Larry Posted January 9, 2016 Share Posted January 9, 2016 Larry, Google is your friend. It has been in the news cycle for a month now. Silly me, I kinda thought you'd have more information than that. And I kinda assumed that a Google on "professor Missouri muscle silence reporter" would turn up nothing but right-wing blog sites spinning a story. But no. It actually turns up a real story. And it's actually what you described. (Which I have to say, really surprised me.) (And dang, there's a boatload of irony in the story, too.) Again, though. Do you really want to build your case for how gun rights are being oppressed, by pointing at somebody who asked for some muscle to silence a reporter? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
btfoom Posted January 9, 2016 Share Posted January 9, 2016 At some level, I don't think you are really right or making the right comparison. The NRA isn't a pro kill people with guns or shoot people lobby. They are a pro-sell gun lobby (really they are run by and sponsored by the gun industry). And there isn't a pro-drunk driver lobby, but there is a pro-sell alcoholic beverages lobby (American Beverage Institute). And they regularly fight laws like requiring the breathylers in every car. And its at least a similar part of the population that gets up in arm about the proposed laws. http://patriotupdate.com/congresswoman-proposes-a-breathalyzer-be-placed-on-every-new-car/ I don't know why anybody would say that putting a breathylzer in every car would be easier to pass than (some) gun laws. (Read the comments. And note, it was a Dem that proposed the law) (And I'm pro-good gun laws.) The only real difference is that, right now (and not getting into semantics about the 2nd amendment), is that driving is a privilege and gun ownership is a right. I do agree with you in spirit. Personally, I don't mind it being harder to buy a gun than a box of cereal, and easier than getting your top secret clearance, but the major issues I have with most gun control laws is that they really don't deal with the big, current issue. Most gun crimes are committed by people who got them illegally. How about just starting there and putting them in jail for 10 + years for using a gun in a crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted January 9, 2016 Share Posted January 9, 2016 "Just argue" LOL! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TradeTheBeal! Posted January 9, 2016 Share Posted January 9, 2016 "Just argue" LOL! I've got a lot of problems with you people! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted January 9, 2016 Share Posted January 9, 2016 (edited) The only real difference is that, right now (and not getting into semantics about the 2nd amendment), is that driving is a privilege and gun ownership is a right. I do agree with you in spirit. Personally, I don't mind it being harder to buy a gun than a box of cereal, and easier than getting your top secret clearance, but the major issues I have with most gun control laws is that they really don't deal with the big, current issue. Most gun crimes are committed by people who got them illegally. How about just starting there and putting them in jail for 10 + years for using a gun in a crime. Because you end up putting people in jail for a long time for what are otherwise pretty minor crimes (people have had years of added to sentences for having gun while purchasing marijuana where they didn't do anything with the gun, but possess it), where they just become more criminal, can't readjust to society when they come out, and in some cases it ends up hurting their children/younger siblings (economically) fueling a cycle based on reasoning that there isn't a whole lot of evidence to support (Basically, your reasoning is that tougher gun crime laws will create less of a market for illegal guns, but evidence of tougher laws like that have a deterrent effect on the use of guns in crimes is mixed, and if they aren't having (much) of an effect on the use of guns in crime, it is even less likely the are affecting illegal gun transactions.) Edited January 9, 2016 by PeterMP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogofWar1 Posted January 9, 2016 Share Posted January 9, 2016 Bull****. There are more gun laws on the books than there are free speech laws. That's not really the point. If you're comparing their respective level of regulations, you naturally have to take into account the inherent danger of the thing itself. Guns are orders of magnitude more dangerous than speech, it makes sense for there to be more laws on it. Not to mention, speech is, well, speech. Firearms are physical objects, coming in all sorts of shapes, sizes, forms, and formats. Lots off extra potential points of regulation throughout the conception to private ownership process. Rather, the point is there's wiggle room between the present situation and the line where the 2nd amendment is crossed, but you'd think we'd already crossed it listening to the NRA and their purchased congressmen. It goes back to that quote the NRA put in their lobby of the 2nd; it's incomplete, and so perfectly sums up their views. It kills our ability to actually have any sort of gun debate in this country. They're so committed to blocking any policy changes on guns that they actively worked to end research into the topic. I don't think there's a group with the NRA's power committed to doing for the 1st what the NRA does for 2nd, especially with respect to the potential limits on government regulations and the constitutionality of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted January 9, 2016 Share Posted January 9, 2016 Because you end up putting people in jail for a long time for what are otherwise pretty minor crimes (people have had years of added to sentences for having gun while purchasing marijuana where they didn't do anything with the gun, but possess it) I don't really see the problem with that. 'They didn't do anything with the gun, but possess it' - yeah, they bought drugs while in possession of a gun. Which is against the law. I'm all for legalizing drugs and ending the drug war but if you have a gun while purchasing drugs you're either really up to no good or just really dumb. Either way, lock that person up for a while and take their gun rights away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted January 9, 2016 Share Posted January 9, 2016 (edited) I don't really see the problem with that. 'They didn't do anything with the gun, but possess it' - yeah, they bought drugs while in possession of a gun. Which is against the law. I'm all for legalizing drugs and ending the drug war but if you have a gun while purchasing drugs you're either really up to no good or just really dumb. Either way, lock that person up for a while and take their gun rights away. The problem is that it doesn't actually solve anything. In most cases, they come out of jail more criminalized than they went in, and if they had kids or younger siblings that they were supporting, you've hurt the chances of those people breaking the cycle. Greatly diminishing somebody's chances of ever integrating well into law abiding society because they did something dumb, is dumb. And people that end up going to jail for years have issues integrating well back into law abiding society. We should have reasons for doing the things we are doing. Is it going to make society better? Edited January 9, 2016 by PeterMP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted January 9, 2016 Share Posted January 9, 2016 The NRA isn't a pro kill people with guns or shoot people lobby. They are a pro-sell gun lobby (really they are run by and sponsored by the gun industry). You're right the NRA isn't pro kill, but they are for gun proliferation. Their job is simply to advocate for the gun industry so more guns get sold, and they don't care who those guns are sold to just so long as their sold. That's the problem. If they were truly interested in lowering gun related deaths and keeping guns out of the hands of those who should not have them then you'd never know it, because they don't do anything but weaken gun laws that are designed to do those things. What's more is they fight tooth and nail to maintain the private sale loophole. Why? Seriously, why? Why is it seen as ok for a background check to purchase a gun at a store, but suddenly not ok when it's a private sale? Oh that's right, the background check at the store is not ok either, because a felon might be barred from buying a gun. The NRA is a sad and depressing joke that sees the lives of innocents shed on our streets every day as a freedom tax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted January 9, 2016 Share Posted January 9, 2016 You're right the NRA isn't pro kill, but they are for gun proliferation. Their job is simply to advocate for the gun industry so more guns get sold, and they don't care who those guns are sold to just so long as their sold. That's the problem. If they were truly interested in lowering gun related deaths and keeping guns out of the hands of those who should not have them then you'd never know it, because they don't do anything but weaken gun laws that are designed to do those things. What's more is they fight tooth and nail to maintain the private sale loophole. Why? Seriously, why? Why is it seen as ok for a background check to purchase a gun at a store, but suddenly not ok when it's a private sale? Oh that's right, the background check at the store is not ok either, because a felon might be barred from buying a gun. The NRA is a sad and depressing joke that sees the lives of innocents shed on our streets every day as a freedom tax. My point isn't that the NRA is good or their policies make sense (even long term in the context of maximizing gun proliferation). My point is that in the context of gun deaths and drunk driving deaths there are clear parallels. That there is organization with respect to drunk driving deaths that acts is similar to the NRA does with respect to gun deaths (the ABI). And that if Obama stood up tomorrow and said he wanted to do something "radical" to reduce drunk driving deaths (e.g. require a breathalyzer installed into every new car), he'd actually have an uphill battle to fight against an organization similar to the NRA that would use similar tactics/language to the NRA that would appeal to many of the same people that the NRA (and its tactics/language) appeals to. Our inability to do much (more quickly) with respect to gun and drunk driving deaths have direct parallels. That isn't an argument that we shouldn't move on one or both issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted January 9, 2016 Share Posted January 9, 2016 My point isn't that the NRA is good or their policies make sense (even long term in the context of maximizing gun proliferation). My point is that in the context of gun deaths and drunk driving deaths there are clear parallels. That there is organization with respect to drunk driving deaths that acts is similar to the NRA does with respect to gun deaths (the ABI). And that if Obama stood up tomorrow and said he wanted to do something "radical" to reduce drunk driving deaths (e.g. require a breathalyzer installed into every new car), he'd actually have an uphill battle to fight against an organization similar to the NRA that would use similar tactics/language to the NRA that would appeal to many of the same people that the NRA (and its tactics/language) appeals to. Our inability to do much (more quickly) with respect to gun and drunk driving deaths have direct parallels. That isn't an argument that we shouldn't move on one or both issues. Yet, a breathalizer in every car is not the same thing as a background check to make sure the guy standing in front of you is actually allowed to own a gun. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted January 10, 2016 Share Posted January 10, 2016 Happy birthday. Thank you. My birthday is actually today. We were just celebrating Friday since we will be busy celebrating a playoff win today (hopefully)! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartinC Posted January 10, 2016 Share Posted January 10, 2016 And yet people swear they don't want to abolish the 2nd Amendment. If you have to present a case to the govt as to why you need to own a gun (and self defense is not allowed to be a reason) you have abolished the 2nd Amendment. You no longer have a right to bear arms. Unless your part of a well organised militia (like the National Guard) of course ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted January 10, 2016 Share Posted January 10, 2016 So I have been giving this some more thought. I think one solution I would like to see that may solve a lot of across the board issues is to severely limit the power of lobby groups. And more specifically limit the ability of companies to lobby. I think it is pretty well understood that a large portion of individuals don't agree with the NRA. But they are looking at for the gun industry, not gun owners. So if we limit the powers of corporate lobbyist then maybe the government would be forced to listen to the people and not the corporations. Thought? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 10, 2016 Share Posted January 10, 2016 Thought? Corps are people per SCOTUS, it would be tricky better reporting requirements maybe, I like the Missouri bill requiring reporting sex w/lobbyist....at least it is a start to full disclosure on who is screwing us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sacks 'n' Stuff Posted January 10, 2016 Share Posted January 10, 2016 Haha… No RG3 posts. The ever changing titles are the best part of this thread by a wide margin. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted January 10, 2016 Share Posted January 10, 2016 Some mods are so immature Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dont Taze Me Bro Posted January 10, 2016 Author Share Posted January 10, 2016 Haha… No RG3 posts. The ever changing titles are the best part of this thread by a wide margin. I first noticed the mods changing the title a couple of days ago. Then I changed it to "Just Argue". I got 1 up'd though with the No RGIII Posts addition though lol 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted January 10, 2016 Share Posted January 10, 2016 Everyone who disagrees with me is an idiot. Anyone who agrees with me is insane 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted January 10, 2016 Share Posted January 10, 2016 I first noticed the mods changing the title a couple of days ago. Then I changed it to "Just Argue". I got 1 up'd though with the No RGIII Posts addition though lol It's just been me and you taze...as ever... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted January 10, 2016 Share Posted January 10, 2016 Corps are people per SCOTUS, it would be tricky So what would it take to fix it? Honest question. Can a new law fix it? A constitional amendment? How many people would support something like that? I think it would be a good idea but am curious to hear others opinions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 10, 2016 Share Posted January 10, 2016 there probably is no fix, simply exposure limit contributions,perks and such ....or limit govt power/control over more matters(but most folk don't want that kind of freedom) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogofWar1 Posted January 10, 2016 Share Posted January 10, 2016 So what would it take to fix it? Honest question. Can a new law fix it? A constitional amendment? How many people would support something like that? I think it would be a good idea but am curious to hear others opinions. Supreme Court could overturn, but that's very unlikely. Slightly less unlikely if Hillary or Bernie win and several conservative justices leave the SC, but still unlikely. SC, more likely, could take cases that could weaken Citizen's United. Blunt some of the open ended nature of it. Allow restrictions by special interests in other areas. Stuff like that. It wouldn't be a major shift, it'd be small shifts over numerous decisions, ultimately leading to a functional overturning. Congress has limited power in this arena, too strong of a restriction would be unconstitutional per CU. However, they certainly aren't doing as much as they can. Nor is the FEC, which, due to needing unanimous votes and the 2 GOP members refusing to enforce anything, isn't really doing anything. A Constitutional Amendment certainly would do it. That would require a huge contingent of people and politicians that is tough to imagine. It's not impossible though, and there's definitely a large chunk of the country that wants something like that, but I think that'd only translate to sufficiently large majorities in only about 20ish states, which isn't enough. There's a lot of frustration with special interests and corporations giving money in politics, so it's not inconceivable. I think it there was a strong enough wave it could be done, it's just not very likely in the short term. It's a tough situation because there's just so much money tied up in preventing change, or even enforcing the law as currently written. However, indeed, getting special interest/corporate money out of politics would help in a lot of areas, including gun control. Money, like blind ideology, warps legislation and creates negative outcomes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 11, 2016 Share Posted January 11, 2016 Folks, the power that the NRA has in Washington, doesn't come from Citizens United. Because the NRA's power doesn't come from money. They have power in Washington because the NRA can deliver or withhold VOTES. They publish voter guides for their members, and those voter guides will affect the votes of maybe 5% of the voters. And there aren't many politicians who can just write off 5% of the vote. (Same reason AARP has power, in Washington). 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 i've read their papers and as far as i can tell the people who are influenced by that shouldn't be allowed to vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts