Gun Control III

My message was really for both of you. I don't have the credibility as the voice of reason to call anybody out, so I won't do that here. I'd like to see more reasoned analysis and less name calling, but please do as you will. When you don't post reasoned arguments, well, that's also something we can learn from.Edited by NoNukes, : Quoting some context. Hope this helps.

I think most people do agree on that, but the NRA does not appear to agree with the idea.http://www.newsobserver.com/...usiness/article201502174.html

quote:

---

President Donald Trump endorsed barring those under 21 from buying semi-automatic weapons a move that puts him in direct opposition with the National Rifle Association.

​

His comments Thursday came amid a public reckoning over school gun violence after last week's Florida school massacre. NRA officials have opposed the idea, but Trump says they'll get on board.

---

NRA rejects idea of raising minimum age to buy rifles | CNN Politics

quote:

---

Washington (CNN)The National Rifle Association is rejecting ideas to raise the minimum age for purchasing rifles.

​

The idea of keeping people younger than 21 from buying rifles including AR-15 style firearms has been proposed, including in a bill that will be introduced in the Senate. President Donald Trump said Wednesday that age at purchase is something they will look at.

​

NRA Public Affairs Director Jennifer Baker said in a statement, "Federal Law prohibits adults under the age of 21 from purchasing a handgun from a licensed firearm dealer. Legislative proposals that prevent law-abiding adults aged 18-20 years old from acquiring rifles and shotguns effectively prohibits them for purchasing any firearm, thus depriving them of their constitutional right to self-protection."

---

The NRA is beholden to the gun manufacturers as they provide the overwhelming portion of the NRA's funding. The NRA and is the gun makers' lobbying group and their agenda enabling the manufacturers to sell as many guns as possible to as many people as possible. That means that their interests may align with that of the gun owning public at times, but not at all times.

This plan is insane. How is it better than keeping guns out of the school? How many superbly trained teachers with guns would it take to provide a deterrent so off-putting that a student would think they could not kill a dozen students without getting shot? And how much of this fortification are we planning to do in areas other than schools?Are Republicans buying this?

I understand that folks believe that keeping guns at home makes their family safer. I think that understanding is wrong, but the current interpretation of the 2nd amendment means that folks get to conduct that ridiculous experiment in their own homes and with their own families.Okay, that's fine. But now they want to export that same madness to everyone else's school. That means that we are no longer talking about the government interfering unconstitutionally in a personal choice. What is being discussed instead is having the state government subject the rest of us to some BS experiment whose outcome we already know based on statistics.That, in my opinion, is insane. Yeah, you are stupid enough to keep a bunch of guns around your children at home. Fine, raise your children as you see fit. But you don't get to be stupid enough to do that to everyone else's kids.

Because talk is cheap, and picking at the failures of others is easy, Trump, the second most presidential American to ever walk the face of the earth let this one fly today:

quote:

---

President Donald Trump said Monday he would have stormed into the Florida high school to stop the gunman perpetrating the nation's latest mass shooting "even if I didn't have a weapon" as he lambasted the inaction of a sheriff's deputy assigned to the school.

​

"You don't know until you test it, but I think, I really believe I'd run in there, even if I didn't have a weapon, and I think most of the people in this room would have done that too," Trump told a gathering of US governors at the White House.

---

Need a link. Pick your favorite source:Trump says he'd have run into Florida school | CNN Politics
Trump Blasts FL Officers' Inaction: 'I Really Believe I'd Run in There' Even With No Weapon | Fox News Insider
Trump: I would have confronted Florida school shooter without a gunMost of those links have the video of Trump saying exactly what I quoted above, so hopefully, the idea that this is fake news, or that I took it out of context isn't a viable response.Meanwhile, 86% of Republicans are happy about this kind of behavior with something like 60% of them saying that they strongly approve. How is that? The question is not whether this kind of crap is better than Hillary. You guys actually like this stuff.

Okay, so this is the style I am used to from you. Nice one!

Over the last couple of days, Trump has been chiding his fellow Republicans regarding their unflagging loyalty to the NRA. I think that kind of presidential needling can be a good thing. Trump insists that while he thinks the NRA is great, that he does not agree with them on everything.All of that is reasonable. We might wonder whether Trump has enough political strength to oppose the NRA and much of his party.Or we might wonder that if he was not pushing proposals that are dead in the water. For example, Trump has been talking about doing away with due process to deprive folks of guns. While that isn't too far afield of what some lefties, including some folks here, would like to see, the fact is that such a proposal is clearly unconstitutional, and is also a clear losing position.Democratic lawmakers would be well advised to push their own proposals rather than to help the president screw the pooch. 75 percent of the public is in favor of all kinds of reasonable gun control ideas that are opposed by the NRA. But I think there are quite enough due process exceptions already.For example:http://thehill.com/...nors-dont-have-constitutional-right-to

quote:

---

The Trump administration official who has denied abortions to undocumented minors in U.S. custody said he does not believe they have a constitutional right to the procedure.

​

In a deposition Lloyd gave in December, he replied 'yes' when asked if he believed undocumented minors have "no constitutional right to abortion."
The ACLU has battled the Trump administration over the policy, representing four pregnant undocumented minors who had been blocked from getting abortions.

​

In three cases, the girls were able to get abortions while the fourth was released to a sponsor.

​

Lloyd previously worked for the Knights of Columbus, a group that opposes abortion.

​

The new policy represents a significant departure from how previous administrations handled pregnant undocumented minors in U.S. custody seeking abortions.

---

I've been trying not to be gullible. I knew that his campaign promises on health care were BS, but I am still holding out some hope that Trump can get some movement from his party on gun control. But I will likely be disappointed.

Here is an article from Time magazine which suggests that the NRA is open to having Republicans put forth some gun control proposals.NRA Gives Republican Party OK to Talk Gun Control | Time

quote:

---

America’s gun control debate has taken seemingly surprising turns in recent days, as President Donald Trump and other Republican Party leaders have signaled an openness to gun restrictions that are anathema to the powerful National Rifle Association. But behind the scenes, the NRA has given Republican lawmakers the green light to float new gun restrictions without the threat of political retribution, according to two senior GOP officials.

​

Gun manufacturers, who along with the NRA’s grassroots members help fund the organization, are in the midst of the worst business crisis in decades, with sales drops driving some to seek bankruptcy protection. And nothing gooses sales like the threat of new limits on guns.

​

Jennifer Baker, an NRA spokeswoman, denied that her organization made such overtures to Congress, and said the NRA’s main concern was not gun sales but rather defending gun rights.

---

I found this article interesting for several reasons.1. Gun sales, by all reports, are down now, and there is not much disagreement that a major reason is having a Republican[1] and not a Democrat as the president. Although the NRA denies it, that lack of sales is certainly the motivation for their actions. None of the proposals out there is the least bit new, and neither is the fact that a majority of gun owners support many of those proposals.Several things are new. Those things include very visible activism among young folks over the issue, a Republican president that has indicated that he is not afraid of the NRA, and flagging gun sales.2. Apparently, most Republicans are still kowtowing to the NRA, and need an okay from the NRA to do the right thing. For some Congressmen, the reason is pretty obvious. The NRA is a very large and consistent donor, and folks receiving their money and benefiting from the NRA campaign advertisements are not all that interested in losing that support.3. I find the attempts by the NRA to deny that they are motivated by gun sales, and even they approached any legislators pretty humorous.4. I am going to talk to my wife about a trip to DC next month if there is not a strong protest scene here. Anyone else thinking about joining the protest on March 24?[1] Trump is still a buffoon, but he seems to have blundered unto something even though his actual proposals are idiotic.

Yeah, I am an idiot. Trump took back all of the stuff that he said when it appeared he had some backbone. Not falling for this crap again.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

The NRA does not want to reduce gun violence. Their claim is that gun violence should be confronted with more gun violence.

I was at the library last Sunday, and I happened to grab that particular issue out of the stack of back issues. The October 2017 issue contained a number of articles on science and politics, something that was certainly topical at the time of the magazine's publication and I would recommend the entire issue as being worthwhile.I did not see anything particularly new in Gunland, but this article is a good summary and source of pointers to where you can find the real science. Gun control advocacy 101. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Supposedly, we are seeing the new, moderated speech Ted Nugent and not the one that told Obama to suck on his machine gun.Ted is infinitely ignorable.

I don't know if I can agree with that. But the situation is totally bizarre. The police took the guns away from his son. Why would they give the guns back to his dad if the son was not supposed to have them? If the shooter-to-be was not supposed to have the guns, why didn't the police keep them? Why on earth would the police be obligated to give the guns to a family member?Given all that, I don't see any way that pop is an accomplice absent some more facts having to do with knowing his son's specific state of mind. But even more pressing a question is why was his dad even put in the position of guarding his son's access to firearms?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

No, that is not correct. The police also take cars away from drunk folks. They may even give the car to a family member when they arrest the drunk. That does not imply that the owner cannot have his car back. When you say that he was not supposed to have a gun, what kind of legal "not supposed" do you mean? I don't know what to make of this statement. How does it advance your case? Then make the case.I will give you some things to think about while you do that.1. Unfortuntately, being mentally ill and disturbed is not sufficient legal reason to be denied a gun.2. Parents are generally not responsible for their children's crimes, and are certainly not responsible for the crimes of a 29 year old adult even if he is living at home.3. Neglect, which you have suggested requires that there be a required duty which the dad failed to carry out. That means a legally required duty, and not just something Rrhain wants to happen and did not.4. The police position is that they are unware of any law that Reiinking would have violated by being given his guns back.So, I think you'd have an uphill battle charging dad for his role. But I'm willing to entertain arguments. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.