Blood is on the NRA's hands

[B-Man]

I didn't feel like going back further, so I'll drop this "Fast & Furious" news in the NRA thread...............

 

 

BREAKING: Federal Judge Obama Appointed Strikes Down His Fast and Furious Executive Privilege Claim

 

After significant deliberation U.S. District Judge Amy Berman has struck down Obama's assertion of executive privilege over documents pertaining to Operation Fast and Furious, the Department of Justice program that allowed the sale and trafficking of thousands of weapons to violent Mexican drug cartels. Berman was appointed to the Court by President Obama in 2011.

 

POLITICO has the details:

 

 

 

Of Course the WH will appeal and push it past 2017........................

Edited January 19, 2016 by B-Man

[Azalin]

I didn't feel like going back further, so I'll drop this "Fast & Furious" news in the NRA thread...............

 

 

BREAKING: Federal Judge Obama Appointed Strikes Down His Fast and Furious Executive Privilege Claim

 

After significant deliberation U.S. District Judge Amy Berman has struck down Obama's assertion of executive privilege over documents pertaining to Operation Fast and Furious, the Department of Justice program that allowed the sale and trafficking of thousands of weapons to violent Mexican drug cartels. Berman was appointed to the Court by President Obama in 2011.

 

POLITICO has the details:

 

 

 

Of Course the WH will appeal and push it past 2017........................

 

Mutinous swine!

[/dev/null]

BREAKING: Federal Judge Obama Appointed Strikes Down His Fast and Furious Executive Privilege Claim

 

Why not just draft an Executive Order that Executive Orders are exempt from judicial review?

[Nanker]

 

Why not just draft an Executive Order that Executive Orders are exempt from judicial review?

Why, what a "progressive" thought. Forward... to dictatorship! The Fiat King must has his way.

[B-Man]

 

 

 

 

So I think I'm done hearing this administration's arguments about gun control

 

.

[/dev/null]

 

 

 

 

So I think I'm done hearing this administration's arguments about gun control

 

.

50 cal can punch thru an engine bloc

 

But still, the odds of taking down a chopper with a Barratt is slim. It's slightly higher than when Rambo took one down with a bow and arrow.

 

And yes, those things are legal and fun as hell to shoot

 

https://www.slickguns.com/product/barrett-82a1-50-bmg-29-barrel-840464-499-sh

[DC Tom]

50 cal can punch thru an engine bloc

 

But still, the odds of taking down a chopper with a Barratt is slim. It's slightly higher than when Rambo took one down with a bow and arrow.

 

And yes, those things are legal and fun as hell to shoot

 

https://www.slickguns.com/product/barrett-82a1-50-bmg-29-barrel-840464-499-sh

 

There's at least one recorded instance of the Viet Cong taking down a Huey with bamboo spears (and two others I've seen damaged.)

 

And "capable of taking down a helicopter" is pretty broad. In 2003, the Iraqis wrecked an entire regiment of Apaches with little more than AK-74s.

[/dev/null]

 

There's at least one recorded instance of the Viet Cong taking down a Huey with bamboo spears (and two others I've seen damaged.)

 

And "capable of taking down a helicopter" is pretty broad. In 2003, the Iraqis wrecked an entire regiment of Apaches with little more than AK-74s.

John McClain took down Hans Gruber's brother's chopper in Quebec with a single shot from a 38 (Die Hard With a Vengeance)

 

shot a power line off the pole and into the rotors

 

 

And this was quite possibly the greatest movie to TV "Edited for Content" ever

Yippie Kay Yay My Friend

[DC Tom]

John McClain took down Hans Gruber's brother's chopper in Quebec with a single shot from a 38 (Die Hard With a Vengeance)

 

shot a power line off the pole and into the rotors

 

 

And this was quite possibly the greatest movie to TV "Edited for Content" ever

Yippie Kay Yay My Friend

 

What, you didn't like the edited-for-content "Yippie Kay Yay Mr. Falcon" in the original?

 

Although my real favorite is in Lethal Weapon 4, when Mel Gibson looks Jet Li square in the eye and calls him "poopy pants." I'm sorry...Martin Riggs does not call anyone "poopy pants," least of all Jet Li.

[FireChan]

John McClain took down Hans Gruber's brother's chopper in Quebec with a single shot from a 38 (Die Hard With a Vengeance)

 

shot a power line off the pole and into the rotors

 

 

And this was quite possibly the greatest movie to TV "Edited for Content" ever

Yippie Kay Yay My Friend

 

 

 

What, you didn't like the edited-for-content "Yippie Kay Yay Mr. Falcon" in the original?

 

Although my real favorite is in Lethal Weapon 4, when Mel Gibson looks Jet Li square in the eye and calls him "poopy pants." I'm sorry...Martin Riggs does not call anyone "poopy pants," least of all Jet Li.

Both of your opinions are bad. The clear champ and it isn't even close.

 

[DC Tom]

Both of your opinions are bad. The clear champ and it isn't even close.

 

No, I've still got to go wit "Mr. Falcon."

[B-Man]

THIS SEEMS FAIR TO ME:

 

Bill allows suits over gun-free zone incidents.

 

 

Sponsored by Sen. Dolores Gresham, R-Somerville, Senate Bill 1736 has a very specific purpose.

“It is the intent of this section to balance the right of a handgun carry permit holder to carry a firearm in order to exercise the right of self-defense and the ability of a property owner or entity in charge of the property to exercise control over governmental or private property,” the bill states.

To accomplish that goal, the legislation allows any Tennessean with a valid gun permit to sue a property owner in the event of injury or death provided the incident occurred while in a gun-free zone.

The legislation places responsibility on the business or property owner of the gun-free area to protect the gun owner from any incidents that occur with any “invitees,” trespassers and employees found on the property, as well as vicious and wild animals and “defensible man-made and natural hazards.”

 

 

 

 

 

If they take away your ability to protect yourself, they should bear the responsibility.

[B-Man]

Virginia Attorney General Unilaterally Revokes Concealed Carry Permit Reciprocity with 25 States

 

Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring (D) has announced that Virginia will no longer honor reciprocity agreements on concealed carry permits with 25 of the 30 states it currently recognizes. The practical effect of this move is that your Virginia concealed carry permit used to be good in 31 states, and now it’s good in 6. Of the 6 states that remain, only West Virginia is even close to Virginia.

 

{snip}

 

Prior to Mark Herring’s decision, Virginia was one of those states who participated in these reciprocity agreements, so that Virginia gun owners could travel throughout most of the country legally with their weapons. But the effect of cancelling these reciprocity agreements goes both ways, so that not only can out-of-staters no longer carry their guns into Virginia, but Virginians can’t carry their guns out of state.

 

I think it goes without saying that if you are going to take the trouble to go through getting your concealed carry permit, you are a conscientious, law abiding gun owner. What Herring has done has not made the people of Virginia any safer, it has merely made it more difficult for people who want to exercise their Second Amendment rights in accordance with the law more difficult. Which of course is exactly the point.

 

Note that this action was taken unilaterally and without the Virginia legislature.

 

 

http://www.redstate.com/2015/12/22/virginia-attorney-general-unilaterally-revokes-concealed-carry-permit-reciprocity-25-states/

 

 

 

McAuliffe Capitulates, Reverses Virginia Gun Action

 

Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe will announce Friday his administration will restore handgun reciprocity agreements with almost all 25 states his attorney general, Mark Herring, previously announced the state would stop recognizing, The Washington Post reported.

 

The surprising reversal came after Virginia Republicans struck a deal with McAuliffe.

 

In exchange for Herring withdrawing last month’s state reciprocity cancellations, Republicans agreed to legislation that states anyone with a permanent protective order for a domestic violence offense will be banned from carrying a firearm for the two-year life of the order.

 

“This is a bipartisan deal that will make Virginians safer,” McAuliffe spokesman Brian Coy said. “It also demonstrates that Democrats and Republicans can work together on key issues like keeping guns out of dangerous hands.”

 

The NRA praised the deal.

 

“The National Rifle Association commends leaders in the Commonwealth for moving forward on a bipartisan package that will benefit Virginia citizens,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director of NRA-ILA, the organization’s lobbying arm.

 

Gun control activists from the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, though, were not happy about the deal, saying on McAuliffe bragged about “his administration’s aggressive new approach to confronting the National Rifle Association.”

 

“Now he’s preparing to cave to them,” the message says. “As far as we are aware, there is not a single gun violence prevention advocate in Virginia who was informed about this deal before it was done. We all stand in opposition to it.”

[Juror#8]

Another day, another mass shooting. What will it take for this country to recognize it has a gun problem? It's going to take people who hate admitting they're wrong to admit they may be wrong about gun control.

 

Obviously I never post in this subforum, I've checked enough times to know it's little more than an echo chamber for conservative talk radio points. DC Tom, LABillzFan, and the other thought leaders here slap each other on the back and never have to consider they may be wrong. Well, conservatives do an admirable job of stubbornly ignoring reality. I'll grant you that in general I think people only preach to the choir so I'm going to go against the grain and try to communicate to NRA sympathizers here.

 

That's why I'm going to be blunt and straight to the point. If this post gets taken down or banned because I'm clearly posting when I'm angry, so be it.

 

If you're an NRA supporter: these shootings are on YOU. That's right, you are implicit. Your actions are partly responsible for these tragedies. Your selfish, delusional, ignorant fantasies of being a cowboy hero have led to this current reality of America where mass shootings are becoming a daily occurrence. You are part of the problem that prevents gun legislation. And since there is no foreseeable opportunity for legislation and an end to the madness, at the very least, you should feel bad and consider changing your stupid views.

 

This year alone, there have been more mass shootings than days in the year. These are not "isolated incidents" like the NRA likes to pretend. You need to take a long look in the mirror and realize how badly your attitudes affect the rest of the country. It's absurd how easily accessible weapons are available to psychopaths. Who's to blame for that?

 

...

 

"Guns don't kill people, people kill people."

Easily the dumbest defense. Guns kill people. None of these mass murders happen without the ease of guns.

 

"If we outlawed guns, criminals would find a way to get them anyway."

So instead let's make it easier for "them" to get them by having them widely available? How's that working out? The reality is, because gun manufacturers have made SO MANY of these portable death machines, OBVIOUSLY they will not go away overnight. But legislation is the first step; rooting them out is the second step. It's like saying that because withdrawals are bad, you should just keep doing heroin forever.

 

"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."

Where are all the good guys with guns then? You guys have been asleep at the wheel if you're supposed to be the ones preventing these. Nevermind that this quip doesn't sync up with reality at all; the amount of times a shooter has been stopped by an armed civilian have been so few that it's little more than an anomaly. Stats show it's far more likely that having a gun in your home makes it more likely for a gun death to occur in the home than it being used in a "positive" way, but I'm sure Obama just made up those stats to scare you, though.

 

"It's a mental health issue."

Hey good point, social services should be expanded in this country. Unfortunately that would mean higher taxes! Well, we know which segment of the population will be blocking any efforts to improve this then. Even if we did somehow improve access to mental health which won't happen the first realization people would come to would be "oh well obviously we should get rid of guns, that's an easy one."

 

"The government fears armed citizens!"

So incredibly delusional. The government taps all your communication, engages in drone warfare on a regular basis, etc. etc., but they're afraid of your sidearm? Get over yourself.

 

"It's for protection!"

It's for your absurd fantasies. Protect you from what, home invasion? Sorry, that's not nearly good enough of a justification. Guns are overwhelmingly used to attack, not defend. And your possessions are meaningless. Nobody wants to steal your DVD-VCR combo.

 

"But the shooting today happened in California, which has stronger gun laws! See? Gun laws don't work!"

The laws are not strong enough anywhere. Waiting periods, background checks, written tests. It's not enough. We need to get there on a nation-wide level because gun sales are still through the roof at gun shows and still pass state borders mostly with impunity.

 

"Way to politicize a tragedy."

If we can't talk about this now, then when? When it happens to someone you know?

 

"But I like hunting!"

At least this one is honest. The reality is your hobby sucks. If your daddy got you into hunting and that's how you bonded, your daddy sucks. Hunt with a bow & arrow, or a knife, or even a musket if you want. Go ahead and keep the muskets.

 

...

 

If you're an NRA member and you read all this, you're probably pissed and looking to score points by somehow proving me wrong. Go ahead and shoot the messenger, I don't care. Call me whatever names you want, like that makes what I'm saying not true.

 

Maybe in time you'll consider that these tragedies are preventable and that we need to at least "TRY" reducing access to guns. That does not happen until the NRA has less power in our government. And that doesn't happen until their base starts to turn on them; until gun sales stop GOING UP whenever there's a mass shooting. That's why I'm reaching out.

 

The NRA needs to be recognized for what it is an enabler of terrorism. We need to stop dancing around this hard truth just because we've been living the lie for so long. White male sociopaths with guns are terrorists, plain and simple.

 

If you're a gun owner, if you're one of the fools that buys into the NRA rhetoric so they can keep making money off of your delusional and fearful fantasies, the best way to send your "thoughts and prayers" to the victims of these shootings would be to take your gun and shoot yourself. Go ahead and do it today, even. At least then the blood on your hands can be your own.

 

Ok this is interesting. And I have a lot of friends who think like you. I may be the strangest gun owner, philosophically, that you'll ever meet. And before you read on, I'm not part of any "echo chamber." Read my posts here. I've squared off with some of the same people that you have around myriad political issues. Most who post here are good, intelligent, knowledgeable folks who may differ from you philosophically but who will also force you to think in a way that you've never thought before. That's good for you. Some here are thin-skinned cry babies. Incidentally, there are even some folks here who have publicly blacklisted me because of my unique style of argumentation and insistence and views on ****. I dig that sh!t; its intoxicating. But that should show you that I'm not part of any "echo chamber."

 

Anyway, I have my concealed carry permit and I really really like handguns. I'm surgical on a zombie paper target with my p226 and recently just bought a .460 smith just cuz. I don't even mother!@#$ing hunt. I think gun manufacturers should make more guns and citizens should be more armed.

 

Ok so back to what I was saying ... I own guns, well, simply for protection. I'm not someone who will try to convince you of the originalist intent of the founding fathers and whether or not they contemplated the type of organized community protection apparatus (no, not "apparati," just lengthen the vowel for the plural pronunciation) that we have now - because, in truth, they probably didn't. Nor will I try to argue that they didn't think that arming citizens was a good check against the chance of a resurgent effort at monarchical rule ... which, incidentally, will never happen. The "reasons" for the second amendment are probably stale now. I get it; you get it. Fine. Let's move on and talk about brother Jeremy.

 

So what is the case for pragmatic gun ownership? Well here it is: other people have them, bad people have them; I'm not comfortable knowing that and being unprepared and unarmed in the event of one of those bad people trying to encroach upon my ****. So I own guns - a lot of them.

 

That's it. It isn't more poetic than that. Just straightforward Jeremy Bentham pragmatism brother.

 

So, that is the principle underlying my gun ownership.

 

So are they dangerous? Yep, they sure are. But I'll also say that their utility outweighs their individual civilian danger ... much like a car, which is also dangerous. Guns hurt people; but guns also protect. Vehicles hurt people; vehicles also transport. Don't exalt the utility of one while suppressing or minimizing the utility of the other just to score a point. They are all tools calculated to perform certain objectives and have inherent risks associated with them.

 

And they're also not going anywhere. So instead of complaining about their omnipresence, focus on you. Because at the end of the day, let's be square, you're worried about getting shot by some loon with a handgun. I'll save you the suspense, neither the "loon" nor the "handgun" are going anywhere. Unfortunately those variables are outside of your control. But what is within your control is your ability to protect you and your family from both by being an armed citizen instead of an easy target.

 

That's pragmatism brotato chip. Either get on or get off; but if you want to !@#$ her in the ass, just know you might see some shiiiiiiiit sometimes.

Edited January 31, 2016 by Juror#8

[/dev/null]

That's pragmatism brotato chip. Either get on or get off; but if you want to !@#$ her in the ass, just know you might see some shiiiiiiiit sometimes.

 

That was quite the dissertation there Brofessor

 

You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hand

-Teddy Brosevelt

[Doc]

Someone has been watching that GEICO commercial too much, methinks.

[Chef Jim]

What I agreed with Juror's post the most is him stating that guns are not going anywhere. Especially guns held by those wishing to do us harm. And that is why I also own guns. I don't hunt either. I use them instead to protect my family from the hunters that are found in great numbers here in Oakland. There was a witness account on a neighborhood blog of an armed home invasion not far from us. The original owners of our home were victims of a home invasion. I will protect myself.

[drinkTHEkoolaid]

J#8 I don't always agree with your opinions and stances but your gun argument is full of logical sound reasoning. Glad to have more law abiding good guys with guns like yourself out there.

[unbillievable]

The gun debate is essentially a parenting question; some choose to baby proof their house, while others teach their children not to act like idiots.

Conservatives demand that they be allowed to protect themselves, while the Liberals are begging the government to make the world a safer place.

 

[Ozymandius]