|Back to Home > Bulletin Board > Current Events > Topic: The NRA's Police State|
The NRA's Police State
Posted - 12/21/2012 3:43:10 PM | show profile | flag this post
So 'Lil Wayne of the NRA says their solution is an armed police officer in every school in America.
Who's going to pay for it?
How about a tax on every gun, piece of ammunition and firearm magazine in the U.S.?
That is the way the NRA addresses school shootings.
What about mass shootings at theaters (like in Aurora), shopping centers (like Tuscon) and malls (like Portland). Perhaps the NRA would like to see a cop in everyone of those, too.
Odd, that the organization that claims to speak for people most worried about a police state has just demanded that America be turned into a police state.
Posted - 12/21/2012 3:55:50 PM | show profile | flag this post
It's because idiot left wingers
refuse to do anything about the crazies and loonies running around the country.
Do the country a favor and get on board with conservative calls for better communication between the medical profession and law enforcement, bans on high capacity ammunition magazines, background checks for private sales and restrictions on violent movies and video games.
This should go a LONG way toward mitigating the problem and leave firearms...which have NO role except when being used by a human being*...out of it.
* It is only firearms BEING USED BY AN UNDESIRABLE that constitute the problem. Lawful owners/users are NOT the problem and never have been.
Posted - 12/21/2012 4:11:42 PM | show profile | flag this post
Video games & movies
When we talk about restricting violent video games and movies, we are getting into First Amendment territory. I don't support this restriction. I object to curtailing the creative freedom of the majority because a few may (or may not) be influenced by what they read, hear or see.
I don't understand how some people, who vehemently support the Second Amendment, have no trouble trampling on the First.
Movies don't kill people either!
Posted - 12/21/2012 4:31:08 PM | show profile | flag this post
"I object to curtailing
the creative freedom of the majority because a few may (or may not) be influenced"
And yet you have no qualms about curtailing the freedom of the majority because of a few nut cases.
Talk about h-y-p-o-c... You know the rest.
Posted - 12/21/2012 4:31:11 PM | show profile | flag this post
i don't much care about the games and movies, either..
what i want gone are the high-capacity magazines, and the hollow-point bullets..
no one needs more than ten rounds..if you can't get it done with 10, you probably aren't gonna get it done at all..
i'd go along with armed cops in the schools..expensive, but worth it..
better cooperation between mental health and law enforcement?..absolutely..even though i can hear the civil libertarians and privacy rights types screaming already..
Posted - 12/21/2012 4:52:05 PM | show profile | flag this post
NRA shoots itself in the foot
Now that's some delicious irony for ya. All they did today was appeal to their base. They said nothing that's going to curb the rising tide against them.
An armed guard at every school (like a bank). I'm not against that idea. But there's like what, 140,000 schools in the country?? Who's going to pay for that? A new tiny percent tax on firearms perhaps? I'm on board.
And would that have stopped the Sandy Hook massacre? Of course not. (From the conservative national Review) "Columbine High School had a sheriff’s deputy on scene when the shooting broke out.
That’s right, but it isn’t like the deputy was sitting around eating doughnuts during the Columbine massacre. He traded fire (that is, he drew fire) with Harris for an extended period of time, during which Harris’s gun jammed. The deputy and the backup he immediately called for exchanged fire with the shooters a second time and helped begin the evacuation of students, all before the SWAT teams and the rest of the cavalry arrived, and before Harris and Klebold killed themselves in the library."
cruise? "better communication between the medical profession and law enforcement". Couldn't agree more. Though again, you're trying to mis-direct; 'Mom' bought the guns--not the mental patient.
"bans on high capacity ammunition magazines" Couldn't agree more....but the NRA is against that and it was NOT even mentioned this morning. When cruise calls for something reasonable that LaPierre ignores--you know we're entering strange territory.
"Violent movies and video games" is the lamest, dumbest, inane excuse ever. I've watched cartoons since I was a kid, love "Scarface", and play "Battlefield". I've never dropped an anvil on anyone, or chain-sawed anyone, or blew away an intruder. The second lamest reason for a massacre is a lack of God in our schools. At least Wayne didn't go there.
But but but...the guns had nothing to do with the shooting. Gotcha.
Posted - 12/21/2012 8:39:35 PM | show profile | flag this post
"I've watched cartoons since I was a kid,
love "Scarface", and play "Battlefield". I've never dropped an anvil on anyone, or chain-sawed anyone, or blew away an intruder."
My comments do not pertain to most people who are wired up normally (and I will assume, for the sake of argument, that includes you). I have a grandson and a nephew who are inveterate video game players and they have never been in the news.
It's people whose elevators don't reach the top floors and who have cannot separate reality from fantasy that are likely to be influenced by video games, etc., and they are the people for whom army materials that train people to kill are not appropriate. Therefore I am calling for restrictions on violent movies and video games. Not an outright ban...just restrictions to keep them out of the hands of the wrong people.
Gee! It's such a coincidence! Those are the SAME people who should never have access to firearms.
Posted - 12/21/2012 9:24:45 PM | show profile | flag this post
Not true, cruiser
"And yet you have no qualms about curtailing the freedom of the majority because of a few nut cases."
I have great qualms about curtailing the freedom of the majority. I always do. However, I also think that we must look at some sort of compromise with the left if we are going to find a way to protect kids. If this means that we put greater effort into treating mental illness AND that we look at restricting the deadliest automatic weaponry, then I am willing to consider it. If it means a greater communication between the medical community and gun dealers regarding the mentally ill, then I am willing to consider it. If it means that we look at putting armed guards or military veterans at schools, then I am willing to consider it. I don't especially like most of it. Restricting free expression is just too much for me. Plus, I'm not convinced that it specifically addresses the problem.
I am certain, however, that if we all remain in our deeply entrenched positions, with neither side giving an inch, then we will accomplish absolutely nothing.
Posted - 12/21/2012 11:28:14 PM | show profile | flag this post
"deadliest automatic weaponry"
There is NOTHING like that legally on the street. They are semi-automatic only and operate exactly the same way as very innocuous hunting rifles that don't look "scary."
It's misinformation of the kind you posted that provides the left with unintended ammunition (no pun intended) in their quest to use human emotion to enact bans of all guns. And, believe me when I say this...I've been studying this issue for 40 years, the left DOES WANT TO ban all guns. But they've learned that they cannot do it all at once so they're taking it piecemeal...one type of firearm at a time. When they've dispatched semi-automatic rifles, handguns will be next. This IS the slippery slope.
Posted - 12/22/2012 1:11:15 AM | show profile | flag this post
You're right. "Deadly automatic weapons" is not an accurate phrase. I was thinking about "high capacity ammunition" and that is what I should have said. I am willing to look at restricting this type of ammunition as part of a larger effort to combat mass murder. I've stated that such an effort should include a real attempt to deal with mental illness and I would not rule out putting more armed security in our nation's schools.
Public schools in more than half a dozen major cities already have armed security or local police on their campuses. Opponents of this idea keep mentioning the two Columbine deputies who failed to kill the gunmen. Yet, how many students survived when the gunmen were forced to exchange fire with armed deputies? Will anything work 100% of the time? No. But at this point, it is worth a try.
I am always worried about the slippery slope. I believe that enough people are opposed to an assault on the Second Amendment to keep us from losing our right to defend ourselves.
Posted - 12/22/2012 2:49:48 PM | show profile | flag this post
I just can't buy into the 'cop-out' that guns aren't the problem--it's video games and movies!! First of all, these things already have an age ratings system. Second; if a person is that screwed up that watching a Mel Gibson movie is going to 'send you over the edge'...CLEARLY we're back into mental health territory.
Very good point about the 1st Amend btw; but wingnuts don't want to hear it; that's been the case for years. The Constitution is practically as holy as the Ark of the Covenant--Don't touch it!! But but but...we don't like that 'Seperation of Church and State' thing--get rid of that (That was another 'Cause' of the massacre anyway, remember?) We love the First!! But let's set limits on Hollywood. Freedom to protest? Well, yea...but we want a Const Amend about the Flag...And one about abortion....and one about Gays...
But the Second?? Don't even go near that one. That whole "Well Regulated" thing is a mis-print. Doesn't EVERY Amend, EVERY "Right" for that matter--have it's limits??
"Well regulated" is NOT always a slippery slope you know. We make teens pass a test before getting their permit. (We do not do that with guns though) We have safety standards, speed limits, etc...But no one says this is a sneaky way for Obama to get all our cars.
Even going near this type of debate with cruise is pointless. Look at his basement dwelling pointed head paranoid rhetoric: "their quest to use human emotion to enact bans of all guns." "I've been studying this issue for 40 years, the left DOES WANT TO ban all guns." "When they've dispatched semi-automatic rifles, handguns will be next." It's a 'fact' to him. Nothing to back it up, no need.
Posted - 12/22/2012 3:22:03 PM | show profile | flag this post
Oh boy, mp
Two of the worst places I can think of to be right now, 1) at the bottom of a 10-foot snow drift, 2) in the middle of a battle between you and cruiser.
I totally agree on video-game labeling. I have no trouble with MPAA-type labeling. It's fine to check I.D. for age. I simply can't imagine a world where a store clerk has to run a psych-check on me before I can buy Grand Theft Auto. I am also not convinced, as I've said, that violent video games and movies are part of the problem.
I disagree with you on your 2nd Amendment interpretation. To me, this "separation of Church and State" concept has gone over the edge. The way I read the amendment, we should not be banning religion from the public square. We should be tolerating all religions in the public square. Stop banning nativity scenes on public property! (I'm talking to you Santa Monica, CA.) Instead, welcome everybody else to set up shop as well. Yes, including the atheists. Our great nation guarantees freedom "of" religion, not freedom "from" religion.
I also have a very different reading of the Second Amendment. I have always thought that the "well-regulated militia" refers to a government army. The Constitution gave the new country the right to "provide for the common defense." Therefore, we the people, have the right to protect ourselves from an overzealous government. Plus, I strongly believe in the right to bear arms against anyone who would harm my family and my household.
I have read posts from left wing members here who have no desire "to ban all guns." Yet, I know and have seen, heard and read the beliefs of those who do want to ban all guns in the U.S. outside of law enforcement and the military. It is a problem for those of us who want to keep our firearms freedoms intact.
Posted - 12/22/2012 3:45:53 PM | show profile | flag this post
...there is already MPAA labelling and laws on video games.
"Adult" rated video games cannot be sold to minors.
As for "war style" shooting games ... Well the US Army puts out it own first person shooter game, complete with a variety of weapons and scenarios, as a recruitment tool... That is no more violent that the current crop...
Posted - 12/22/2012 3:56:29 PM | show profile | flag this post
You're right about me and cruise (lol). When I'm too busy to post here, I just think of cruise, then smack my head with a couple of bricks. Saves time.
I think most of us agree that the video games and violent movies argument is bullshit. It's a cheap finger-pointer, an excuse. Anyone that susceptible needs help. The ratings systems in place are enough. Hell, watching Hannity or O'Reilly makes me angrier than playing '1942'.
As for your "separation of Church and State" concept...We agree I think. The whole banning of Nativity scenes is absurd. Our County Courthouse still has a bronze Ten Commandments plaque on it--I don't have a problem with that. A Consitutional Amend ORDERING mandatory prayer in public schools?? THAT I got a problem with.
As to the 2nd? "I have always thought that the "well-regulated militia" refers to a government army". Well, yea, me too. It doesn't say "citizens" does it?? it says "Militia". Like the Minutemen. EVEN IF you expand that to say, ALL OF US, doesn't get you around the "Well Regulated" part does it?
I also thought it was interesting how you melded some of the 2nd with the 'Preamble' (that's where the "provide for the common defense" part is) I've had this debate before...linking 'common defense' to the 2nd is okay, but that other part of the Preamble ("promote the general welfare") doesn't mean 'ObamaCare' is called for.
The point is this: No matter how you and I (and cruise) interpret Amendments--No 'Right' is absolute. Why is it we agree on that in principle when it comes to the First Amend; "Yelling Fire" and slander and libel, and all of that...But the 2nd is not to be touched. ("It is a problem for those of us who want to keep our firearms freedoms intact.") NOT if your freedoms include blowing away a 6yr old. And isn't it ironic that the 2nd is the ONLY 'Right' we have that specifically says not only "Regulated", but "Well Regulated".
Must have been a mis-print...the only explanation.
Posted - 12/22/2012 5:27:21 PM | show profile | flag this post
automatic versus semi-automatic..
we can argue about that all day..but i'd submit that..
any weeapon that'll fire 30 rounds as fast as you can pull the trigger (and an AR-15 will) is pretty much fully automatic, no matter how YOU want to parse the terms..
Posted - 12/22/2012 6:28:28 PM | show profile | flag this post
True, and besides that
Am I just hallucinating, or aren't there a few thousand sites and places out there where you can convert a semi-anything into a fully automatic-something??
This dude is just so proud of his: perfectly legal, and up to 900 rounds a minute.
This should be legal for hunters??? Hunting what?? Transformers?? Martian tri-pods?? Visitors from the 'Bug Planet'?? All you're going to end up with after this thing is 'Venison Soup'. Or dead people.
Posted - 12/23/2012 11:58:12 AM | show profile | flag this post
You are so obsessed with AR-15s and their rate of fire
that perhaps we should find a way to keep them out of YOUR hands. You could certainly be dangerous.
But that's what radical left wing anti-gun zealots do...they find a point they think will trigger an emotional response and harp on it. The aim is...first...to whip up anti-gun sentiment in the general population, and...second...to ban all firearms, one type at a time. That's ALL firearms.
Don't doubt me on the last point.
Posted - 12/23/2012 1:36:55 PM | show profile | flag this post
*** Don't doubt me on the last point. ***
Posted - 12/23/2012 1:43:36 PM | show profile | flag this post
He's a bully Grateful
That's what he knows. I'm right, you're wrong--no middle ground. One every single subject. Facts, stats be damned. I can't think of a single debate where he acknowledged he doesn't know everything. And he's obviously a paranoid delusional nutcase
"The aim is...first...to whip up anti-gun sentiment in the general population, and...second...to ban all firearms, one type at a time. That's ALL firearms."
Right out of the NRA playbook. Obama's coming for your guns--even though the government hasn't done anything EVEN CLOSE to banning or seizing anyones guns--"it's gonna happen...The UN ruling the World...Black helicopters!! There's a plan!! CONSPIRACY!!"
Posted - 12/23/2012 4:09:49 PM | show profile | flag this post
Here's a collection of memos leaked from
Brady, HCI, VPC, etc., that detail the anti-gun zealots' plans for the total elimination of firearms from the American society:
Note that near the bottom of the first post the paragraph entitled The Next Fifteen Years is a sub-head entitled The Total Elimination of Arms from Society.
The whole several pages make for interesting reading.
MAKE NO MISTAKE...ELIMINATION OF ALL FIREARMS IS STILL THE AGENDA. They're just trying to do it piecemeal.
Posted - 12/23/2012 4:19:59 PM | show profile | flag this post
wow- paranoia strikes deep.. what sad way to live one's life.
Posted - 12/23/2012 4:58:01 PM | show profile | flag this post
Yeah, that's the ticket
just close your eyes and ignore the problem...or try to push it back on we who are trying to open the eyes of you knee-jerk reactionaries.
There is none so blind as he who will not see.
Posted - 12/23/2012 5:50:42 PM | show profile | flag this post
He's taken "paranoid" to levels us non-basement dwellers can't comprehend. He makes that nerd in "Men in Black" look like a scientist. He's so conspiracy filled he hears helicopter noises in his sleep...a "Boo" behind him could result in the mailman gettin blown away.
His PROOF Obama's after your guns?? An infamous internet myth/satire posting. A famous "leaked memo" from an "anonymous source" detailing a secret meeting fifteen years ago--which never happened--"The eventual elimination of ALL guns and ALL hunting!" And you can't realize this was a joke?? The banning of 'paintballs' didn't give it away?!?!!?
It reminds me of the GOP Congressman who thought the 'Onion' article on the "Abortionplex" was really happening.
"The whole several pages make for interesting reading" Well yea. So does 'Twilight...to those so inclined.
Jeez. There is absolutely no proof, statements, legislation, memos, comments, ANYTHING AT ALL that even HINTS that the Obama Admin wants to "take away peoples guns".
To which cruise (and LaPierre) say "just close your eyes and ignore the problem". Can we yell about how Obama faked the moon landing next???
Posted - 12/23/2012 7:04:37 PM | show profile | flag this post
just read through that post on taking away our guns..
after i finished it, my onlyh thought was:
"..cruiztwit believes this crap?..he doesn't realize this is an elaborate joke- a put-on?"..
guess he isn't NEARLY as smart as he tells us all he is..
Posted - 12/23/2012 7:21:43 PM | show profile | flag this post
Thank you orthicon;
For scanning that piece of tripe. It's not just that cruise fell for an OBVIOUS internet joke/satire dated 15 years ago, it's that he believes in it. Never mind that even the group mentioned doesn't even exist anymore (Hell--some Repubs blamed ACORN for stealing the election last month, and they don't exist either. Go figure)
Please people, keep this in mind the next time (and there will be a next time) cruise says his expetise and research capabilities far outdo anything we can do with a simple Google search. He knows all. And the conspiracies are all real. donchaknow.
And besides all that, if anyone can show me a legit piece (any newspaper, any outlet, broadcast or web, any "Thomas" search) that SHOWS where the Obama Admin has tried to limit the rights of gun owners I'd love to see it.