Will the NRA's grip on the GOP diminish in your lifetime? (Y/N)

47,700 Views | 750 Replies | Last: 8 mo ago by going4roses
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

Here's my proposal: nationwide gun registration. If you are caught with an unregistered gun - misdemeanor. If you don't report loss of a registered gun - misdemeanor. If someone else commits a crime with your registered gun that you didn't report lost - felony.

I would make bullets cheap at shooting ranges but expensive for all other uses (except law enforcement).
People do not need a lot of bullets for self-defense so the cost shouldn't be an issue.

In addition to registration of guns, I would require all gun owners to undergo licensing and require insurance. Just like we do with cars. This will be a huge opportunity for private industry which is great for capitalism.

You might ask - why would we need insurance? The answer is because people will be held civilly liable for damages caused by their use of guns or the use of their guns. And it needs to be meaningful to deter people from wrongful use.

This isn't s gun ban and doesn't prevent any law abiding citizens from enjoying their firearms.

So who's with me?

Though my stated position is to ban all guns for civilians, I am open to this compromise.
GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Aye!
GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
concordtom said:

If they passed a law to take all guns away, I would be completely unaffected.
This is poorly thought out (and less true than you think).

concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GBear4Life said:

concordtom said:

If they passed a law to take all guns away, I would be completely unaffected.
This is poorly thought out (and less true than you think).


Why, because people like you would run around and shoot people like me in protest?
B.A. Bearacus
How long do you want to ignore this user?


Let's say all the posters in Off Topic decided to meet for a friendly drink. Would never happen and probably for good reason, but imagine how unusual and rare an event. We get a good turnout of 20 people. Lots of white hair. Beers flowing, it's a surprisingly relaxed and jovial affair.

Then, out of nowhere, one disgruntled poster decides to blow us all away with an AR-15, managing to successfully kill 12 of us on the spot (attendees with "Bear" or a number anywhere in their handle were all exterminated).

A majority of Americans wouldn't bother clicking the link to find out more about what happened. Almost the entire forum's posters killed within 60 seconds and it would be just another day in America.
GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
B.A. Bearacus said:



Let's say all the posters in Off Topic decided to meet for a friendly drink. Would never happen and probably for good reason, but imagine how unusual and rare an event. We get a good turnout of 20 people. Lots of white hair. Beers flowing, it's a surprisingly relaxed and jovial affair.

Then, out of nowhere, one disgruntled poster decides to blow us all away with an AR-15, managing to successfully kill 12 of us on the spot (attendees with "Bear" or a number anywhere in their handle were all exterminated).
Now imagine if the other 19 Bears were packin' heat. And imagine if Crazy Bear knew it.
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Having firearms on you during a mass shooting doesn't do much, just add to the confusion...AND it just might get you killed if police think you're one of the shooter. In a hail of gun fire, no way to know who's the good guys and bad guys.

This happened at the Las Vegas mass shooting. A couple of guys had permits for concealed weapons...but they soon realized; a) they had no idea where the shots were coming, didn't know who to go after and b) they realized they could easily mistaken for a shooter and be killed by police responding if they opened fire.

Everyone having guns during a mass shooting sure sounds logical...but it's not.

Here's the scenario I present: mass shooting occurs, unknown number of gunmen, chaos, people going down. So Johnny gun-owner is carrying. He decides to do something. Carefully scopes things out, positions himself behind a building corner...and FIRES. Police in chopper spots him...blow his brains out thinking he's a 'bad" guy.

sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GBear4Life said:

B.A. Bearacus said:



Let's say all the posters in Off Topic decided to meet for a friendly drink. Would never happen and probably for good reason, but imagine how unusual and rare an event. We get a good turnout of 20 people. Lots of white hair. Beers flowing, it's a surprisingly relaxed and jovial affair.

Then, out of nowhere, one disgruntled poster decides to blow us all away with an AR-15, managing to successfully kill 12 of us on the spot (attendees with "Bear" or a number anywhere in their handle were all exterminated).
Now imagine if the other 19 Bears were packin' heat. And imagine if Crazy Bear knew it.
So now more bullets are flying and more people are dead. Great.
GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mass shootings and rifle homicides are less than 10% of firearm homicides. Handguns are like 75%. Highlighting rifle deaths in this context would be like preferring to eliminate the flu rather than cancer.

If we could eliminate all other homicides but forced to keep our mass shootings, we'd be tickled pink.

It also assumes Crazy Bear doesn't acquire rifles or firearms in a society where they're banned.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GBear4Life said:

Mass shootings and rifle homicides are less than 10% of firearm homicides. Handguns are like 75%. Highlighting rifle deaths in this context would be like preferring to eliminate the flu rather than cancer.

If we could eliminate all other homicides but forced to keep our mass shootings, we'd be tickled pink.

It also assumes Crazy Bear doesn't acquire rifles or firearms in a society where they're banned.
Agreed, let's ban handguns too.
GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

GBear4Life said:

B.A. Bearacus said:



Let's say all the posters in Off Topic decided to meet for a friendly drink. Would never happen and probably for good reason, but imagine how unusual and rare an event. We get a good turnout of 20 people. Lots of white hair. Beers flowing, it's a surprisingly relaxed and jovial affair.

Then, out of nowhere, one disgruntled poster decides to blow us all away with an AR-15, managing to successfully kill 12 of us on the spot (attendees with "Bear" or a number anywhere in their handle were all exterminated).
Now imagine if the other 19 Bears were packin' heat. And imagine if Crazy Bear knew it.
So now more bullets are flying and more people are dead. Great.
Crazy Bear would stay home. Or he'd be committing suicide. The burglar bypasses your house because he sees the home security yard sign. Criminal goes to commit crime where nobody is present or nobody who is armed are present.

Crazy Bear would also use single pump shot guns if access to rifles were denied. We must remember that Crazy Bear is crazy. Crazy Bear will do whatever necessary to cause harm if he's dead set on it.

I could make a homemade bomb and strap it to myself -- and dozens can follow in my footsteps in short order -- and detonate on the GG bridge if I were Crazy Bear. And there's nothing anybody could do about it.
GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

GBear4Life said:

Mass shootings and rifle homicides are less than 10% of firearm homicides. Handguns are like 75%. Highlighting rifle deaths in this context would be like preferring to eliminate the flu rather than cancer.

If we could eliminate all other homicides but forced to keep our mass shootings, we'd be tickled pink.

It also assumes Crazy Bear doesn't acquire rifles or firearms in a society where they're banned.
Agreed, let's ban handguns too.
We've already discussed how stupid that is. You agreed.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GBear4Life said:

sycasey said:

GBear4Life said:

Mass shootings and rifle homicides are less than 10% of firearm homicides. Handguns are like 75%. Highlighting rifle deaths in this context would be like preferring to eliminate the flu rather than cancer.

If we could eliminate all other homicides but forced to keep our mass shootings, we'd be tickled pink.

It also assumes Crazy Bear doesn't acquire rifles or firearms in a society where they're banned.
Agreed, let's ban handguns too.
We've already discussed how stupid that is. You agreed.

No, my position is that we should ban guns for civilians. I'm open to compromise on it, but if the argument is "Why ban rifles when handguns do x," then my response is "Let's ban those too."
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GBear4Life said:

sycasey said:

GBear4Life said:

B.A. Bearacus said:



Let's say all the posters in Off Topic decided to meet for a friendly drink. Would never happen and probably for good reason, but imagine how unusual and rare an event. We get a good turnout of 20 people. Lots of white hair. Beers flowing, it's a surprisingly relaxed and jovial affair.

Then, out of nowhere, one disgruntled poster decides to blow us all away with an AR-15, managing to successfully kill 12 of us on the spot (attendees with "Bear" or a number anywhere in their handle were all exterminated).
Now imagine if the other 19 Bears were packin' heat. And imagine if Crazy Bear knew it.
So now more bullets are flying and more people are dead. Great.
Crazy Bear would stay home. Or he'd be committing suicide. The burglar bypasses your house because he sees the home security yard sign. Criminal goes to commit crime where nobody is present or nobody who is armed are present.

Crazy Bear would also use single pump shot guns if access to rifles were denied. We must remember that Crazy Bear is crazy. Crazy Bear will do whatever necessary to cause harm if he's dead set on it.

I could make a homemade bomb and strap it to myself -- and dozens can follow in my footsteps in short order -- and detonate on the GG bridge if I were Crazy Bear. And there's nothing anybody could do about it.

Pretty sure it's already illegal to make bombs. Let's ban the shotguns too.

The fact that people break laws is not an argument against having laws.
GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

GBear4Life said:



We've already discussed how stupid that is. You agreed.

No, my position is that we should ban guns for civilians. I'm open to compromise on it, but if the argument is "Why ban rifles when handguns do x," then my response is "Let's ban those too."
okay, you said national registration and training for civilians you'd be fine with
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GBear4Life said:

sycasey said:

GBear4Life said:



We've already discussed how stupid that is. You agreed.

No, my position is that we should ban guns for civilians. I'm open to compromise on it, but if the argument is "Why ban rifles when handguns do x," then my response is "Let's ban those too."
okay, you said national registration and training for civilians you'd be fine with

Yes, that is the compromise. You start offering up more "whatabout" scenarios and I'm moved to stop offering that compromise.
GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:




Pretty sure it's already illegal to make bombs. Let's ban the shotguns too.

The fact that people break laws is not an argument against having laws.
My point is you can't regulate me making homemade bombs. I'm buying the ingredients legally.

Good guys with guns deter bad guys with guns. Doesn't mean you have to support more guns, but gunmen don't target areas where guns are known to be allowed and carried.
GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:




Yes, that is the compromise. You start offering up more "whatabout" scenarios and I'm moved to stop offering that compromise.
you're willing to compromise off of the "bad" idea that you really want if you had your druthers?
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?




I wonder if they found one of these bad boys:



Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GBear4Life said:

sycasey said:




Yes, that is the compromise. You start offering up more "whatabout" scenarios and I'm moved to stop offering that compromise.
you're willing to compromise off of the "bad" idea that you really want if you had your druthers?
I don't think it's bad, that's the thing.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GBear4Life said:

sycasey said:




Pretty sure it's already illegal to make bombs. Let's ban the shotguns too.

The fact that people break laws is not an argument against having laws.
My point is you can't regulate me making homemade bombs. I'm buying the ingredients legally.

Good guys with guns deter bad guys with guns. Doesn't mean you have to support more guns, but gunmen don't target areas where guns are known to be allowed and carried.
Once you assemble those ingredients into a bomb, that's illegal. I support those laws remaining in place, even if certain people might try to subvert them.

On your last point, I'm going to call bull*****

https://abcnews.go.com/US/breaking-nra-backed-theory-good-guy-gun-stops/story?id=53360480

Quote:

John Donohue, a law professor at Stanford University, was a co-author of a National Bureau of Economic Research study that examined how gun violence coincides with the ability for individuals to carry concealed weapons, known as Right To Carry (RTC) laws. The NBER study discredited the idea of the "good guy with a gun" as a possible solution to gun violence.

Donohue told ABC News that the research "concluded that allowing citizens to carry handguns seems to increase violent crime 13 to 15 percent by the 10th year" of the laws being enacted in the state.
B.A. Bearacus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
If gun owners are initiating gun violence, they were/are not "good guys".
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GBear4Life said:

If gun owners are initiating gun violence, they were/are not "good guys".

"No true Scotsman."
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The problem is that it's hard to differentiate between good guys and bad guys. According to action movies, many bad guys started out as good guys who became disillusioned. Must be true.

Also lots of good people murder themselves with guns. It's an epidemic that gun owners don't seem to care about but is up significantly over the last few decades and makes up 2/3 of gun deaths. Guns may not be the most effective form of self-defense but they sure as heck are the most effective form of suicide.
GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It's an impractical method to execute, but hypothetically it is demonstrably true (LE being the clearest and most obvious example; targets of violence being lacking in firearm presence/security).

And fwiw, gun ownership has increased as gun violence has decreased (however, I don't think that correlation should strongly influence the merit of certain gun control policies)

sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GBear4Life said:

And fwiw, gun ownership has increased as gun violence has decreased (however, I don't think that correlation should strongly influence the merit of certain gun control policies)

Also wrong. Gun OWNERSHIP rates are down. Gun SALES are up (or at least were throughout the Obama years). That means that fewer people own guns, but people who already own guns are buying many more.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/06/29/american-gun-ownership-is-now-at-a-30-year-low/?utm_term=.1f6f65b7f9fd

Does any private citizen really need to own an arsenal?
BearsWiin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Another Bear said:

Having firearms on you during a mass shooting doesn't do much, just add to the confusion...AND it just might get you killed if police think you're one of the shooter. In a hail of gun fire, no way to know who's the good guys and bad guys.

This happened at the Las Vegas mass shooting. A couple of guys had permits for concealed weapons...but they soon realized; a) they had no idea where the shots were coming, didn't know who to go after and b) they realized they could easily mistaken for a shooter and be killed by police responding if they opened fire.

Everyone having guns during a mass shooting sure sounds logical...but it's not.

Here's the scenario I present: mass shooting occurs, unknown number of gunmen, chaos, people going down. So Johnny gun-owner is carrying. He decides to do something. Carefully scopes things out, positions himself behind a building corner...and FIRES. Police in chopper spots him...blow his brains out thinking he's a 'bad" guy.


This also happened during the mass shooting at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg a few years ago. Veteran with concealed carry permit was interviewed afterwards, and he said he sheltered in place to defend his position instead of going out and confronting shooter. He was concerned about being outgunned, not knowing the tactical situation, and being shot by law enforcement.
BearsWiin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

GBear4Life said:

And fwiw, gun ownership has increased as gun violence has decreased (however, I don't think that correlation should strongly influence the merit of certain gun control policies)

Also wrong. Gun OWNERSHIP rates are down. Gun SALES are up (or at least were throughout the Obama years). That means that fewer people own guns, but people who already own guns are buying many more.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/06/29/american-gun-ownership-is-now-at-a-30-year-low/?utm_term=.1f6f65b7f9fd

Does any private citizen really need to own an arsenal?
I've owned nine for over 25 years now, and if I didn't have kids draining my resources I'd probably have more. Some people collect paperweights and chess sets; some collect firearms. But I have no problem with having to jump through serious hoops in order to do so.

I've said it before: Canada has relatively loose regulation of long guns and much more stringent regulation of handguns. Their per capita firearm homicide rate is 1/7th of what it is in the US. Theirs is the model that we should be looking at.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cory Booker is proposing a nationwide gun licensing law along with certified training and background checks.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/06/us/politics/cory-booker-gun-control.amp.html

Gun nuts hate it and it won't go anywhere unless it can be done by executive action or the Democrats take house and senate along with the white house in 2020. I think it would go a long way to addressing the gun issues we are facing as a nation.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

Cory Booker is proposing a nationwide gun licensing law along with certified training and background checks.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/06/us/politics/cory-booker-gun-control.amp.html

Gun nuts hate it and it won't go anywhere unless it can be done by executive action or the Democrats take house and senate along with the white house in 2020. I think it would go a long way to addressing the gun issues we are facing as a nation.

Proof positive that the "reasonable compromise" we have informally reached here is not being blocked by those on the left. The problem is entirely on the right. Yet people like GBear want to "both sides" this issue. No, it's one side that's blocking everything.
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
"Leaked NRA expense documents show Wayne LaPierre billed the group's ad agency $39,000 for one day of shopping at Zegna in Beverly Hills, and had the agency cover $13,800 in rent for a female summer intern. (Wall Street Journal)" Axios

2 Bitcoin to the BI poster that produces a photo of said intern. Methinks she is easy on the eyes and that Wayne likey. Side bet that some of the Beverly Hills swag found its way to her summer nest. Wayne messed with the wrong bull when he took on Ollie (who allegedly was bat guano crazy in a firefight).
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?


PM me for bitcoin info...

p.s. Wayne likes it rough...like melt your face rough...


bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'm pretty sure that is a photo of Wayne taken in his intern's apartment with a hidden camera.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
But...wait, there's more!

Leaked Documents: NRA Racked Up $24 Million in Legal Bills

Quote:

Docs show former president Oliver North warning that legal fees "pose an existential threat to the financial stability of the NRA."


Quote:

North and Childress estimated that at the current rate, the NRA is racking up nearly $100,000 in legal bills every dayan eye-popping number. "$97,000+ a day is a stunning amount of money for any organization to pay," they wrote. "It cries for an outside, independent review."


Happy Day! Couldn't happen to a bigger bunch of asswipes. I don't think you can stop that kind of legal bleeding. $100k a day...or $24mil in a year isn't chump change.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.