The NRA Finally Responds With Its "Meaningful Contributions"

"Killing the president because he annoyed you"

Read that sentance back to yourself

I was thinking in the mind of an assassin when I wrote that sentence.

If you really hate a President, it is at least in rational self-interest to get him out of office. Wrong, but still fundamentally within your self-interest.

Killing his kids gains you nothing.

I was not suggesting any moral upstandingness on the part of people who assassinate Presidents. Merely that it is possible to rationalize. If you consider the President guilty for his policies, killing him might be justifiable to somebody that's seriously screwed up.

But to kill his kids, who would be completely innocent even in that sphere, makes no sense.

Obviously, in today's world, there are people who are just that senseless.
 
I love how you attempt to rationalise killing someone because they "ticked you off".

Clearly a sign of a healthy mind.
 
Its not justified. I'd be the first one supporting such a person's execution.

All I'm saying is that it makes more sense to kill the person who is the problem in your mind than to kill his kids. That's all I was saying.
 
"All im saying is that in some sense, it is okay to kill someone who you have a problem with"

This is your argument. You might not be justifiying it (in your own mind) but you lending it legitimacy by saying it is "rational".
 
OK, if someone slapped you, would it make more sense to kill him, or his kids?

You don't have to say it would be OK to kill either one than to say that it would still make more sense to kill the person that actually slapped you.
 
Has anybody else endorsed the idea of having an armed guard in every school, or talked about how they would pay for it? I know the NEA, AFT and dozens of university presidents have publicly said this is a terrible idea. I'd be particularly interested if anybody even remotely involved with a school or education said this would be smart.
 
In the meantime, the ATF is intentionally kept in the information dark ages from fears that firearm ownership information might be misused:

MARTINSBURG, W.Va. — The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has been without a permanent director for six years, as President Obama recently noted. But even if someone were to be confirmed for the job, the agency’s ability to thwart gun violence is hamstrung by legislative restrictions and by loopholes in federal gun laws, many law enforcement officials and advocates of tighter gun regulations say.

For example, under current laws the bureau is prohibited from creating a federal registry of gun transactions. So while detectives on television tap a serial number into a computer and instantly identify the buyer of a firearm, the reality could not be more different.

When law enforcement officers recover a gun and serial number, workers at the bureau’s National Tracing Center here — a windowless warehouse-style building on a narrow road outside town — begin making their way through a series of phone calls, asking first the manufacturer, then the wholesaler and finally the dealer to search their files to identify the buyer of the firearm.

About a third of the time, the process involves digging through records sent in by companies that have closed, in many cases searching by hand through cardboard boxes filled with computer printouts, hand-scrawled index cards or even water-stained sheets of paper.

In an age when data is often available with a few keystrokes, the A.T.F. is forced to follow this manual routine because the idea of establishing a central database of gun transactions has been rejected by lawmakers in Congress, who have sided with the National Rifle Association, which argues that such a database poses a threat to the Second Amendment. In other countries, gun rights groups argue, governments have used gun registries to confiscate the firearms of law-abiding citizens.

Advocates for increased gun regulation, however, contend that in a country plagued by gun violence, a central registry could help keep firearms out of the hands of criminals and allow law enforcement officials to act more effectively to prevent gun crime.

As has been the case for decades, the A.T.F., the federal agency charged with enforcing gun laws and regulating the gun industry, is caught in the middle.

Law enforcement officials say that in theory, the A.T.F. could take a lead role in setting a national agenda for reducing gun crime, a goal that has gained renewed urgency with the school massacre in Newtown, Conn. But it is hampered, they say, by politically driven laws that make its job harder and by the ferocity of the debate over gun regulation.

“I think that they’ve really been muzzled over the last several years, at least, from doing their job effectively,” said Frederick H. Bealefeld III, a former police commissioner in Baltimore. “They’ve really kind of been the whipping agency, caught in the political turmoil of Washington on the gun issue.”

The so-called Tiahrt amendments — named for Todd Tiahrt, a former Republican congressman from Kansas, and first attached as riders to appropriations bills in 2003 and 2004 — limited the A.T.F.’s ability to share tracing information on firearms linked to crimes with local and state law enforcement agencies and with the public. Those restrictions have been loosened in subsequent versions of the amendments. But under the most recent Tiahrt amendment, adopted in 2010, the A.T.F. still cannot release anything but aggregate data to the public. The amendment still prohibits the bureau from using tracing data in some legal proceedings to suspend or revoke a dealer’s license, and it requires that records of background checks of gun buyers be destroyed within 24 hours of approval. Advocates of tighter regulation say this makes it harder to identify dealers who falsify records or buyers who make “straw” purchases for others.

Mr. Gottlieb said the Tiahrt amendment protected data “from people who are anti-gun rights who want to manipulate things” to bolster support for gun regulation.

Congress has long resisted the idea of a central transaction database.

David Kopel, a lawyer and the Second Amendment project director at the Independence Institute, a research group concerned with individual choice, said Congress was aware that a registry could be misused. “We don’t have an automated database of everybody who’s had an abortion or of anyone who owns controversial books,” he said.

But Mr. Bealefeld, the former Baltimore commissioner, said the notion that a central database would create “some Orwellian Big Brother oversight that’s going to monitor target shooters and hunters and sneak into their houses in the dead of night to steal their rifles and their pistols” was “more fiction than reality.”

“I’ve hunted since I was 7 years old,” he said, “and I don’t live in fear that anyone’s going to come and take my hunting rifles.”
 
In other countries, gun rights groups argue, governments have used gun registries to confiscate the firearms of law-abiding citizens.

Odd that the New York Times didn't interview a gun rights advocate or try to flesh out this point with research.

Let me try.

Government HAS seized assets that were considered lawful to own for decades. (gold)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102

Have other countries used databases of ownership as a tool to sieze assets at a later date?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Firearms_Registry

Hmm, not really seeing it be abused. The cost overruns were beyond all imagination though. $2 million per year turned into $66 million. How many guns do Canadians own anyway? 10 million? Would a U.S. gun registry encounter similiar order of magnitude cost overruns?

Googled for some abuse and found this:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2009/09/22/guns-toronto-seized-police523.html

Technically doesn't appear to be abuse, but if further laws are introduced mandating how guns should be stored then police can use the registry and demand entry into your house to check and can use a judgement call whether to confiscate your guns for improper storage.


I suppose I'm not really alarmed over the national gun registry for possible confiscation purposes, but the costs of the thing appear to be unimaginable. $6 per gun in the country per year?
 
OK, if someone slapped you, would it make more sense to kill him, or his kids?

You don't have to say it would be OK to kill either one than to say that it would still make more sense to kill the person that actually slapped you.

Depends on if we are aspiring to be like God:

God said:
You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me,
 
Odd that the New York Times didn't interview a gun rights advocate or try to flesh out this point with research.

Let me try.

Government HAS seized assets that were considered lawful to own for decades. (gold)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102

Have other countries used databases of ownership as a tool to sieze assets at a later date?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Firearms_Registry

Hmm, not really seeing it be abused. The cost overruns were beyond all imagination though. $2 million per year turned into $66 million. How many guns do Canadians own anyway? 10 million? Would a U.S. gun registry encounter similiar order of magnitude cost overruns?

Googled for some abuse and found this:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2009/09/22/guns-toronto-seized-police523.html

Technically doesn't appear to be abuse, but if further laws are introduced mandating how guns should be stored then police can use the registry and demand entry into your house to check and can use a judgement call whether to confiscate your guns for improper storage.

I suppose I'm not really alarmed over the national gun registry for possible confiscation purposes, but the costs of the thing appear to be unimaginable. $6 per gun in the country per year?

Thanks for coming up with a right that is unrestricted - I thought it kind of proved my point, which is that pretty much all our right are indeed regulated. I dont' know why GW couldn't come up with that one - he is certainly far more familiar with the texts that I am.

In your post here, though, I'm not sure I understand whether you are arguing that a registry is indeed too expensive ($6/weapon is chump change in my thinking), or if you're being sarcastic.

Because, when it comes down to it, it could be readily financed by an ammunition tax in conjunction with a registration fee. Every time you want to buy a gun, a $10 flat fee goes to the ATF. Every box of ammo, 1% - it's next to nothing at the point of sale, yet would really help to fund something that has the potential to address a public health concern.
 
Thanks for coming up with a right that is unrestricted - I thought it kind of proved my point, which is that pretty much all our right are indeed regulated. I dont' know why GW couldn't come up with that one - he is certainly far more familiar with the texts that I am.

In your post here, though, I'm not sure I understand whether you are arguing that a registry is indeed too expensive ($6/weapon is chump change in my thinking), or if you're being sarcastic.

Because, when it comes down to it, it could be readily financed by an ammunition tax in conjunction with a registration fee. Every time you want to buy a gun, a $10 flat fee goes to the ATF. Every box of ammo, 1% - it's next to nothing at the point of sale, yet would really help to fund something that has the potential to address a public health concern.

Sad that only one came to mind ya. :cry:

It's $6 per weapon per year, forever! (Er, still just an estimate off of Canadian attempts :sad:)

I forsaw arguments making the owner pay for it.

So if I own 100 guns (and some collectors do), I have to pay the government $600 per year so they can keep track of guns nationwide? Chump change :wallbash:
 
Just like if I stay at a hotel more or fly more - I incur more taxes than the lower volume user.

I hesitate to even attempt math on an internet forum, but why not try one time :crazyeye:



National Gun Registry(U.S.) to track guns: 300 million guns x $6 per year to track them = $1.8 billion per year.

One armed security guard for each public school: 100,000 public schools x one $20,000 per year guard (retired cop is fine) = $2 billion per year.

Allow concealed carry for teachers if they choose to bring one to school = free


:hmm:
 
You think you are going you an armed union worker for 20 grand a year? And that only guards schools (just as Columbine was guarded) - itdoes not address the problem of irresponsible gun owners letting their guns fall into criminals hands.
 
Sad that only one came to mind ya. :cry:

It's $6 per weapon per year, forever! (Er, still just an estimate off of Canadian attempts :sad:)

I forsaw arguments making the owner pay for it.

So if I own 100 guns (and some collectors do), I have to pay the government $600 per year so they can keep track of guns nationwide? Chump change :wallbash:

Owning a gun is a choice. If you can't afford $.50/month to cover administrative fees then you likely can't afford the ammunition.

Really, this comes down to an argument for a registry - the fact that it would pay for itself.

Seriously - I can't believe any reasonable person would claim that $6/weapon is too stiff a price.

Heck, I'd even support tiered fees - single action hunting and target rifles could be quite a bit less than handguns and semiautomatic anythings. What's not to love about this idea?

EDIT:
those collectors with 100 weapons are likely already paying quite a lot more than $600/year to protect their investment - and this would be added insurance on top of it. Still not a compelling argument against.
 
1. The government has no right to even more of my money just because I own a gun.

2. The government has no right to know whether or not I have a gun.

3. The government has no right to know where I keep my guns.

4. No government bureaucracy ever charges 50 cents in administrative fees.

5. This is a "sin tax" and would be treated as such. Ever wonder why cigarettes are so expensive?
 
Back
Top Bottom