Miami school shooting
Discussion
jmorgan said:
frankenstein12 said:
London is a different problem.
In the US guns are a part of life which isnt going to change. Sitting on one side of the fence or another and refusing to compromise means nothing will happen.
Trump says arm teachers with open or concealed carry. There are people for and against that (personally i against that). It just is not smart or sensible hence my suggesting a midway compromise where the teachers have access to guns but are not permitted to carry them unless there is an active shooter.
It is either that or permanent armed guards with machine guns posted at schools across the US and for it to be effective you would need at least two armed guards per school.
Or the final alternative is Do Nothing and just argue that guns in schools are good or guns in schools are bad and spend so much time arguing that you also fail to discuss other important issues like actual gun control, mental health work etc.
All those will do is move the issue, someone with intent will work around it. There is only one option and until that is embraced, rpthis will keep happening. In the US guns are a part of life which isnt going to change. Sitting on one side of the fence or another and refusing to compromise means nothing will happen.
Trump says arm teachers with open or concealed carry. There are people for and against that (personally i against that). It just is not smart or sensible hence my suggesting a midway compromise where the teachers have access to guns but are not permitted to carry them unless there is an active shooter.
It is either that or permanent armed guards with machine guns posted at schools across the US and for it to be effective you would need at least two armed guards per school.
Or the final alternative is Do Nothing and just argue that guns in schools are good or guns in schools are bad and spend so much time arguing that you also fail to discuss other important issues like actual gun control, mental health work etc.
They managed to ban small sharp stuff on aircraft because terrorist but they will keep bad people armed because good old boys.
If i try punch you in the face your natural instinct is going to be to protect yourself and fight back. It is the same whether you are dealing with a person or an organisation.
If people truly want to change the gun issue in the US they will need to do so by engaging with and working towards change slowly but gently which will have far greater iimpact than by running around screaming shouting and picking fights with gun owners or gun associations and achieving nothing.
rscott said:
So the claim CNN scripted the questions asked at their Town Hall session turns out to be fake news.
The student was asked to repeat an earlier statement of his ,but wanted to make a longer speech which didn't fit the format.
So he released doctored emails to back up his claim he'd been tolls what to say. Unfortunately CNN released the originals which prove he wasn't being entirely accurate...
http://thehill.com/homenews/media/375401-cnn-relea...
Fox News made sure they covered this in great detail with Tucket Carlson doing his concerned look impression on camera with some very sad face pupils and parents talking about the CNN fake news. The student was asked to repeat an earlier statement of his ,but wanted to make a longer speech which didn't fit the format.
So he released doctored emails to back up his claim he'd been tolls what to say. Unfortunately CNN released the originals which prove he wasn't being entirely accurate...
http://thehill.com/homenews/media/375401-cnn-relea...
frankenstein12 said:
Whatever the reason for keeping guns it is what it is and is unlikely to change anytime soon and the more people put gun owners and gun associations under attack the more they will stand up and fight back. Its base human psychology and why i get so annoyed by people whose response to anything they dislike is to go on the attack.
If i try punch you in the face your natural instinct is going to be to protect yourself and fight back. It is the same whether you are dealing with a person or an organisation.
If people truly want to change the gun issue in the US they will need to do so by engaging with and working towards change slowly but gently which will have far greater iimpact than by running around screaming shouting and picking fights with gun owners or gun associations and achieving nothing.
Never saw it as an overnight fix, more a generation or three. It is a nothing fix as it stands. No matter who is armed to try to stop it. Australia bought back the guns.If i try punch you in the face your natural instinct is going to be to protect yourself and fight back. It is the same whether you are dealing with a person or an organisation.
If people truly want to change the gun issue in the US they will need to do so by engaging with and working towards change slowly but gently which will have far greater iimpact than by running around screaming shouting and picking fights with gun owners or gun associations and achieving nothing.
If you take absolute gun control off the table (I think it's like complaining the sky is blue, and now the NRA has evoked the power of the LORD, well, there'll be no stopping them...) I think there's still some positive things that can be done:
For a country with such a stringent Foreign Corrupt Practises Act, where a lunch can be construed as bribery, it still amazes me that direct political funding (aka 'real bribes') are still condoned and allowed. I'm also amazed that a country that's poured trillions down the crapper on Homeland Defence and foreign intervention due to perceived 'threats to America' has no sole organisation which deals with this particular phenomenon, not even a governmental level study group. The perpetrator also seems to enjoy certain notoriety and frequently will be featured more prominently than the victims, this mentality extending to the 'shrugging it off' feeling you get after major incidents cause no reaction/response after a few weeks. Core to this is also the problem of allowing almost unfettered access to firearms to people that aren't even trusted to drink responsibly.
Basically:
1. Ban all political bribery, er, lobbying by group donation. [Extend this as much as you like; tobacco, pharma etc]
2. Create a single organisation to deal with the problem; vet complaints/concerns, put clues together, check suitability, follow up SM, study the problem at least etc. Divert money from DoHS if required or just give them the remit.
3. Stop naming the perpetrator. Teat them as pariahs rather than celebrities.
4. Treat mass shootings as you would a terrorist incident, psychologically, legally and socially.
5. Make tests and checks for weapons more stringent across the board - proper licencing with positive vetting, medically and criminally.
I don't these would impact on any normal gun totting 'merican, in fact they should support it as it means they won't get continually tarred with this brush time after time.
For a country with such a stringent Foreign Corrupt Practises Act, where a lunch can be construed as bribery, it still amazes me that direct political funding (aka 'real bribes') are still condoned and allowed. I'm also amazed that a country that's poured trillions down the crapper on Homeland Defence and foreign intervention due to perceived 'threats to America' has no sole organisation which deals with this particular phenomenon, not even a governmental level study group. The perpetrator also seems to enjoy certain notoriety and frequently will be featured more prominently than the victims, this mentality extending to the 'shrugging it off' feeling you get after major incidents cause no reaction/response after a few weeks. Core to this is also the problem of allowing almost unfettered access to firearms to people that aren't even trusted to drink responsibly.
Basically:
1. Ban all political bribery, er, lobbying by group donation. [Extend this as much as you like; tobacco, pharma etc]
2. Create a single organisation to deal with the problem; vet complaints/concerns, put clues together, check suitability, follow up SM, study the problem at least etc. Divert money from DoHS if required or just give them the remit.
3. Stop naming the perpetrator. Teat them as pariahs rather than celebrities.
4. Treat mass shootings as you would a terrorist incident, psychologically, legally and socially.
5. Make tests and checks for weapons more stringent across the board - proper licencing with positive vetting, medically and criminally.
I don't these would impact on any normal gun totting 'merican, in fact they should support it as it means they won't get continually tarred with this brush time after time.
frankenstein12 said:
Whatever the reason for keeping guns it is what it is and is unlikely to change anytime soon and the more people put gun owners and gun associations under attack the more they will stand up and fight back. Its base human psychology and why i get so annoyed by people whose response to anything they dislike is to go on the attack.
If i try punch you in the face your natural instinct is going to be to protect yourself and fight back. It is the same whether you are dealing with a person or an organisation.
If people truly want to change the gun issue in the US they will need to do so by engaging with and working towards change slowly but gently which will have far greater iimpact than by running around screaming shouting and picking fights with gun owners or gun associations and achieving nothing.
Not sure why the NRA is given such a revered place in US politics (apart from its generosity to politicians...). It can't speak for the majority of gun owners because it only has about 5 million members and there are far more gun owners than that.If i try punch you in the face your natural instinct is going to be to protect yourself and fight back. It is the same whether you are dealing with a person or an organisation.
If people truly want to change the gun issue in the US they will need to do so by engaging with and working towards change slowly but gently which will have far greater iimpact than by running around screaming shouting and picking fights with gun owners or gun associations and achieving nothing.
Perhaps it's time for a new, more rational gun owners association to be formed and actually speak for the unheard majority of owners?
If someone claims they want to help and then makes the stupid statement that they have a God given right to own AR15s, why shouldn't they be challenged?
Just wondering - are the NRA claiming atheists don't have a right to guns?
andy_s said:
If you take absolute gun control off the table (I think it's like complaining the sky is blue, and now the NRA has evoked the power of the LORD, well, there'll be no stopping them...) I think there's still some positive things that can be done:
For a country with such a stringent Foreign Corrupt Practises Act, where a lunch can be construed as bribery, it still amazes me that direct political funding (aka 'real bribes') are still condoned and allowed. I'm also amazed that a country that's poured trillions down the crapper on Homeland Defence and foreign intervention due to perceived 'threats to America' has no sole organisation which deals with this particular phenomenon, not even a governmental level study group. The perpetrator also seems to enjoy certain notoriety and frequently will be featured more prominently than the victims, this mentality extending to the 'shrugging it off' feeling you get after major incidents cause no reaction/response after a few weeks. Core to this is also the problem of allowing almost unfettered access to firearms to people that aren't even trusted to drink responsibly.
Basically:
1. Ban all political bribery, er, lobbying by group donation. [Extend this as much as you like; tobacco, pharma etc]
2. Create a single organisation to deal with the problem; vet complaints/concerns, put clues together, check suitability, follow up SM, study the problem at least etc. Divert money from DoHS if required or just give them the remit.
3. Stop naming the perpetrator. Teat them as pariahs rather than celebrities.
4. Treat mass shootings as you would a terrorist incident, psychologically, legally and socially.
5. Make tests and checks for weapons more stringent across the board - proper licencing with positive vetting, medically and criminally.
I don't these would impact on any normal gun totting 'merican, in fact they should support it as it means they won't get continually tarred with this brush time after time.
1. This will never happen, as all politicians are gorging from that trough. For example, labor unions spend about 6-8x what the NRA does, it it mostly goes to the Democratic Party candidates, who right now want gun control and to neuter the NRA.For a country with such a stringent Foreign Corrupt Practises Act, where a lunch can be construed as bribery, it still amazes me that direct political funding (aka 'real bribes') are still condoned and allowed. I'm also amazed that a country that's poured trillions down the crapper on Homeland Defence and foreign intervention due to perceived 'threats to America' has no sole organisation which deals with this particular phenomenon, not even a governmental level study group. The perpetrator also seems to enjoy certain notoriety and frequently will be featured more prominently than the victims, this mentality extending to the 'shrugging it off' feeling you get after major incidents cause no reaction/response after a few weeks. Core to this is also the problem of allowing almost unfettered access to firearms to people that aren't even trusted to drink responsibly.
Basically:
1. Ban all political bribery, er, lobbying by group donation. [Extend this as much as you like; tobacco, pharma etc]
2. Create a single organisation to deal with the problem; vet complaints/concerns, put clues together, check suitability, follow up SM, study the problem at least etc. Divert money from DoHS if required or just give them the remit.
3. Stop naming the perpetrator. Teat them as pariahs rather than celebrities.
4. Treat mass shootings as you would a terrorist incident, psychologically, legally and socially.
5. Make tests and checks for weapons more stringent across the board - proper licencing with positive vetting, medically and criminally.
I don't these would impact on any normal gun totting 'merican, in fact they should support it as it means they won't get continually tarred with this brush time after time.
2. We don't need another beaurocracy, ala TSA and Homeland Security
3. Very sensible suggestion, that is frequently mentioned but ignored by the mass media
4. Not sure what you really mean here.
5. I agree that a proper background check should be required for any gun sale. The problem with "sensible" solutions like these is getting it implemented without it becoming some kind of political tool. It is not a money raising tool, or a backdoor to gun registration/grabbing, or whatever. Just let anyone run a background check. This is typically impossible for politicians.
frankenstein12 said:
London is a different problem.
In the US guns are a part of life which isnt going to change. Sitting on one side of the fence or another and refusing to compromise means nothing will happen.
Trump says arm teachers with open or concealed carry. There are people for and against that (personally i against that). It just is not smart or sensible hence my suggesting a midway compromise where the teachers have access to guns but are not permitted to carry them unless there is an active shooter.
It is either that or permanent armed guards with machine guns posted at schools across the US and for it to be effective you would need at least two armed guards per school.
Or the final alternative is Do Nothing and just argue that guns in schools are good or guns in schools are bad and spend so much time arguing that you also fail to discuss other important issues like actual gun control, mental health work etc.
There was an armed guard at the school but unfortunately he seems to have been an abject coward happier to hide behind his car. In the US guns are a part of life which isnt going to change. Sitting on one side of the fence or another and refusing to compromise means nothing will happen.
Trump says arm teachers with open or concealed carry. There are people for and against that (personally i against that). It just is not smart or sensible hence my suggesting a midway compromise where the teachers have access to guns but are not permitted to carry them unless there is an active shooter.
It is either that or permanent armed guards with machine guns posted at schools across the US and for it to be effective you would need at least two armed guards per school.
Or the final alternative is Do Nothing and just argue that guns in schools are good or guns in schools are bad and spend so much time arguing that you also fail to discuss other important issues like actual gun control, mental health work etc.
Kids all across the US walked out last week to protest gun control. Will it make a difference, will it f
k! If babies,BABIES FFS getting killed at Sandy Hook didnt stop it, the US will do as it always has done i.e. do fk all *. I really hope Im wrong though,maybe something might change one day,might take a few decades till these kids grow up & go into politics, at least until they start sucking on the NRA teat
*Actually, the Florida legislature did something,it stopped debating a law on banning machine guns & big magazines, but declared "porn is dangerous"..they must really hate teenagers!
k! If babies,BABIES FFS getting killed at Sandy Hook didnt stop it, the US will do as it always has done i.e. do fk all *. I really hope Im wrong though,maybe something might change one day,might take a few decades till these kids grow up & go into politics, at least until they start sucking on the NRA teat*Actually, the Florida legislature did something,it stopped debating a law on banning machine guns & big magazines, but declared "porn is dangerous"..they must really hate teenagers!
andy_s said:
richie99 said:
There was an armed guard at the school but unfortunately he seems to have been an abject coward happier to hide behind his car.
For balance, his lawyer has been told to say that he is not a coward http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/02/26/florida-deput...
Edited by richie99 on Monday 26th February 19:17
mko9 said:
1. This will never happen, as all politicians are gorging from that trough. For example, labor unions spend about 6-8x what the NRA does, it it mostly goes to the Democratic Party candidates, who right now want gun control and to neuter the NRA.
2. We don't need another beaurocracy, ala TSA and Homeland Security
3. Very sensible suggestion, that is frequently mentioned but ignored by the mass media
4. Not sure what you really mean here.
5. I agree that a proper background check should be required for any gun sale. The problem with "sensible" solutions like these is getting it implemented without it becoming some kind of political tool. It is not a money raising tool, or a backdoor to gun registration/grabbing, or whatever. Just let anyone run a background check. This is typically impossible for politicians.
That's the resistance i see too, but a retask of parts of DoHS/FBI to seriously get a grip of the problem I think is doable with political will, roll it up into the licencing authority etc etc.2. We don't need another beaurocracy, ala TSA and Homeland Security
3. Very sensible suggestion, that is frequently mentioned but ignored by the mass media
4. Not sure what you really mean here.
5. I agree that a proper background check should be required for any gun sale. The problem with "sensible" solutions like these is getting it implemented without it becoming some kind of political tool. It is not a money raising tool, or a backdoor to gun registration/grabbing, or whatever. Just let anyone run a background check. This is typically impossible for politicians.
Point 1 I understand what you're saying, and know that at heart, but it's such a major contradiction of their ethics that it had to be thrown out there - good point on the converse labor unions though, didn't think of that.
richie99 said:
andy_s said:
richie99 said:
There was an armed guard at the school but unfortunately he seems to have been an abject coward happier to hide behind his car.
rscott said:
frankenstein12 said:
Whatever the reason for keeping guns it is what it is and is unlikely to change anytime soon and the more people put gun owners and gun associations under attack the more they will stand up and fight back. Its base human psychology and why i get so annoyed by people whose response to anything they dislike is to go on the attack.
If i try punch you in the face your natural instinct is going to be to protect yourself and fight back. It is the same whether you are dealing with a person or an organisation.
If people truly want to change the gun issue in the US they will need to do so by engaging with and working towards change slowly but gently which will have far greater iimpact than by running around screaming shouting and picking fights with gun owners or gun associations and achieving nothing.
Not sure why the NRA is given such a revered place in US politics (apart from its generosity to politicians...). It can't speak for the majority of gun owners because it only has about 5 million members and there are far more gun owners than that.If i try punch you in the face your natural instinct is going to be to protect yourself and fight back. It is the same whether you are dealing with a person or an organisation.
If people truly want to change the gun issue in the US they will need to do so by engaging with and working towards change slowly but gently which will have far greater iimpact than by running around screaming shouting and picking fights with gun owners or gun associations and achieving nothing.
Perhaps it's time for a new, more rational gun owners association to be formed and actually speak for the unheard majority of owners?
If someone claims they want to help and then makes the stupid statement that they have a God given right to own AR15s, why shouldn't they be challenged?
Just wondering - are the NRA claiming atheists don't have a right to guns?
The problem you are missing yet again is the broader scope in your thoughts on forming a new gun ownership organisation.
By attacking the NRA especially the way the social media nutjobs are going about things they are also attacking normal legal gun owners who are not even members then feel their right to own or bear guns is under threat and they take a defensive position in favour of owning their guns.
andy_s said:
I'm aware of the story, the rolled eyes remain, read up the thread a few pages to see the pros/cons reality checks.
In which case I profusely apologise for whatever I said which prompted the rolled eyes. I must have missed something important in the mass of posts about sticks and taking over the NRA. richie99 said:
frankenstein12 said:
London is a different problem.
In the US guns are a part of life which isnt going to change. Sitting on one side of the fence or another and refusing to compromise means nothing will happen.
Trump says arm teachers with open or concealed carry. There are people for and against that (personally i against that). It just is not smart or sensible hence my suggesting a midway compromise where the teachers have access to guns but are not permitted to carry them unless there is an active shooter.
It is either that or permanent armed guards with machine guns posted at schools across the US and for it to be effective you would need at least two armed guards per school.
Or the final alternative is Do Nothing and just argue that guns in schools are good or guns in schools are bad and spend so much time arguing that you also fail to discuss other important issues like actual gun control, mental health work etc.
There was an armed guard at the school but unfortunately he seems to have been an abject coward happier to hide behind his car. In the US guns are a part of life which isnt going to change. Sitting on one side of the fence or another and refusing to compromise means nothing will happen.
Trump says arm teachers with open or concealed carry. There are people for and against that (personally i against that). It just is not smart or sensible hence my suggesting a midway compromise where the teachers have access to guns but are not permitted to carry them unless there is an active shooter.
It is either that or permanent armed guards with machine guns posted at schools across the US and for it to be effective you would need at least two armed guards per school.
Or the final alternative is Do Nothing and just argue that guns in schools are good or guns in schools are bad and spend so much time arguing that you also fail to discuss other important issues like actual gun control, mental health work etc.
However I posted up a link to broward county and the school etc which in effect shows the Broward police became political members rather than police.
The officer at the school on the day was therefore just on what was meant to be an easy day job which meant the worst thing he could have expected to do on his shift would be to cuff a kid and give him a talking to instead of being out on the streets risking being shot.
frankenstein12 said:
Well yes and no. As others have said its one thing to call him a coward and another to actually have been in his shoes and having gone running into a building and into the line of fire.
However I posted up a link to broward county and the school etc which in effect shows the Broward police became political members rather than police.
The officer at the school on the day was therefore just on what was meant to be an easy day job which meant the worst thing he could have expected to do on his shift would be to cuff a kid and give him a talking to instead of being out on the streets risking being shot.
You are so wrongHowever I posted up a link to broward county and the school etc which in effect shows the Broward police became political members rather than police.
The officer at the school on the day was therefore just on what was meant to be an easy day job which meant the worst thing he could have expected to do on his shift would be to cuff a kid and give him a talking to instead of being out on the streets risking being shot.
frankenstein12 said:
rscott said:
frankenstein12 said:
Whatever the reason for keeping guns it is what it is and is unlikely to change anytime soon and the more people put gun owners and gun associations under attack the more they will stand up and fight back. Its base human psychology and why i get so annoyed by people whose response to anything they dislike is to go on the attack.
If i try punch you in the face your natural instinct is going to be to protect yourself and fight back. It is the same whether you are dealing with a person or an organisation.
If people truly want to change the gun issue in the US they will need to do so by engaging with and working towards change slowly but gently which will have far greater iimpact than by running around screaming shouting and picking fights with gun owners or gun associations and achieving nothing.
Not sure why the NRA is given such a revered place in US politics (apart from its generosity to politicians...). It can't speak for the majority of gun owners because it only has about 5 million members and there are far more gun owners than that.If i try punch you in the face your natural instinct is going to be to protect yourself and fight back. It is the same whether you are dealing with a person or an organisation.
If people truly want to change the gun issue in the US they will need to do so by engaging with and working towards change slowly but gently which will have far greater iimpact than by running around screaming shouting and picking fights with gun owners or gun associations and achieving nothing.
Perhaps it's time for a new, more rational gun owners association to be formed and actually speak for the unheard majority of owners?
If someone claims they want to help and then makes the stupid statement that they have a God given right to own AR15s, why shouldn't they be challenged?
Just wondering - are the NRA claiming atheists don't have a right to guns?
The problem you are missing yet again is the broader scope in your thoughts on forming a new gun ownership organisation.
By attacking the NRA especially the way the social media nutjobs are going about things they are also attacking normal legal gun owners who are not even members then feel their right to own or bear guns is under threat and they take a defensive position in favour of owning their guns.
Many of those who own guns wouldn't be averse to a degree of control (proper background checks, etc) but aren't represented by the only group who claim to speak for gun owners.
frankenstein12 said:
Because we are realists. We recognise the American attitude to guns. We realise that Americans will not give up their guns. As such we also recognsie that there needs to be creative compromise solutions to the gun problems to actually move things forward.
Initially in the immediate aftermath of the shooting the NRA and gun owners seemed supportive when Trump said he was going to ban bump stocks and look at better gun control.
Now after the anti gunners and liberals have actively started campaigning against and targetting the NRA and the companies it works with and gun owners they have gone back to their previous position of refusing to compromise and are stating they are against banning bump stocks or better gun control and that instead more guns is better.
In simple terms initially before the anti gun lobby really got rolling there was a chance to make a change with the cooperation of gun owners and the NRA now that opportunity is gone.
On the plus side it does seem Trump has set his mind to banning bump stocks and to putting more control on guns regardless of the NRA's position and hopefully he will follow through.
As the phrase goes. Baby steps.
Whilst I appreciate your response and pragmatism, I personally feel the time for cotton wooling the gun owners is waning quickly. It's kind of been proven repeatedly that the pro gun stance fails and people die. The swelling of feeling from the American youth is great to see - they've lost their patience as they can see the establishment forming the circle of wagons as usually and the NRA is the middle of it.Initially in the immediate aftermath of the shooting the NRA and gun owners seemed supportive when Trump said he was going to ban bump stocks and look at better gun control.
Now after the anti gunners and liberals have actively started campaigning against and targetting the NRA and the companies it works with and gun owners they have gone back to their previous position of refusing to compromise and are stating they are against banning bump stocks or better gun control and that instead more guns is better.
In simple terms initially before the anti gun lobby really got rolling there was a chance to make a change with the cooperation of gun owners and the NRA now that opportunity is gone.
On the plus side it does seem Trump has set his mind to banning bump stocks and to putting more control on guns regardless of the NRA's position and hopefully he will follow through.
As the phrase goes. Baby steps.
I would love to see lots of companies breaking off ties with the NRA and turning them into societal outcasts - their modus operandi belongs in the past and should not be present in modern society. But I think there's another 10+ years of thougtless gun violence to come before guns start to leave US society.
rscott said:
frankenstein12 said:
rscott said:
frankenstein12 said:
Whatever the reason for keeping guns it is what it is and is unlikely to change anytime soon and the more people put gun owners and gun associations under attack the more they will stand up and fight back. Its base human psychology and why i get so annoyed by people whose response to anything they dislike is to go on the attack.
If i try punch you in the face your natural instinct is going to be to protect yourself and fight back. It is the same whether you are dealing with a person or an organisation.
If people truly want to change the gun issue in the US they will need to do so by engaging with and working towards change slowly but gently which will have far greater iimpact than by running around screaming shouting and picking fights with gun owners or gun associations and achieving nothing.
Not sure why the NRA is given such a revered place in US politics (apart from its generosity to politicians...). It can't speak for the majority of gun owners because it only has about 5 million members and there are far more gun owners than that.If i try punch you in the face your natural instinct is going to be to protect yourself and fight back. It is the same whether you are dealing with a person or an organisation.
If people truly want to change the gun issue in the US they will need to do so by engaging with and working towards change slowly but gently which will have far greater iimpact than by running around screaming shouting and picking fights with gun owners or gun associations and achieving nothing.
Perhaps it's time for a new, more rational gun owners association to be formed and actually speak for the unheard majority of owners?
If someone claims they want to help and then makes the stupid statement that they have a God given right to own AR15s, why shouldn't they be challenged?
Just wondering - are the NRA claiming atheists don't have a right to guns?
The problem you are missing yet again is the broader scope in your thoughts on forming a new gun ownership organisation.
By attacking the NRA especially the way the social media nutjobs are going about things they are also attacking normal legal gun owners who are not even members then feel their right to own or bear guns is under threat and they take a defensive position in favour of owning their guns.
Many of those who own guns wouldn't be averse to a degree of control (proper background checks, etc) but aren't represented by the only group who claim to speak for gun owners.
Or to use an analogy.
If you are out with some friends and someone threatens a friend of yours, you by extension will feel angry and will come to your friends defence.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff