Skip to main content

Wayne LaPierre, the head of the NRA makes $970,300 a year to sell fear; LaPierre took over in 1991 and has brought the NRA from near bankruptcy to where the NRA can now spend $200 million-plus-a-year lobbying against sensible gun control.

Wayne LaPierre is one of the richest fear mongers there is, his fear mongering is marketed so well that demand for firearms have risen to such levels that one of the two biggest publicly traded U.S. gun makers Ruger had to temporarily suspend taking orders earlier this year; they couldn’t make guns fast enough.

Former National Rifle Association (NRA) chief Ray Arnet once said, “You keep any special interest group alive by nurturing the crisis atmosphere.” For years, the NRA has warned that nationwide gun bans and confiscation were right around the corner, and they gin up their rhetoric every time there is a mass shooting.

On July 23rd a letter was sent to the NRA supporters, including those in Colorado, suggesting that American gun rights were under attack, “The future of your second Amendment rights will be at stake and nothing less than the future of our country and our freedoms will be at stake.” The solicitation letter says that Obama’s re-election would result in the “confiscation of our firearms” and potentially a “ban on semi-automatic weapons” didn’t know that anyone other than the military needed to carry an assault rifle. The NRA doesn’t think so, they want everyone to have and carry assault rifles, so there will be more mass shootings, because mass shootings are good for business.

The gun industry benefits as well by the fear mongering of the NRA. The goal of Ruger CEO Michael Fifer was to sell one MILLION firearms by the time of the NRA’s 2012 convention because they wanted to donate a dollar a gun to the association. The company sold 1,245,000 guns and did donate a matching check in that amount to the NRA.

The NRA’s political action committee raised almost $10 million from January 2011 through June 30, 2012, to spend on election campaigns, about two-thirds of what it collected in 2007 and 2008, according to Washington-based Center for Responsive Politics. It has spent $18.9 million on federal campaigns since 1989, which ranks it as the 46th biggest donor in that period, according to the center.

The NRA’s fundraising has benefited from a provision in a 1986 law that lifted the ban on interstate sales of ammunition to consumers, allowing for mail-order purchases and then Internet sales. At the time the NRA praised the law as the “greatest legislative milestone.” Through donations attached to mail-order and Internet sales, the NRA has collected $9.3 million since 1992.

So has Obama enacted any legislation aimed at control, no, he earned an F rating from the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. In fact he signed into law two NRA-inspired bills - one that allows guns to be carried into national parks and one that lets people carry their guns in checked luggage on trains.

Fear sells and it sells to the tune of millions of dollars a year for the NRA and gun makers, one creates the fear the other sells the fear in the form of a gun and ammunition. Partnerships like that are hard to dissolve because fear will always sell and someone will always buy it. But, you see, keeping the fear alive — making you believe that it hasn’t won and that someone will take your guns — is how the NRA remains powerful enough to keep selling you your own fear.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Well written. (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blueoasis, jbob, Smoh, KVoimakas, melfunction

    If you could add some links to where your numbers are coming from this would be a much better diary.

    This better be good. Because it is not going away.

    by DerAmi on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 04:32:51 AM PDT

    •  True it would be perhaps better (5+ / 0-)

      but I wrote this in the form of a column and columnist don't usually post links in their columns, but if you Google my numbers you will find the sources. I retrieved this information from many sites and complied it into one post just so people could see how much money selling fear makes.
      I have to go to work now so maybe later I can re-edit this.
      Thank you for your suggestion I always open to constructive criticism. Take care everyone..peace out.

  •  I have this fantasy about snipers. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sharon Wraight, LokiGirl, zeke7237, Smoh

    Paint ball snipers. A barrage of paint ball attacks against gun nuts. Just to show them how ineffective their guns are against surprise attacks. Of course these nuts might fire back with real weapons. But they'd probably miss.  

    We're fools whether we dance or not, so we might as well dance.

    by PowWowPollock on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 04:46:52 AM PDT

    •  Fantasy is fantasy. (8+ / 0-)

      And it's best it remain that way.

    •  or even shining laser-pointers (0+ / 0-)

      I like the paintball idea! :-)  It's probably illegal, so they'd likely get arrested, if not shot.

      Is it legal to shine a laser-pointer at someone? Not in their eyes, of course. Just on their heart, say, or stomach. It varies by state and city. In most US places, according to this site, it is legal so long as you're not pointing it at a public-safety officer or aircraft. (In a few places, e.g. Baton Rouge, LA, it is illegal to "aim a laser pointer beam or light at another person without that person's consent," subject to confiscation, a fine of $500 and/or 6 months prison.)

      •  Why would you do something like that? (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        meagert, theatre goon, 43north, PavePusher
        •  in protest over carrying guns in urban areas (0+ / 0-)

          I abhor the idea that anyone who is not a well-trained, licensed, and heavily-regulated public-safety officer would carry a gun in an urban area. I find it deeply uncivilized, disturbing of the peace, and threatening.

          Publicly mocking them might call some needed attention to the problem.

          It's not something I'll likely do, but I like PowWowPollock's fantasy.

          •  Yes, that'll work. (7+ / 0-)

            Nothing sells like throwing a tantrum when you can't get your way.

            Why do you abhor the idea of civilians carrying in the cities in the first place?  Seems like a random thing to find so offensive.

          •  Considering concealed carry permit (8+ / 0-)

            holders commit crime less than LEOs do (per Florida statistics)...you might be worried about the wrong people.

            Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

            by KVoimakas on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 07:39:38 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  So in other words... (9+ / 0-)

            ...you are advocating physically assaulting somebody - possibly blinding them for life - for doing something you don't like.  Not for doing something illegal, mind you, but for doing something you personally dislike.

            And before you start protesting that pointing a laser at somebody isn't assault (or, more likely, battery) you have to realize the consequences if your trigger finger slips and you do hit their eyes, or if they think you're aiming a weapon at you and they end up injured or dead trying to escape what they would rightly feel is a deranged killer.  And all because you dislike the perfectly legal activity in which they were engaged.

            This makes you superior, how?


            Time travel opportunity. Must bring your own weapons. Your safety is not guaranteed, I've only done this once before. Call 866.555.1212.

            by IndieGuy on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 07:40:54 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  sorry if I wasn't clear (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              JVolvo

              Low-powered laser-pointers (like those commonly used in meetings or classrooms) are not seriously hazardous to health.

              Also, I wrote:

              Not in their eyes, of course.
              In case that wasn't clear:
              Not: A logical operator that returns a false value if the operand is true and a true value if the operand is false. In no way; to no degree. Used to express negation, denial, refusal, or prohibition. Used to negate the sentence, phrase, or word that it modifies. [Middle English, alteration of naught. From Old English nwiht : n, no; see ne in Indo-European roots + wiht, thing; see wekti- in Indo-European roots.]
              in: Within the limits, bounds, or area of.  In or into a particular place.  Latin in, Greek en.
              their:  The possessive form of they. Belonging to them. Third-person plural possessive.
              eye: An organ of vision or of light sensitivity. a. Either of a pair of hollow structures located in bony sockets of the skull, functioning together or independently, each having a lens capable of focusing incident light on an internal photosensitive retina from which nerve impulses are sent to the brain; the vertebrate organ of vision. b. The external, visible portion of this organ together with its associated structures, especially the eyelids, eyelashes, and eyebrows.
              of course: Without any doubt; certainly.
              •  You don't trust gun owners to aim true. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                oldpunk

                But you're a crack shot with a laser pointer?

                •  you're seriously comparing laser-pointers & guns? (0+ / 0-)

                  Seriously?

                  I'm speaking of low-powered laser-pointers btw, the kind used in meetings, let's say less than 1 milliwatt to be safe. (In the US, up to 5mW is legal.)

                  low-powered laser pointers are not seriously hazardous to health.
                  As of 2011, in spite of the very large number of pointers, and many incidents of malicious or careless use, no very serious and permanent eye injuries have been reported from low-power pointers.
              •  No, you were very clear. (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Pete Cortez, oldpunk, PavePusher
                Self-Righteous:
                adj.
                1. Piously sure of one's own righteousness; moralistic.
                2. Exhibiting pious self-assurance: self-righteous remarks.
                Again, what happens when somebody engaged in a perfectly legal activity ends up injured or dead as a result of misreading the purpose and method of your attack on them?


                Time travel opportunity. Must bring your own weapons. Your safety is not guaranteed, I've only done this once before. Call 866.555.1212.

                by IndieGuy on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 09:24:05 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Are you... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                43north
                well-trained, licensed, and heavily-regulated

                ...enough to ensure you do not inflict injuries?

                Please provide documentation of such training, licence and regulation.

                Thanks!

            •  Lmao. "Battery." (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              IndieGuy, PavePusher
          •  May I please see proof of... (0+ / 0-)

            your training, you licence and your government credentials to post vacuous statements on the internet?

            The people who carry lawfully are, overwhelmingly, not at all uncivilized, disturbing the peace or threatening anyone.  Unless you are a criminal who was planning criminal action in the absence of armed Citizens...

            Hmmmm....

      •  I had that done to me . (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Pete Cortez

        I did not enjoy it . I checked out what was what . I found that the person was inside a van on the outside of the parking lot fence . I got in my van and drove away , circled back and snuck up to the van on foot . He never saw me coming .

        It might be legal , but its not smart .
        The payback could be heavy .

        "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

        by indycam on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 07:31:51 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  non-violent protest can be fatal *shrug* (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          indycam

          It'd be wise to videotape the protest. If someone threatens the laser-pointer, prosecute them for assault. If they call attention to their gun, make it assault with a deadly-weapon.

          What do you think should be done, to reduce the USA's gun-violence (and other murder) statistics to the level of (or below) other 'advanced industrialized countries'?

          •  Putting a dot on someone is a very bad idea . (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ban nock

            If someone gets shot or killed its not "shrug" .

            What do you think should be done, to reduce the USA's gun-violence (and other murder) statistics to the level of (or below) other 'advanced industrialized countries'?
            80ish a day dead 300ish a day wounded .

            I like the public health approach .
            http://www.dailykos.com/...

            I like the public health approach .
            http://www.dailykos.com/...

            I like updating the rules/laws as needed .
            http://www.dailykos.com/...

            I like updating the rules/laws as needed .
            http://www.dailykos.com/...

            "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

            by indycam on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 07:56:29 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  You like not addressing the problem. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              PavePusher

              Which is unfortunate, since there's been a lot of good work over the past two decades to get a handle on violent crime and accidents.

            •  all of the above, and more (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              indycam

              I'd shrug only at my own death if it is to happen that way, certainly not at someone else's. It's not something I've thought about before, I'd imagine one would target only high-profile people like Wayne LaPierre, no? Seems unlikely Mr. LaPierre would shoot a laser-pointer, but I don't know him.

              I haven't read David Hemenway's book nor watched the hour-long video you linked to, but in principle treating guns as a public-health or consumer-safety issue sounds promising. http://books.google.com/...

              Likewise, focusing police enforcement on likely violent criminals makes sense, as with establishing a regional stolen firearms protocol, and identifying likely victims, per the Hartford Courant article linked to: http://www.courant.com/...

              Updating rules/laws, per Australia, makes sense to me.

              (I didn't understand the gist of your Bump Fire Blues diary, apologies.)

              None of these proposals are inconsistent with non-violent protest.

              •  The bump fire diary is about (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Sharon Wraight

                semi auto guns . What is and is not semi auto .
                Its about the claim that the bump fire AR 15 being worthless because it could not be accurate . It was a push back on some bullshit others were posting as fact and getting recs for . It showed that the "gun experts" didn't know the truth or were intentionally bullshitting .

                Did you hear the NPR show the other day ?

                Guns 101: What We Know And What We Don't
                http://www.npr.org/...
                Mark Rosenberg, he's the president and CEO of The Task Force for Global Health. Before that, he was director of the Centers for Disease Control's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control,
                They are going to do another show soon to answer some of the questions that came up in this one .

                "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

                by indycam on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 08:48:54 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  I would not shrug at you even getting even the (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Sharon Wraight

                slightest of wounds .

                "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

                by indycam on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 08:51:24 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  And yet you proposed targeting.... (0+ / 0-)

                lawful Citizens, above.

                Your goal posts appear to be V-8 powered.

    •  Why are your fantasies violent? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Pete Cortez, PavePusher


      Time travel opportunity. Must bring your own weapons. Your safety is not guaranteed, I've only done this once before. Call 866.555.1212.

      by IndieGuy on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 07:50:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The fear mongering would die down. (6+ / 0-)

    If certain people dropped this silly quest for "sensible" gun control; restrictions that apparently include defending Chicago and DC's outright bans.

    •  Of course, that'll never happen. (6+ / 0-)

      So how about this.  The President calls for the Senate to pass national reciprocity and send it to him for signing.  He does that, and NRA-PVF will either endorse him or become irrelevant until after we've cleaned up the board.

      •  Keep dreaming (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Smoh, coquiero, emelyn

        You want to be able to carry a weapon anyplace in the UIS based on a CCW permit issued by a state that hands them out with zero or little screening?

        Not a chance...

        I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

        by Wayward Wind on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 06:09:03 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You need a new tune... (10+ / 0-)

          We have no idea what the Bill would look like when presented. A sensible one would bring those States with minimum standards up a few notches, so your argument might be shown the dustbin.
           As it stands now, My State (NC) has reciprocity with some 32 other States. I can go almost anywhere in the US, except I can't go home to MA. The scary things you  think will happen, have not occurred with almost 3/4 of the States already applying reciprical agreements.

          "The United States is a nation of laws: badly written and randomly enforced." -Zappa My Site

          by meagert on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 06:16:37 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You can go to Massachusetts (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            coquiero

            any time you want....

            I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

            by Wayward Wind on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 06:17:58 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Ignore the gist of the conversation, that's ok. (5+ / 0-)

              "The United States is a nation of laws: badly written and randomly enforced." -Zappa My Site

              by meagert on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 06:20:40 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Not ignoring it at all... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                coquiero

                You can go home to MA any time you want.  

                If you want to carry a firearm there, then comply with Massachusetts law and get a permit...

                I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

                by Wayward Wind on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 06:22:46 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Look up "gist" in the dictionary (6+ / 0-)

                  As for Ma. It's a "may issue" State. In essence, if you are rich or well connected, and know the local sheriff, you probably might get a license. Otherwise you're out of luck.
                   Looks like class warfare at a minimum. Nepotism most likely.
                   

                  "The United States is a nation of laws: badly written and randomly enforced." -Zappa My Site

                  by meagert on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 06:26:46 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  All CCW permit holders in MA (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    coquiero

                    are rich, well-connected, know the sheriff personally, or are related to someone important?

                    I think they would be surprised to hear that....

                    I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

                    by Wayward Wind on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 06:30:37 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  The gist is... (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      theatre goon, KVoimakas, PavePusher

                      About 3/4 of the States already have reciprocity. For those of us who carry safely there, we like that. For those crossing some State lines, it becomes a PIA. Being against a National Law is plainly ludicrous considering the obvious non-issue that it is with 3/4 of the States. Sort of like the non-issue of Republicans quest to "cleanse" the voter rolls.

                      "The United States is a nation of laws: badly written and randomly enforced." -Zappa My Site

                      by meagert on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 06:36:21 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I am not at all against a national (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        indycam, coquiero

                        CCW permit - provided that the process includes a comprehensive background investigation, proficiency training with the weapon that one wants to carry, demonstrated knowledge of the laws concerning possession and use of a firearm, particularly those in the state where the person wants to travel.

                        I have proposed that many a time right here on these pages.

                        I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

                        by Wayward Wind on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 06:40:17 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  So, you'd have no problems with Michigan's (4+ / 0-)

                          shall issue permitting system then?

                          link

                          Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                          by KVoimakas on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 06:43:18 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Unknown without further info (0+ / 0-)

                            There is language that appears to point to a comprehensive background investigation, but the scope of the investigation is not described in sufficient detail to be able to render an opinion.

                            The firearms training does not appear to be weapon specific.

                            Finally, there does not appear to be a requirement for a demonstrated knowledge of firearms law regarding possession and use.  What is described appears to be cursory instruction with no requirement for testing the individual's knowledge.

                            I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

                            by Wayward Wind on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 02:26:23 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  Then, why are you arguing? (4+ / 0-)

                          Constitutional Carry issues aside, I have no problems with what you say. It's exactly what I had to do for NC. My problem is that now that I have done that, why isn't that recognized by the may issue States. It's exactly what they should prefer, but stubbornly stamp their feet.

                          "The United States is a nation of laws: badly written and randomly enforced." -Zappa My Site

                          by meagert on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 06:44:53 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  Sure you have. (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          PavePusher

                          You just haven't explained why those hurdles are necessary in the first place.

                          Anyone possessing a firearm must meet federal criteria (no felony record, no disqualifying impairments, not even a dishonorable discharge from military service).  That information is available in an instant background check database.  Explain why this is insufficient.

                          Your other requirements are arbitrary avenues for gate-keeping, the "may issue" regime that you know gun owners will not accept (nor do we have to, considering the political reality).  By simply purchasing a firearm, we already accept all liability--criminal and civil--that would stem from its misuse or negligent care.  You're covered.

                          •  BS (0+ / 0-)

                            The NICS system applies only to purchases from a FFL dealer and not for private sales, covers only a portion of that which would be examined in a comprehensive background investigation, and finally is woefully inadequate in its current condition.  

                            You accept criminal and civil liability?   Really?  If someone broke into your house and stole a weapon which was not properly stored (i.e. in the nightstand drawer) and then injures a third party with it, would you accept a criminal charge?  Would you pay compensation to the third party? Do you have the resources, or liability insurance, to be able to do so?

                            I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

                            by Wayward Wind on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 02:41:59 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  So what? (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            PavePusher

                            If I sell or gift private stock to another individual, I'm criminally and civilly liable if it turns out he was proscribed at the time of purchase.  Your requirement does nothing more than criminalize private transactions between lawful parties.  I have to wonder why you'd want to jam up a father giving his son a rifle.

                            Doesn't matter whether I like it or not.  I accept liability by the mere fact that I was the last point of transfer.  If the gun was stolen, I have to either prove that I reported the theft in a timely fashion or prove that I was unable to do so (an affirmative defense).  Neither of which prevents anyone from filing suit or charges in the first place.

                            Personally, I think affordable liability insurance is a great idea regardless of whether you're a gun owner or not.  I've been consulting for decades now, and liability insurance is part and parcel of the trade.  I'd point out that said insurance only applies in the case of negligence, not in the case of theft duly reported or justifiably not and certainly not in the case of criminal intent.

                            Should it be mandatory?  Cars are more dangerous than guns, and there's no mandate requiring you maintain a policy for a car off the road.  A gun spends the overwhelming majority of its life not in use, so there you go.

                          •  I'll take that as a no (0+ / 0-)

                            to all three questions.

                            I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

                            by Wayward Wind on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 04:41:18 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Try again. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            meagert, PavePusher

                            I have liability insurance. Now how about you address the points I've raised?

                          •  OK, I'll try again (0+ / 0-)

                            If you fail to adequately safeguard your weapon and it is stolen and subsequently used to commit a crime, should you be held criminally liable?

                            Should you be held civilly liable to the third party(ies) which were injured by your weapon?

                            Do you  have sufficient resources to be able to cover compensating such third parties, keeping in mind that the potential damages could easily reach into the millions of dollars?

                            Saying you have liability insurance, without specific reference to the fact that an event such as is described, in simply insufficient.  An ordinary liability policy is not going to cover such firearms liability without a specific clause or rider.

                            When you have answered the three questions, I will address any points that you make and answer any questions that you pose.

                            I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

                            by Wayward Wind on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 06:34:45 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Already answered all three. (0+ / 0-)

                            If I had affordable coverage, why not?  As you may or may not now, such liability insurance is neither widely available or widely affordable.

                          •  No you didn't (0+ / 0-)

                            and by dodging them, you really did provide an answer.  Everything is about your rights, but none of the responsibilities.

                            End of conversation...

                            I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

                            by Wayward Wind on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 01:27:43 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Do you always end conversations on a lie? (0+ / 0-)
                          •  asdf (0+ / 0-)
                            If you fail to adequately safeguard your weapon and it is stolen and subsequently used to commit a crime, should you be held criminally liable?
                            Sure, if "adequately safeguard" is defined to my satisfaction.
                            Should you be held civilly liable to the third party(ies) which were injured by your weapon?
                            I'm assuming this is a build on to above, so I have no problem with this, as long as my comment above holds true.
                            Do you  have sufficient resources to be able to cover compensating such third parties, keeping in mind that the potential damages could easily reach into the millions of dollars?
                            Why would I need to? I've adequately stored all my firearms.

                            Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                            by KVoimakas on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 07:04:12 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  If I recall correctly (0+ / 0-)

                            the last time you were involved in a discussion on this topic, your standard as concerns safeguarding weapons was that they were in your house, and the house was locked, which essentially means that the only thing between a thief and your weapons is a pane of glass in your back door.

                            If that remains the situation, then no, that is not sufficient, particularly given what you have described as a collection of 30+ weapons and significant amounts of ammunition. If since those last discussions and now you have invested in a gun safe, then good on you.

                            I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

                            by Wayward Wind on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 05:00:39 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I had a gun safe then. (0+ / 0-)

                            And it's 20+. Working on 30+ though...

                            Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                            by KVoimakas on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 06:31:45 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  If you think NICS is inadequate, improve it. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            PavePusher

                            Otherwise, tell us in verifiable detail how your non-existent system improves on the current model.  Otherwise, it's just blowing smoke out of your ass.  Wouldn't you agree?

                          •  And to anticipate one answer. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            meagert, PavePusher

                            If you want to build as comprehensive a database as you can of the population's mental health and character, the Roberts court has just opened up a door that will allow you to do so in spades.

                            Require all taxpaying citizens submit annual documentation attesting to their mental fitness and character of themselves and their dependents with each tax return.  Failure to do so will result in a financial penalty that increases until such time as their documentation is in order.

                            Why pay for background checks when you can have the public do the legwork for you?

                    •  All the ones I know. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      PavePusher

                      And even then it's a headache.

                •  Or better yet. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  PavePusher

                  Enact national reciprocity, and carry in all 50 states.

          •  and has it cause the NRA to back down? (0+ / 0-)

            ya, right...
            I guess you missed this part

            Former National Rifle Association (NRA) chief Ray Arnet once said, “You keep any special interest group alive by nurturing the crisis atmosphere.”
        •  So long as an anti-gun rump exists in the Senate. (5+ / 0-)

          Yeah.  They'll filibuster the hell out of it, and all out of willful ignorance and spite.  But that doesn't mean the President still can't call on Congress to act.  In fact, it might break the resolve of the more gutless anti-gun types on the Hill.

          •  Anti-gun? (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            luckydog, indycam, emelyn, coquiero

            Far more pro-common sense than anti-gun...

            I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

            by Wayward Wind on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 06:20:15 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  *snort* (6+ / 0-)

              Guess one man's common sense is another man's "Seriously?! This isn't a joke?"

              Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

              by KVoimakas on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 06:21:45 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Nothing common sense about it. (8+ / 0-)

              Anti-gun types frequently butcher physics and engineering, make up entirely imaginary classes of firearms.  They lose it so badly after an atrocity like Milwaukee or Aurora that they have to be reminded each and every time of existing laws and tools that already accomplish what their "proposals" set out to do.  And their proposals are without exception so lacking in detail that the only explanation of how they work is with magic wands.

              No, not common sense.  It's idiocy.  It's not at all constructive.  And it's costing the party.  The President, by supporting national reciprocity, would be giving these jokers due notice that we're no longer putting up with their shit.

              •  ok, perhaps it's uncommon sense, if ya prefer... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                coquiero

                ...tho' folks could also call it "a fair bit o' wisdom", and do so with accuracy.

                Cheers.

                •  Of course. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  PavePusher

                  So long as you define "fair bit o' wisdom" as a trait common to creationists, birthers, climate change deniers, and the folks trying to link vaccinations to autism.

                  •  nah, you just have a different opinion... (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    coquiero

                    ...there's no reason for you to try to lump reasonable gun control discussion in with creationism, etc. You'd be hard put to come up with any putative equivalencies, it's unlikely that you'd be able to make a cogent argument there.

                    So why hyperbolize?

                    Cheers.

                    •  I think what happens is... (5+ / 0-)

                      ...too many people equate all gun owners with the NRA.  Notwithstanding the NRA's excellent safety and educational efforts, though, most gun owners recognize the organization's political activities as just plain insane.  "Counter productive" would be the understatement of the year.


                      Time travel opportunity. Must bring your own weapons. Your safety is not guaranteed, I've only done this once before. Call 866.555.1212.

                      by IndieGuy on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 07:56:58 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Certainly the tone is. (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        PavePusher

                        And they're not much help in attracting Democrats when it comes to the current President. But NRA-PVF is almost obsessively committed to its incumbent standard where it concerns endorsements, which is why so many right wingers take it to task every two years.

                      •  and "too many people" equate any and all... (0+ / 0-)

                        ...discussion of gun regulation as automatically off-limits and trot out a panoply of hyperbole...

                        For all ranges of opinions on the issues, lumping most everyone who has a contrary opinion in with extremists doesn't seem to be working well for anyone who cares about the issue. Except for those who would like to perpetuate the status quo.

                        Cheers.

                        .

                    •  Probably should have made a point there... (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Pete Cortez, KVoimakas, PavePusher

                      ...shouldn't I?

                      What I'm getting at is that often hyperbole is what's left after all the accusations tossed at gun rights supporters.  Combine the almost inevitable ad homs with the ignorance (dictionary sense of the word) of too many folks here regarding everything from hardware to legislation, and you might get a sense of the frustration.

                      Apropos "sensible gun control" you will find that most RKBA supporters here agree with the need.  One of the reasons they're pushing for a national standard, though, is that "sensible" is so often in the eye of the beholder.


                      Time travel opportunity. Must bring your own weapons. Your safety is not guaranteed, I've only done this once before. Call 866.555.1212.

                      by IndieGuy on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 08:02:59 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  well, there's Pete's hyperbole right above... (0+ / 0-)

                        ...why are ya talkin' about someone else's hyperbole somewhere else?

                        You're not really proposing a "made me do it" kinda thing are ya?

                        Ya know, there's a certain perspective that says, somewhat wisely, that "sensible is in the eye of the beholder" is part of the ongoing negotiation that is US democracy, or whatever -ocracy folks wanna call it for that matter...

                        Cheers.

                    •  How can I not? (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      KVoimakas, PavePusher

                      When They have to be frequently reminded that their "high powered" "assault weapons" chamber rounds that impact with half the energy of those typically fired from hunting rifles. When they so frequently confuse different trigger actions? When they so frequently forget that ten 10-round mags = 100 cartridges.

                      And these are just simple category and arithmetic errors.

                      •  critics are creationists if they don't care... (0+ / 0-)

                        ...about the details of trigger actions?

                        You really wanna stand on that kinda justification for hyperbole?

                        Cheers.

                        •  Like creationists. (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          PavePusher

                          And yes, if they persistently and willfully ignore facts.

                          No hyperbole, luck.  It's the same sort of anti-empirical stubbornness that abounds in the conspiracy theory circles.  Replace "evolutionists" with "gun nuts" and the Second Law of Thermodynamics with...well...the First Law of Thermodynamics, and you've got the essential comparison.

                        •  When you have a Kossack base a policy (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Pete Cortez, PavePusher

                          on putting select fire (which is already highly regulated) and semi-auto together...yeah, that's ignoring facts and current policy, not to mention firearm knowledge.

                          Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                          by KVoimakas on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 08:38:03 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  And that's not meant to be an insult. (0+ / 0-)

                          Jarring yes, but not an insult.  But the point is you don't compromise with creationists.  You don't seek a "reasonable" middle ground with creationists.  You try and educate them.  Point out their significant errors and hope that time and repetition will allow facts to take hold.  You certainly try to get them engaged with actual math and science, if for no other reason than it's fun.  Get's the foot in the door.  You don't worry about those so heavily invested that they'll go down with the ship; good number of them are getting well compensated for their ignorance.

                          Same thing with the anti-gun crowd.  You point out mistakes, invite them to actually try out the object of their disgust, and ignore the Brady bunch--they're really cashing in on ignorance.

                •  "Wisdom" based on ignorance... (4+ / 0-)

                  ...is the functional equivalent of multiplying 1 by 0:  You end up with nothing.


                  Time travel opportunity. Must bring your own weapons. Your safety is not guaranteed, I've only done this once before. Call 866.555.1212.

                  by IndieGuy on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 07:32:28 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  Yeah, I'd much prefer Constitutional Carry (5+ / 0-)

          everywhere...

          (Now ask yourself if I'm snarking or not...)

          Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

          by KVoimakas on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 06:21:04 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Two points (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            emelyn, coquiero

            First, there is no such thing as constitutional carry, and

            Second, broad reciprocity will never happen until states can agree on a common set of standards for issuance of a CCW permit, which will never happen.

            I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

            by Wayward Wind on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 06:26:09 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Actually yes, there is such a thing as (5+ / 0-)

              Constitutional carry. You might not like it's definition, but there is such a thing.

              Obligatory Wiki Link

              Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

              by KVoimakas on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 06:31:32 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  States can do whatever they want (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                emelyn, coquiero

                about firearms, and they have done so...

                But that's not what you were talking about - you want a national right to carry.

                And that simply will not happen without major compromises from all states, which most are unwilling to make.

                I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

                by Wayward Wind on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 06:36:39 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  Why not? (5+ / 0-)

              A state like AZ or VT can continue to allow their own residents to carry under current law, and issue a nationally acceptable permit to those who want one. I believe AZ already does this. Maybe someone else will chime in here?

              I don't see where it would be an insurmountable problem.

              "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

              by happy camper on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 06:46:01 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I agree (0+ / 0-)

                but that is not what is being argued.

                What I have described before would be pretty straightforward.  

                State CCW permits are valid within that state and any other state which wants to grant reciprocity.  

                You want to carry in a state which does not have reciprocity, you either (a) obtain a permit from that state or (b) apply for a national CCW, which would be issued after the conditions I have described above.

                What is be being argued here is that someone with a permit from a state with minimal CCW standards should be allowed to carry anywhere in the country, with no further requirements.  

                And that is what will never happen.

                I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

                by Wayward Wind on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 02:53:56 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  "hands them out with zero or little screening" (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Pete Cortez

          What state does that?

          I believe we've already nixed your Security Clearance-level proposal.

        •  Summary of my conversation with WW so far. (0+ / 0-)

          He wants to stick it to gun owners because...well...I guess he doesn't like them very much.  He demands gun owners take legal responsibility for any and all misuse of firearms regardless of their personal culpability.  He demands gun owners and only gun owners bear the burden of liability insurance.  He consistently refuses to explain how any of his ideas connect with reducing violence as opposed to punishing a class of people he personally despises. And apparently he likes the thought of tossing fathers and sons in jail for sharing rifles.

      •  #ThingsIWantToHearFromPresidentObama (7+ / 0-)

        "My fellow Americans; lately we've seen a tragedy occur in Aurora Colorado and less recently, over in Arizona. While I think we should not push for more ineffective gun control laws, I believe this is a good time to address the root causes of crime. It will be slow. It will be hard. It will not fix everything immediately. We start with jobs (insert jobs plan here). We continue with a push for single payer health care that includes mental health. We legalize marijuana and treat it like alcohol or cigarettes. This will have a side benefit of also helping to reduce crime in Mexico, making one of our neighbors happy. We improve our social safety nets. We will hit the root causes of crime and improve life for all Americans."

        Of course, this is just what I'd like to hear from him on gun control. This isn't the only thing I want to hear from him.

        Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

        by KVoimakas on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 06:19:53 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  The reason Ruger can't fill orders fast enough (7+ / 0-)

    is that they have produced very good quality firearms at a great price. Especially their bolt rifles that are sub moa for three hundred and change, a 22 semi auto that seldom jams, target 22 pistol that is popular etc.

    The only fearful ones are people who read sensational media.

    How big is your personal carbon footprint?

    by ban nock on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 07:10:23 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site