The Liberal Gun Club Forum

http://www.newsweek.com/2011/01/27/whit ... ntrol.html

Excerpt:
But in the next two weeks, the White House will unveil a new gun-control effort in which it will urge Congress to strengthen current laws, which now allow some mentally unstable people, such as alleged Arizona shooter Jared Loughner, to obtain certain assault weapons, in some cases without even a background check.

This article is pretty ignorant, but that paragraph takes the cake.

"Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, the nation’s largest gun-safety group."

Can't believe that guy is still around. "Largest", really? I thought he was the only member?

Wonder if these will be their last moments.

Makes me want to join the NRA, just out of spite.

Xela

Xela wrote:"Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, the nation’s largest gun-safety group."

Can't believe that guy is still around. "Largest", really? I thought he was the only member?

Wonder if these will be their last moments.

Makes me want to join the NRA, just out of spite.

Xela

Did they just call the Brady bunch a "gun-safety group"?!?!?!

The NRA is a gun safety group. They have courses like Eddy Eagle and marksmanship courses that always focus on safety.

The Brady bunch does not teach anything about gun safety. They are an anti-gun group, not a gun-safety group.

Wurble wrote:

Xela wrote:"Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, the nation’s largest gun-safety group."

Can't believe that guy is still around. "Largest", really? I thought he was the only member?

Wonder if these will be their last moments.

Makes me want to join the NRA, just out of spite.

Xela

Did they just call the Brady bunch a "gun-safety group"?!?!?!

The NRA is a gun safety group. They have courses like Eddy Eagle and marksmanship courses that always focus on safety.

The Brady bunch does not teach anything about gun safety. They are an anti-gun group, not a gun-safety group.

As I said in the OP.. this article is extremely ignorant. It would be extremely funny if it weren't so goddamn scary.. especially when you consider this is how most of the liberal/corporate elite think.

"At the beginning of his State of the Union address, President Obama tipped his hat to Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, who’s now recuperating in a Houston medical facility. But throughout the hourlong speech, he never addressed the issue at the core of the Giffords tragedy—gun control—and what lawmakers would, or should, do to reform American firearm-access laws.
That was intentional, according to the White House. An administration official says Obama didn’t mention guns in his speech because of the omnipresent controversy surrounding the Second Amendment and gun control. Tuesday’s speech was designed to be more about the economy and how, as Obama repeated nine times, the U.S. could “win the future.”
http://www.newsweek.com/2011/01/27/whit ... ntrol.html

If it were true what would be the point for the White House. There's no way they get any gun control through a Republican controlled House, and probably not even through a slightly Democrat controlled Senate. It would just be a bad loss for Obama heading into in the next election and provide more fodder for Republican political ads. Gun control is becoming like social security, anybody who touches it gets burned.

MENCKEN'S LAW

"There is always an easy answer to every human problem --- neat, plausible, and wrong." American's always want that easy, simple answer to every problem and they don't want to spend the time looking for a solution that will protect all citizens' rights. The crime Loughner committed was heinous, but he still has civil rights as do gun owners. It's taking the time to find that "sweet spot" Caliman mentioned on another thread.

http://www.pshrink.com/wisdom/CollectedLaws.html

Well, Barack, I hope you enjoyed your one term as president.

Gun control is electoral suicide.

That reminds me that I need to write to my representatives.

Warning: Devils advocate approaching...

What did the AWB actually do to limit freedom, hiw did it affect you? And how much did it actually lead to the decline of Clinton (versus, say, screwing interns) and the Demz in the mid 90s?

Inquisitor wrote:Warning: Devils advocate approaching...

What did the AWB actually do to limit freedom, hiw did it affect you? And how much did it actually lead to the decline of Clinton (versus, say, screwing interns) and the Demz in the mid 90s?

As a person still living under the AWB I can state that it has limited my freedom to buy certain semi-automatic firearms that were labeled assault weapons merely because of cosmetic features. I may have supported a restriction on magazine capacities greater than say, what the manufacturers designed (30 round magazines for AKs and AR's v. 75 to 100 round drums). Hell I still live with a 10 round limit that hasn't really affected me that much. The AWB was just a stupid set of laws that did little to decrease crime and violence.

Though I do not think that the AWB lead significantly to the decline of Clinton and the Democrats in the 90's, it galvanized and focused support for the republicans by giving them a "villain" the whole "government is going to take your guns" was partly valid as the federal government banned firearms based solely on looks rather than function. They would have had NO ability to pass a law banning self loading/semi-auto firearms so they went after scary looking features instead. It was and still is a game of incremental restrictions with the anti-firearm crowd.

highdesert wrote:MENCKEN'S LAW

"There is always an easy answer to every human problem --- neat, plausible, and wrong." American's always want that easy, simple answer to every problem and they don't want to spend the time looking for a solution that will protect all citizens' rights. The crime Loughner committed was heinous, but he still has civil rights as do gun owners. It's taking the time to find that "sweet spot" Caliman mentioned on another thread.

http://www.pshrink.com/wisdom/CollectedLaws.html

Yes, the sweet spot. Legislators often try to eliminate "risks" but they seem fine with certain risks and not others. They think that the tens of thousands of fatalities from vehicles are acceptable, but the similar amount of deaths related to firearms is a travesty. Swimming pools are okay, guns... no. Alcohol and tobacco? Sure! Marijuana...No WAY, that is the Devil!!

We either accept that with liberties, there will be risk and tragedy, while trying to ameliorate some of the real causes of violence and crime like poverty and social disintegration or we continue to give up those liberties as we chase down a false security that will not happen easily here in a diverse nation.