Stream

Join this community to post or comment

Michael Brown

Discussion  - 
 
Not 100% NRA related, but definitely gun owning related.  Wanted to see everyone's opinions on this.  Obviously this will only impact legal gun owners...  But more importantly do you think it should be a federal regulation for a right to be guaranteed by the constitution being taxed.  Basically that all this is, is a tax.  We have already exposed that its less than .001% of firearms that are used to hurt people so there is very little return that most will see on this.  Whats your opinion???  
Rep. Carolyn Maloney said the requirement would "help save lives."
1
Dj Shepard's profile photojoshua Deshautelles's profile photo
9 comments
 
The biggest problem with this is they want to imply a bandwagon approach by saying you have to have insurance on your car. While this may be true most places for taking your car on public roads, you don't need a license nor insurance to own and operate a vehicle. Driving on public roads is a privilege, owning a gun is a right. Things that interfere with one's ability to own a gun is an infringement, this one particularly designed against the young and poor. 
Add a comment...
 
Its sad when you hate something so much, it blinds common sense.
 
Breitbart: On May 8, Atlantic City, New Jersey, 5th grader Aarin Moody reached into his pocket to retrieve a late note from his mother and a Nerf gun foam “bullet” fell out. Officials at the Atlantic City School District categorized the toy bullet as a “self-constructed weapon” because “it had a toothpick stuck in it.” As a result, Moody received a five-day, in-school suspension and a notation on his permanent record stating that he brought a makeshift weapon to school.
May 8, Atlantic City, NJ, 5th grader Aarin Moody reached in his pocket for a "late note" from his mother and a Nerf gun "bullet" fell out.
View original post
1
Johnny Chandler's profile photoMichael Brown's profile photo
2 comments
 
This is just one of the many way that our education system is failing us.  Teach people to not think for themselves, and to blindly follow stupid rules that make absolutely no sense. Now shut up and be good little slaves.    
Add a comment...

Paul Frank

Discussion  - 
 
"In sum, police are either absent or overwhelmed, or they are part of the problem of violence, in which case it makes good sense for citizens to be armed. Both arguments suit the NRA just fine. The gun lobby works tirelessly to arm ever more Americans, expand the laws that enable us to carry guns in public spaces, and drum up extreme levels of fear that support its radical agenda. But more armed citizens will not make police work any easier—if anything, they will only make it more challenging."

via +Sarah Lee 
Amidst all of the police shootings, and subsequent unrest, one thing above all is clear: All is well for the NRA
2
Jason G.'s profile photoPaul Frank's profile photo
3 comments
 
+Michael Brown I have re-read the article.  I would categorize it as analysis, supported by some relevant examples.  I don't think it proves anything.  I should say that article titles are typically written by editors trying to generate a buzz, and at this point I often ignore or minimize them.

While I do not find every point in the article compelling, I do find it on the whole an informative analysis making a positive contribution to the gun control conversation.  For example, I thought its characterization of the circumstances that police often find themselves is was helpful.  I think there is a point to his thesis that Stand-Your-Ground states encourage a shoot-first society.  (This is in significant part a result of the fact that standing your ground is ill-defined, and a jury granting reasonable doubt to a shooter is obliged to grant too much.  Given the ambiguity in our numerous daily encounters the duty to retreat provides a much more reasonable legal standard.)

I understand you are coming from a very different narrative.  (Keep in mind that I am not posting for those supporting the NRA's agenda, but rather for those supporting some measure of gun control.)  What I would find welcome from you is much more specific complaints about what you think is unfair in the article and why.  

I do want to thank you for the links.  While I have not carefully reviewed any of the resources linked, the factcheck.org in particular passes first lookover.  (Their organization's track record is quite good.)  From what I know I would say the same for the justfacts.com piece also.  While Kleck is an accomplished researcher, I would be approach the last article carefully.  It didn't show signs of care or balanced presentation of facts.

In sum, I would welcome specific comments of where you think this article has it wrong explaining why.

Thanks again for sharing your thoughts Michael.

Cheers, Paul
Add a comment...

Dave Derrick

Discussion  - 
 
Word from someone who knows what they're talking about.
1
joshua Deshautelles's profile photo
 
THat's always been the case. They're just having to say it now because of generations of people taught to be helpless.
Add a comment...

Tomo Cured

Discussion  - 
 
More propaganda that guns are being taken away. Why is this bullshit believed.
2
joshua Deshautelles's profile photoJohnny Chandler's profile photo
7 comments
 
"Why is this bullshit believed(?)"

Why can I carry concealed all day and night in my home state, but when I drive to California I have to leave it at home? It seems they want to give criminals a competitive edge there. Weird.
Add a comment...
 
A succinct meme that wraps up my long windedness into one sentence.
3
1
Tomo Cured's profile photo
Add a comment...
 
Photo By James D'Angelo On Saturday, April 25, the Harrisburg Brethren in Christ Church hosted a "Stand in Solidarity" event for sensible gun laws.  A minor accident delayed the start of the event, and Rev Belita Mitchell of ...
1
Bigstones Mc Gee's profile photoMichael Brown's profile photo
3 comments
 
I just report them as spam, easy enough.
Add a comment...

About this community

GUN CONTROL NOW! "A time comes when silence...is betrayal." -MLK Jr.

Paul Frank

Discussion  - 
 
Noted.
4
1
Leo McDevitt's profile photoMichael Brown's profile photowilian reyes-benitez's profile photo
25 comments
 
You guys do realize your arguing over a photo shopped-picture right?
Add a comment...

Paul Frank

Discussion  - 
 
While I am guessing the NRA is merely objecting to anything that involves a limitation on gun ownership, I believe the article highlights yet another objectionable law supported by the NRA.
If a man in New Orleans drives over to his girlfriend's home and beats her senseless, the National Rifle Association has his back.
2
Michael Brown's profile photoPaul Frank's profile photo
10 comments
 
Thanks for detailing that +Michael Brown .  I appreciate it.

In my mind stalking can definitely be threatening in a way that I would make it a serious offense.  And I don't think the concern is academic, as I think the obsessed people doing as a group represent a serious threat.  I would be happy to do some research on this.  As a liberal I would be happy to identify a creative response to this, as this is not a typical crime and punishment thing.  The obsessed stalker has some serious mental shit going on.  I will say that keeping a gun out of such a person's hands would be a prospective intervention near the top of my list.  But again, I would be happy to have this driven by experience as systematic research would inform us.  

And I do share your concern about how stalking is defined.  My concern is the obsessed individual who has gone out of balance.  It is not, say, the jilted lover who makes a couple of wistful passes past his or her ex's house or place of work.  Off hand, I see the process progressing from restraining order to more serious limitations.  My search of Google 'restraining order' quickly revealed it's association with murder.  In my world reasonable efforts would be made to minimize such fatalities.  Those efforts could reasonably include impounding a stalker's firearm for a period.  Again, I think this should be studied by knowledgeable people, with consequences tailored by experience.  For me taking away a firearm for a period is on the table as a possibility.
Add a comment...

Michael Brown

Discussion  - 
 
I have seen a lot of articles about how the UPS no longer shipping firearm suppressors.  I am wondering what everyone's opinions are on this decision by them.  
1
Michael Brown's profile photojoshua Deshautelles's profile photo
3 comments
 
Because a baking company should be able to deny service to whomever they choose, no matter how ridiculous the reason. That's the right of the private business. The other side of the equation is you don't have to support private business, which is why I'm not using ups for now. 
Add a comment...

Johnny Chandler

Discussion  - 
 
USA: First in World in Gun Ownership – Not Even in Top 100 Countries for Murder Rate
3
joshua Deshautelles's profile photo
 
This is important, and always overlooked by those who want gun control. Of course, they focus solely on gun related crimes and not crimes in general, gun violence and not just violence and its causes, because the big picture shows guns aren't the problem they espouse. 
Add a comment...

Carla Npsgirl
owner

Discussion  - 
 
Racism and violence have been mainstays of the police since their inception, but in recent years awareness of the abhorrent behavior of the police—punctuated by the callous murders of unarmed black people—has incited rebellions all over the United States. The rebellions in Ferguson and beyond mark the genesis of a new political reality in America. The role of the police in poor communities cannot be obscured any longer. The police are a political...
1
Michael Brown's profile photo
 
You know you can not disarm the police without disarming the law abiding citizen population?  

Also what does this have to do with the NRA?

You do realize that their long term goal is actually oppressive to minorities right?
"Instead of government representation, we would like to organize a political life in the city where people can collectively make decisions"  That's oppressing the minority into what ever the majority thinks is OK.  The US was built on a constitutional republic that that very reason, to attempt to make that not happen instead of a pure democracy.

"With this arrangement, we intend to make the police obsolete." Who would enforce the rules of these councils you speak of?  Trading one group or power hungry thugs for another doesn't seem like a good idea to me.  Especially when these groups are based on majority and have no ties to the government, therefore can not be held accountable.       
Add a comment...

Paul Frank

Discussion  - 
1
Michael Brown's profile photoPaul Frank's profile photo
15 comments
 
Thanks again for your thoughts +Michael Brown . I am happy to embrace what works and strongly support systematic research to that end.  To be clear, that research should reflect the full spectrum of perspectives on the issue.

The best research I have seen still most often shows an association between gun ownership and more firearm casualties and injuries.  That said, I just found this blurb on criminologist Gary Kleck that associates that higher general gun ownership rates reduce homicide rates (http://criminology.fsu.edu/faculty-and-staff/college-faculty/gary-kleck/).  Given disparate research outcomes this issue needs to be examined more deeply.  Maybe you or someone else here would care to take a fuller look at research on both sides of the issue as well as its criticisms.  I would like to get to it myself.  We'll see.

I support what works.

Cheers, Paul
Add a comment...

Paul Frank

Discussion  - 
 
Snark.


via +Antony Warren 
2
Paul Frank's profile photojoshua Deshautelles's profile photo
3 comments
 
Yes, but getting a type of gun before they may be unavailable (like certain Kalashnikov brands are now...) is not the same as thinking there is going to be an official round up.
Add a comment...
 
"It's not just about guns. As the NRA has said: it's about the right to bear arms."
 
Where Is The Voice Of The NRA In The Death Of Freddy Brown?
American citizens who break no law apparently can be killed by police officers who don't understand the Second Amendment.
On April 12, 2015, Freddie Carlos Gray, Jr., a 25-year-old African-American man was arrested by the Baltimore Police. His crime? Carrying a legal pocket knife. A legal pocket knife. He died while in police custody.  The medical examiner ruled Gray's death a homicide. A friend of mine just now contacted the NRA via their e-mail contact form. If you are a member of the NRA, I suggest you do the same. Here is what my friend had to say to the NRA.
 
  "I have been a member of the NRA for two years. I joined in the wake of unconstitutional attempts to roll back our Second Amendment rights. I see that in Baltimore, police officers feel free to violate the Second Amendment rights of black men, beat them, and leave them to die. This is unconscionable.

"Freddie Gray was lawfully carrying, yet was arrested for doing so. I realize that he is not an appealing person for the NRA to defend because of his past, but he broke no law. If we do not speak up for everyone's rights, we speak up for no one's. I ask the NRA to speak up against the violation of Freddie Gray's Second Amendment rights, and further suggest that the NRA demand that police departments train their officers to recognize legal carry of weapons.

"It's not just about guns. As the NRA has said: it's about the right to bear arms."
2 comments on original post
1
Michael Brown's profile photoHadrian Micciche's profile photo
5 comments
 
+Dave Derrick He was arrested for carrying a weapon he was legally entitled to carry. His having the weapon was the stated reason for the arrest. The 2nd amendment violation was the result. The intention of the arrest, we could presume, is to stop crime. He committed none. People who presume to protect our rights need to speak out. The NRA has not done so.
Add a comment...
 
Oops. Reality really sucks when your telling a story.
 
It's a good bet that California's gun owners, and their guns, are here to stay
In California, one gun was sold for every 39 state residents just last year.
2 comments on original post
1
Add a comment...

Carla Npsgirl
owner

Discussion  - 
 
#Ferguson   #Baltimore  

this is what a police state looks like. occupy the nra.
A gathering of hundreds a protesters near a Baltimore mall turned violent today when some of them hurled various objects at police officers, injuring several of them.
3
1
Dave Derrick's profile photoMichael Brown's profile photoDrake Abbychicka's profile photo
7 comments
 
So I'm a little confused.  First this has nothing to do with the NRA.  Secondly, If you are part of the anti-gun lobby, this is not the article you should be linking.  The police are NOT using firearms to protect themselves, and are specifically trying to to escalate this situation.

The thing about the entire Baltimore thing is sad because the majority of the people are being peaceful, but the problem is that America is a warped and twisted society, and the peaceful protest doesn't get the viewers only the violence and law breaking does.  So therefore that's what the mainstream media plays, also it feeds into their racial divide that they wish to widen to keep us fighting among ourselves so we don't realize how bad off the country actually is.  

This is about the actual event that sparked this protest/riot, and I know will be a disliked statement but read the whole thing before getting all twisted.  It is probably better that the man died rather than lived, for him, as well as his family.  With a fractured vertebrae that was further injured through the trip he would have been a quadriplegic at best, and completely unable to function at worst.  I personally feel if you are a vegetable, completely unable to move, speak or do anything but blink, your quality of life life is going to be horrible.  It will put an economical, mental and emotional strain on the family more than either you or I could imagine.  I would personally choose to have that plug pulled if it was me.  I understand that everyone should be free to make that choice, but unless he foresaw this coming well in advance, and wrote it in a living will the choice wouldn't be his anyway.

I think that the police were in the wrong and the police need to be held way more accountable for their actions than they currently are.  And the peaceful protesters had the right Idea, but when it turned violent the entire movement lost a lot of respect.    
Add a comment...