This is what we're up against ...

[xzhync]

The hypocrisy of these leftist gun-banners is sickening.

Gun banners don't want us to be able to defend ourselves, but they won't support capital punishment for killers.

They exploit the murders of children as a means to limit our rights...but they will not tolerate even the slightest restrictions on the rights they deem important. (And I don't want to be more explicit lest I violate the rules here.)

The Administration is pledging quick action on banning guns and magazines, yet this same Administration allowed the illegal sale of those same guns to Mexican drug lords.

Like I said, the hypocrisy is sickening...

The arguments that come from the left are not based on any rational thought. It is hard to argue logical points with il-logical people. In general, I don't believe they are looking for actual solutions....they simply see this as their "golden opportunity".

Many on the left may actually "get it"...that taking guns won't make a darn difference in regard to mass shootings. A society without guns is much more pliable from a political perspective. Gun owners tend to be independent minded and don't conform to liberal thinking all that well. They believe taking our guns will make us fall in line much more easily.

 

[PALADIN85020]

I also had some on-line discourse with a former (male) high school classmate to whom I had forwarded some pro-gun information.

He responded with ban-assault-rifles rhetoric and "You'd feel differently if your 7-year-old was killed by a gun."

I responded with well-thought-out and logical points, presented in a non-confrontational manner. One of the points was that basing legislation on emotion is generally a really bad idea.

I waited for a response for a couple of days. When it came it was terse: "We obviously disagree. And emotion has nothing to do with it."

Right.

This IS what we're up against, and it's almost impossible to counter with logic. Still, I try...

John

 

[Beemerguy53]

...After LaPierre's speech, even die-hard NRA members were critical of it, saying that he had not truly addressed the problems of gun violence but rather pointed fingers of blame: Hollywood, the media, video games, etc. And the only solution he offered -- entirely unworkable as a one-size-fits-all simplistic remedy -- is to put more guns out there in the hope that it will provide blanket protection. Singling out schools for armed guards sounds reasonable on first hearing, but it does not take into account the myriad of "soft targets" in the public square. One could make a case that there ought to be an armed guard just about anywhere people interact in public, which would create a Police State of Orwellian proportions. Would we really feel any safer if EVERY adult American were armed?...

...I don't know what the answer is except that ever since Cain slew Abel, humans have been killing each other regardless of the weapon used. God handed down a commandment -- Thou Shalt Not Kill -- and for more than 5,000 years of recorded history, it has yet to be obeyed.

Merry Christmas to all, and peace on earth and goodwill toward men.

I agree with your point of view on LaPierre's comments. I suspect he didn't want to state the obvious and uncomfortable truth, which is:

We are a nation of 314,000,000 people. If only 1 in 1,000 is deranged, or sociopathic, or evil -- or whatever you want to call it -- that's still 314,000 such people running around. (And we know the number is much higher than 1 in 1,000.)

We can prevent some crimes by locking up violent criminals for long periods; identifying and treating the mentally ill; and doing our best to keep those who cannot be trusted with them from acquiring firearms and/or other weapons. But...

We cannot prevent all violent crimes. And we cannot create a police state in an attempt to guarantee everyone's safety. Living in a free society -- especially one as big and diverse as ours -- carries with it the risk that crimes like this will happen.

Statistically, the case cannot be made that our children are unsafe at their schools, or that we are unsafe in movie theatres, or that shopping at your local mall is risky. And while that means nothing -- understandably -- to the citizens of Newtown, Connecticut, it is a fact nevertheless.

The vast majority of Americans are peaceable, lawabiding folks. And the vast majority of American gun owners would never dream of shooting an innocent human being. And punishing those gun owners, or creating a police state, in response to the acts of a few madmen, is inappropriate and unwarranted.

 

[2hawk]

Lots of good points here. I live in Portland, OR- not exactly a bastion of 2A support. In the past I've found it easier to not hold myself up as a good example of gun ownership, just to avoid the contentiousness. But now I feel a little, no strike that, a LOT more inclined to correct the BS. I have seen that most do not want to hear reasoned argument, and they only run on emotion. So if it comes down to emotional argument, I ask them, if they or their loved ones were being threatened by someone with a gun, wouldn't they choose to be able to counter that threat? If they can't get their heads around that, then there's little to do; I just tell them that I have thought the issue through, and have decided that I will be responsible for my own protection, and that of my loved ones if need be. And then I ask them not to support any new laws that would suddenly transform me into a criminal with the stroke of a pen.

I think our best course is to keep after the media, and the politicians, with email and reasoned discourse. This society has been conditioned to fear guns, and the more publicly we can act as responsible proponents of gun ownership, the more people we will reach. I know that we will never reach those on the extreme end, but with gun ownership at a very high level in this country, my hope is that we can convince a majority that any restrictions only serve to make the law-abiding more vulnerable to law-breakers. It's a long row to hoe, but if we don't get busy we are going to get steamrolled by those elites who do not want the commoners armed, unless they are their own personal bodyguards.

Incidentally, that's not a bad point to bring up with the anit's- just look at Rose O'Donnell, Michael Moore, and every politician that is out front on the issue. They all have armed security. I point this out to people and ask them if they can really trust someone who says we shouldn't be armed, while making sure they are protected. Believe me, when comes down to it, my life is more important to me that those people seem to think, and that is the crux of the moral argument to be made.

 

[cmort666]

What I bristle at most is when these types of fanatics maximize and exploit their 1st Amendment rights to demonize and diminish our 2nd Amendment rights.

That's why I feel free to use my 1st Amendment rights to mock, humiliate and ridicule them for their hypocrisy.

I find it endlessly hilarious when this offends them.

I find it even more hilarious when my glee at the offense they take offends them even more.

 

[jaykellogg]

Understand what is happening here folks. We as gun owners are up against a group of people who want to disarm us. They wanted to disarm the US public before this happened. They were just waiting for something horrible like this to happen. I do not think for a minute that this was staged, however I think the issue here is banning guns, not protecting children. What keeps you and I from doing something like this? It is our humanity and our compassion for others. People who commit these sick acts have neither. The loser who did this spent hours in his locked bedroom playing killing games till he was so desensitized to killing it didn't make a difference if it happened on a computer screen or right at his feet. Obviously, he had other manias or sicknesses, but I have read Aspergers patients do not act like this. The very political mayor of Chicago said "never let a crisis go to waste".

Listen, when someone texts and drives and causes a death you don't hear people say "Let's ban cars". We in the USA (and Canada) experimented with prohibition of alcohol. If you ask someone how that worked out they will say it was a dismal failure. Likely if you liken prohibition of alcohol to prohibition of firearms they will say "if only one child can be saved". The truth is these folks don't want to solve the problem of innocent people getting shot. If they did they would look for the reason WHY these folks were shot. Is the reason because there was a gun available? That is not the root cause. The root cause is a disturbed person wanted to do this. If this person had not been able to lay his hands on a firearm(s) would he have given up the idea? Perhaps, perhaps not. However, I submit there will never be a day when a seriously disturbed person will not be able to get a gun. No matter what laws are passed.

 

[Harrison]

My wife asked me how many AR15s I had. When I told her she was aghast.

Thankfully, I married an Army Nurse. The Army required her to learn how to shoot both a 1911, pistol and M-16 rifle. She doesn't like the 1911 because she thinks it kicks to much. She has no problem with a M-16/AR-15 type rifle, and even thinks they are kind of fun to shoot.

 

[Faulkner]

According to FBI statistics, the most common weapon used in violent crimes in the United States is a baseball bat.

 

[curt solomon sr.]

What I don't understand is how this woman had a son that had a mental problem and had this many weapons in her(his) home and didn't have them in a gun safe.If you have money to buy these firearms you should have A gun safe right? Or at least disable them by some means so they couldn't be used. Any precaution taken could have saved a lot of lives. If she would have just locked up the Mags someplace secure might have helped, at least make some effort to secure them guns.Guy's and Gals if we ain't using them lets make sure they are locked UP please!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Sebago Son]

Hypocrites...

The hypocrisy of these leftist gun-banners is sickening.

Gun banners don't want us to be able to defend ourselves, but they won't support capital punishment for killers.... (

Nor would they think of forgoing the heavily armed protection of their security details.

Note This... The Gun Control Act of 1968 really started a lot sooner than that... probably around 1964 with Lyndon Johnson. It wasn't until major political figures started getting whacked that the bill was passed.

 

[2hawk]

the NRA was more brilliant than you might think...

Here's one to make you think: Bill Clinton had the same idea as the NRA for school security. That will make liberal heads explode!

Flashback: Clinton Requests $60 Million to Put Cops in Schools

 

[gtmtnbiker98]

Congratulations! You've had the epiphany that to too many of us is too late coming --- we aren't engaged in polite,rational discourse with reasonable people, we're engaged in an outright culture war. The lunatic fringe, which includes a disturbing number of politicians, most members of most media outlets, and hordes of knee-jerk ignoramuses don't just want "reasonable measures" --- they hate you, and they hate me, and most of my friends, and some of my relatives, because we own some inanimate objects. They accuse us of being responsible for the tragedies caused by crazed killers. They hold you, and me, and our friends and compatriots personally accountable for the sins of others. This is irrationality in extremis. There's no argument, however cogent or convincing, no preponderance of evidence, that would persuade most of these kooks of the error of their opinions. You can't have a give and take discussion with zealots --- they're all take, no give. You're well advised to cease communications with this person --- it will improve your blood pressure, and free up time and energy to do something constructive for our side in the culture war...

..and I hate them back!!

 

[Harrison]

What I don't understand is how this woman had a son that had a mental problem and had this many weapons in her(his) home and didn't have them in a gun safe.If you have money to buy these firearms you should have A gun safe right? /QUOTE]

According to news reports, up until just before this incident happened, the mother was in deep denial of her son's condition. A not uncommon problem with many modern parents.