The NRA wants the government to do a better job at enforcing existing gun laws. Totally agree! We could do a much better job at enforcing those laws...except the NRA has been actively working to weaken the teeth of the ATF over the years. As usual, John Stewart puts the whole thing into perspective...and keeps it funny doing so.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-ja...s-the-boom

Nice WaPo article on how the NRA and GOP have been preventing federal funding into gun violence research for 17 years. In 1993, a CDC-funded study found a gun in the home was 43 times more likely to be used on a family member than in self defense, so what do they do? Cut the CDC's funding, wait a few years and claim the study is outdated! Bravo!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post...ong-stand/

Quote:In 1996, a Republican congressman from Arkansas named Jay Dickey pushed through an amendment stripping $2.6 million out of the budget for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. His measure was not about the budget deficit, though; Dickey’s aim was to force the CDC to stop researching the effects of gun violence. The centers’ annual appropriation still contains the language resulting from Dickey’s efforts 16 years ago: “None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.” That intimidation has been central to what Salon’s Alex Seitz-Wald calls “The NRA’s war on gun science.” Thankfully, the president’s proposed gun control package includes a call to “end the freeze on gun violence research.” That’s a worthy push against the anti-science impulse that has perverted not just the gun control discussion but the broader political debate as well.

The NRA’s intimidation campaign, not surprisingly, started when scientists started producing findings that the gun lobby didn’t like. In the mid-1990s, reported the New York Times, the CDC was “becoming increasingly assertive about the importance of studying gun-related injuries and deaths as a public health phenomenon, financing studies that found, for example, having a gun in the house, rather than conferring protection, significantly increased the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.” As a result of the NRA and GOP’s efforts, “the amount of money available today for studying the impact of firearms is a fraction of what it was in the mid-1990s, and the number of scientists toiling in the field has dwindled to just a handful as a result, researchers say.” And because private organizations have had to shoulder the burden, even less of what little money there still is goes to the broad, long-term studies that can lead to better policies.

The anti-research impulse on the far right (enabled, one should note, by more moderate Republicans who refuse to block it) doesn’t stop with gun violence either: Last fall, Senate Republicans forced the Congressional Research Service to withdraw “an economic report that found no correlation between top tax rates and economic growth, a central tenet of conservative economic theory … against the advice of the research service’s economics division.” And under the George W. Bush administration, federal scientists were repeatedly “pressured to remove references to “climate change” and “global warming” from a range of documents.”

Regardless of where one stands on gun control, or on any of these other issues, the far right’s attempts to restrict scientific research should concern everyone. Consider the “gun in the house” study mentioned in the Times article cited earlier, conducted by Art Kellerman: Gun control advocates continue to cite the study’s finding that “a gun kept in the home was 43 times more likely to be involved in the death of a member of the household than to be used in self-defense.” But the study has had a number of critics and the data is now more than 20 years old. Unfortunately, more recent national studies are few and far between, and, as one paper says, “many of the studies conducted to date have been based on small samples and were limited to specific population groups such as adolescents or older adults.” Taken together, the studies still back Kellerman’s findings, but regardless of where one stands, the data are not exactly ideal for policymaking. If our country is to make smart decisions, surely suppressing science is the wrong way to go, yet the far right continues to insist on doing just that. President Obama’s call for gun violence research is an important stand against this war on science.

(01-17-2013 09:01 AM)niuguy Wrote:  The NRA wants the government to do a better job at enforcing existing gun laws. Totally agree! We could do a much better job at enforcing those laws...except the NRA has been actively working to weaken the teeth of the ATF over the years. As usual, John Stewart puts the whole thing into perspective...and keeps it funny doing so.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-ja...s-the-boom

watched that last night...very good.

(01-17-2013 11:28 AM)Max Power Wrote:  Nice WaPo article on how the NRA and GOP have been preventing federal funding into gun violence research for 17 years. In 1993, a CDC-funded study found a gun in the home was 43 times more likely to be used on a family member than in self defense, so what do they do? Cut the CDC's funding, wait a few years and claim the study is outdated! Bravo!

The study was bad because it only counted a gun being used in self-defense it it was discharged, not if it was only shown and that ended the conflict.

So, there is no one else, no other organization in this country to do gun research other than the CDC? John Lott through the University of Chicago has done a ton of research and the left doesn't like to utilize his numbers or results. Let the CDC study disease and someone else can study social issues.

I just don't see what this has to do with anything. It does highlight another issue. Since there is federal law saying the CDC can't do this research, please reconcile the President's E.O. calling for the research to be done.

(01-17-2013 01:12 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(01-17-2013 11:28 AM)Max Power Wrote:  Nice WaPo article on how the NRA and GOP have been preventing federal funding into gun violence research for 17 years. In 1993, a CDC-funded study found a gun in the home was 43 times more likely to be used on a family member than in self defense, so what do they do? Cut the CDC's funding, wait a few years and claim the study is outdated! Bravo!

The study was bad because it only counted a gun being used in self-defense it it was discharged, not if it was only shown and that ended the conflict.

So, there is no one else, no other organization in this country to do gun research other than the CDC? John Lott through the University of Chicago has done a ton of research and the left doesn't like to utilize his numbers or results. Let the CDC study disease and someone else can study social issues.

I just don't see what this has to do with anything. It does highlight another issue. Since there is federal law saying the CDC can't do this research, please reconcile the President's E.O. calling for the research to be done.

The fact that household guns are 43 times more likely to kill residents of the household than intruders in self defense is a meaningless statistic? I see your point but that door swings both ways-- it ignores non-fatality shootings and assaults against household members too.

I agree we should have a more extensive data compilation. That's the point. Yes there is private research but it gets attacked because it's not expansive or comprehensive enough. The gun manufacturers and NRA have the pockets to fund research possibly including the UChi prof you mentioned. Lott was an Olin Fellow at UChi, which is named for the founder of one of the world's largest gun manufacturers. He denies that the NRA or gun manufacturers underwrote his studies, but it's curious. Regardless, we may finally see a counterweight to the NRA emerging, and the CDC resuming its research, thankfully.

I'm not quite sure how the administration would justify the EO, but I'll venture a guess. The language says “None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.” Obama can simply argue the research is to explore any and all solutions to gun violence, whether or not the results would support gun control measures. It will almost certainly also point to mental health reform as well for instance. So Obama may just say he is taking a different interpretation of current law that is plausible, if not in line with its original intent. He's just doing what the NRA asked!

(01-17-2013 02:39 PM)Max Power Wrote:  The fact that household guns are 43 times more likely to kill residents of the household than intruders in self defense is a meaningless statistic? I see your point but that door swings both ways-- it ignores non-fatality shootings and assaults against household members too.

So, let's update a crap study with a flawed premise. Got it. That is going to help and be meaningful.

(01-17-2013 02:39 PM)Max Power Wrote:  I agree we should have a more extensive data compilation. That's the point. Yes there is private research but it gets attacked because it's not expansive or comprehensive enough. The gun manufacturers and NRA have the pockets to fund research possibly including the UChi prof you mentioned. Lott was an Olin Fellow at UChi, which is named for the founder of one of the world's largest gun manufacturers. He denies that the NRA or gun manufacturers underwrote his studies, but it's curious. Regardless, we may finally see a counterweight to the NRA emerging, and the CDC resuming its research, thankfully.

So, Handgun, Inc., the Brady Project, Soros, etc. have no funds to put together their own study? Come on. There are just as deep pockets on the other side of the NRA.

(01-17-2013 02:39 PM)Max Power Wrote:  I'm not quite sure how the administration would justify the EO, but I'll venture a guess. The language says “None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.” Obama can simply argue the research is to explore any and all solutions to gun violence, whether or not the results would support gun control measures. It will almost certainly also point to mental health reform as well for instance. So Obama may just say he is taking a different interpretation of current law that is plausible, if not in line with its original intent. He's just doing what the NRA asked!

So, it has been the will of the legislature, even when the Dems had both the House and Senate, to maintain this language in the funding of the CDC. He's clearly circumventing the will and intent of the legislation, which his own party approved. But, since he's on your side, that is ok, I guess?

Even if I don't agree, I'd like this whole discussion to be rooted in reality and I don't see that coming from the President. He continually misstates facts and figures. Things like 40% of all sales are private. That comes from a Handgun Inc. study. That also includes transfers within families, like gifts and inheritance. Obviously, those aren't sales. He's misrepresented how many "guns" weren't sold because someone failed the background check. Etc.

The beloved CDC concluded that the Feinstein assault weapons ban had a negligible impact on crime. Why isn't he touting that study?

It is likely we will all disagree on this large issue, but EO's and outright abuse of the data is the wrong way to attempt to have a discussion.

(01-17-2013 03:24 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  So, let's update a crap study with a flawed premise. Got it. That is going to help and be meaningful.

The study is what it says it is. Fatal shootings of a household member outnumber fatal shootings of an intruder 43:1. Fact. We can expand the study to seek statistics for non-fatal shootings, and brandishments, but I don't count on the NRA to volunteer or, in the event they do, publish its findings if it doesn't like them. Brady isn't large enough (see below), so the need is there for federal funding.

(01-17-2013 03:24 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  So, Handgun, Inc., the Brady Project, Soros, etc. have no funds to put together their own study? Come on. There are just as deep pockets on the other side of the NRA.

The Brady Campaign budget for 2010: $3,989,095
NRA budget for 2004: $205,402,491

The Brady Campaign membership: Under 28,000
NRA membership: 4 million

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_Campaign
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association

(Handgun Control, Inc. is a part of the Brady Campaign.)

The NRA has more members than the Brady Campaign's budget has dollars. It's consistently rated as one of the most powerful, if not the most powerful, lobby in Washington. There is no semblance of balance.

George Soros only gave $1 million to a Super PAC this past election cycle. He's given millions to fight poverty and repeal drug laws but I've never heard of him giving to gun control groups. Are you even sure what his views are on gun control?

(01-17-2013 03:24 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  So, it has been the will of the legislature, even when the Dems had both the House and Senate, to maintain this language in the funding of the CDC. He's clearly circumventing the will and intent of the legislation, which his own party approved. But, since he's on your side, that is ok, I guess?

That's right. They should have drafted better language initially. Besides, the will of the 1996 legislature that first proposed it is less relevant now, since it has to be re-proposed every year. The question is the intent of the latest Congress, and maybe they keep the language but would take a broader reading of the phrase.

This isn't entirely a partisan issue. The NRA intimidates some Democrats as well as Republicans, and many Dems have been afraid to embrace gun control measures, as removing this language would be. Even when they controlled both chambers, this wasn't an issue Obama and co moved on. It's a shame, and it's about time some of them stood up to the gun lobby. Hopefully we can get the language removed in the near future.

(01-17-2013 03:24 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  Even if I don't agree, I'd like this whole discussion to be rooted in reality and I don't see that coming from the President. He continually misstates facts and figures. Things like 40% of all sales are private. That comes from a Handgun Inc. study. That also includes transfers within families, like gifts and inheritance. Obviously, those aren't sales. He's misrepresented how many "guns" weren't sold because someone failed the background check. Etc.

The beloved CDC concluded that the Feinstein assault weapons ban had a negligible impact on crime. Why isn't he touting that study?

It is likely we will all disagree on this large issue, but EO's and outright abuse of the data is the wrong way to attempt to have a discussion.

We should hold hearings with input from both sides, but unfortunately it takes a lot to even get to that stage.

The assault weapons bad did probably have a negligible impact on everyday crime, but I think the point of the ban is more to help prevent the (rare, but still occasional) mass shootings from being too "mass."

I'm fine with EO's so long as it has a basis in current law. What bothers me is GOPers complaining about Obama's EOs who seemed fine with all of Bush's. If Obama has to resolve ambiguities in statutes in favor of gun control then more power to him. Let that be a lesson to future bill drafters. He needs to be more aggressive, and has probably realized that they're going to demonize him anyway (He literally did nothing on guns his first term but millions were still convinced he wanted to take their guns away despite him saying no such thing), and this is an issue he cares about, so he might as well do everything he justifiably can to save lives.

(01-17-2013 11:28 AM)Max Power Wrote:  Nice WaPo article on how the NRA and GOP have been preventing federal funding into gun violence research for 17 years. In 1993, a CDC-funded study found a gun in the home was 43 times more likely to be used on a family member than in self defense, so what do they do? Cut the CDC's funding, wait a few years and claim the study is outdated! Bravo!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post...ong-stand/

Quote:In 1996, a Republican congressman from Arkansas named Jay Dickey pushed through an amendment stripping $2.6 million out of the budget for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. His measure was not about the budget deficit, though; Dickey’s aim was to force the CDC to stop researching the effects of gun violence. The centers’ annual appropriation still contains the language resulting from Dickey’s efforts 16 years ago: “None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.” That intimidation has been central to what Salon’s Alex Seitz-Wald calls “The NRA’s war on gun science.” Thankfully, the president’s proposed gun control package includes a call to “end the freeze on gun violence research.” That’s a worthy push against the anti-science impulse that has perverted not just the gun control discussion but the broader political debate as well.

The NRA’s intimidation campaign, not surprisingly, started when scientists started producing findings that the gun lobby didn’t like. In the mid-1990s, reported the New York Times, the CDC was “becoming increasingly assertive about the importance of studying gun-related injuries and deaths as a public health phenomenon, financing studies that found, for example, having a gun in the house, rather than conferring protection, significantly increased the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.” As a result of the NRA and GOP’s efforts, “the amount of money available today for studying the impact of firearms is a fraction of what it was in the mid-1990s, and the number of scientists toiling in the field has dwindled to just a handful as a result, researchers say.” And because private organizations have had to shoulder the burden, even less of what little money there still is goes to the broad, long-term studies that can lead to better policies.

The anti-research impulse on the far right (enabled, one should note, by more moderate Republicans who refuse to block it) doesn’t stop with gun violence either: Last fall, Senate Republicans forced the Congressional Research Service to withdraw “an economic report that found no correlation between top tax rates and economic growth, a central tenet of conservative economic theory … against the advice of the research service’s economics division.” And under the George W. Bush administration, federal scientists were repeatedly “pressured to remove references to “climate change” and “global warming” from a range of documents.”

Regardless of where one stands on gun control, or on any of these other issues, the far right’s attempts to restrict scientific research should concern everyone. Consider the “gun in the house” study mentioned in the Times article cited earlier, conducted by Art Kellerman: Gun control advocates continue to cite the study’s finding that “a gun kept in the home was 43 times more likely to be involved in the death of a member of the household than to be used in self-defense.” But the study has had a number of critics and the data is now more than 20 years old. Unfortunately, more recent national studies are few and far between, and, as one paper says, “many of the studies conducted to date have been based on small samples and were limited to specific population groups such as adolescents or older adults.” Taken together, the studies still back Kellerman’s findings, but regardless of where one stands, the data are not exactly ideal for policymaking. If our country is to make smart decisions, surely suppressing science is the wrong way to go, yet the far right continues to insist on doing just that. President Obama’s call for gun violence research is an important stand against this war on science.

God I wish I read this before the Facebook argument I was involved in devolved into name-calling. At least I have "ammo" for next time

(01-17-2013 02:39 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(01-17-2013 01:12 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(01-17-2013 11:28 AM)Max Power Wrote:  Nice WaPo article on how the NRA and GOP have been preventing federal funding into gun violence research for 17 years. In 1993, a CDC-funded study found a gun in the home was 43 times more likely to be used on a family member than in self defense, so what do they do? Cut the CDC's funding, wait a few years and claim the study is outdated! Bravo!

The study was bad because it only counted a gun being used in self-defense it it was discharged, not if it was only shown and that ended the conflict.

So, there is no one else, no other organization in this country to do gun research other than the CDC? John Lott through the University of Chicago has done a ton of research and the left doesn't like to utilize his numbers or results. Let the CDC study disease and someone else can study social issues.

I just don't see what this has to do with anything. It does highlight another issue. Since there is federal law saying the CDC can't do this research, please reconcile the President's E.O. calling for the research to be done.

The fact that household guns are 43 times more likely to kill residents of the household than intruders in self defense is a meaningless statistic? I see your point but that door swings both ways-- it ignores non-fatality shootings and assaults against household members too.

I agree we should have a more extensive data compilation. That's the point. Yes there is private research but it gets attacked because it's not expansive or comprehensive enough. The gun manufacturers and NRA have the pockets to fund research possibly including the UChi prof you mentioned. Lott was an Olin Fellow at UChi, which is named for the founder of one of the world's largest gun manufacturers. He denies that the NRA or gun manufacturers underwrote his studies, but it's curious. Regardless, we may finally see a counterweight to the NRA emerging, and the CDC resuming its research, thankfully.

I'm not quite sure how the administration would justify the EO, but I'll venture a guess. The language says “None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.” Obama can simply argue the research is to explore any and all solutions to gun violence, whether or not the results would support gun control measures. It will almost certainly also point to mental health reform as well for instance. So Obama may just say he is taking a different interpretation of current law that is plausible, if not in line with its original intent. He's just doing what the NRA asked!

(01-17-2013 03:24 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(01-17-2013 02:39 PM)Max Power Wrote:  The fact that household guns are 43 times more likely to kill residents of the household than intruders in self defense is a meaningless statistic? I see your point but that door swings both ways-- it ignores non-fatality shootings and assaults against household members too.

So, let's update a crap study with a flawed premise. Got it. That is going to help and be meaningful.

(01-17-2013 02:39 PM)Max Power Wrote:  I agree we should have a more extensive data compilation. That's the point. Yes there is private research but it gets attacked because it's not expansive or comprehensive enough. The gun manufacturers and NRA have the pockets to fund research possibly including the UChi prof you mentioned. Lott was an Olin Fellow at UChi, which is named for the founder of one of the world's largest gun manufacturers. He denies that the NRA or gun manufacturers underwrote his studies, but it's curious. Regardless, we may finally see a counterweight to the NRA emerging, and the CDC resuming its research, thankfully.

So, Handgun, Inc., the Brady Project, Soros, etc. have no funds to put together their own study? Come on. There are just as deep pockets on the other side of the NRA.

(01-17-2013 02:39 PM)Max Power Wrote:  I'm not quite sure how the administration would justify the EO, but I'll venture a guess. The language says “None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.” Obama can simply argue the research is to explore any and all solutions to gun violence, whether or not the results would support gun control measures. It will almost certainly also point to mental health reform as well for instance. So Obama may just say he is taking a different interpretation of current law that is plausible, if not in line with its original intent. He's just doing what the NRA asked!

So, it has been the will of the legislature, even when the Dems had both the House and Senate, to maintain this language in the funding of the CDC. He's clearly circumventing the will and intent of the legislation, which his own party approved. But, since he's on your side, that is ok, I guess?

Even if I don't agree, I'd like this whole discussion to be rooted in reality and I don't see that coming from the President. He continually misstates facts and figures. Things like 40% of all sales are private. That comes from a Handgun Inc. study. That also includes transfers within families, like gifts and inheritance. Obviously, those aren't sales. He's misrepresented how many "guns" weren't sold because someone failed the background check. Etc.

The beloved CDC concluded that the Feinstein assault weapons ban had a negligible impact on crime. Why isn't he touting that study?

It is likely we will all disagree on this large issue, but EO's and outright abuse of the data is the wrong way to attempt to have a discussion.

Gun grabbers tend to have big mouths and small pockets (and small minds). They constantly complain how they just do not have the funds to keep up with the NRA, and that is just music to my ears.



There is a reason for this. Talk is cheap. Anyone can get on line or blurt out some stupid statement about banning something they do not like. I think American Idol should be banned. See. That was easy.

But when it comes to actually taking the time to stand up for what you believe or voluntarily contributing your own money to supporting a cause, people who are personally connected to the cause and who personally feel their freedom is being threatened will be more likely to contribute time, funding, and votes than those who just spontaneously emote, "We need to ban something".

The NRA just received a little money from my bank account last weekend. Beat that, you gun grabbing Nazis.

Just pick up the guns and send'em to Mexico.

The NRA is sickening.

I'm sorry, but it seems so taboo to admit that this isn't 1776 anymore and the 2nd amendment should be repealed. But you can't say that out loud. Hey, things change after 237 years!

(01-18-2013 08:45 PM)niubrad00 Wrote:  The NRA is sickening.

I'm sorry, but it seems so taboo to admit that this isn't 1776 anymore and the 2nd amendment should be repealed. But you can't say that out loud. Hey, things change after 237 years!

Fascist.

(01-18-2013 08:45 PM)niubrad00 Wrote:  The NRA is sickening.

I'm sorry, but it seems so taboo to admit that this isn't 1776 anymore and the 2nd amendment should be repealed. But you can't say that out loud. Hey, things change after 237 years!

Yes you can say that but realize that there are still a large number of people who hunt game in order to eat. There is a great deal of rural poverty in America. Some keep sidearms to protect their pets or property. Coyotes are going to become a larger issue as their numbers increase and they've grown accustomed to and are losing their fear of humans. Last year, a female coyote parked itself in my neighbors backyard right along the fence line for 3 days. Luckily she was along. I have a 90 lb black lab/greyhound who was very curious about this new visitor and tried to communicate with the coyote. If the coyote wanted to it could have torn my dog to shreds. Glad that I had to a shot gun to stop the coyote should it have attacked.

(01-18-2013 08:45 PM)niubrad00 Wrote:  The NRA is sickening.

I'm sorry, but it seems so taboo to admit that this isn't 1776 anymore and the 2nd amendment should be repealed. But you can't say that out loud. Hey, things change after 237 years!

The second amendment is not about protecting the rights of hunters and sportsmen. It's about allowing the citizens to protect themselves from a tyrannical government. The bill of rights spells out what the federal government cannot do to us citizens. Those rights are not granted to us by the government, they are natural rights which are protected.

(01-20-2013 08:45 AM)hilltopper Wrote:  

(01-18-2013 08:45 PM)niubrad00 Wrote:  The NRA is sickening.

I'm sorry, but it seems so taboo to admit that this isn't 1776 anymore and the 2nd amendment should be repealed. But you can't say that out loud. Hey, things change after 237 years!

The second amendment is not about protecting the rights of hunters and sportsmen. It's about allowing the citizens to protect themselves from a tyrannical government. The bill of rights spells out what the federal government cannot do to us citizens. Those rights are not granted to us by the government, they are natural rights which are protected.

I'm not against the second amendment, but I dont believe that was what they were thinking when they put into place. At the time, we had a extremely small-non existent army and relied on local militias for national/local defense and probably for policing. I doubt a young fragile government was looking for ways to further weaken itself.

(01-20-2013 11:44 AM)niuguy Wrote:  

(01-20-2013 08:45 AM)hilltopper Wrote:  

(01-18-2013 08:45 PM)niubrad00 Wrote:  The NRA is sickening.

I'm sorry, but it seems so taboo to admit that this isn't 1776 anymore and the 2nd amendment should be repealed. But you can't say that out loud. Hey, things change after 237 years!

The second amendment is not about protecting the rights of hunters and sportsmen. It's about allowing the citizens to protect themselves from a tyrannical government. The bill of rights spells out what the federal government cannot do to us citizens. Those rights are not granted to us by the government, they are natural rights which are protected.

I'm not against the second amendment, but I dont believe that was what they were thinking when they put into place. At the time, we had a extremely small-non existent army and relied on local militias for national/local defense and probably for policing. I doubt a young fragile government was looking for ways to further weaken itself.

You need to read the Federalist and anti-federalist papers. The founders had just shed the shackles of a tyrannical government of England.

Quote:In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.
Federalist No. 51 (February 8, 1788).

(01-20-2013 01:40 PM)hilltopper Wrote:  

(01-20-2013 11:44 AM)niuguy Wrote:  

(01-20-2013 08:45 AM)hilltopper Wrote:  

(01-18-2013 08:45 PM)niubrad00 Wrote:  The NRA is sickening.

I'm sorry, but it seems so taboo to admit that this isn't 1776 anymore and the 2nd amendment should be repealed. But you can't say that out loud. Hey, things change after 237 years!

The second amendment is not about protecting the rights of hunters and sportsmen. It's about allowing the citizens to protect themselves from a tyrannical government. The bill of rights spells out what the federal government cannot do to us citizens. Those rights are not granted to us by the government, they are natural rights which are protected.

I'm not against the second amendment, but I dont believe that was what they were thinking when they put into place. At the time, we had a extremely small-non existent army and relied on local militias for national/local defense and probably for policing. I doubt a young fragile government was looking for ways to further weaken itself.

You need to read the Federalist and anti-federalist papers. The founders had just shed the shackles of a tyrannical government of England.

Quote:In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.
Federalist No. 51 (February 8, 1788).

How dare you back up your argument with cited source material.

I think you'll like this one.

[attachment=4373]

(01-18-2013 08:45 PM)niubrad00 Wrote:  The NRA is sickening.

I'm sorry, but it seems so taboo to admit that this isn't 1776 anymore and the 2nd amendment should be repealed. But you can't say that out loud. Hey, things change after 237 years!

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

Are there any other rights you would like to have repealed?

Commie!

(01-20-2013 08:45 AM)hilltopper Wrote:  The second amendment is not about protecting the rights of hunters and sportsmen. It's about allowing the citizens to protect themselves from a tyrannical government. The bill of rights spells out what the federal government cannot do to us citizens. Those rights are not granted to us by the government, they are natural rights which are protected.

Protecting yourself from a tyrannical government? I have news for you: If the United States military wants your little basement compound, they're taking it. Your semi automatic assault rifle and armor piercing bullets won't save you from the drone, PATRIOT missile or SEAL team raining hellfire on you, so you might as well quit stockpiling these weapons that are necessary only for the battlefield. This isn't Red Dawn, and this isn't 1776.

The Second Amendment is obsolete. It was put in place at a time when grassroots militias were necessary and formidable. I personally don't mind people having small arms for hunting or protecting their home, even though I wouldn't do it, but it's not what the amendment was for.