Well this cartoon scares me, and perhaps I ought to be afraid. The peace of my mountain countryside, blossoming into spring, is often punctuated by automatic weapons fire. I hope they are shooting at targets. Sigh.
Ruth_Rocchio: Well this cartoon scares me, and perhaps I ought to
The NRA is slowly but surely painting itself into a corner. Any organization that moves inexorably toward an extreme position will eventually come to the point wherein no reasonable person can sanction its behavior. At that time it will be so immersed in dogma that it cannot retract or retrace. It will just fade away.
Attention TeaPublican Party...see above.
Marysdude: The NRA is slowly but surely painting itself into a
Once upon a time I was a member of the NRA. That was back when they were a responsible organization. They showed respect to all people. They taught gun safety and education about firearms. The organiztion promoted hunter safety and supported enviromental causes. They helped improve wildlife habitat and greatly increased wetlands for waterfowl. Not any longer. Now they are hunkered down in thier bunkers playing political favorites. They use extremely offensive verbage against anyone who does not support their way of thinking. To them everthing is an attack on the 2nd Amendment. Yes, once upon a time the NRA made common sense decisions, but not any longer. And because of that I am no longer a member.
gypsysailor: Once upon a time I was a member of the
You highlight some real problems in the NRA. Much like "conserve" used to be a value in conservatism, the NRA is facing some dilemmas of values. They have hedged all the bets in the Reddest of the Red-state culture and now they put defend the most ignorant of worldviews for the sake of raising money.
The thing is, much like "civil rights" can be a dirty word in this Reddest of Red-state culture, the concept of "the right to own and use a gun in self-defense" has been a dirty word among the liberals since the early 70s. The ironic thing, is that both groups are right and wrong about civil/gun rights. Both are wrong because gun rights ARE civil rights. The Right of Free Speech and Equal Protection Under The Law is analogous to the Right to own and use force to protect life.
America is finally in a place where we've got a ton of significant SCOTUS decisions that have hashed out what most of the civil and human rights are, which no state, local, or federal government can pass laws to infringe. We can now move forward with civil rights because "person" is not limited to "rich, white, landowner". In terms of rights, the courts treat all PEOPLE as people. This is the modern civil rights movement, and it includes the protections in the 2nd amendment as well as the rest of the BoR.
stonewalker: You highlight some real problems in the NRA. Much like
The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two Second Amendment decisions. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. In dicta, the Court listed many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession as being consistent with the Second Amendment. In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.
One of the prices for living in a free society is that some people will abuse that freedom. That is never a good reason for removing liberties from the rest of the population. Benjamin Franklin said in the "Historical Review of Pennsylvania" in 1759;
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. "
RDWidner: The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
No one is trying to remove guns. The wholesale effort to make owning a gun and using it on other folks with a get out of jail free card is not in the constitution. The NRA strayed from protection of the right to areas now protecting owners from the consequences of using them. Just as with the first amendment, you can say as you like but are not free from the consequences of that speech. Zimmerman had the right to won the gun. He did not have the right to shoot and kill a high school student and then walk away free.
sorrytobeakansan: No one is trying to remove guns. The wholesale effort
Funny thing is, a lot of the Brady Bunch, VPC, CSGV, and others of the like say that they DO want gun bans. But they make that statement as part of the deflection talking points in an attempt to put the gun owners at ease.
wolflover3825: "No one is trying to remove guns." Funny thing is,
Perfect, and so true, and it's time to get ride of the NRA, the last thing we need in this country is more guns because to many people die because of them......
mech126: Perfect, and so true, and it's time to get ride
(1) You can't use any force of law to get of the NRA because the NRA is made up of more than 4 million individuals who donate and volunteer and support their causes. This is called grassroots and it would not be cool to crush grassroots activity with the law. The way to change grassroots activity is to change culture, and the NRA must change because the red-state grasp it holds onto is dated and becoming irrelevant. The modern civil rights movement calls BS on those things, and the modern civil rights movement includes the right to defend life.
(2) It's true, many murders in this country are accomplished with a firearm, but trying to get rid of guns would be trying to solve a symptom of the problem. Focusing on guns actually detracts from the goal of reducing violence because people are focused on a symptom instead of the CAUSE of violence. Instead of gun control, focus on community building, focus on local control of the job market, focus on TRUTH and JUSTICE. Guns are not the problem.
stonewalker: (1) You can't use any force of law to get
Audit the membership. I had a gun nut friend sign me up without my knowledge. My guess is that they are far less representative than they claim. I would also venture a guess that when they stood for responsible gun ownership and conservation is when they saw their growth. If the current members saw where they have gone into extreme politics, many would leave.
As to focus. The presence of a gun gives rise to violent action by empowering the view to harm the many. Yes we need to approach ALL of the reasons for violence and unfettered distribution of deadly weapons is one of them.
sorrytobeakansan: Audit the membership. I had a gun nut friend sign
Did you know only 600-ish people die every year from firearm accidents? Conversely, over 29,000 people die every from from accidental poisoning - the vast majority of which is prescription drug related. These are facts, from the CDC. So the anti-gun groups can claim that "a gun is 20 times more likely to kill you than to be used in self-defense" or whatever they claim, but these are facts, not tortured statistics.
I do not like the NRA, but I donate to them because nobody else does the lobbying work that they do in DC, and whether you like it or not, it's grassroots work. Compare that to gun control which is funded by 3 or 4 billionaires == NOT GRASSROOTS.
stonewalker: Did you know only 600-ish people die every year from
Sorry Paul, your line is wrong. It's should read the Brady Bunch Dream. But the fact of the matter is you are woefully misguided, it's not even truthful nor accurate. You should really look for another line of work if that is what you do, print falsehoods like that.
wolflover3825: Sorry Paul, your line is wrong. It's should read the
As much as I hate the stereotype in this cartoon, the NRA brings it on itself. If they would focus on civil rights instead of pandering to red-state culture for fund-raising, then they would be far more credible in the eyes of the left, center, and center-right. Still, I donate to them as well as the ACLU, the EFF and the SAF. Gun rights are civil rights. I wish the NRA would realize that the modern civil rights movement is being embraced by the left and the right, and that they would open up the door to far more support if they would quit focusing so much on red-state fundraising. leh sigh...
stonewalker: As much as I hate the stereotype in this cartoon,
Do you think people should have to (by law) try to run before they use effective force against a physical threat to their life? I don't know whats going to happen with the Zimmerman/Martin case, but nobody has defended his actions as protected by any self-defense law (if there is no other evidence that is). Regardlesss of what Zimmerman did, the law should protect the victim of a violent crime who fights for his life to stop the violence against him. Victims of violent crimes must be able to fight their attackers...
Just for thinking - consider that CA calls homicide justifiable when somebody is trying to prevent a felony or stop a riot or protect property.... that goes way beyond FL's law. Check out CA PC 197 and 198.5. This law has been in place for a long LONG time.
stonewalker: Do you think people should have to (by law) try
Attention TeaPublican Party...see above.
The thing is, much like "civil rights" can be a dirty word in this Reddest of Red-state culture, the concept of "the right to own and use a gun in self-defense" has been a dirty word among the liberals since the early 70s. The ironic thing, is that both groups are right and wrong about civil/gun rights. Both are wrong because gun rights ARE civil rights. The Right of Free Speech and Equal Protection Under The Law is analogous to the Right to own and use force to protect life.
America is finally in a place where we've got a ton of significant SCOTUS decisions that have hashed out what most of the civil and human rights are, which no state, local, or federal government can pass laws to infringe. We can now move forward with civil rights because "person" is not limited to "rich, white, landowner". In terms of rights, the courts treat all PEOPLE as people. This is the modern civil rights movement, and it includes the protections in the 2nd amendment as well as the rest of the BoR.
In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two Second Amendment decisions. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. In dicta, the Court listed many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession as being consistent with the Second Amendment. In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.
One of the prices for living in a free society is that some people will abuse that freedom. That is never a good reason for removing liberties from the rest of the population. Benjamin Franklin said in the "Historical Review of Pennsylvania" in 1759;
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. "
Funny thing is, a lot of the Brady Bunch, VPC, CSGV, and others of the like say that they DO want gun bans. But they make that statement as part of the deflection talking points in an attempt to put the gun owners at ease.
(2) It's true, many murders in this country are accomplished with a firearm, but trying to get rid of guns would be trying to solve a symptom of the problem. Focusing on guns actually detracts from the goal of reducing violence because people are focused on a symptom instead of the CAUSE of violence. Instead of gun control, focus on community building, focus on local control of the job market, focus on TRUTH and JUSTICE. Guns are not the problem.
As to focus. The presence of a gun gives rise to violent action by empowering the view to harm the many. Yes we need to approach ALL of the reasons for violence and unfettered distribution of deadly weapons is one of them.
I do not like the NRA, but I donate to them because nobody else does the lobbying work that they do in DC, and whether you like it or not, it's grassroots work. Compare that to gun control which is funded by 3 or 4 billionaires == NOT GRASSROOTS.
De Oppresso Liber
Old SF MJT
Just for thinking - consider that CA calls homicide justifiable when somebody is trying to prevent a felony or stop a riot or protect property.... that goes way beyond FL's law. Check out CA PC 197 and 198.5. This law has been in place for a long LONG time.