2nd Ammendment or NRA -- what REALLY protects our rights?

[Nithavela]

The NRA only protects the gun rights of white people.

When the NRA Opposed Open Carry

 

[PeachyKeane]

I would say most Democrats want legislation they think is sensible. The problem is, gun control seldom works, and usually makes it harder for the good guys to defend themselves. That is why there is the tendency for gun control to grow, until it becomes outright prohibition. Today's leaders are not as open, but in the old days, Howard Metzenbaum (sp?), a father of the GC movement, used to say that nothing will work "until you ban them all". . I can understand that thinking, but the problem is you can't actually ban them all. They're too easy to manufacture and to obtain.

What has changed far more than gun technology or availability over the past several decades is the American public itself. There used to be shooting clubs in high schools, and the kids would bring their rifles into school. At home kids were taught responsible gun use from an early age. I'm unaware of there having been many problems. That, of course, would be unthinkable today.

What we have is the breakdown of marriage and the family, the glorification of sex and exaltation of promiscuity, the exclusion of God from the public square, and the assertion of radical individual rights. And we have the attendant consequences. The fracturing of society to the point of ungovernability, the rise of criminality, sexually-involved kids who can't handle their emotions, and a literal tsunami of maintenance psychotropics usage. Many murders, mass murders and suicides have been connected to the use of psychotropics, though you will very seldom see that angle explored in our very mediocre media.

I'm not proposing any practical GC solutions at this time, just pointing out some facts and raising some warnings. And I'm identifying the real root of the problem. Without dealing with that root, any measures taken will ultimately fail and lead to "unintended consequences". America needs to repent and return to God. The family needs to come together again. And the church needs to start acting like the church. Get those foundation stones in place, and people and society can begin to heal. It's the long way home, to be sure, but it's the best way home, and actually, it's the only way home.

I'm going to disagree with this for one reason: Canada. Canada shares much of our culture. Music, movies, TV shows, video games. Canada is, in fact, less religious than we are. It shares similar demographics, climate comparable to much of our country, similar household incomes, etc.

So why does Canada have lower murder rates, and less crime?

 

[essentialsaltes]

I can't figure out why they don't say "if it were not for the second amendment to the constitution". Why do they focus so much on the NRA is if tossing the constitution under a bus "were no big deal" and the real challenge is to "defeat the NRA"??

Because the 2nd Amendment will not spend $60 million dollars to support/oppose candidates in the next election cycle.

 

[paul1149]

So why does Canada have lower murder rates, and less crime?

Don't know. They certainly have a different national character. We are the ones who rebelled in order to pursue our rights, while they didn't. I've never looked into whatever differences there might be.

 

[AirPo]

But I hear a lot of noise from one side of the debate telling us that they would gladly take away the guns were it not for the NRA.

And I'm sure you've got a real life example of that you'd like to share.

 

[super animator]

You want to get to the actual root of the problem then ring your congressman and get him to repeal the Dickey amendment so that the CDC can do actual research to determine what is the real root of the problem.

Who is this brilliant man that came up with the name "Dickey"? I nearly interrupt my work place with laughter here.

 

[super animator]

Because the 2nd Amendment will not spend $60 million dollars to support/oppose candidates in the next election cycle.

it says here that it spend around 3 million dollars when it comes to lobbying and the other money is from outside spending. Where did you get the idea that the outside spending will be used for next election? I don't see it anywhere.

 

[essentialsaltes]

it says here that it spend around 3 million dollars when it comes to lobbying and the other money is from outside spending.

The 'outside spending' is money they spent in 2016 on campaign ads they created themselves (rather than contributing money directly to a candidate).

Where did you get the idea that the outside spending will be used for next election? I don't see it anywhere.

You're right. They spent $58 million in 2016, and only $31 million in 2014, and $20 million in 2012, so they will probably spend more like $70-80 million in 2018.

 

[super animator]

The 'outside spending' is money they spent in 2016 on campaign ads they created themselves (rather than contributing money directly to a candidate).



You're right. They spent $58 million in 2016, and only $31 million in 2014, and $20 million in 2012, so they will probably spend more like $70-80 million in 2018.

I honestly don't see an issue spending money in campaign ads.

 

[PeachyKeane]

Don't know. They certainly have a different national character. We are the ones who rebelled in order to pursue our rights, while they didn't. I've never looked into whatever differences there might be.

Okay, but it's tough to then assign blame to 'the breakdown of the family' and 'promiscuity' and general ungodliness, when a less religious country has lesser problems. Perhaps it really is religion that is the cause of crime and murder?

 

[paul1149]

Perhaps it really is religion that is the cause of crime and murder?

I would say that's even more of a stretch.

 

[PeachyKeane]

I would say that's even more of a stretch.

Howso? We have a ban on Muslim nations because we claim Islam is dangerous. Why is it a stretch to say that religion is the cause of our violence issues?

 

[mark46]

QUESTIONS

1) Would prohibiting the production and use of assault weapons, and devices that make guns into automatic weapons be likely to increase OR decrease the number of gun deaths and crimes? We used to have an assault weapons ban.

2) Would a law enforcement data base of registered guns help law enforcement? Would the registration of guns increase OR decrease the number and severity of gun crimes?

3) Would requiring background checks at gun shows increase OR decrease the number and severity of gun crimes?

4) How is the country harmed by studying the effect of gun laws on gun crime.

5) Many, many gun deaths are family crimes. Would registration, reducing availability and training increase or decrease the amount and severity of gum crime.
===========
A) Chicago has a huge problem with gun crimes. Many big cities do. Current gun legislation hasn't helped. Is this a reason not to have gun legislation anywhere?
B) Criminals will secure guns, even if they are illegal. Does anyone believe that if guns are less available, criminals would be more likely to have guns? The issue is reducing the amount and severity of gun crime.
============
BOTTOM LINE
We have a lot of gun crime in the US. It seems that the rate is among the highest in the developed world. However that is NOT the issue before us. The question is how to reduce injuries and deaths.
============
MODEST SUGGESTION
Trump should form a commission and ask Congress to propose gun legislation, if they deem anything likely to decrease the amount and severity of gun crime. We've had many successful such efforts in the past on hot button issues. We have done this for social security and for tax reform.

This commission should be composed of law enforcement representatives and criminal justice experts from around the country. These are the folks who risk their lives every day. These are the folks who have the knowledge regarding gun crime. These are the folks who know how current regulations might need to be changed.

BTW, I expect that one of the recommendations is that law enforcement be better armed and protected from gun attacks. Ordinary vests are insufficient to protect against military grade weapons. Adequate vests are expensive.

I have my biases. I believe that I know what law enforcement folks have said in the past. But that matters little.

 

[Ringo84]

The only "rights" the NRA protects are the interests of the big gun companies. The Second Amendment is what actually gives people the right to bear arms, but I think it's interpreted far too loosely nowadays.
Ringo

 

[mark46]

The only "rights" the NRA protects are the interests of the big gun companies. The Second Amendment is what actually gives people the right to bear arms, but I think it's interpreted far too loosely nowadays.
Ringo

The interpretation of the Second Amendment is settled law by the Supreme Court. An individual has the right to have a loaded gun.

District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia

Yes, restrictions can be placed on ownership, but the militia clause in the amendment is irrelevant. Individuals have the right to have a gun.

Some considered the nomination of a Supreme Court justice critical in the 2016 election precisely because of the fear that this case would be reversed (not likely) since the decision was a 5-4 decision.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I honestly don't see an issue spending money in campaign ads.

I don't know if it's an 'issue'. But the question in the OP was why are people afraid of offending the NRA rather than afraid of offending the 2nd Amendment. $60 million is the explanation.

 

[super animator]

I don't know if it's an 'issue'. But the question in the OP was why are people afraid of offending the NRA rather than afraid of offending the 2nd Amendment. $60 million is the explanation.

In principle you should not worry about NRA or any other organizations only votes, sadly this isn't the case as campaigning requires money.

 

[Ringo84]

"Loaded gun" is far too loose for me. I don't see any reason why a private citizen has any need to own an assault rifle, a bazooka, etc. and I don't buy the "b-but hunting!" excuse.

The fact is that we don't have an absolute right to anything - not speech. Not free press. Not bearing arms. In a civilized society, we voluntarily surrender a small portion of our rights to protect the rights of others. I can't go to a newspaper and accuse you of unfounded rumors; technically, that violates my freedom of speech, but it protects you from having your good name dragged through the mud.

I don't have a problem with people owning a gun for self-defense or for hunting. But we need to get away from this idea that any restriction on or clarification of Constitutional rights is somehow a bridge too far. That's extremism that I don't think the founders had in mind when they drafted the Bill of Rights.
Ringo

 

[rambot]

I would say most Democrats want legislation they think is sensible. The problem is, gun control seldom works, and usually makes it harder for the good guys to defend themselves..

How can that be said? It has never been meaningfully implemented in the us on a national level.

Look at countries that HAVE gun control legislation and compare their gun related stats to the US. I have a feeling you'd find gun control actually works REALLY well. Consider Australia. They only needed one mass shooting to pull their head out of their [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] and deal with the root of the problem. And look what happenned when they did? Mass murders stopped. Sure there's still the odd gun homocide but it's not really comparable.

 

[Tanj]

Who is this brilliant man that came up with the name "Dickey"? I nearly interrupt my work place with laughter here.

Noit sure if serious, but it's the name of the congress critter that wrote it. Interestingly I understand even congressman Dickey now opposes the Dickey amendment.