E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSOn guns: “Facing powerful opposition to sweeping gun regulations, President Barack Obama is weighing 19 steps that could be taken through executive action alone, congressional officials said,” the AP writes. Those steps could include ordering stricter action against people who lie on gun sale background checks, striking limits on federal research into gun use, ordering tougher penalties against gun trafficking, and giving schools flexibility to use grant money to improve safety. Obama is expected to unveil his proposals as early as Wednesday….”
Aren’t video games supposed to be part of the problem, according to the NRA? So why did it release an app – “NRA: Practice Range” -- with a shoot-em-up game that is designated for those 4 years and older?
The New York Daily News puts it on its cover. Headline: “NRA spits on the graves of Newtown massacre victims with release of mobile shoot-'em-up app for iPhone, iPad.”
“In the last decade alone, the NRA has spent $21 million to lobby Congress and federal agencies — 10 times the amount spent by one of the nation's best-known gun-control groups, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, during the same period,” USA Today notes while outlining the laws the group has lobbied for (and gotten) in Congress and in state capitols.
Leave a Comment:
"Aren’t video games supposed to be part of the problem, according to the NRA? So why did it release an app – “NRA: Practice Range” -- with a shoot-em-up game that is designated for those 4 years and older?"
Answer: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$!!!!!!!!!!!!! Hey, defending a far-out interpretation of the Second Amendment ain't cheap!!
Shoot'em up game? I think not, it's a game where you shoot at targets as sportsmen and women do all the time. How can that be equated with a shoot'em up game like Call of Duty. If this is the case you might as well call Duck Hunt a shoot'em up video game.
I envision the NRA's defense on this will be that the player is aiming and shooting at "targets" on a firing range and not shooting people like in other video games.
...but it then begs the question...in other video games you aren't really shooting at poeple so what's the difference?
It all boils down to the 2nd amendment. Does it mean every household should have an arsenal capable of killing 20 children. In my opinion that is the only use for these weapons is to kill as many humans as possible in as quick a time as possible. They serve no other purpose. There is no sport in shooting a deer 30 times nor is there any reason to shoot non stop at a target. Are we as citizens suppose to be armed as well as the military and police, by the 2nd amendment. No. In reality, our right to bare arms could be restricted to a musket.
...but, no...we must prepare ourselves for imaginary Hitler!
Some will tell you they need military style small arms to protect themselves from the government if necessary. The government can send a smart missile right up your rectum, and watch the video of the expression on your face in real time, so good luck with that.
More like preparing ourselves for the likes of someone like you Da Noid. Why do you care what armament a law abiding citizen possesses?
No Johntho, the real reason is for the gun manufacturers to make as much money as possible. To the gun manufacturers, the republicans and the NRA these 20 children are just collateral damage.
I'm curious as to why you see me as a threat.
I've said it before and I guess I'm going to have to say it again...
Every day, good guys with guns become bad guys with guns. You can pass all the background checks in the world, seem like the most mentally stable person in the world and still have a bad day.
Nobody cared that Nancy Lanza owned a Bushmaster until her son picked it up, killed her and then went to school. Well, I'm sorry, but when you can have a bad day and take a gun and shoot up a school, movie theater, shopping mall, church or other public place then, yes, I believe what kind of gun you have IS my business.
Da Noid, You could have a bad day and do the same thing with a machete. The point I was making with "the likes of you" statement is you being one of the confiscation crowd.
True...but I'm likely to kill fewer people than I would with a Bushmaster, now, wouldn't I? Even with a handgun I'm likely to kill fewer people, right?
If you own a shotgun or a pistol to protect yourself or a rifle because you hunt then I have news for you...I'm not interested in that gun. Can you still have a bad day and go to a public place and open fire with such a weapon? Yes...let's not kid oursevles...an assault weapon ban is not going to stop all such incidents.
...but does that mean we should not attempt to manage such situations?
"Cars kill more people than guns! Would you ban cars?"
No...but we do have speed limits, seat belt laws, drunk driving laws, cell phone and texting laws and federal safety standards for cars. Have they eliminated accidents and fatalities? No. Have they reduced them? Yes.
Ideally I should be able to drive whatever car I want and drive however fast I want without consequence. Unfortunately, history tells us that there are those who are unable to handle such freedoms and so we have the aforementioned laws.
Likewise, ideally you should be able to own whatever type of firearm you want without consequence. Sadly, again, history has demonstrated that there are those who can not handle such freedom.
How about we decide to ban SUVs. They are gas hogs and impose excesive wear on the road surface and kill anyone that is struck by them. Why do you NEED a five ton gas hog anyway? You can haul as many if not more people or goods with a minivan or station wagon. We are going to outlaw them and take them from those who have legally bought them and have neve broken any laws with them, because some people crash them into other cars and kill people. A minivan or station wagon would limit the damage those bad people could inflict on others.
That would go over pretty well, wouldn't it?
Over the last 9 months alone. the Department of Homeland Security has purchased 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition. That's over five bullets for every man, woman and child in the US. And that is the danger that the 2nd Amendment is designed to protect us against.
Our government is working very hard to ensure that its own forces are powerfully armed, and that the people are not armed at all. That fact alone should make us suspicious and angry and determined that we will not allow our nation to be subjugated by a tyrannical government. At this same stage of the Nazi takeover of Germany, most people were saying that the arming of the Gestapo and disarming of the citizenry was for their own protection. That is where the phrase "it can't happen here" originated.
Paranoid Delusional Dystopian Future Alert!!!!
"Our government is working very hard to ensure that its own forces are powerfully armed, and that the people are not armed at all. That fact alone should make us suspicious and angry and determined that we will not allow our nation to be subjugated by a tyrannical government."
You have your facts mixed up with your imagination Kannin, there has never been any proposal to completely disarm the US population. There have only been proposals and in fact laws enacted over the years that limit certain types of arms that can be legally sold.
Nobody has ever proposed we disarm the population, you could not disarm this nation in 50 years.
I wouldn't be so paranoid, if everybody wasn't out to get me!
Yeah Grump, and the Nazi's didn't have a methodical plan to exterminate 6 million jews in 1938. They just wanted to register and catalog them. Then it was the gays, and the blacks, ......
"Don't worry it is only Mag limits and certain kinds of gays, um....I mean guns.... Thats all we want....."
Heard it before with the same cult of personality following this guy is using to make his goals seem like popular opinion.
All current and future gun owner must pass a psychological evaluation.
Upon passing you will receive a coupon for 15% off the purchase of a new American Made assault rifle of your choice.
Sounds like a better plan to me.
"Some will tell you they need military style small arms to protect themselves from the government if necessary. The government can send a smart missile right up your rectum, and watch the video of the expression on your face in real time, so good luck with that."
I do not believe that any soldier at any rank would ever turn their weapons on the American people. I do believe they would turn them on the politicians trying to give that order and the American people would stand with our servicemen. A threat to this country is a threat to the people of this country, not the government. In that case the government would be the threat.
The DHS just purchased enough small arms ammo to kill the entire population five times over. They do not have enough smart missiles to do that.
Just as one is not allowed to slander or libel another person thus limiting one's First Amendment right to free speech and free press, unfettered use of firearms needs to be curtailed when the rights of others, like small children or people in a movie theater, are adversely affected.
In the comparison of gun to SUV, the average accident with an SUV does not kill anyone but the average accident with a gun does. Rarely can someone take an SUV and wreak havok as with a Bushmaster or like weapon.
Yes, someone who is having a bad day could take a shot gun or rifle to a shopping mall, cinema, school but they would need to reload and couldn't fire as swiftly as the automatic or semi-automatic rifle can which gives victims a chance to take cover, escape or for someone to take down the assailant. Military weapons are designed to kill a maximum number of humans in a very short time. We don't have any need for that on the streets of our cities by civilians. As mentioned the government, if they want to kill you will do so and you won't know what hit you. It won't be a scheduled colonoscopy when you feel that projectile as they sit and watch your face.
Yes Adler. "Unfettered use of firearms needs to be curtailed." Just as in your example, unfettered use of your voice, or a printing press, needs to be curtailed "when the rights of others ... are adversely affected."
That does not mean that the government can take your printing press, your tongue, or your weapons away simply because they might be used to harm others.
The Constitution was written by men who were surely smart enough to realize that permitting citizens to be well-armed would, sadly, permit a madman to murder innocents by the handful. But they also realized that forbidding citizens from being well-armed would permit a madman to murder innocents by the millions.
They wisely chose to protect our country from the far greater evil.
To the men writing the Constitution, "well armed" probably meant that you owned 2 muskets and not just one.
Yep. They just needed to be armed as well or better than the soldiers of any would-be tyrant. In those days two muskets would do the trick. These days it takes far better weapons.
So, please, tell me about that M1 Abrams parked in your driveway.