baseless

No Clay, not the repubs Golden Calf. They will stroke out on this one.

priceless

The NRA's position in light of the recent incidents of gun violence committed by two rather mentally ill people has been this;

(sound on crickets chirping)

Not one word has been written or released.

Folks, nobody wants to disarm America or Americans. Calls have been made to outlaw assault weapons capable of discharging more than 16 rounds of ammunition without reloading, and a call has been made for a tightening of regulations to do everything possible to keep guns out of the hands of people who really ought not have any access to guns.

The last two shootings were committed by people who obtained their guns legally, who also from all appearances, slipped under the radar of the authorities, because they were not criminals up to the point that they opened fire on innocent people.

The details are not in on the purchasing habits of Wade Michael Page, who shot a dozen very peaceful people for what appears to be no reason whatsoever, but we do know that James Holmes went on a buying spree of massive amounts of ammunition over the weeks leading up to him entering the movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, and for absolutely no reason, killed and wounded dozens of people.

I doubt that anyone believes that incidents like the last two are totally preventable, but there are still steps that could be taken by gun and ammunition retailers that may or may not prevent such tragedies.

1.) Large purchases of ammunition by anyone should be reported to the local authorities. A database needs to be set up that would provide that all gun and ammunition purchases be entered by retailers, so that people on a buying spree, or who spread their purchases across several dealers, might be flagged and checked out by law enforcement.

2.) Gun show loopholes, that allow people to purchase guns without any background check need to be closed. I know that this is a very unpopular prospect with the NRA and gun owners, and admittedly, closing the loophole would not have prevented the last two incidents, but there are many people killed each year by people who purchased their guns at gun shows.

3.) Functioning assault weapons, capable of delivering massive amounts of ammuntion without reloading need to be outlawed to be owned by private citizens...period. No one truly needs a weapon like that for personal protection or for hunting.

4.) We need to have a serious discussion about the need to track the current ownership of all guns in this nation. This is being fought tooth and nail by the NRA. Such a requirement would save lives, and would protect responsible gun owners as well.

If your car is stolen and used in the commission of a crime, the legitimate owner has never, to my knowledge, been convicted of a crime. Guns need to be tracked very much like automobiles.

WE ARE GUN CRAZY

More people shot to death. More questions. More NRA members with nothing to say, but give the NRA credit. Through their efforts just about every lunatic living in American owns a gun.

I heard today that 19,000 people have died in the past year and a half in the Syrian civil war. Assad has unleashed deadly force against innocent civilians in a desperate attempt to retain power. His brutality has been condemned by the international community.

Heck, here in America people are gunned down in nearly equal numbers as a matter of routine. Mass shootings have become part of our culture. They are expected, unavoidable, and inevitable.

Few things in life are certain. Lucky for us, life in America is a little more predictable. We know that in the near future we will celebrate another mass shooting with blanket media coverage. There will be another gunman referred to by his full name. There will be stories about recent events that may have made him "snap." There will be stories of horror and heroism. There will be interviews with survivors and grieving families. There will be graphics detailing the step-by-step events which led to the execution of each victim.

It's not news but it's great ratings.

America is gun crazy.

Alpo... Folks, nobody wants to disarm America or Americans. Calls have been made to outlaw assault weapons capable of discharging more than 16 rounds of ammunition without reloading, and a call has been made for a tightening of regulations to do everything possible to keep guns out of the hands of people who really ought not have any access to guns.

Who gets to decide who really ought not have any access to guns? As far as capacity...that would have to do with the magazine or clip as it is sometimes refered to. I believe that provision expired along with the assault rifle ban. Why was a sunset provision put in to begin with? As for your point #1 the last time I bought ammunition I bought over 500 rounds. I did it because it was on sale. Sport shooting is expensive and when a good deal comes along I like to take advantage. I would rather not be on a list. Similer to the times I go to the hardware store and I have to argue with the clerk and sign a form and wait for the manager because the cleaner / acid is on a meth list. I get to jump through hoops and the meth maker drives to GA.

2 is a valid point. I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would want to allow an unvetted purchase of a firearm. The background check is fast, costs $10 and could be set up via the internet from the booth at the gun show.

3 again this is a magazine issue not a firearm issue.

4 A list is a nonstarter because once there is a list there is govermental control. Control though legislative action reguarding that list. At least if we look at history for a guide. What is a good reason to keep such a list? If we have a list maybe down the road someone would put it to use like say just going to inspect your firearms or in the name of safety we should stop by your house and make sure everything is ok. Maybe a yearly tax on each firearm you own or a yearly safety inspection. If you want less of something tax it. A list comes first, always before the disarming on a population, always. And how would knowing if I have a firearm save lives?

I don't know why my post looks like it does or how to fix it. sorry for the boldness of my statement

Blackwater

I heard today that 19,000 people have died in the past year and a half in the Syrian civil war. Assad has unleashed deadly force against innocent civilians in a desperate attempt to retain power

You left out unarmed. As in Assad has unleashed deadly force against innocent unarmed civilians in a desperate attemp to retain power. Do you think his tactics would work against an armed population? How has strict gun control worked south of the border. It seems only the bad guys have the guns. What was the number of people murdered there last year? Do you think the cartels would be chopping off heads if the mother of one of the victims had a gun?

I deplore gun violence and I believe the NRA has became a political machine wrapped in the 2nd amendment and I will not give them my monetary support. But I also am more afraid of a world without guns ,where the strong prey on the weak, and tyrants can opress a population for decades.

DJHBRAINERD asked? "And how would knowing if I have a firearm save lives?"

It's not the Gov't knowing that you have a registered firearm in your home that would save lives.

People knowing that their firearms are tied to them via registration, will be far more careful to keep their weapons safe, secure and not jut lying around for someone to use or steal.

Along with a registration requirement for all weapons, it ought to be a capital offense to be caught with an unregistered weapon or any functioning assault weapon outside of one's place of residence.

The same thing should apply to anyone caught with a weapon concealed and carried without a proper permit.

Why are you liberals giving Hussein Obama a pass on him not speaking out against guns? Why? It is election year and he does not think it would benefit his campaign. Again this fool you put in the white House is lying to you. There is know way all the guns and ammunition held in private hands could ever be confiscated. Outlawing guns would create a new illegal black market just like drugs. There is nothing you can do about guns but there is much you can do about this fool Hussein Obama creating hate in America within between groups.

alprova... People knowing that their firearms are tied to them via registration, will be far more careful to keep their weapons safe, secure and not jut lying around for someone to use or steal.

No insurance policy out there will protect you if you discharge a firearm. So there is a financial deterent in place.

The same thing should apply to anyone caught with a weapon concealed and carried without a proper permit. I agree we should enforce our existing gun laws but i would stop short of the death penalty. I think that would be something a dictator would advocate.

Think on this.... I dated a woman for a few months. She lived alone so one day I took her to the range. I showed her how to load, shoot, clear, and clean the weapon. When I felt she was fluent with the handgun from start to finish I gave it to her as a gift. She is 5'2 of a slight build. Told her to keep it in her night stand and maybe if she was working in the yard to keep it in her pocket. If I am reading you suggestion correctly what I described would not be allowed. We would have to go through a government agency , sort of like reregestering a car, and probably pay a small fee in order to get our papers. And or any other hurdle future politicians could come up with. Maybe yearly registration and yearly permit fees, you know in the name of safety. What about and executive order by a lameduck president to strenghen regestation requirements? A list is a nonstarter because the political wind blows both ways.

Why Liberals Hate Guns

Just like a mathematical equation. American patriots would not have been able to fight for their freedom without guns. Therefore, guns equal freedom. No guns, no freedom.

Liberals made that association long ago. They, too, know that people cannot fight for or preserve freedom unless they have the means to do so – and that means guns.

Liberals are not lovers of freedom. Liberals believe that the average person is simply too ignorant to be free. They believe that the average person can only live a fulfilling life with the help and guidance of those who are more qualified, capable and intelligent – and that, of course, would be the leftist intelligentsia.

Liberals love government. They love coercive government. If there were a revolutionary war today, it would not be the liberals waiting to see the whites of their eyes.

Liberals are well aware of the interconnect between guns and freedom. So, now you know why liberals hate guns.

Guns don't kill people. People kill people. But, assault rifles and high capacity magazines give people the "FREEDOM" to kill more people without reloading!

If all the guns are confiscated who will protect the public from the maniac that ends up with an illegal gun and is determined to kill people? Law enforcement cannot protect us as they do not arrive until after the murders. Law enforcement cannot even stop illegal drugs from entering the country. I will keep my gun and carry it wherever I go as I choose to be responsible for my own safety.

joneses....liberals don't hate guns. I waited in line two hours last week to get a good deal on a gun I've had my eye on some time. So strike that notion that all liberals hate guns. Liberals do hate gun, unions and other lobbyist organizations trying to control govt legislation that the common citizen doesn't get a chance for a say-so. That's why I don't belong to any of these groups. Our govt has become a bought and paid for fraternity.

I asked two questions the other day that are worth asking again:

1. What percentage of the NRA budget is funded by manufacturers of firearms and ammunition?
2. What percentage of the firearms and ammunition industry's profits are derived from the lawful sales of firearms and ammunition that are purchased for unlawful purposes?

The NRA would like us to think the debate is about Constitutional rights. I suspect that it really has a lot more to do with profits.

Ah, yes. To quote Bloom County:

On what principle is our great government based?

"money talks"

This is probably THE most riveting example of the ridiculous left leaning's take on the gun thing. The NRA does not arm people. They seek to guard people's right to bear arms. The dimwitted justice system allows wackos to get guns. I cannot believe people will comment on the brilliance of this cartoon and not see the irony in that it is left leaning policies that protect insane people's privacy, not the NRA handing out guns.

The NRA is all about protecting the 2nd ammendment. Why did we pass the 2nd ammendment? The first thing that the English did (in April of 1775) was to confiscate weapons; to disarm the population so that the population could be controlled. The 2nd ammendment ensures that we can protect ourselves from a government gone bad.

I love Bloom County - Opus rocks! But the principle upon which our government is based on recognizing the freedoms AND RESPONSIBILITIES that God gave us and protecting those freedoms and living up to those responsibilities.

Remember the bs the gullible righties spread before the last election on Obama taking away everyone's guns? Well, it's that time again--expect to see more of the same before this election. There are idiots out there who will also believe the sky is falling.

Colorado and Milwaukee shooters both obtained these guns legally.

This is a consequence of our antiquated 2nd amendment.

In 1787, when the constitutions was written, the US Army was minuscule and powered mainly by muskets.

If a foreign power went to war with us, they would need the armed citizenry to create add to the forces.

As a gun-owner, I can say that I don't need my guns. And yes, some criminals will always get guns.

But to say America can't curb gun violence is to say that all the countries which ban them and have extremely low rates (none are zero) are just better than us.... so much for American exceptionalism!

Follow the money!

Livn4life said... This is probably THE most riveting example of the ridiculous left leaning's take on the gun thing. The NRA does not arm people.

Yes they do! They arm people with fear and dis-information to create what people feel is the "need" to defend their beliefs. I have seen more than one of these NRA newsletters. I often debunk them for my NRA brain washed friends. If the NRA was nil, we might possibly be able to have a rational discussion about our gun woes. Any person or intity that has to lie or treat people like sheeple to get what they want is only a lobbyists lining their own pockets. The NRA is about fear. The NRA is nothing more than a gun union. What I have seen while debunking these lies has been my friends slowly losing faith in the NRA, and some actually declaring they are no longer Republicans, but independents. When lies are exposed, people can either put their head in the sand, or get mad and get educated as to what is really happening. Heads are coming out of the sand.

Let's ban citizens from owning cars and/or purchasing alcohol. That will solve the drunk driving problem too.

Maybe someday gun owners will learn how to be responsible gun owners. They do not follow basic practices that any soldier knows. NEVER, EVER leave a firearm unsecured! That includes the loaded pistol in the drawer beside the bed. PUT A GUN LOCK ON IT!!!!

Surprise! Surprise!, the very Liberal loontoonist blames the NRA. Who would have thought that?

I blame Liberals, so there.

Replace the NRA logo with the Planned Parenthood logo and this cartoon would be more meaningful.

90 Days to Go!

Aww man, I wish we were this upset about less-obviously damaging lobbyist organizations.

I love all my toys, and the ones I enjoy the most are often the most potentially dangerous.

I love things that are mechanical in nature, and consider it an important hobby to: collect and work on rifles and pistols / build on and crawl a 73' bronco / work on and ride an XR400 / collect fine tune and use a bag full of high end golf clubs / build and fly model airplanes / build on an M3 and see what she'll do / nurture and beautiful garden and yard / remodel an magnificent bathroom.. etc. etc.

It's truly a crying shame that there are those who would use dangerous (inanimate objects) to intentionally harm others.

What can we do about this? Legislation does nothing to deter all criminal activity, as we can clearly observe with the "war on drugs".

This is truly a tough issue for all viewpoints.

I am quite sure that with the right driver, a V8 bronco on 37's could do waaaay more damage in a crowd than an assault rifle. Should we outlaw 4x4's?

I guess it would be kinda hard to sneak said bronco into a movie theater... but hey logistical challenges can always be conquered with a little bit of thinking.

Maybe we should outlaw the intent to do harm to others....

Problem solved!

Great depiction, Clay!! ^5

I need to go get me an assault rifle to protect myself from all these gun-totin right-wing NRA-lovin whackos.

alpo: Since you appear to very knowledgeable on any subject or perhaps have some awsome google skills, could you please explain what you mean by "Gun Show Loophole." What exactly is that?

Why is it bleeding? I see no bullet holes. Must be from cry baby anti-gunners incessant whining about guns. Might as well shut up and join the crowd. I'll be my life and yours you will never get anti-gun legislation passed. Ever. Live with it. Just live with it.

Ah, you gun control freaks with your specious arguments. The cliche' "when guns are outlawed, only......" is actually true. There would always be a black market for guns and evil doers would be all over it. Think beyond your noses, people.

Considering the source, this is long overdue. I guess The Wart was to busy pumping out his attacks on the republicans.

Just some more puss oozing from the pustule that is Clay Bennett.

Alpo: In love with his own keystrokes! Give it as rest, al.

Conservatives, don't waste your time arguing with these liberal idiots. They just use whatever lefty loony talking point they heard last on PMSNBC. Bennett and the rest of these loons need to be ignored. We should make our points and then let them howl. Don't encourage them that there opinion is important.

MTJohn...

The NRA is a non-profit. I thought you Socialists preferred non- profit.

Hey cartoon boy why dont you and your mindless sheep discuss real facts instead of the ones you make up in your delusional mind. Here is a great fact most of all knew but now so does everyone else. "But now Forrester is facing a firestorm of criticism from other Democratic candidates and some Democratic State Executive Committee members for failing to properly vet candidates. Gary Davis, another Democratic candidate, charged that Forrester has managed to turn Tennessee Democrats into a national "laughing stock." LMAO way to go. Got to love it!!!

The gun industry doesn't care about your 2nd Amendment rights. They only want to sell as many weapons as possible and rake in the cash. The banks also want to make as much money as possible. Neither one sees their own actions contributing to the deaths of innocent people, yet they do every day.

Both industries have a stranglehold on government and are willing to protect their pockets even if it means more mentally ill people can buy guns and terrorists and drug cartels can freely move dollars in and out of the U.S.

Gun owners do not want weapons in the hands of violent schizophrenics anymore than anyone else does.

Unfortunately, policy is in the hands of paid industry hacks, not thoughtful and intelligent people who are skilled enough to make the right compromises at the right time.

The NRA has been slowly lurching out of the mainstream and over the cliff in recent years. It’s all about fear and paranoia. This cartoon doesn’t help. Too sensationalist. Another missed opportunity to make a good point.

Out lawing alcohol didn't work out to well back in the 20's!

outlawing drugs ain't working too well now!

What would make anyone think outlawing guns would work any better?

alcohol got up the mafia,drugs got us the cartels!

maybe ,like we need some MORE organized crime?

I see the usual rabid righties are here today - joneses, L4L, timbo, con-man, BRP, J_D (oh, beg pardon - JD is a "moderate" who just cheerleads for the rabid righties) - all doing what they do best: yelling their typical right wing mumbo-jumbo so loud they can't hear - or don't want to hear - what we lefties are saying.

So shut up at least long enough to listen, you guys: LIBERALS DO NOT WANT TO DO AWAY WITH THE SECOND AMENDMENT. LIBERALS DO NOT WANT TO TAKE AWAY OR OUTLAW YOUR GUNS. So stop with the lame-brained talking points already. I'm a liberal. I own a gun. Most of my liberal friends and other libs I know own a gun, or guns. I don't hunt but I respect others' right to hunt.

But there is a difference between a right to bear arms, as called for in the second amendment, and a "right" to carry loaded weapons everywhere we go or a "right" to be able to buy whatever new hi-tech weaponry comes off the assembly line. There is no place for automatic or semi-automatic weapons in a civilized society. They are made for one thing and one thing only: killing the most number of people in the shortest amount of time. No civilian has a need or a "right" to bear arms of that sort - neither for hunting nor for self defense. Nor do we need to take loaded, holstered pistols every friggin' place we go, as the NRA ia trying to make everybody believe. All we ask for is common sense regulation.

But then, I have to remember who we're dealing with here: you guys who lack any and all common sense and who do not care to listen and have a rational discussion about the issues. Rather you just want to yell your usual, stale right wing talking points. So go ahead....let the yelling continue, as I know it will.

OH FINE! Another cartoon providing yet another forum for more knee-jerking about guns! Well done Clay.

Many decry that Amerika is awash with guns, but fail to take notice and we're inexorably moving towards a police state – if we’re not already there. Say what you will about the NRA, but at least someone is defending our 2nd Amendment rights, because the 1st, 4th and 5th are rapidly going the way of the Buffalo of the central plains. Free speech zones anyone?

So, TOOT TOOT - Everyone get on board the knee-jerk express and ignore the real causes of violence at home and abroad. Get worked up about imbecilic non-solutions, like outlawing already illegal guns (Mayors Against Illegal Guns), ‘assault rifles,’ high capacity mags. etc. and demand incremental registering of everything which always leads to disarmament - 100% of the time.

Feel like purchasing a gun because the DHS police state is making you feel a bit nervous? Tut tut - How foolish of you. Wanna a gun because absurd laws and domestic neglect foments criminal gangs, racist thugs, and street violence move you to protect your home? You are obviously a gun nut and need to be watched.

Clause 39 of the Magna Carta trashed? Draconian laws? Orwellian wars? Habeas Corpus all but nullified? Torture allowed? Unitary executive assassinations…praised? Let’s draw lines through certain clauses of the Bill of Rights we don’t like and go after legal guns and their owners. That's what is important. It’s all our fault. WE are the problem.

"To disarm the people... was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”:George Mason, 1788

Some comments and ideas proffered here are essentially an attempt to put the genie back in the bottle. I suggest you volunteer to go knock on some of the doors to test such ideas. I’ll wait.

Moonpie...in your 8:07 post, your take on the second amendment is one of the best I've heard. While I stand by the second amendment, or at least the intent of it, it is indeed antiquated and too obscure. I think it's way past time for a second Bill of Rights, in fact, and a re-tooling of the second amendment should be one of the things considered.

Rickyroo: It's funny you mention talking points. NO ONE parrots them better than the left. My opinion from a down the middle moderate.

Big oil companies would love to have a grassroots group working for them like the gun makers do!

Big oil companies. The enemy of man, earth, and all that is good.

Limric, the NRA is not "defending our second amendment rights." Our second amendment rights don't need "defending" - not by it or by anyone else. How many politicians have you seen ever trying to do away with the second amendment? I can answer that for you: no one. Ever. Good lord, everybody in Washington is too afraid to even talk about tighter gun regulation, let alone dare to talk about something like doing away with the second amendment altogether!

Bennett's cartoon is not "just another forum for knee-jerking about guns." We have a serious problem here and it needs to be dealt with. Mass shootings of innocent people involving Rambo-style weapons are not something that we should just accept as a result of living in a free country which respects our right to bear arms. The NRA might once have served a useful purpose but it has become an out-of-control power-hungry organization that even many right wingers have abandoned. The cartoon above is on the mark and the only knee-jerking I have seen here is that of the gun nuts who are saying all of the usual knee-jerking things in defense of the NRA and their pathetic twisted fascination with guns.

Guns are here to stay. We all accept that. We have a right to have a gun, or guns, for the protection of our homes, ourselves, and our families, if need be. We all accept that. But there are limits to those rights. Why do you call it knee-jerking to have a rational discussion about what those limits should be?

Rickyroo: Very thoughtful post.

Thank you, JD.

Patriot1 wrote: "alpo: Since you appear to very knowledgeable on any subject or perhaps have some awsome google skills, could you please explain what you mean by "Gun Show Loophole." What exactly is that?"

You want me to Google something that you want to know more about? That's rich. But since you asked so nicely...

The gunshow loophole is very simple and easy to explain.

There are only 17 states that regulate aspects of sales conducted at gun shows. Licensed dealers are bound by Federal law and must conduct background checks just as they do for sales at their business locations, so the loophole does not apply to them, if you have some challenge on your mind on that basis.

The problem in the other 33 states that do not regulate sales conducted at gun shows, including Georgia, Tennessee, and Alabama, are sales of guns between private individuals conducted at such shows. No background checks are performed for purchasers of guns for those sales. A convicted felon or a budding terrorist can easily walk away with a trunk full of weapons and ammunition purchased legally at gun shows through a private citizen or an occasional seller.

Currently, 17 states regulate private firearm sales at gun shows. 7 states require background checks on all gun sales at gun shows (Ca., Co., Ct., IL., NY., Or., & RI.).

4 states require background checks on all handguns, but no background checks are required for long barreled guns (Hi., Md., NJ., & Pa.).

6 states require individuals to obtain a permit that includes a background check prior to purchasing handguns at a gun show from anyone. (FL., Ia., Ma., Mi., NC., & Ne.).

conservative wrote: "The NRA is a non-profit. I thought you Socialists preferred non- profit."

Just because the NRA moves assets off of their books and dumps them into 501(c)(3) & (4) charities that they completely control, that in no manner accounts for the sources of their funding.

The NRA rakes in about $250 million per year. They boast a membership of 4.3 million people. A year's membership is $35.00. Membership dues account for about $150 million per year. That leaves about $100 million that comes from other sources.

But wait!! According to the BBB, they claim a 46% expense rate for collecting all revenue. That's $115 million right back out the window. So now we're back up to $215 million that comes into their coffers from undefined sources.

Since there are no reporting requirements to disclose the source of their "contributions," I'd say that gives most people a reason to pause and to question where much of their funding comes from.

One thing is for certain. It's not all coming in from membership dues.

And when I sit down to write checks to charities that truly assist people in need, the last organization that comes to mind, is the NRA.

Ok Rickaroo, I’ll bite. What are those limits and who will be the arbiter of such limits? The multitude of gun control advocacy groups such as The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence or the Brady Campaign? The NRA, the JPFO? You? - Me?

I’m in no way trying to minimized the recent rampage by lunatics, but I think I’m correct in saying that, yes, there is always an obligitory knee-jerk reaction coat tailed with misguided opinions and incognizant conclusions.

A more serious conversation would be acknowledging the thousands and thousands killed by guns supplied to criminal Govt's. and various thugs in freedoms disguise by the USA, directly subsidized by YOU & ME.

So, a "Gun Show Loophole" is really just a transaction between two private individuals. This would be no different than say, my neighbor down the street selling me a handgun, or a bitter clinger I met a church buying a gun from me. It's just that I happen to meet this chap at a gun show who has a gun for sale....Thanks

rogerdodger said... "But now Forrester is facing a firestorm of criticism from other Democratic candidates and some Democratic State Executive Committee members for failing to properly vet candidates. Gary Davis, another Democratic candidate, charged that Forrester has managed to turn Tennessee Democrats into a national "laughing stock."

Blowing smoke up my dress, are you? I happen to think it is much funnier to look at the past 10 years or so of how the Republicans have been imploding. So what, one guy in Tennessee isn't really a democrat. Laughing stock? This is a better definition of laughing stock............

Will Mitt Romney's London woes hurt him at home?

The British newspapers are vicious this morning. "Romney slur causes stir - wannabe president in Games insult," says the Sun.

"Who invited party pooper Romney?" asks the Daily Mail, above a headline listing the "gaffes of muddled Mitt".

The Times is, if anything, even more savage. "'Nowhere man' Romney loses his way with gaffe about the Games" is their headline.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19015278

Alprova said..... One thing is for certain. It's not all coming in from membership dues.

"The vast majority of funds—74 percent—contributed to the NRA from “corporate partners” are members of the firearms industry: companies involved in the manufacture or sale of firearms or shooting-related products."

Read more: http://www.politicolnews.com/violence-policy-center-on-the-blood-money-of-the-nra/#ixzz22zDxuazP

JustOne: being lampooned by the Brit tabloids is no big deal. Common knowledge.

conservative said..."The NRA is a non-profit."

So what? The NRA is still a shill for its for-profit corporate sponsors.

MTJohn...

You constantly rail against profits. Our economy would be Bangledish third world without the profit motive. Do you, or did you profit from your labor, or are you living off other people's money.

You are way left.

Limric,it's a common but specious argument that many gun advocates make - that gun regulation is just a slippery slope towards gun eradication. Nothing could be further from the truth. If we are on a slippery slope of any kind at all, that slope is going the other way: towards more and more bills getting passed or created and brought up for legislation wherein more and more guns are being allowed in more and more public places, such as national parks, churches, bars, the work place (the parking lots of work places, anyway), etc. And the NRA is behind every bill that comes down the pike in favor of putting more guns into the hands of more people.

You ask who will be the arbiter of such legislation? I don't know, but we have had arbiters of all previous legislation before. Who determined that the speed limit should be 70 as opposed to something higher or lower? Who determined that 16 is the age at which someone can legally drive? Who determined that it's okay for a person to drive after drinking a limited amount of alcohol but there is a point beyond which it becomes illegal? Who determined that free speech does not extend to someone yelling fire in a crowded theater?

Just because the second amendment gives us the right to bear arms, it doesn't give us the right to bear any and all arms. The second amendment has to be interpreted in the context of the times in which it was written - when the country had no standing army, as such, and needed a citizenry ready to come to arms, if needed. And the founding fathers had no idea what technology was going to bring in the future. I seriously doubt that even one founding father would be claiming that every citizen has the "right" to bear automatic or semi-automatic weapons, arms that serve no purpose other than quick and massive killing in the theater of war.

In the last two instances of mass shootings, the killers made their purchases of such weapons legally. That should not have happened. Whatever form legislation needs to take to prevent that, or at least make it more unlikely to happen again, that is what we need to enact. That is not a knee-jerk reaction. That is just common sense. What's knee-jerk are the ones who keep yelling how "Liberals just wanna take away our guns!" Or.."Liberals hate the second amendment!" Or..."If guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns!" That is nothing but the knee-jerk crap of gun fetishists. Even many conservatives agree that we need sensible gun regulation. No liberal that I know has any interest in doing away with or outlawing guns. We just think that our society can and should have laws that at least strive to keep mass shootings in public places to a minimum. To stand idly by, after each time this happens, and say,"Well, that's the price we have to pay if we want to live in a free society," as I've heard some people on the right claim, well...that's just hogwash and nonsense.

Patriot1 wrote: "So, a "Gun Show Loophole" is really just a transaction between two private individuals."

Not quite. It most often is an individual purchasing a gun from someone who sets up a booth or space at a gun show, who may have as many or more guns for sale than a registered dealer in the booth next to him or her.

"This would be no different than say, my neighbor down the street selling me a handgun, or a bitter clinger I met a church buying a gun from me."

It's quite a bit more difficult for someone seeking to buy guns for nefarious use from a neighbor or at church. Criminals and terrorists know full and well that the best place to score a Saturday night special is at a gun show. They purposely seek the occasional seller who is not a registered gun dealer by trade.

"It's just that I happen to meet this chap at a gun show who has a gun for sale....Thanks"

Nope. It's a bit more complicated than that, but I suspect that you knew that before I typed a word, because you just offered the same pointless argument that can be found right on the NRA website.

If weaponized anthrax were outlawed, only outlaws would have weaponized anthrax. Oh, wait, it is.

conservative said..."MTJohn...You constantly rail against profits."

Close, but no cigar! I consistently rail against profits gained by taking unfair advantage of others. And, I consistently rail against the sale of our government to those who gain profits by taking unfair advantage of others. From that perspective, I object to those who lobby for the purpose of maintaining profits from questionable sources. And, I object to profits derived from the sale of firearms and ammunition that is unlawfully smuggled out of this country to drug cartels, terrorists, etc. etc.

And, to answer your question, I have consistently lived off the salary that I earned in exchange for my diligent labor.

Hey alpo and the rest of you libs, how many ms-13 gang members do you think will lay down their firearms after your wonderful anti-gun laws are passed? And you know what the next threat will be. The next generation of psychos will be expert bomb makers. Will you be an advocate of "anti-bomb laws"? How about "anti-cocaine laws". Or "anti-marijuana laws". Because, as we all know, banning something ALWAYS puts an end to it.

If the NRA were a liberal group, you would ALL be in support of guns. Just the same way with illegals. If they were known republican supporters, you libs would be screaming for a mile high fence across the entire border.

Hey TOE - how much profit has the firearms industry derived from the sale of arms and ammunition that ends up in the hands of ms-13 gang members?

MTJohn: How DARE you take unfair advantage of your employer by collecting money from him?

Hambone: How would you drive to work everyday if not for the "terrible oil companies"?

toe - there is nothing unfair about an honest day's work for an honest day's pay and vice versa.

MTJohn...

Have you railed against wasted tax payer dollars on failed green endeavors? Have you railed against Owebama's role?

Read most of the post and the winner is....................Jesse at 12noon.

It's not the firearm industry's job to regulate the behavior of people. That's you mommy's job. And apparently the liberals of this country.

So the little ms-13 wanna be breaks into a law abiding citizens home, steals his guns, goes out and shoots someone with them, and it's the law abiding citizen's fault?

There's always going to be mass killings, whether by gun, car, bomb or poison. The only reason you hate the NRA is because of their republican ties. And the liberal belief is that anything or anyone that doesn't think or act in a liberal manner, must be destroyed. Because there is no room in a liberal house for anything but liberalism. (the all inclusive party my ass).

MTJohn..

"Hey TOE - how much profit has the firearms industry derived from the sale of arms and ammunition that ends up in the hands of ms-13 gang members?"

How much profit has Ben and Jerry's derived from the sale of fat laden high cholesterol ice cream that ends up in the arteries of sedentary obese people leading to premature death?

"Honest days pay for an honest days work"? So THAT'S why you want Obama to take over half my paycheck and give it to people who don't work. I get it now?!?!.....nope....just gas....I still don't get it.

"The IRS pays out $6.8 billion in refunds to taxpayers who file using Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers (ITINs), who are generally immigrants, here both legally and illegally. The amount of fraud was not stated".

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/8/irs-paid-out-billions-bogus-refunds-under-program-/

American Exceptionalism at it's worst.

All right - let's take the worst case. Everything goes bad. A rogue president orders the military to attack Hixson and somehow, the military agrees to fire on its own citizens.

The drone flies over the horizon. A pilot in Colorado targets your house. A navy ship in the Gulf of Mexico loads up a couple of missiles.

So tell me, bright guy - just what exactly are you going to do next? You aren't Rambo. This ain't a movie. And that gun in your hand won't do much good, either.

And wouldn't this be a good time for some rhubarb pie? :-)

miraweb, that is about the most sensible argument ever leveled in this forum.

People who tout that Second Amendment to mean that everyone is entitled to take up arms, in the event that our Gov't were to attack any of our citizens, just got trumped big time.

Way back when the Constitution was written, the most harmful weapons were perhaps a cannon and a one shot rifle that you had to load between each shot.

No one alive back then could ever imagine a Gov't directed military that can take out a house, or a row of houses for that matter, from hundreds of miles away. Conversely, there was no such thing as a multiple-round, rapid fire weapon capable of killing dozens of people in one session.

Since we now live in a world where such weaponry does indeed exist, are we to expect die-hard Second Amendment advocates or the NRA itself to begin a call for private citizens to be allowed to stock up with rocket launchers, anti-missile technology, and other military style weaponry, just in case there were any domestic attacks by our military acting on behalf of a 'rogue governmental regime' within our Gov't?

Paranoid doesn't begin to describe some of the more verbose gun right advocates.

Some of them are in need of some rather strong medication to help them find and deal with reality.

Alpo: Don't be silly. Most gun advocates are not worried about having to fight the gubment.

Al - I think, at least for some, it is more than paranoia. Some, like Wade Page and Timothy McVeigh, are anxious to take up arms in their imaginary war against windmills.

Conservative - thanks for enlightening me. I didn't realize that we had a problem with illegal trafficking in ice cream.

I'm sure we don't, but I will remind you that you were complaining about profits and not the missuse of a product.

A modern society doesn't need guns. If you say you need guns to protect the population from a tyrannical government in the US, that means you would be overthrowing a freely elected government of the people. Our country has never had a coup by the military or the people because of how it is structured. You don't need guns to protect yourself from the government. We have due process. Also the governments of Egypt and Libya were overthrown without the populous having access to guns. There are also strict gun regulations in Tunisia.

If you say you need to protect yourself from people who have illegal guns, that just means more guns. If the police and our military were the only ones allowed to have guns then anyone who had a gun would be immediately arrested or considered dangerous. So they would be dealt with. There may be some issues during a transition but it would be easy to spot the criminals.

If you say you need guns to protect us from a foreign invasion, then you are not considering that, it has never happened, and besides that is why we have the National Guard. People who are properly trained to use weapons to defend us and are under the control of individual states' governors. If we didn't have guns and the president wanted to send our guards to a foreign land to invade them, we would be angry they weren't here protecting us in our times of need. If you look back at 2003 that's what happened, because we tried fighting a war on the backs of people who should have been here guarding our nation.

I read this on another persons post a while back in relation to gun violence. I think we should all keep it in mind. "If peace is attained only through the threat or presence of a gun, that is not really peace at all but merely a desperate acquiescence to living in a state of permanent warfare amongst ourselves."

Great cartoon Clay! Sadly, as always, the point is lost on the GOPbaggers. They have limbaugh stuck in their ears. Fortunately for the most part they tend to shoot themselves and each other in the woods, by accident I'm assuming.

erosandze said...I read this on another persons post a while back in relation to gun violence. I think we should all keep it in mind.
"If peace is attained only through the threat or presence of a gun, that is not really peace at all but merely a desperate acquiescence to living in a state of permanent warfare amongst ourselves."

Excellent! and so very true.