional mother at that (!)--- but seems to me that the 2nd amendment argument is plain old silly but if you are serious about it, perhaps you should petition the government to make military tanks, planes, and other large scale weaponry commercially available so we can level the playing field. I can only imagine how big and important you would feel writing this from your tank.
Get your gun out of your whahoo for a moment, look and see if you still have a heart anywhere in there, hidden somewhere between your enormous brain, Montana brawn and your exceedingly high rear end from sitting on that smug high horse.
In 6 pages of comments, I see exactly ONE comment generalizing and referring to gun owners as a group, saying that they are on the ideological fringe. (And that person didn't resort to profanity, name calling or partisan attacks.
.
I am sorry Docendo but I just resorted to mockery.
:-( hanging head down in shame
I couldn't help myself, that Montana guy was too entertaining, too open, too inviting......
I own a gun, and I am a woman. I support the 2nd amendment, as well as the REST of the constitution for EVERYONE, regardless of ethnic background, religious beliefs, or no beliefs, and yes, even all political affiliations. I am also 100% for background checks, and registration, especially when transferring. A RESPONSIBLE gun owner who has no intent on committing a crime would have ZERO problems with this. It actually protects you if some jackass buys your gun and uses it in a crime, like many idiots have done. I don't understand what the big problem is if all you want to is to be a law abiding citizen who can protect your family should the need, ever God forbid arise?
Also, why the heck do you need an assault weapon, and a million rounds of ammo? If all you want is to protect yourself, usually one shot does it, and the limits give you far more than that? The same goes for hunting. Are buying all those rounds in case you & the deer get in a shoot out? Go to a shooting range, make sure your a good shot, and you're good to go. People who are LAW ABIDING CITIZENS don't have big shoot outs, that require tons of ammo!
The irony of it all, is that most of these people who want minimal, if any government involvement with their guns, have no problem violating other constitutional rights of those who are different than they are. The recent IRS drama is yet another example. Ahhh the double standards....
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
