Another slant on Wayne LaPierre’s speech;

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/2 ... 48277.html

I believe that Fukshot talked about this, or not?

I have nothing constructive to add, just wanted to say it's heartening to see that most everyone here thought LaPierre sounded as unhinged as I thought he did.

And, even though I think people have a right to protect themselves, I feel like I've been taken hostage by the NRA. Decades of absolute opposition to any common sense restrictions on gun ownership, leading to mass gun proliferation (and fat gun industry profits) followed by "there's so many guns out there now that the only way you can protect yourself is to have a gun." If I believed in conspiracies I'd say this was their long term strategy.

As I've contemplated the LaPierre speech, and agree it was a total public relations failure, I still see no option other than to support the NRA on the battle ahead. At this point, I have to pick a side, even if I don't care for them. I mean, who else has ANY power to fight gun bans? It's already getting very ugly for gun owners. I can't even watch 5 minutes of CNN or MSNBC without the most rabid anti-gun talk I've ever seen (I'm in my early 40s). I never worried much about Obama or congress getting outright bans passed. Now, I do.

ProGun wrote:As I've contemplated the LaPierre speech, and agree it was a total public relations failure, I still see no option other than to support the NRA on the battle ahead. At this point, I have to pick a side, even if I don't care for them. I mean, who else has ANY power to fight gun bans? It's already getting very ugly for gun owners. I can't even watch 5 minutes of CNN or MSNBC without the most rabid anti-gun talk I've ever seen (I'm in my early 40s). I never worried much about Obama or congress getting outright bans passed. Now, I do.

I won't support the NRA personally. For one thing, I don't think it's necessary. I don't hear any talk of outright bans--maybe for "assault rifles", whatever that means, but I'd be ok with that. I think the atmospherics on both sides sound a lot more extreme than the substance. While they may be bad ideas for other reasons, armed officers in schools and limiting magazine size at least have the fig leaf of appearing like they'd make a difference, while not being at the extremes of what either the left or right could be suggesting.

An exception to that in my opinion was LaPierre's call for a "national database of mentally ill individuals", which is a lot closer to abusive big government (that can lock away whoever it considers undesirable) than anything else anyone has put out there.

There are some things you are not going to legislate out of existence.

The news.
Violent Video Games.
Guns.
Criminals.
The people that cause mass shootings, the ideological like the Ft Hood Shooter, the psychotic like Loughner, and the socially disconnected like Lanza.

One thing that would go a long way to making schools safer that I have not read anywhere is a plan for teachers to know what to do in a terrible situation like the CT shooting and some basic physical reforms in schools. For one, some of the teachers went to the hallway to see what was happening. When you hear gunshots, that is not a good thing to do.

Basic reinforcement of classroom doors that can be locked or bolted easily from the inside. A plan on where to put the kids away from the door if an active shooter is in the hallway.

Right now with the NRA announcement the idea of putting guards in schools is getting a bad rap and people like David Gregory using this as a platform against it is hypocritical since the school he sends his children too have just that. Clinton signed a bill putting guards in school after the failed AWB and Columbine that happened in the middle of it. In the dangerous neighborhoods, guards are common in schools.

ElTigre wrote:

Fukshot wrote: Mark, you've got a whole crew of people here who are thinking about the things you aren't. That's what Dan Savage doesn't have to keep him from being a dick.

It takes a village, right?

BTW, if we ever need a balding, slightly overweight, "homeless professor"-type, I'm always ready!

If we need to plant a 'tea bagger' at any rallies, I can have that look in spades. Just put me in my bermuda shorts, sandals, hawaiian shirt and OC'ing an AR with a Cabela's or Bass Pro hat on.

Don't mention banning gun and don't talk about second amendment rights. Talk about other proactive things like requiring a license before being allowed to purchase a firearm from ANY source ... closing the gun show loophole ... registering all firearms ...

I don't think it's possible -- or at least not logical -- to oppose banning guns while at the same time favoring the licensing of all gun owners and/or the registration of all firearms. Anti-gunners, through their most prominent spokespersons, have made it clear that their ultimate goal is the banning of all personal ownership of firearms of any and all kinds, and that these are the first steps necessary to carry out that program. Incremental progress toward a bad goal is still progress toward a bad goal.

I also cannot understand how either of those proposals would have prevented any of the mass shootings in recent years.