American Gun Ownership Highest In 18 Years

[Neil]

I just want to be left alone

But you're not alone.  Why would you act like you are?

[derspiess]

I did do some research as Derspeiss requested.  Mr LaPierre goes on about a lot of things such as arresting all the gang members in Chicago (why this particular city is targeted is unclear to me),

You know why.  That's Obama's city, a Democrat stronghold, and has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation.  Many on the pro-gun/conservative side like to point out the high crime rate in Chicago.  I'm not as keen on doing that, as I think it's a bit overkill, if you will.

put police in schools, and enforce the laws that exist.  The last one is fair enough, the the second one is a bit overboard and the first one is unconstitutional.  Focusing on the second two, this would likely require a major increase in taxation.  Derspeiss, would you be willing to pay higher taxes see these laws enforced (and maybe hiring police for schools)?  Would the rest of the GOP be keen on this.

Sure.  We can just have the rich pay their fair share!

But seriously, regarding enforcement if funding is the obstacle then we should find the money.  Preferably via spending cuts elsewhere, but if we have to combine cuts elsewhere with some tax increases to get that done, fine.

Officers in schools I'm a little more lukewarm on.  Let the states do it if they choose to.

[The Minsky Moment]

The NRA has been saying it for years-- anytime new gun control legislation has been brought up.  Even their opponents recognize that it's been their stated position.  Whether or not you choose to believe the NRA's sincerity is a different issue.

I don't believe it for two reasons.
First, I haven't seen any affirmative statement of that position.

Second, it manifestly is not true. Some states have assault weapons bans. I know the NRA opposes that.  New York doesn't issue handgun licenses to non-residents.  I know the NRA opposes that because they sued the state.  New York also has a "for cause" only carry law that goes back decades.  The NRA opposes that - they filed an amicus brief supporting a federal constitutional challenge.  In fact the NRA regularly supports lawsuits challenging existing gun laws.

So looking at the facts - no question there are plenty of existing laws the NRA wants to get rid of.  So if anyone claims that there are existing laws the NRA supports, you'll excuse me if I require stronger evidence than a Washington Times misquote.

[derspiess]

The NRA has been saying it for years-- anytime new gun control legislation has been brought up.  Even their opponents recognize that it's been their stated position.  Whether or not you choose to believe the NRA's sincerity is a different issue.

I don't believe it for two reasons.
First, I haven't seen any affirmative statement of that position.

Second, it manifestly is not true. Some states have assault weapons bans. I know the NRA opposes that.  New York doesn't issue handgun licenses to non-residents.  I know the NRA opposes that because they sued the state.  New York also has a "for cause" only carry law that goes back decades.  The NRA opposes that - they filed an amicus brief supporting a federal constitutional challenge.  In fact the NRA regularly supports lawsuits challenging existing gun laws.

So looking at the facts - no question there are plenty of existing laws the NRA wants to get rid of.  So if anyone claims that there are existing laws the NRA supports, you'll excuse me if I require stronger evidence than a Washington Times misquote.

I was talking about the federal level.  Of course they'd like to roll back some laws at the state level.

[The Minsky Moment]

I was talking about the federal level.  Of course they'd like to roll back some laws at the state level.

That's an exception that swallows the rule.  Most regulation of firearms is done on the state level.  And the objection against state regulation seems less compelling.  Why shouldn't NYC for example be able to have stricter laws on carriage in public places than Montana?

All that exists on the federal level are:
+ The prohibitions against felons, aliens, and fugitives
+ The prohibitions against sales to minors
+ The prohibitions against full auto, silencers, sawed off shotguns and filing off serial numbers
+ recieving, transporting, etc stolen weapons.

That's it other than the Gun Free Schools Act which the NRA used to support but now does not.

[Berkut]

You were asked to show that the NRA supports the gun laws on the books. It seems fair that if what you site doesn't really do that, it should be called out, doesn't it?

The NRA has been saying it for years-- anytime new gun control legislation has been brought up.  Even their opponents recognize that it's been their stated position.  Whether or not you choose to believe the NRA's sincerity is a different issue.

It is tough to believe their sincerity when they turn around and do their best to make enforcement of existing laws impossible.

[derspiess]

I was talking about the federal level.  Of course they'd like to roll back some laws at the state level.

That's an exception that swallows the rule.  Most regulation of firearms is done on the state level.  And the objection against state regulation seems less compelling.  Why shouldn't NYC for example be able to have stricter laws on carriage in public places than Montana?

All that exists on the federal level are:
+ The prohibitions against felons, aliens, and fugitives
+ The prohibitions against sales to minors
+ The prohibitions against full auto, silencers, sawed off shotguns and filing off serial numbers
+ recieving, transporting, etc stolen weapons.

That's it other than the Gun Free Schools Act which the NRA used to support but now does not.

I was talking about the federal level.  Of course they'd like to roll back some laws at the state level.

That's an exception that swallows the rule.  Most regulation of firearms is done on the state level. 

But the big publicized fights have been on the federal level.  How often do we discuss state laws here? 

And the objection against state regulation seems less compelling.  Why shouldn't NYC for example be able to have stricter laws on carriage in public places than Montana?

I believe in federalism, so to a certain degree I'm with you.  If the people of NY want more restrictive gun laws, that's fine as long as it doesn't violate the 2nd Amendment.  But I wouldn't fault the NRA for lobbying on behalf of gun owners there.

All that exists on the federal level are:
+ The prohibitions against felons, aliens, and fugitives
+ The prohibitions against sales to minors
+ The prohibitions against full auto, silencers, sawed off shotguns and filing off serial numbers
+ recieving, transporting, etc stolen weapons.

That's it other than the Gun Free Schools Act which the NRA used to support but now does not.

And licensing, importation, etc.  That's actually a lot.  Much more than my state or any counties.

[Razgovory]

I did do some research as Derspeiss requested.  Mr LaPierre goes on about a lot of things such as arresting all the gang members in Chicago (why this particular city is targeted is unclear to me),

You know why.  That's Obama's city, a Democrat stronghold, and has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation.  Many on the pro-gun/conservative side like to point out the high crime rate in Chicago.  I'm not as keen on doing that, as I think it's a bit overkill, if you will.

put police in schools, and enforce the laws that exist.  The last one is fair enough, the the second one is a bit overboard and the first one is unconstitutional.  Focusing on the second two, this would likely require a major increase in taxation.  Derspeiss, would you be willing to pay higher taxes see these laws enforced (and maybe hiring police for schools)?  Would the rest of the GOP be keen on this.

Sure.  We can just have the rich pay their fair share!

But seriously, regarding enforcement if funding is the obstacle then we should find the money.  Preferably via spending cuts elsewhere, but if we have to combine cuts elsewhere with some tax increases to get that done, fine.

Officers in schools I'm a little more lukewarm on.  Let the states do it if they choose to.

Chicago doesn't have a particularly high crime rate.   Second, LaPierre says that laws aren't being enforced.  The question is why?  My guess is funding, and that it's not being funded properly because there isn't enough revenue to go around.  There is also the possibility that people who do not like gun control deliberately underfund regulations they don't like.  This is extremely common.  In fact,  I just looked into this, an apparently the NRA has lobbied to weaken the mechanisms and underfund the regulatory bodies to enforce them.  You can't say go with the line of "we don't need new laws, we merely need to enforce the old ones" while you are undermining those current laws.

[The Minsky Moment]

But the big publicized fights have been on the federal level. 

Not since McDonald was decided a couple years ago.  Since then, all the action has been with the states.
Witness for example the fight over the new NY state assult weapon/magazine law which spilled over into languish as well.

[derspiess]

But the big publicized fights have been on the federal level. 

Not since McDonald was decided a couple years ago.  Since then, all the action has been with the states.
Witness for example the fight over the new NY state assult weapon/magazine law which spilled over into languish as well.

"Spilled" is a bit much. Trickled, maybe.

[CountDeMoney]

NRA's LaPierre: 'We will never surrender our guns'

In a fiery speech Saturday before cheering supporters, the National Rifle Association's Wayne LaPierre took on advocates for new gun laws and said a national background check bill "got the defeat that it deserved."

"We will never surrender our guns, never," LaPierre, the organization's executive vice president, said on the second day of the gun-rights group's convention in Houston, Texas.

He argued that recent mass shootings, including the killing of 26 people at a Connecticut elementary school in December, have been used "to blame us, to shame us, to compromise our freedom for their agenda."

The gun rights lobby's convention was part victory celebration, part pep rally as the NRA's leaders cheered the defeat of a background check bill and said they would oppose any new attempts to pass national legislation on guns.

"Our feet are planted firmly in the foundation of freedom, unswayed by the winds of political and media insanity," LaPierre said. "To the political and media elites who scorn us, we say let them be damned."

A bill supported by President Barack Obama that would have expanded background checks on gun purchases would have done nothing to stop recent mass shootings, LaPierre said. That bill was defeated in the Senate last month.

"The bill wouldn't have prevented Newtown or Aurora," LaPierre, the NRA's executive vice president, said in his speech to several thousand attendees. "It won't prevent the next tragedy. None of it has anything to do with keeping our children safer in any school anywhere."

Sen. Pat Toomey, a Republican from Pennsylvania, co-sponsored the background check bill. Toomey has said the bill failed to pass because members of the GOP did not want to hand the White House a policy victory.

LaPierre also referenced the Boston Marathon bombings and subsequent manhunt as an argument for putting guns in the hands of more Americans.

"How many Bostonians wished they had a gun two weeks ago?" LaPierre said. "Boston proves it. When brave law enforcement officers did their jobs in that city so courageously, good guys with guns stopped terrorists with guns."

NRA officials confirmed to NBC News that LaPierre's remarks were the first time the organization had brought up the Boston Marathon bombings in connection with their political fight against new restrictions on guns.

The annual convention was expected to draw about 70,000 people over three days. As many as 550 exhibitors were packed into the George R. Brown Convention Center, bringing with them racks and display cases filled with handguns, rifles, and other firearms.

LaPierre claimed that the NRA's membership stood at 5 million and said the organization aimed to amass 10 million members.

A lifetime membership in the NRA costs $1,000, and the organization was able to claim that both its youngest and its oldest lifetime members were in attendance on Saturday.

Wayne Burd of Arkansas was born in 1917, and was recognized for the second year running as the rifle association's oldest lifetime member. Among the freshest faces present was the group's youngest lifetime member, Elaih Wagan, a 3-year-old from Austin, Texas. Wagan's grandfather purchased a lifetime membership as a gift for the little girl.

I'm glad the NRA isn't going to ever surrender their guns, particularly when, you know, nobody's asking them to.

[11B4V]

Politics is all.

[derspiess]

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2013/05/06/man-arrested-after-trying-to-return-pipe-bomb-at-gun-buyback/

[AnchorClanker]

 

[derspiess]

Gun crime has plunged, but Americans think it's up, says study

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-gun-crimes-pew-report-20130507,0,3022693.story