little cow

NRA versus Gun Control

Recommended Posts

Based upon what I have seen and read, I do not feel there is any way for gun control proponents to be satisfied unless the rights bestowed upon citizens by the 2nd Amendment are completely and thoroughly trampled.  Gun enthusiasts want no further restrictions but I feel clip limitations are a logical step to help mitigate human loss of life.  Compromise is needed here, and neither side will find it acceptable because gun enthusiasts will lose freedom of choice and gun opponents will think it is not enough.  

I believe this entire issue is one of mental health because our society has grown sick.  Healthcare is not available equally to all.  We don't develop strong ties to community.  The family unit is broken, leaving children with very little guidance or support.  We don't raise our children to embrace qualities of goodness, right and morality to develop a strong personal character.  We eschew responsibility and look to blame any/every-thing around us as we seek to avoid accountability.  We, as a people, are devolving socially as we isolate ourselves with electronic devices and disconnect with our fellow neighbors.  We are failing to learn how to communicate with each other and losing that vital skill, falling instead into divisive groups that do not know how to resolve conflict without derogatory name-calling, abusive behavior and violent action.

QUESTION: Why are mass shootings happening at crowded venues like schools, churches and concert venues?  
ANSWER: Large numbers of victims in a confined area with little ability to resist attack, creating notoriety for an unstable shooter.  

Access to guns and mental illness are the two major factors.  IMO, it is far easier for people to attack gun advocates than it is to tackle the overwhelming issue of mental health in this country and I feel that is the crux of the problem that can never be solved with gun restrictions alone.  

"Life will find a way."  So will mental illness.
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saying gun control proponents won't be satisfied unless the 2nd amendment is trampled is like saying gun proponents won't be happy until everyone once again has the right to own automatic weapons and flamethrowers.  Why do YOU, Heidi, want people to be able to possess a Browning M2 HB .50 cal machine gun?  Be nice to mount on your truck and drive into town?  If you can generalize that I, someone that wants some reasonable gun control restrictions, wants to trample the 2nd amendment, then I get to generalize that you want people to have weapons capable of penetrating armor with a cyclic rate of fire of 800-1000 rounds per minute. 

Automatic weapons were controlled by legislation that is a form of gun control.  A measure that didn't nothing to eliminate an American citizens ability to own a gun.  The 2nd amendment says you have the right to own a gun, it doesn't say you get to own any gun you want.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hear everyone talking about better mental healthcare.  What does that really mean?  How does that work precisely?  

Do police officers make a judgement on every person they interact with?  Family doctors make entries into medical records that they suspect mental illness and that person is then confronted with a straight jacket and forced confinement until a mental health expert makes a diagnosis?  Anyone taking certain class of meds automatically what?  Database entry or confinement?  PTSD diagnosis does what?  Will veterans or anyone that may be depressed be made to choose between treatment or their right to own a gun?  

Weapons are quantifiable, mental illness is far from quantifiable. 

The NRA, working through their congressional lobbying have made sure data collections of gun deaths, injuries, shootings etc is expressly forbidden by law.  The CDC is not allowed to collect or use this information.  

So can someone who says you can't touch guns, just fix mental health care and the problem is fixed, explain just how exactly that is supposed to work?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, wolfhaven said:

Saying gun control proponents won't be satisfied unless the 2nd amendment is trampled is like saying gun proponents won't be happy until everyone once again has the right to own automatic weapons and flamethrowers.  Why do YOU, Heidi, want people to be able to possess a Browning M2 HB .50 cal machine gun?  Be nice to mount on your truck and drive into town?  If you can generalize that I, someone that wants some reasonable gun control restrictions, wants to trample the 2nd amendment, then I get to generalize that you want people to have weapons capable of penetrating armor with a cyclic rate of fire of 800-1000 rounds per minute. 

Automatic weapons were controlled by legislation that is a form of gun control.  A measure that didn't nothing to eliminate an American citizens ability to own a gun.  The 2nd amendment says you have the right to own a gun, it doesn't say you get to own any gun you want.    

(you made another post as I was composing my reply)

Why do YOU, wolfhaven, feel the need to put inflammatory words in my mouth?  Is it that you are unable to make your point without twisting what I said?  I don't think you read for comprehension.  Because no where have I stated I want people, or myself, to possess a machine gun mounted to my truck to show off in town with the capability to penetrate armor at highly excessive rounds per minute. 
And another thing, do you not think you are being condescending and derogatory towards me by stating I (you named me) want to show off in town with a bug gun strapped to my truck like a ...... what, an object of male anatomy compensation?

I am all for regulation and appropriate limits but at some point, individual accountability must be addressed.  I feel semi-automatic weapons should remain available.  I also think limiting clips to 10 is a very good compromise for enthusiasts - yet still, another member here made derogatory comments about killing people with clips of any number.  I believe it is disingenuous to say guns killed all these people without placing responsibility on the shooters themselves.  I do not know what the answers are for mental health care to play a part in fixing this issue.  Some here have said they don't care whose rights get trampled as long as guns are removed from the equation.  Perhaps the solution rests in part with doctors and mental health care officials sharing mental health information with agencies that have the authority to oversee and remove firearms from questionable homes.  Then again, we fall back into mental health care becoming taboo and stigmatized.  Maybe gun owners need to purchase insurance for their firearms with discounts for safe and proper containment to ensure they cannot fall into the wrong hands.  I don't know WHAT the answer is, but blaming guns alone without holding the shooters accountable isn't going to change anything.

I said "based on what I have seen and read..."  and you are proving part of my point.  It is far easier to attack gun advocates than it is to address the mental health of the shooter who used the gun.  Drunk driving; no one blames the car.  In fact, vehicles are still produced today with speedometers and capability to achieve well over 120 mph even though we have speed limits far below those capabilities.  

You must have missed where I stated clip restrictions are a logical step, just as when fully automatic weapons became heavily regulated and not available to the public.  You also missed where I said both sides need to compromise even though neither side will be satisfied with whatever the outcome is. 

There is one side: No guns!  There is another side: Don't restrict my guns!  Where are they going to meet?  

 

It amazes me how badly you twisted what I said and I feel *that* is why this issue will be so difficult for all parties to resolve.  If it is happening *here* in a Horse Forum, it is happening at the highest levels where change needs to occur but is hindered by those who need to stop throwing around generalities veiled as insults and actually communicate.

For my participation in using generalities ("...gun control proponents to be satisfied unless the rights bestowed upon citizens by the 2nd Amendment are completely and thoroughly trampled.") I apologize and will take more care when expressing myself.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Heidi n Q said:

(you made another post as I was composing my reply)

Why do YOU, wolfhaven, feel the need to put inflammatory words in my mouth?  Is it that you are unable to make your point without twisting what I said?  I don't think you read for comprehension.  Because no where have I stated I want people, or myself, to possess a machine gun mounted to my truck to show off in town with the capability to penetrate armor at highly excessive rounds per minute. 
And another thing, do you not think you are being condescending and derogatory towards me by stating I (you named me) want to show off in town with a bug gun strapped to my truck like a ...... what, an object of male anatomy compensation?

I am all for regulation and appropriate limits but at some point, individual accountability must be addressed.  I feel semi-automatic weapons should remain available.  I also think limiting clips to 10 is a very good compromise for enthusiasts - yet still, another member here made derogatory comments about killing people with clips of any number.  I believe it is disingenuous to say guns killed all these people without placing responsibility on the shooters themselves.  I do not know what the answers are for mental health care to play a part in fixing this issue.  Some here have said they don't care whose rights get trampled as long as guns are removed from the equation.  Perhaps the solution rests in part with doctors and mental health care officials sharing mental health information with agencies that have the authority to oversee and remove firearms from questionable homes.  Then again, we fall back into mental health care becoming taboo and stigmatized.  Maybe gun owners need to purchase insurance for their firearms with discounts for safe and proper containment to ensure they cannot fall into the wrong hands.  I don't know WHAT the answer is, but blaming guns alone without holding the shooters accountable isn't going to change anything.

I said "based on what I have seen and read..."  and you are proving part of my point.  It is far easier to attack gun advocates than it is to address the mental health of the shooter who used the gun.  Drunk driving; no one blames the car.  In fact, vehicles are still produced today with speedometers and capability to achieve well over 120 mph even though we have speed limits far below those capabilities.  

You must have missed where I stated clip restrictions are a logical step, just as when fully automatic weapons became heavily regulated and not available to the public.  You also missed where I said both sides need to compromise even though neither side will be satisfied with whatever the outcome is. 

There is one side: No guns!  There is another side: Don't restrict my guns!  Where are they going to meet?  

 

It amazes me how badly you twisted what I said and I feel *that* is why this issue will be so difficult for all parties to resolve.  If it is happening *here* in a Horse Forum, it is happening at the highest levels where change needs to occur but is hindered by those who need to stop throwing around generalities veiled as insults and actually communicate.

For my participation in using generalities ("...gun control proponents to be satisfied unless the rights bestowed upon citizens by the 2nd Amendment are completely and thoroughly trampled.") I apologize and will take more care when expressing myself.

 

 

Twisting what you said or extending your argument to a conclusion?  I believe in some limited forms of gun control and have stated this before.  Because of that now, according to you, I want to trample all over the 2nd amendment.  I've never stated I want to trample the 2nd amendment.  That was a huge leap on your part. Sort of what I did to you.  Have to say I'm not really interested in your interest/disinterest in male anatomical compensation symbols.  Did get a chuckle out of it though.  

No one blames cars yet there are more required safety features added to your car that make them safer than they were in 1980.  Safety features added to make them less deadly in collisions, easier to control at speed and in poor road conditions.  The auto industry was required by the federal government to change and improve.  It was done rather quietly and other than bigger sticker prices mostly gone unnoticed.  Putting limits on blood alcohol, stiffer penalties etc, and social stigma, in conjunction with safer autos reduced drunken deaths.  One by itself would have had limited effects.  

Where your argument gets so convoluted is you state there are two sides.  1st side being no guns, 2nd side being no restrictions.  Yet at the same time you say you support limits on magazine capacity, and restrictions on fully automatic.  Aren't those gun control points?  So which of the two sides do you fall on?  Doesn't sound like you want unrestricted access and you also don't want a complete ban on guns.  See where my confusion lies?  Perhaps it's not a black or white issue.  There's a lot of shades of grey available and this grey area is where a majority of Americans sit.  There will always be hard liners on both sides but the majority is in the middle and that's where the compromises will come from.  By saying it's one way or the other, ignores the majority in the middle.  Gun controls alone won't solve this problem.  But they will be much more effective than "thoughts and prayers" will ever be.  

I get the need for improved mental healthcare, but as a nation we can't even get together to provide basic health care access.  We will never get to a point of good mental healthcare access or treatment because we have a large group of people with power who don't want to pay for it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

      On ‎3‎/‎20‎/‎2018 at 7:38 AM, jubal said:

That well regulated militia argument has a couple of problems. First the "NRA militia" isn't very well regulated. And second, since the lawmakers of the 16th century were not able to imagine semi-automatic weapons, they also did not foresee tanks, mortars, bombers and drones either. I don't think those semi-automatics would be very effective against an over-reaching government.

You are sadly misinformed because there is no NRA militia.  
https://www.firearmsandliberty.com/nra.militia.statement.html

Haha! You really thought I was serious?  Why do you think I used quote marks around it?

I've given up the gun argument. The kids are going to get the job done. They are serious about wanting to survive long enough to shut down the ridiculous gun culture in this country.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Twisting what you said or extending your argument to a conclusion? 

So long as you own the conclusion you extrapolated as your own and not imply it is representative of me.  Because your reply wasn't generalization; it was personalized and deliberate.  I stated I felt there was an all-or-none battle over trampled rights going on.  Am I correct in thinking you, on your own, took that particular comment personally and then took it even further into personal by deliberately naming me in what I viewed as an offensive (meaning you made the first move) attack?  My apologies if my interpretation was incorrect.

 

I believe in some limited forms of gun control and have stated this before.  Because of that now, according to you, I want to trample all over the 2nd amendment.  I've never stated I want to trample the 2nd amendment.  That was a huge leap on your part. Sort of what I did to you.  Have to say I'm not really interested in your interest/disinterest in male anatomical compensation symbols.  Did get a chuckle out of it though.  

What came to mind with your descriptive imagery reminded me of that colloquialism, so .... I'm glad you appreciated the chuckle.   
I wish to point out, *I* never said *you* want to trample all over the 2nd amendment.  I wish to be clear that I know you never said that.  In fact, I'd like to remind you that I also stated I am in favor of some regulation, so .... if you think "according to me" anyone in favor of some forms of regulation means they want to trample the 2nd Amendment .... then I'd say we both fell into that category you created, so I don't follow your reasoning or understand why you became so upset over it since we are both in the same basket!  I didn't leap anywhere, but I think you did and I didn't understand where you were coming from. 
In re-reading, I see I should have clarified "what I have seen and read" meant everything I have seen and read - meaning here at HC, on social media and in the news.  I feel this may have been where you experienced the disconnect?  That, and me over-generalizing.

 

No one blames cars yet there are more required safety features added to your car that make them safer than they were in 1980.  Safety features added to make them less deadly in collisions, easier to control at speed and in poor road conditions.  The auto industry was required by the federal government to change and improve.  It was done rather quietly and other than bigger sticker prices mostly gone unnoticed.  Putting limits on blood alcohol, stiffer penalties etc, and social stigma, in conjunction with safer autos reduced drunken deaths.  One by itself would have had limited effects.  

I absolutely agree.  I don't see this gun regulation issue happening quietly.  Not when I see, read and hear such vehemence from both extremes.

 

Where your argument gets so convoluted is you state there are two sides.  1st side being no guns, 2nd side being no restrictions.  Yet at the same time you say you support limits on magazine capacity, and restrictions on fully automatic.  Aren't those gun control points?  So which of the two sides do you fall on?  Doesn't sound like you want unrestricted access and you also don't want a complete ban on guns.  See where my confusion lies?  Perhaps it's not a black or white issue.  There's a lot of shades of grey available and this grey area is where a majority of Americans sit.  There will always be hard liners on both sides but the majority is in the middle and that's where the compromises will come from.  By saying it's one way or the other, ignores the majority in the middle.  Gun controls alone won't solve this problem.  But they will be much more effective than "thoughts and prayers" will ever be.  

I apologize for being confusing and I recognize where I've made mistakes in expressing myself.  I understand there are extremes on each point and many varieties of grey in between.  I am overwhelmed by the amount of things I see, read and hear that are mainly coming from those extremes and thought simplifying by using those two as examples would be useful to make my point, but I see now it wasn't helpful at all.  I am much like you in wanting reasonable controls but I just don't see where that can happen when so many people (the hard-liners from each point) appear to be the most vocal and I fear those in the middle will go unheard.
I'm trying to consider all factual arguments while shaping my opinion.  When things turn offensive, both by action and behavior, listening and learning ceases and discussion turns to verbal brawl.  
I guess I thought the most offensively vocal would influence any changes made.  I did not consider the majority of those in the middle, and I appreciate you bringing it to my attention.  This gives me hope that this issue can be met in the middle for the good of all.

 

I get the need for improved mental healthcare, but as a nation we can't even get together to provide basic health care access.  We will never get to a point of good mental healthcare access or treatment because we have a large group of people with power who don't want to pay for it. 
This is another issue where someone, somewhere, for humanity's sake, must compromise.  

 
 

Jubal:
Haha! You really thought I was serious?  Why do you think I used quote marks around it?  "That well regulated militia argument has a couple of problems. First the "NRA militia" isn't very well regulated."

Why do you assume I know what you think? 
Using quotations around "NRA militia" could have been interpreted as many different things; sarcasm or derision coming foremost to mind.  Thinking this was a serious comment, I took it literally and assumed you were being derisive rather than sarcastic in commenting about the NRA's militia being any kind of regulated.  Regardless, I checked facts when replying so I wouldn't be out of line but I appreciate the attempted clarification.  

And would you mind humoring me with another clarification?  
I don't understand your comment about "well regulated militia argument has a couple problems" and you state "First the 'NRA militia' isn't very well regulated."  I don't understand your response because if there is no NRA militia (and I assume you deliberately stated NRA militia to make some sort of point) then what are the "couple problems" with the 2nd Amendment protecting a future regulated militia?  Because your first reason is based on something non-existent and your second reason had nothing to do with the militia argument at all.
Please note I am aware the purpose of a 'regulated militia' isn't solely to overthrow tyrannical government but would primarily be used to supplement regular armed forces.  Seems to me if the forefathers couldn't foresee today's advanced weaponry, there would still be a need for civilians to have more than pea-shooters to assist formal armed forces and civilians with semi-automatics would be beneficial in that emergency.  That is essentially what I think the 2nd Amendment provides for, armed citizens, but I recognize other opinions will vary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I cannot believe gun nut types are attacking a teenager.  A teenager that suffered a horrible tragedy.  They photoshopped her picture.  Who does that?  Is the NRA behind this campaign to discredit a teen?  Is Emma Gonzales really that scary?  Do they really have the gall?  I am flabbergasted.  

I thought we came up with some very reasonable ideas earlier in this thread.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as  gun control, one can  make rules sticker etc.....y there always be criminals who will break them, will find a way to get a gun, same with drugs. etc... 

Mental issue is my main concern.... The problem with mental health. .a person has to be elevated which takes time and money, even with health insurance that does cover mental health, it is very limited It will only cover so many days, months per year, . It will only cover  certain tests, bloodwork, certain in medications . Only cover  for inpatient care   so long per year  depending on the diagnose. Will only cover out patient care  fro so long per year .Don't get started on Medicaid, for it too has  restrictions what it will cover, as  well,.  I know this from personal experience dealing with my daughter 's mental health issues.  That is where the change needs to be made as well.  More funding  is needed as well . Each state, each county in those states only get so much funding . Reason I moved to another county, for it has the resources I needed for my daughter. The county where I lived for 30 years,never had those resources .Basically it was my late husband  and I paid out of our pocket to get  help ,needed, and had to depend on family members for help when needed. When he passed, I no longer had that help . Reason I moved.    Now I will  speak about the past..... The person who killed our horse years ago, was mentally ill, he did serve his time.  in prison, At his sentencing  his right to own guns and  bow /arrow, hunting privileges'  were taken away from him for life, he was to receive out patient mental care for life.  Well don't know about that, depended on whether he had health insurance to provide mental health .... Last I knew he was   getting treatment, who paid  don't know, did he continue , does so today. I don't know. lost contract with the source.at  the time of my husband illness.  however his family member's and friends did still have guns ,bow/arrows in their homes.  Yes it was very possible  he could get  hold  one of those gun bow and arrow, he could have started to kill animals again. Last  I knew  he hasn't. 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Heidi n Q said:

Why do you assume I know what you think? 
Using quotations around "NRA militia" could have been interpreted as many different things; sarcasm or derision coming foremost to min

Bingo! I was thinking both those things. The NRA is acting like a terrorist organization. If you don't believe me, look up the speeches by NRA personnel at CPAC. They have websites and a TV station--NRA TV. Look at the comments on their website. They cater to nutjobs.

10 hours ago, Heidi n Q said:

And would you mind humoring me with another clarification?  
I don't understand your comment about "well regulated militia argument has a couple problems" and you state "First the 'NRA militia' isn't very well regulated."  I don't understand your response because if there is no NRA militia (and I assume you deliberately stated NRA militia to make some sort of point) then what are the "couple problems" with the 2nd Amendment protecting a future regulated militia?

I take the NRA goons' meaning of a well regulated militia to mean a bunch of armed thugs who think they can protect themselves from the government, not well regulated and not liable to win.

As far as the "mental health" excuse, the Vegas shooter, (59 killed, 400 injured by gunfire,) was not mentally ill. As I said, I'm not participating any more. The kids are doing a good job. The despicables won't be able to shut them up. If the country survives until the midterm election, a lot of NRA support will be voted out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vegas shooter did have some sort of mental illness, something triggered him to have mental break down..... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^Yes, he had been depressed, had a scrip for Valium and drank. But that describes half (or more) of the population.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He had other problems as well when he became mentally unstable.... probably the reason he drank, took valium like others do to cope ,in his case it contributed to his mental breakdown..  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Ann Wheeler said:

Vegas shooter did have some sort of mental illness, something triggered him to have mental break down..... 

he had a plan of escape that didn't work out.  I have a problem diagnosing that kind of mentality as a "beakdown".

one point that hasn't been mentioned enough IMO is that the targets of the large majority of semi automatic massacres are schools.  kids are now finally mad as **** and distrustful of the adults and powers that be who have failed every single time to protect their lives, their futures.   

 

and then you have the NRA representatives and that idiot Steve King mocking the Parkland survivors for wanting change.  what the **** is that all about?  King said if you want to prohibit gun ownership to over 21 years of age then we should also prohibit voting rights until over 21.   (voting  ballots don't kill anyone, but they could vote you out you idiot).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remington  (manufacturer of the weapon in the sandy hook mass shooting) files for chapter 11 bankruptcy in the state of Delaware.   the company will revert to ownership of its creditors.

 

seems other gun manufacturers are suffering a drop in sales due to the market's fading fear of additional gun control laws.   oh the irony of it all B).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, nick said:

Remington  (manufacturer of the weapon in the sandy hook mass shooting) files for chapter 11 bankruptcy in the state of Delaware.   the company will revert to ownership of its creditors.

 

seems other gun manufacturers are suffering a drop in sales due to the market's fading fear of additional gun control laws.   oh the irony of it all B).

Nick, Remington has been in trouble for awhile. We have friends that work at the Ilion NY office...it doesn't have everything to do with the lawsuit. I for one will not buy another Remington due to the issues my husband had with his waterfowl gun (Which went back to Ilion to be repaired three separate times). Heck, we just bought a $1500 shotgun to replace that. The gun shop was standing room only. He said his sales were through the roof (Old time guy, small town people - repeat customers). There were three gun raffle groups buying at that time, too. Guns are a hit and miss thing. If you are a current gun owner you'll keep buying them. We have a 48+8 hand gun safe. It's full. We'll keep buying, too. So although statistics show a drop in sales - it's more because retailers are cutting out buying their supply of guns - which I don't mind. Keep it to gun shops who know about everything. No reason for Walmart to sell them.

Edited by PinkTractor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now