Opposition to "buyback" programs is what invalidates what the NRA has become

[Sean]

Total bullshit. I've been a voting Life Member since I was in my teens:

NRA Winning the Influence Battle Over Gun Control


http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucero...inning-the-influence-battle-over-gun-control/

What does a poll have to do with the fact that you've been duped by the arms industry into being a scared little man? You posted a shitload of polls before the last presidential election, how'd that work out for you?

 

[JBCorbell]

You know, it's a shame really. Vetteman has always been a bit of an idiot from time to time but you used to be able to get coherent argument from him occasionally. As well, he used to post beautiful and sometimes funny pictures to the board.

Now he has degenerated into just another Republican jihadist at least as incoherent and rage filled as the Islamic sort.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Why would you protest a buy back program? Pathetic.

I agree....which is why I just offer 100 more than the cops/church/douchebags running the program like thousands of others. This hysteria is great on both sides...buy an AR from a moron lefty for 300 bucks because his wife want's the murderous blood craze piece of plastic out of the house and I sell it to a moron righty for 2500 b/c he thinks Obama's is raiding his stash at 2200 hrs today and every day.

I hope they say something about confiscating all semi auto weapons, doesn't have to be much just a whisper enough to send all the loonies into fits....I'll be so fucking rich I just might OPEN A GUN STORE!!!

LETS GO BUY BACK'S LETS GO!!!

LETS GO BUY BACK'S LETS GO!!!
http://i.qkme.me/354ovk.jpg

 

[unregistered]

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

A big part of the problem are gangs:


Gingrich Productions
February 1, 2013
Newt Gingrich

Target Gangs, Not Guns

Earlier this week we heard of another tragic argument for hearings on gun violence in Chicago.

While sitting in a Chicago park with a group of volleyball teammates on Tuesday, a 15 year old girl named Hadiya Pendleton was shot and killed.
Police said Hadiya, an honor student, was likely caught in the middle of gang turf wars. She was not affiliated with a gang herself.

Chances are, we might not even have heard of this sad event if Hadiya hadn’t performed with her high school band last week as part of President Obama’s inauguration festivities.

We might not have heard about it because, tragically, what happened to this innocent girl in Chicago is much too common.

Chicago has had at least 44 homicides already this year. Three days before Hadiya’s murder, seven people were killed in Chicago within 24 hours, the youngest a 16 year old boy. The mother of one of those shot had already lost her three other children to gun violence.

Last year, 7 year old Heaven Sutton was caught in a shooting and killed as she was selling candy and snow cones on the street outside her home.
In Chicago alone, more than 270 children have been killed since 2007. That’s almost 3 Newtowns per year in Chicago. Just the children.
Nationwide, a quarter of all gang-related killings strike children under the age of 18.

As I reported in this newsletter a few weeks ago, more than 500 people were killed in Chicago last year. That’s more than the number of coalition soldiers killed in Afghanistan in 2012.

In President Obama’s remarks on new gun control legislation in January, he pledged funding for “scientific or medical research into the causes of gun violence,” arguing, “We don’t benefit from ignorance. We don’t benefit from not knowing the science of this epidemic of violence.”

It may come as a surprise to President Obama, but the cause of the “epidemic” in places like Chicago with high gun violence is not a mystery.
It’s gangs.

Chicago police estimate that roughly 80 percent of homicides in Chicago are gang-related.

Approximately 100,000 gang members roam the streets of that city, spread among a few dozen gangs which engage in near-constant battle. They outnumber police officers 10 to 1.

Although the problem is worst in Chicago, the murder capital of the U.S., gang violence is a growing threat nationwide. The FBI estimated in 2011 that there are roughly 1.4 million active gang members in the U.S., a 40 percent increase from 2009.

They are responsible for “an average of 48 percent of violent crime in most jurisdictions, and much higher in others.”

This carnage is contributing to astonishing murder rates for black
Americans especially. Only 13 percent of the U.S. population is black, but this group accounts for half all homicide victims. The homicide victimization rate for black males ages 18-24 is 19 times the national average.
But while gangs affect some populations disproportionately, they in fact show broad ethnic and racial variation.

There are Asian gangs, East African gangs, West African gangs, Caribbean gangs, Latin American gangs, Eastern European gangs, and white supremacist gangs.

Many are highly sophisticated criminal organizations.
Some work closely with Latin American drug cartels.

The FBI National Gang Threat Assessment reports gangs have established “wide-reaching drug networks; assisting in the smuggling of drugs, weapons, and illegal immigrants,” and increasingly engage in “alien smuggling, human trafficking, and prostitution” as well as “white-collar crime such as counterfeiting, identity theft, and mortgage fraud.”
Nearly all gang related homicides involve guns — mostly handguns.
The FBI reports that “typically firearms are acquired through illegal purchases; straw purchases via surrogates or middle-men, and thefts from individuals, vehicles, residences and commercial establishments.”
This suggests new gun laws are very unlikely to stop the flow of guns to gangs.

An eye-opening piece in Chicago Magazine last year detailed how local politicians protect and use the city’s gangs as their own personal political armies. The article described how elected officials and candidates for local office appeared before panels of gang representatives to answer the question “What can you give me?”

“The politicians, most eager to please, replied, ‘What do you want?’”
The story describes how the city’s politicians tip off gangs to police raids, help get members out of jail when they’re arrested, get records expunged, actively fight measures like surveillance cameras designed to curb gang activity, and even participate in the gangs’ profitable narcotics business.
This gives you some idea of how serious many Chicago politicians, with all their gun laws, are about stopping the gun violence.

In an interview on Telemundo this week, President Obama was asked about the 15 year old honor student, Hadiya.

The host, Jose Diaz Balart, said, “Back home, specifically in your hometown of Chicago, yesterday 15-year-old Hadiya Pendleton was shot dead in a park. She was here in Washington to take part in your inaugural. Chicago has one of the strictest gun control laws, certainly in the state and across the country. Doesn’t this in a way give credence to the NRA’s point that more laws don’t necessarily equate to less gun violence?”

The President, who spent much of his adult life as a politician in Chicago, immediately replied: “Well, the problem is is that a huge proportion of those guns come in from outside Chicago…If you are just creating a bunch of pockets of gun laws without having…a unified, integrated system…it’s gonna be a lot harder for– an individual community, a single community, to protect itself from this kind of gun violence.”

No mention of the gangs that killed Hadiya, that commit 80 percent of homicides in Chicago, that manage some of the nation’s most sophisticated black market networks for drugs, prostitution, human trafficking, and indeed, guns.

How can President Obama, who has seen this calamity and corruption with his own eyes, have the heart to suggest that background checks and a toothless weapons ban have much at all to do with stopping tragedies like Hadiya’s?

Why not target both?

 

[mark_j]

Amazing..

This thread runs the whole gamut.

Rabid anti-gunners
NRA conspiracy nuts
Mealy mouthed "well if the government says I don't need it" types
"From my cold dead hands" Neanderthals

Oh and while we are at it let's label everyone either liberal or conservative and then call each other names bases on those labels... All the while most of you, with a few exceptions, have absolutely no clue what you are talking about other than the talking points per your political leanings.

Stop being such a bunch of mindless political wonks and actually learn something about the subject.

 

[unregistered]

 

[SouthernMom]

I have never been a fan of the use of tax payers money for such buy back programs. Most of the weapons turned in are grandpa shotgun/hunting rifles and have next to no impact on crime figures.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

We need to target Liberalism first.

I thought Liberals didn't want anyone to have guns?

 

[KingOrfeo]

We need to target Liberalism first.

And how is that going to rid America of gangs or guns?

 

[koalabear]

Gun buy backs have been around for decades. Haven't you noticed the decline in gang killings!

 

[mark_j]

I have never been a fan of the use of tax payers money for such buy back programs. Most of the weapons turned in are grandpa shotgun/hunting rifles and have next to no impact on crime figures.

Last one they had in the Seattle area they were offering $100 and $200 gift certificates that were mostly donated by area businesses and other groups. I don't think there was any taxpayer's money involved. I will agree that for the most part they netted dad's old shotgun or grampa's old rifle. Hell if I had been in the area I might even have taken one in simple because it was unrepairable and it would have been worth more as a gift certificate.

 

[KingOrfeo]

For my part, I accept as a fact that America will never in your lifetime or mine or our grandchildren's be a disarmed society to the extent of the UK or Japan. I do not even have any brief for any particular gun-control regime (though I think Canada's is at least worth studying and learning from, the culture and conditions being so very similar to ours).

No, my position is simply that gun ownership is not a matter that merits constitutional protection. It should not be regarded as a "right" in the sense that free speech is a right. It does not deserve to be set above-and-beyond the reach of the ordinary legislative/political process in that way. Gun control should be merely a political issue, to be threshed out at the polls and in the legislatures, not in the courts -- and, of course, American gun owners and gun-rights activists will for generations to come be very strong at the polls and in the legislatures. So what? Legislatures can look at policy studies, evaluate gun-control efforts on their merits and effects, try things and reject what turns out not to work in practice, and be accountable to the voters for the results. That is good enough, it is how reasonable public policy can and is and should be made. But we do not have any good or rational use for the Second Amendment in this day and age.

My position, also, is that gun control in and of itself is not all that important, compared to other issues facing our society, like the distribution of wealth. It's like gay marriage -- I'm all and unreservedly for it, but, if I were a politician, I would not give it a very high priority compared with a lot of other things. The lack of it is no existential threat to our society, no more than the presence of it; and likewise with guns. They kill a lot of people needlessly, but in terms of the general health of American society, guns are like a flu compared to cancer.

 

[mark_j]

No, my position is simply that gun ownership is not a matter that merits constitutional protection. It should not be regarded as a "right" in the sense that free speech is a right. It does not deserve to be set above-and-beyond the reach of the ordinary legislative/political process in that way.

The framers of the Constitution would tend to disagree with you. The 2nd was written to prevent the government from seizing arms based on political fiat. Specifically, the battles of Lexington and Concord were fought because the provisional governor of Boston, General Gage, sent 700 troops to seize colonial militia weapons stored at Concord. As you know the British lost that engagement and retreated back to Boston having been harassed by colonial militia the whole way.

Whether you think it *deserves* special dispensation in the Constitution is your opinion. I happen to not agree with you.

Gun control should be merely a political issue, to be threshed out at the polls and in the legislatures, not in the courts -- and, of course, American gun owners and gun-rights activists will for generations to come be very strong at the polls and in the legislatures. So what?

In your world, since the gun-rights people *have no rights*, they wouldn't even exist in the first place.

Legislatures can look at policy studies, evaluate gun-control efforts on their merits and effects, try things and reject what turns out not to work in practice, and be accountable to the voters for the results. That is good enough, it is how reasonable public policy can and is and should be made. But we do not have any good or rational use for the Second Amendment in this day and age.

How many of those policy studies have resulted in legislation that truly does anything but place further bureaucratic red tape on law abiding citizens? What about my right to defend myself from lawless criminals who are intent on depriving me of my right to life, security and defense of my property with the most effective means possible? You really think the cops are gonna be there in time to stop an attack when the best you can hope for is a 10 minute response time? You really live in a dream world pal.

My position, also, is that gun control in and of itself is not all that important, compared to other issues facing our society, like the distribution of wealth. It's like gay marriage -- I'm all and unreservedly for it, but, if I were a politician, I would not give it a very high priority compared with a lot of other things. The lack of it is no existential threat to our society, no more than the presence of it; and likewise with guns. They kill a lot of people needlessly, but in terms of the general health of American society, guns are like a flu compared to cancer.

Yet you advocate for the elimination of a right enumerated in the Constitution. Look, if you are happy with a government who governs without so much as a by your leave, then go for it. In the end it will amount to mob rule anyway.

 

[richard_daily]

We need to target Liberalism first.

You should start by tossing them...

 

[the_kuntess]

We need to target Liberalism first.

Fuck off.
The target of any change or reform should be what causes gangs. Why do directionless, unemployed marginalised young people feel the need to align themselves with a gang?

 

[MacLe0d]

It wasn't always what it is now. There was a time when the NRA was more open-minded to gun-control. But the organization has changed over time.



And now look where that has led.



IOW, it now appears that instead of couching the argument in terms of "freedom" or "rights" or "lesser of two evils," the NRA has evolved to the position that a heavily-armed society is something America should have, and any effort to make it less-armed is bad.

This is as if Libertarians arguing for drug-decriminalization were suddenly to start proclaiming that cocaine and heroin are good for you, and the more of those substances we have on the market the better. It would shatter the credibility even of their more-credible arguments.

I'm no legal expert, but as the Police bought back these weapons, i.e. paid their owners something for them. They haven't been abandoned, but rather sold to the police.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Greypowerful]

:avery:

 

[Greypowerful]

:avery: again

 

[Greypowerful]

You know, it's a shame really. Vetteman has always been a bit of an idiot from time to time but you used to be able to get coherent argument from him occasionally. As well, he used to post beautiful and sometimes funny pictures to the board.

Now he has degenerated into just another Republican jihadist at least as incoherent and rage filled as the Islamic sort.

In my experience, what we consider "reasonable" here has little bearing on the Second Amendment war to the Sowth. Our Societies are, after all, fundamentally different. The "rights" of the individual are supreme, in the American psyche. We, and the Brits have freely chosen a different path. For us, as outsiders to hurl insults southward doesn't help.

By the way, it might be a good time to remind ourselves that despite strict firearms safety legislation, historically.... Ecole Polytechnique DID happen, and Lepine WAS in possession of an assault weapon.

Back to the original point, however. I agree that the NRA has changed, and not for the better, in my view. However, regarding the Constitutional debate in the Great Republic... I have seen a great deal of pit bull mentality exhibitted from the Left, down there, so it makes sense that the supporters of the Second Amendment are pushing back.

I have no dawg in this fight, but the debate is interesting, albeit saddening, to observe.

 

[Greypowerful]

Trying to post here... Did I break Lit?

 

[marshalt]

My problem with so-called "buy-back" programs is that people are getting seriously ripped off. The amounts they give people are usually $100 for a handgun and $200 for a rifle. That's bullshit. If you don't like your gun anymore, take it to a reputable dealer. You'll get a fair price and then someone else can buy the gun and enjoy it.

 

[KingOrfeo]

The framers of the Constitution would tend to disagree with you. The 2nd was written to prevent the government from seizing arms based on political fiat. Specifically, the battles of Lexington and Concord were fought because the provisional governor of Boston, General Gage, sent 700 troops to seize colonial militia weapons stored at Concord. As you know the British lost that engagement and retreated back to Boston having been harassed by colonial militia the whole way.

Whether you think it *deserves* special dispensation in the Constitution is your opinion. I happen to not agree with you.

The politicians of the time added the Second Amendment because they wanted the U.S. to have a small standing army, and a large militia ready to be mobilized quickly in an emergency, bringing their own muskets from home, to serve the state, not to fight it -- remember how George Washington responded to the Whiskey Rebellion.

Eventually, it developed that that is not a good model for national defense, and that a large standing army is not the threat-to-liberty it appeared to be in the 18th Century. Now we have a large standing army, backed up by quasi-professional National Guards who do not supply their own weapons, and it all works very well regardless of whether anybody has firearms at home or not, and the Second Amendment is just an anachronism, nothing more.

In your world, since the gun-rights people *have no rights*, they wouldn't even exist in the first place.

Of course they would have rights, just not a federal-constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Wouldn't keep them from organizing and lobbying to keep gun-regulation to a minimum.

Look, if you are happy with a government who governs without so much as a by your leave, then go for it. In the end it will amount to mob rule anyway.

Pure bullshit. Look, they have no Second Amendment or anything analogous, and they have considerable gun control, in the UK and in Canada; but neither has "a government who governs without so much as a by your leave," nor does either have "mob rule."

 

[RobDownSouth]

Total bullshit. I've been a voting Life Member since I was in my teens:

NRA Winning the Influence Battle Over Gun Control


http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucero...inning-the-influence-battle-over-gun-control/

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/539610_552366718120915_1365252590_n.jpg