quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

Way to go connecting all those dots there Ken. Ya got any studies, facts or statistics to back all that up ? What makes you think the NRA is in the pockets of gun manufacturers ?

I have been a life member of the nra since the early sixties,I have a collection of the "american rifleman" that goes back to the early fifties. The covers were works of art. Each issue brought a color pic in great detail, inside were thoughtful discussions about the enginering difficulties imposed by the limitations on their current technology and how these inovative individuals went about solving these mechanical problems. Now it looks like any of a dozen or so "gun rags" on the rack at the supermarket. Look at their membership,stable for decades, then a burst, motivated by non issues that ignorant people then take up with religious fervor. It is what powers their machine. The machine which started as a way to foster civilian marksmanship and now has become a machine which offers some nebulous "they"who are gonna "get you" unless you vote for this candidate.
If you have an "issue" with the nra that you would like some help with you will get a recording about how the nra is fighting hard to yadda yadda yadda but please stay on the line. If you do not have a hard line and a speaker phone you get to pay by the minute for the priviledge of asking for some help on one of their fuck ups. Yes I would have to agree that the nra has its mouth firmly wrapped around the korporate kock.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Ken I do believe the NRA has an inordinate influence on our legislatures both state and federal but I don't believe they are fear mongering. Their message is there is no need to be afraid if you are armed and being armed is the way to solve problems.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

Way to go connecting all those dots there Ken. Ya got any studies, facts or statistics to back all that up ? What makes you think the NRA is in the pockets of gun manufacturers ?

NRA controlled by the gun manufacturers
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/11/nra-gun-control-firearms-industry-ties_n_2434142.html
http://www.thenation.com/blog/171776/does-nra-represent-gun-manufacturers-or-gun-owners#

NRA and ALEC behind CCW and SYG laws
http://www.prwatch.org/news/2012/12/11908/nraalec-reactionary-gun-agenda
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/03/26/not-just-kill-at-will-alec-helps-the-nra-push-g/185042
http://www.alecexposed.org/wiki/Guns,_Prisons,_Crime,_and_Immigration
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/06/nra-alec-stand-your-ground?page=1

The Huffington article is pretty much all supposition the same as your posting.


But that alliance, which has grown even closer in recent years -- and includes ties both financial and personal, a Huffington Post examination has found -- has led to mounting questions from gun control advocates about the NRA's priorities. Is the nation’s most potent gun lobby mainly looking out for its base constituency, the estimated 80 million Americans who own a firearm? Or is it acting on behalf of those that make and sell those guns?

What examination ? I would have to ask them the same thing I asked you.

And further down they state

The NRA declined to comment. In recent years, it has argued that defending gun owners and the gun industry is one in the same. Which is how I see it. At least it wasn't all one sided.

The Nation article is pretty much the same shit littered with facts that prove nothing. But I'll waste some more time and check out the rest of your links to see if I find anything that might support your notion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

Way to go connecting all those dots there Ken. Ya got any studies, facts or statistics to back all that up ? What makes you think the NRA is in the pockets of gun manufacturers ?

NRA controlled by the gun manufacturers
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/11/nra-gun-control-firearms-industry-ties_n_2434142.html
http://www.thenation.com/blog/171776/does-nra-represent-gun-manufacturers-or-gun-owners#

NRA and ALEC behind CCW and SYG laws
http://www.prwatch.org/news/2012/12/11908/nraalec-reactionary-gun-agenda
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/03/26/not-just-kill-at-will-alec-helps-the-nra-push-g/185042
http://www.alecexposed.org/wiki/Guns,_Prisons,_Crime,_and_Immigration
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/06/nra-alec-stand-your-ground?page=1

The Huffington article is pretty much all supposition the same as your posting.


But that alliance, which has grown even closer in recent years -- and includes ties both financial and personal, a Huffington Post examination has found -- has led to mounting questions from gun control advocates about the NRA's priorities. Is the nation’s most potent gun lobby mainly looking out for its base constituency, the estimated 80 million Americans who own a firearm? Or is it acting on behalf of those that make and sell those guns?

What examination ? I would have to ask them the same thing I asked you.

And further down they state

The NRA declined to comment. In recent years, it has argued that defending gun owners and the gun industry is one in the same. Which is how I see it. At least it wasn't all one sided.

The Nation article is pretty much the same shit littered with facts that prove nothing. But I'll waste some more time and check out the rest of your links to see if I find anything that might support your notion.

The nation article links to the statements made by both sides and to facts showing the relationship. You simply handwaved it all away. That refutes nothing. Either disprove the facts presented or accept them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

You may dispute the conclusion but the facts are the facts. the NRA is now about protecting the gun makers not in doing anything for sportsmen which what the organization is supposed to be about.

Also I note you fail to even attempt to respond to the overwhelming facts that prove the ALEC and the NRA are behind CCW and SYG laws.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

the scumbag murderer said he shot the one closest. He made no claim that that person had put him in any sort of imminent danger so it is simply murder.

You clearly have no tactical acumen.
Even a modicum of understanding of tactics would tell you how silly that statement is.

Tactics would indicate you don't let anyone approach you while armed. Since he had no need to shoot and an avenue of retreat was available to him that is what he should have done. The floaters had no such option. their backs were literally to a river. Their rafts were not powered and likely didn't even have much in the way of oars, that's why they're called floaters.

His only demand was that they leave floating away would have satisfied that at the time he shot even Darts wife admitted that they were moving toward him. The officers who arrested Crocker said they appeared to be drunk, alcohol makes people very brave and very stupid. They had already done what they claimed to have come ashore for you would think that getting back in the boats and leaving was what they would do, assuming they are telling the truth.
When four drunks are coming for you it may well be to late to retreat.
And before your selective memory tells you otherwise I still think he is guilty of manslaughter unless something dramatic comes out.
You just want the blood of a gun owner.

Bullshit.
He had just fired at one of them after the person he had demanded leave his property had done so and instead of being satisfied had gone and gotten a weapon and then shot at one of the group. You want them to turn their backs on the crazy murdering asshole? Really?
I want a person who has gone to incredible lengths to justify a clear cut illegal killing simply because the guy had a gun to acknowledge that this is clearly 2nd degree murder and prove he isn't just defending the guy with a gun again.

Just to make the point manslaughter requires some mitigating factor. He was not under the sort of provocation sufficient to make a reasonable person lose control. He was not defending himself. He does not have a diminished capacity to understand right and wrong. He did not accidently kill (in the law any use of a deadly weapon is assumed to include the intent to kill). There is simply no mitigating factor to lower the charge to manslaughter. He might if the prosecutor simply wants to save money and time get a manslaughter plea but a trial which follows the law would convict this scumbag of 2nd degree murder and quite possibly first degree (he did leave and fetch a weapon, it could be argued that does show intent and a plan).

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
The problem with warning shots are
One you don't know where they will strike.

If the person with the gun in their hand does not know where the bullet will strike would it be prudent to pull the trigger?
A warning shot in the air has to land somewhere...probably not a good idea in general.
A "warning shot" at the feet of ones intended victim is called adw in all jurisdictions.
A warning shot into the ground at your own location shows that you have a loaded firearm.

quote:


Two they force you to give the tactical advantage to your attacker.

With the gun still in your hand still loaded how is the shooter put at any sort of disadvantage?

quote:

When you pull the gun it should be too late to be concerned with escalation.

And yet there remains the disire to call this manslaughter or perhaps disturbing the peacehow droll.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Charles6682

http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law        Here is a list from the local newspaper where I live about the real history of "Stand Your Ground" laws here in Florida. This law has already been abused by too many of the wrong people.

Of course the law has been abused. It is meant to be abused.

quote:

If fired into the air you can't know were it will land, when fired into the ground it can bounce.
In either case it is aimed away from the other person.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
.
Also I note you fail to even attempt to respond to the overwhelming facts that prove the ALEC and the NRA are behind CCW and SYG laws.

quote:

New case has a homeowner firing on a black teen intent it seems on burglarizing his home in New orleans.
Its after 1 am. The boys had cased the place earlier in the day.

This guy is fried.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Remove lobbying... easy fix.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Employment

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Remove lobbying... easy fix.

Really?

So you would prevent someone from speaking to a legislator? On what grounds? Doesn't that strike you at least a little as a conflict with free speech and freedom of assembly?

Or - are you saying that you should restrict the ability of people that used to work for the govt. for lobbying for a corporation? Yet, no compete clauses have been struck down because you cannot infringe on someone's ability to make a living.

Or- are you saying that no one employed by a company can talk to a legislator. Really? What about labor unions (the biggest of which are huge enterprises on their own behalf). What about NGO? Charities?

Not to mention - not every idea that comes out of lobbyists are bad. Additionally, the staff of the government has grown huge. Frequently the staff of an agency know the laws, grants and procedures in place far more than a newly elected congressman. Is it possible that might put too much power in the hands of the staff, and hence the executive branch?

Not trying to be difficult taz. Just don't see an easy way to 'just ban lobbying'