Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Resolutions for the NRA

Posted 1 year ago on Jan. 3, 2013, 6:56 a.m. EST by shooz (26677)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

I always felt they could use some, so here's a long list.

How many will they actually adopt?

http://www.alternet.org/speakeasy/martharosenberg/new-years-resolutions-nra

30 Comments

30 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by KevinPotts (356) 1 year ago

ATTENTION Gun Debaters…Please Read This Entire Article…‘The Riddle of the Gun’ By Sam Harris
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-riddle-of-the-gun

[-] 1 points by shooz (26677) 1 year ago

I did read it and have been well aware of the hand gun issues.

My suggestion is bio metric trigger mechanisms and a phasing out of those that don't have them.

This could be accomplished by changing the calibers of new biometric hand guns and a phasing out of the old calibers.

As with most such measures it would take some time for it's effects to be realized, but they would, I believe be realized over time.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

Some real 2011 / 2012 gun statistics:

Americans own almost half of all civilian owned guns in the world.
Per 100,000: America: 88,880 guns owned / 2.97 homicides
Per 100,000: England…: 6,200 guns owned / 0.07 homicides
Per 100,000: Austrailia: 15,000 guns owned / 0.14 homicides
Per 100,000: Canada…: 30,800 guns owned / 0.51 homicides
Per 100,000: France…..: 31,000 guns owned / 0.06 homicides
Per 100,000: Japan……..: 1,000 guns owned / 0.08 homicides
Per 100,000: Israel……..: 7,300 guns owned / 0.90 homicides


Clearly the number of guns adds to the risk of homicides.

More complex is the effect of gun laws and restrictions.

When Australia had a massacre in 1996 when 35 people were killed, gun laws wer substantially strengthened and a major buy-back was instituted. There has not been an incident in Australia since then. Of course, they did not have the benefit of the nra.

For 2011, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 4.7, while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 3.1

For 2011, the murder rates were highest in red state regions:
Per 100,000: South 5.5 Midwest 4.5 West 4.2 Northeast 3.9

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by shooz (26677) 1 year ago

Even in Switzerland, they have begun to put a halt to the keep a gun in the home thing, because they found that keeping them elsewhere, reduced suicides.

Easy guns = easy death, no matter how you cut it.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by highlander (-163) 1 year ago

The only resolution among that whole rag that makes even a hint of sense is the gun registry. And I say that with grave reservations. I remember Waco.

[-] -1 points by shooz (26677) 1 year ago

That's because you endorse the FEAR.

Most of these are just asking you to adjust your attitude.

Waco??

Too bad you already forgot about everything but, and in the end the Davidians got what they deserved.

[-] 1 points by freakzilla (-161) from Detroit, MI 1 year ago

Deserved what they got? Oh please, please, you have to expand on that.

[-] 0 points by shooz (26677) 1 year ago

His religion still exists.

You should go and join them. They still worship David as god.

[-] 1 points by freakzilla (-161) from Detroit, MI 1 year ago

Hell no. Not with violent gun crazy Democrats like you coming after them.

Remember when Janet Reno was considered a hero because she said it was a screw up and it was all her fault. A hero. For telling Congress she made a horrible mistake. Standards are soooo low.

[-] 0 points by shooz (26677) 1 year ago

You should go hide in the Closet then.

There's no hope for you.

You will be stuck in a time loop for ever.

[-] -1 points by freakzilla (-161) from Detroit, MI 1 year ago

Closet? So you support violence against different religions AND you're homophobic. nice.

[-] 0 points by shooz (26677) 1 year ago

You made the connotation, not me.

So go hide under a rock then.

Or.......go ahead and.........grow a pair.

Become a Branch Davidian.

See what it's really like, instead of just reading about it in the gun nutter press..

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Yeah they was some sick bastards at Waco,

How they could put their children at risk like that with all those guns, explosives so close, and then sacrifice their children is monstrous.

The adults/parents at waco are responsible for the horrible deaths their children suffered. And for what? Why?

Monstrous,

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by shooz (26677) 1 year ago

One for the gun nutters on the forum.

[-] -1 points by aville (-678) 1 year ago

are you also against the the other amendments to the constitution? do you refer to people who believe in the first amendment as free speech nutters?

[-] -1 points by shooz (26677) 1 year ago

I'm not actually against the 2nd, it's the gun nutters I'm against.

Many resolutions are offered here.

Which ones will you be adopting?

[-] 0 points by aville (-678) 1 year ago

you say you're not against the 2nd amendment so please explain the phrase " gun nutters".

[-] 3 points by shooz (26677) 1 year ago

Folks who seem to think they need a gun just to walk down the street.

Folks with closets full of guns.

Folks that think massacres are just a matter of the human costs of their "amendment".

Folks that think they are going to save America from tyranny, if they could just buy more guns..

Folks that run off to the gun show, at every perceived threat to their easy ownership.

Those are just a few examples of gun nutters.

Do you qualify?

[-] 1 points by NVPHIL (667) 1 year ago

Best way to control guns would be to amend the 2nd amendment to require gun owners to be part of a well organized militia. That way you could run background checks and register owners while staying within the intent of the 2nd. Until then gun control laws will always face a pushback and rightfully so IMO.

[-] 1 points by shooz (26677) 1 year ago

The whole thing has been blown out of proportion, and completely misinterpreted...........

It was originally written for that "well regulated militia" to act as a replacement for a standing army, to put down invasion or insurrection............THAT was the "constitutional intent", but these self professed "constitutionalists" have apparently read their history on the internet, or got it strictly from the NRA..

We not only have full blown military these days, but the National Guard as well.

I don't want to take all the guns away, but the pro-gun arguments are nothing short of absurd, and frankly I think these "resolutions" address at least some of that absurdity..

[-] 0 points by NVPHIL (667) 1 year ago

As long as the wording remains then some of the arguements are valid. It basically says militias are important so we can't keep citizens from owning firearms. It does not limit what firearms are available to who. That is the problem and why I think we need to amend the second.

[-] 1 points by shooz (26677) 1 year ago

Yeah, but no.

They've pissed on every other amendment already.

What I spoke of intent was the truth, back in the day.

I've asked them this........what have you done worthwhile with the second amendment?

They have NO answer, indeed, most seem to endorse voter purges.

They and their guns are useless against tyranny.

[Removed]

[-] -3 points by aville (-678) 1 year ago

I believe the 2nd amemdment does need any qualifications. It's easy to read and understand. We also have the 1st amendment that guarantees free speech, but that doesnt stop anyone from outrageous slander or libel. Duke lacrosse team and the slander against Pagones and Zimmerman comes to mind

[-] 2 points by shooz (26677) 1 year ago

So then you admit you're a nutter, you just don't know which kind yet?

Which of the above comes closest to describing your own nuttery?

[-] -2 points by aville (-678) 1 year ago

I'm a constitutionalist.

[-] 1 points by shooz (26677) 1 year ago

Really?

How did you feel about the legalization of treason under the Nixon administration?

You know the REAL onset of tyranny?

[-] -1 points by aville (-678) 1 year ago

The real onset was in January 2009

[-] 0 points by shooz (26677) 1 year ago

Sorry, no the Nixon White House.

Plain and simple. Treason was made legal.

That's what set the precedent.

It's now know he also committed treason to get elected in the first place.

As did Reagan.

Treason! First in the hearts of (R)epelican'ts.

[-] -1 points by aville (-678) 1 year ago

obama, dictator in chief. guilty of treason and fraud.

[-] 0 points by shooz (26677) 1 year ago

Doesn't matter.

Nixon legalized it.

Do you need a hammer and chisel to get that in your head?

One more time now.

It was legalized for Nixon.

Blame it on Ford if you want, but it was made legal for Nixon.