Mourning Joe went off this morning . Top of every hour a 15 minute rant on how despicable, tone deaf etc etc

If ya lost Mourning Joe.....

Mourning Joe went off this morning .

And Quentin Tarantino went off on a reporter asking about gun violence in movies. Just like the NRA has circled the wagons to protect it's own interest, the entertainment industry does the same thing. There's little talk about how violent games and movies contribute to the problem. Why is that?

RobDon: Quentin Tarantino is an artist, not a politician. He makes films, not policy. I'm not really sure what a reporter asking a question to him wants to get as an answer, but it's highly doubtful the man has anything germaine to offer in the context of his films. Filmmakers make films, often about themes that mirror current events, and sometimes not.

Since Tarantino is an artist that absolves him of any responsibility? He doesn't have to have an opinion about the impact of the work he is "selling" (his words) to the public?

No, matter, the President is going to take care of it. He is going to have the issue studied! That should do it, because I'm sure it has never been studied before, huh? Wait, it was studied 4 decades ago?????

That was over 4 decades ago! In the years since this Surgeon General warning was issued, hundreds of additional studies have shown a link between violent media exposure and aggression (e.g., Anderson & Bushman, 2002a). The Surgeon General warning was about violent TV programs and films. What about violent video games?

RobDon: It's your personal choice to throw strawman arguments into the mix. One single man, Tarantino, who is not in any kind of power to do anything significant, is not going to change anything. Just as your sarcasm in respect to the POTUS, it's kind of astounding to see the vaccuousness of the pushback.

You think Tarantino doesn't have power in Hollywood?

My sarcasm about the POTUS is because the culture of violence is not as much controlled by an inanimate object like a gun, but much more by the entertainment industry that has moved from moving picture with words and sounds to very realistic interactive participation by young developing individuals. Do you disagree with that?

Maybe you should have set this one out RobDon. Particularly weak with the Tarantino tangent.

Rollo, do you think Hollywood (and specifically films like Tarantino) plays a big role in creating a violent culture? We know adverstisement impacts individuals, hour plus longs films do as well (as has been proven). Video games even take it another step. Am I off base?

I'm not engaging in your nonsense, Rob. Do not waste your time.

It's not a valid argument RobDon if only, to my mind, because Quentin Tarantino's films, all gory, violent films and video games are shown in other countries too. They're in the movie theatres in Canada, the UK, probably Australia plus being dubbed into other languages to be shown in Germany, Italy, Spain ... etc.

Tell me why then we (the rest of the civilized world) DO NOT have the same violence problem the USA does? If violence in movies or video games is to blame (though studies have shown the link to be weak) but guns aren't, then WHY aren't the statistics on violence the same or at least similar?

Yes, you are off base. We don't have to guess based on theories about advertising; there are plenty of other industrialized countries around the world that consume similar levels of violent films and television and much higher levels of violent video games. None of them have anything approaching the level of violence that the US does.

If your "proven" evidence of the influence of films on behavior, not just some nebulous "impact," shows anything like the "much more" that you're claiming, then you might have a point (do feel free to post a link to substantiate your extraordinary claims.) Otherwise, you are demanding "responsibility" from people there is no evidence are responsible while providing cover for an industry that contributes to the deaths of thousands of Americans every year. Despicable.

80sGirl, you make a valid point. Here's one reason:

For example, the British Board of Film Classification has required that many violent scenes be cut from the American versions of popular films (including the Rambo, Die Hard and Lethal Weapon series, even Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles), to avoid restrictive classifications.

And, of course, the obvious, they don't have the availability of guns. That doesn't mean the violent images do not impact the violence.

Can't vouch for the validity of this, will need to make sure but here's more. The 1974 Texas Chainsaw Massacre was banned, but not in the US -

After a brief release in the UK, it was banned until 1999. It was also banned in many other countries for its violent and sadistic content, including France, Sweden, Singapore and Brazil.

And regarding Natural Born Killers:

After being banned in Ireland. the UK release was delayed after reports of copycat killings. The eventual video release was set back by five years, after the completely unrelated Dunblane massacre. Stone still believes people have misunderstood the satirical point of the film.

Copycat killings in the UK? Seems pretty strong anecdotal evidence to me.

If nothing else, other countries seem to have started later accepting some of the violence in film. I welcome any proof otherwise (as I said, it was a quick search and not something I'm familiar with).

RobDon, I usually like your points but I think that you are misstating the point. It is not the entertainment industry per say that is to blame by making voilence part of it's package. It is the Celebration of the violence that has been ingrained in our culture since the advent of movable type to print papers quickly and get them distributed. And that is the point. WE, as a culture, Celebrate the bad guy with the gun - Think back through your history of the US and write down as many names as you remember that was a bad guy with a gun. You actually may think of more than I, but I bet we would think of the same ones. Al Capone, Billy the Kid, John wilkes Booth, . And if people cannot think of the names of the persons involved, they can certainly think of incidents - shootout at Tombstone, for instance, an event that is celebrated through re-enactment to this day. So if you mean to point out that the entertainment and media are hosts to glorifying and Celebrating bad guys with guns, then I absolutely agree.

The media of old remained quiet over one or two deaths that were gun related - it might get printed on the second or third page, unless it was a prominient man that was killed. But three or more people getting shot in a showdown went national, just like in today's media. Someone gets shot, a little blip. A mall gets shot up and three people die, it goes international. Why do people in the UK need to know that a mall in Oregon was the scene of a shooting? Because it was big. It was a happening place. It was bomb to report something that could shock and awe people that may have been in Oregon, in that very mall at some point in their lives. As long as we in the US continue to celebrate our bad guys with guns, we will have bad guys with guns, or knives, or fire, or with killer hands. And I suspect we will have them even if the entertainment and media were not around to report or make movies about what they do. Prevention is the key factor and not celebrating killer behaviour may be one of the first steps in a 12-step type program.

Jontara, I think you are right on with the "celebration" point. Today's news media plays into it as evidence by those like Anderson Cooper who refused to use the "bad guys" name ofter the Sandy Hook shooting. I would say, though, the entertainment industry plays a part in the "celebration" as well. But, excellent point IMHO.

WHY PASS A BAN ON WEAPONS THAT HAS PROVEN NOT TO WORK

This has nothing to do with taking on the government or protecting your second amendment rights... It has to do with protecting your family if the government fails... Have you ever seen a person or parent of a child that has gone several days without food or water, People get desperate and will do anything to help their children in dire situations...

Every empire that has existed in history has collapsed... even as recently as the USSR or a natural disaster that limits the ability of the government to provide goods and services, look at Hurricane Katrina... and when that happens the People are left without food, water, shelter, etc...

It's not that you may need a few bullets to hunt with... It's in a situation where the governing body fails... even in short outages that you need more...

Please help us in New York, before the laws come to a town near you...

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/rule-ny-safe-act-be-unconstitutional/W2KLT6t8#thank-you=p (and)

http://www.nysenate.gov/webform/stand-second-amendment-standing-new-york-state-senator-kathleen-marchione

Please

it only takes a minute to sign up... PLEASE... Or / Also Contact...

http://www.therightperspective.org/2013/01/17/new-york-gun-ban-faces-lawsuit/

At the following Email addresses

psacco1@twcny.rr.com and tresmondlaw@gmail.com

Include: Firstname, Lastname, Email Address, and Phone Number

If you only think it has to do with NY your wrong...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/25/us-arms-treaty-un-idUSBRE8BO00B20121225

...and the easier to read version...

http://www.prisonplanet.com/bombshell-leaked-un-gun-treaty-does-ban-guns.html

PASS THIS TO YOU LOCAL GUN AND AMMUNITION DEALERS, FRIENDS, HUNTERS, AMERICANS WHO CARE ABOUT THIER FAMILIES, ANYONE YOU TALK WITH...

You're not getting it. When Obama thinks gun control is sufficient to protect his children, the rest of us will too. Until then it's more important to see what Obama does, not what he says. Right now, he's a hypocrite.

Annie Oakley: Who is "us"? You got a gerbil in your pocket...

Gun control does not mean every gun will be off the market. Gun control means several different things, perhaps NY will serve as a good example:

Clips bigger than 7 rounds are banned.

No semi-automatics or military-style weapons.

Background checks, regardless of where the purchase is made.

Mental health officials must report if a gun owner may be a threat to others or themselves.

Gee... I think the US Secret Service just MIGHT pass those qualifications, don't you, Blanks? There's nothing hypocritical about the President of the United States having bodyguards. As a powerful man at the head of a government, he's in a situation where assassination is on the table. He's in a situation where his family can be kidnapped, assaulted, or murdered.

The average American will NEVER have to worry about an assassination attempt.

Get a lot of death threats, there, do ya Shooter?

Shooter

You ever watch the West Wing? Remember when the President's daughter was kidnapped? The reason most peoples kids aren't protected by the Secret service is because most of us aren't in positions of power and authority and don't have access to Nuclear codes. It's a ludicrous and insane argument. Period full stop.

yes , millions of people from around the world are obsessed with wanting to kill shooter , since shooter is up there with obama risking his families lives every day ...that makes as much sense as anything else the gop ever have say

Wow, Shooter took the meme hook, line and stinker! Congratulations NRA, your new implant is amazing!

OT, David Gregory is an eltitist hypocrite? I thought he was just a shill, I'm confused NRA, tell me what to think!!

Gregory's image was an odd choice. If they wanted an Icon of the librul media, I am a little insulted on behalf of Maddow. They should have taken the image from her interviewing the parents of one of the Sandy Hook children killed. You know- with the glasses and the keffiyeh like scarf.

I thought Colbert strained credulity when he began his show the other night in a gilly suit. Now, I am not sure he went far enough.

The imagery of this ad suggests what some significant percentage of the silent majority actually wants are swat team members on high alert guarding all approaches to schools as if they were in danger of imminent military assault. And what about the other potential targets? Do we want to have this sort of happy sense of security at the local McDonald's, and at Disneyland, and the playgrounds and the beaches and all other possible locations that an unhinged individual with a combat arms might massacre children?

What is odd is that the NRA leadership actually does think this sort of response makes any kind of sense to normal people who otherwise might be sympathetic to complaints from gun owners about inconvenient regulations.

I get how that kind of scenario would increase guns sales dramatically, but seriously, do they have any idea how this kind of paranoia looks to the rest of the citizens?

You ever watch the West Wing? Remember when the President's daughter was kidnapped?

You ever watch the news about Sandy Hook Elementary? Remember the average kids of average Americans were killed, not kidnapped? That's the point the ad is trying to make.

A couple of Democratic mayors have gotten the point and put armed gaurds in their city's schools. Are they wrong and immature and stupid like the NRA, too?

Yes Rob, it is a tragedy that the children at Sandy Hook were killed.

No Rob, that doesn't mean they need the USSS to protect them.

Gun control will not stop gun violence in its entirety, but it can definitely help.

Katherine, the ad is not trying to make the point that Secret Service is needed. many schools have armed security. And, no, gun control will not stop it entirely but reactionary gun control measure could make it worse.

Why the urgency? Because like with the debt ceiling, Washington seems to only act in an emergency and not during times when thoughtfulness and time are abundant. IMHO.

Come on RobDon, do you seriously believe that response can scale?

Look at it from the point of view of the nut looking to commit the next massacre. Go through the scenarios

• Security on the cheap: There is a $9 per hour stiff that used to push a broom and now has a gun strapped to his belt. You think the shooter isn't going to be able to do him while he is chewing on a donut?
• Serious security: The school hires professionals at $50 per hour. They are always on, always alert, with all possible entrances covered, with body armor and rigorous training in tactics. The shooter observes the hard target and what do they do? Right. They move to the soft target at the public beach or playground.

So yeah- for certain schools, armed presence can suppress certain types of violent activity- that's just law enforcement 101. But the idea that this a reasonable response to a person intent on committing a massacre is not necessarily motivated by immaturity or paranoia, but it is demonstrably ill considered.

Or do you think the armed protection idea does scale? If so, show me where I have erred.

John, I think I agree with most of your comment. It even applies to guns, meaning banning guns doesn't stop it either. A motivated individual intent on doing harm to others has multiple options from fire, chemicals, explosives, etc. all of which can kill many people when enacted by a capable individual.

I think the possibility of a trained armed security professional is a viable part of the solution and so does the President now, according to his directive. That said, I'm am not against all gun control. (But, then again, I don't own a gun nor have I ever...unless you could the Daisy BB gun years and years ago.)

Well said, John M.

It's amazing that you had to explain that to him. I used to think that RobDon pretended to be dumb about certain things. I'm not so sure he's pretending.

I think it is a sign of a sick society when you have to have an armed guard for many public officials and their children. In a normal society anyone's children should be able to go to school without armed guards. Guns aren't the sign of a safe society, but a sign of a sick society. I'm not against guns for sports, but for people to feel they need to be armed to be safe is not a good sign. You really can't protect everyone all the time. If someone wants to do someone harm they will find a way to do it. For a school like Sandy Hook you would require many guards and that still wouldn't ensure that everyone is always 100% safe. Armed guards might prevent a rational person from hurting someone, but the ones that carryout those shootings are not rational.

This:

Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.

Does not mean trained armed security professionals.

Rollo, I know in some areas "school resources officers" are police officers from the local department that works in and with the schools.

RobDon - No one is talking about 'banning guns.' Gun control != Gun bans. I put a list up there of some options, and a lot of them were agreed to by the President's proposals on gun violence this afternoon. Limiting access to firearms and limiting the number of shots that can be fired at any one time, slowing down the killing in case of a shooting occuring, these are all good things and can be met without resorting to the removal of every gun everywhere.

You mention fire and chemicals and explosives and while these do, indeed, cause serious harm and destruction, they require a lot more intent and a lot more preparation. Most gun violence is not planned. Most is spur of the moment and caused by increased emotions. Lowering access and reducing the chance someone will grab a gun and run to shoot someone.

Katherine, I really appreciate dialog. Some on here will not discuss. A couple of things regarding your post.

Some are talking about "banning guns" those very few about "banning" all guns. The President (right or wrong, beneficial or not, depending on view) is talking about "banning some" guns. So gun control (as of now) does equal banning "some" guns. (Which may be okay, but you can't say it is not banning).

Lastly, I think evidence shows most mass shootings (which that is what a lot of this is about) is not "spur of the moment" but very thought out, planned, and dilberate.

Rob: "banning" is worlds different from stopping selling some models! A ban would make possesion illegal...

RobDon - Okay, you're right there. Some guns, some models of guns, and some numbers and types of ammunition will be banned. However, when people talk about banning guns they usually are meaning the wholesale ban of guns (banning video games is different than, say, banning video games about sexual assault.)

Mass shootings are, indeed, more thought out and planned, but mass shootings are not the only type of gun violence. If a mass shooter is, however, limited to ten shots per clip (as Obama wants the number to be) and only single shot weapons, there will be much less chance that it will become a high body count situation.

Armed protection of all possible massacre sites would reduce the number of massacres substantially. I did not dismiss it because it would not prevent all massacres. To do that would be sloppy thinking.

I dismissed it because it is would require a substantial standing army within every city. The cost and social corrosiveness of such a police state makes it a wildly impractical solution.

Requiring yearly re-registration including a psychological screening is a practical deterrent. Making gun ammunition substantially more expensive is a practical deterrent. Banning handgun possession in urban areas is a substantial practical deterrent.

None are guaranteed, but they involve insubstantial costs to implement and are statistically correlated with lower gun deaths.

So let's do them.

John, having a yearly psychological screening of every gun owner is practical? Who sets the standard for "okay?" If I take anxiety medication, am I "okay?" And, who pays for this, the government? the gun owners? That's practical? I don't think so.

President Obama made additional resources available to allow officers to protect schools today, so he must think it is not unreasonable.

Lebowsky, "banning" point is well taken. Banning guns versus banning future sale is different.

Katherine, you, too, have points but mutli-firing guns (I think I just invented that word) are needed for protection. In the new recently was a mother who fired mutliple shots at the intruder who broke into her home as she protected her children and they did not stop him. He fled under his own power.

Oh for pity sake. Are you saying we should do no psychological screening for prospective adoptive parents because it doing a 10 minute series of questions is too costly to be worth it? Take a look at the profile of the Gabby Gifford shooting or the Sandy Hook nut. You think a mental health care professional could not identify these sorts of individuals as potentially having a screw loose in a cost effective way?

And by the way, what is the proper measure of cost effectiveness when considering the price of a firts grader's life?

You pay for your auto yearly checkout. Cost of ownership.

It's cheap. If you disagree, maybe you think life if cheap.

John, I'm just not understanding how this "screening" will work. Will it be done by a psychologist? Will it be done by the Wal-Mart clerk?

And the "considering the price of a first grader's life" is like saying "if it saves one life, it is worth it," nice slogans but not practical. If that were the case we would eliminate cars to save lives...etc.

Let's transpose your argument to screening for adoption.

JM: Let's have psych screening to make sure lunatics aren't allowed to adopt children

RD: Is this conducted by a Wall Mart Clerk?

[Seriously? Is that how you would respond to this proposal for protecting adopted children? If not, then why is it a legitimate retort when the subject is protecting children from guns?]

RD:You can't just say "if it saves one life, it is worth it,"

JM: Why not? Because you don't want to be out $20 every year to pay a person with a mental health credential to give you a looney tunes sniff test every year?

[If this is successful at screening out people who would be dangerous around children in the adoption case, why shouldn't we use it to screen out people who would be dangerous around children in the gun case?]

Sure- there are lots of lunatics who would slip through. Do you seriously believe that every one of the shooters in the last 5 massacres would pass an initial sniff test with a mental health professional?

@RobDon -

Semi-automatic and automatic guns and large magazines are not needed. A pistol with seven rounds is enough to protect a family.

Katherine,

pistols used for home protection ARE semi-automatic. So, you have successfully contradicted yourself.

Jeff,

You attack my questions without answering them. I asked if a Walmart clerk would do the mental health screening because Walmart is a popular place to buy guns. I asked who would do the screening, when and where? But you don't provide a plausible way of doing screenings prior to gun purchase.

Adoptions are a very long and very through drawn out process (as it should be), since you compared it gun buying to the adoption process...is that what you envision?

This discussion of your proposed solution is producing no specifics from you.

No, I didn't contradict myself. I did, however, show my ignorance. I'm no gun nut, pistols terrify me (I'm apparently a crack shot... but I've only ever touched a few guns.) I was honestly not aware that most pistols are semi-automatic.

I thought semi-automatic referred to guns that fired multiple rounds with a single trigger pull, chalk it up to ignorance of gun terminology.

Katherine, no sweat. I too find myself ignorant on lots of subject. That is the problem, many who are saying things like ban semi-automatics are also ignorant on the subject. Right now this is very emotional and we need rational thinking motivated by good intentions, not just reactionary emotional responses. IMHO.

Robdon.

There is nothing complicated here. Psych screening for adoptions vary by state, but are not long drawn out affairs. I have been through them. Tens of thousands of social workers have the necessary mental health credential. You are making a mountain out of a molehill. Ten minutes- your done. It's no big deal. If they mess up or you want to challenge- there is a review and appeal process just like anything else. They are just doing a quick check for lunatics.

I get the rationale behind your Wal Mart question. You'd have to get checked out prior to going into the Wal Mart. If you already did your one year re-registration as a gun owner, then you can just go in and buy on the spot.

You are in the database. A national registration database of those entitled to own or possess a firearm. A database any cop anywhere can check when they find someone with a gun.

His story in specific- especially in the context of focusing on the theory of justice in the US. The "justice" system comes down hard- out of any proportion to the harm down on a commoner, but when it comes to prosecuting anyone for torture, or the monumental fraud schemes on Wall Street, there is no response, no consequences... A wink and a nod.

Hayes had a guy on his show a year ago who had a book on this justice subject- no consequences for the torturers and the perpetrators of the meltdown. His name slips me- can anyone help out?

Many years ago, I had a friend who was an exceptionally bright PhD organic chemist. The explanation of why is a long one, but he manufactured eight ounces of synthetic heroin. Problem was, he had no idea how to sell it. In making inquiries, the DEA caught wind and set him up for a "sale" and, of course, arrest. He was given 18 years in federal prison for this.

Now, if he'd known anyone in the drug "trade" he could turn on, it might have been less. He didn't. But the worse problem was that this was during the early stages of the War on Drugs, and Congress was trying to pass the designer drug law. I actually read the congressional record of the debate, where Hubert Humphrey stood up and said this was unconstitutional, to make something so unspecific as making a substance "kinda-sorta used for something like this" illegal. The chemist saw no other option but to plead guilty and throw himself on the mercy of the court. They made this guy an example, and it didn't end well.

After three years in prison and finally getting effective counsel, the federal counts were thrown out. However, the state in turn revived their charges--after getting a grant of $275K from the DEA. Bum deal. While going through the process of fighting these renewed charges, the erstwhile brilliant chemist had a breakdown. The long and short was "suicide by police."

It truly was everyone's loss.

Just STOP. You KNOW what you just wrote is insane. The President and his family are protected because they are the HEAD OF GOVERNMENT in the US and are kept safe from the crazies. Can you spell assassination?

Yes I can spell assassination, and very likely the parents of Sandy Hook can too. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Annie Oakley: The "left" is a given on the issue of gun insanity. You should be fearing the vast middle, because you folks are acting unhinged, and are being led by nincompoops...

Was George H. W. Bush a hypocrite for banning the import of assault weapons while he was being protected by guns? Was George W. Bush a hypocrite for being for extending the ban on assault weapons and for instant background checks at gun shows while he was being protected by guns? Or are only those on the left hypocrites for it?

Sorry bud, but infringing on the right to keep... is something to be concerned with. It's a primary reason for owning a gun. Not for hunting, not for sport, but for the fear of Govt run amuck. The commenters here make the case for gun ownership every day.

I've never owned a gun, don't want a gun, but I'm thinking about buying one anyway. Keep up the good work.

Steve, import restriction is not banning assault weapons, they were still available. As for the rest, automatic weapons are still banned, no? Don't hear anyone complaining about that do you?

Oh God Shooter you haven't gone completely around the bend and become a "Truther" have you...

Please please tell me you aren't THAT Paranoid!

Shooter, if you are so frakken scared the goverment is going to take away your guns then why not leave the US and go somewhere where you can own all the guns you want? Im sure you and your buddies could use those guns to carve out a little country all for yourself over in Africa.

shooter , we already spend trillions of military dollars to protect you lazy fat paranoid gop voters , how much more do you diaper wearing free loaders need to feel safe?

Sorry bud, but infringing on the right to keep... is something to be concerned with. It's a primary reason for owning a gun. Not for hunting, not for sport, but for the fear of Govt run amuck.

Do you have any idea how much you weaken your argument when you say you want a gun so you can protect yourself from your own government? Preparing to take up arms against your own local police? Your own National Guard? Your own military?

There’s a word for that… can’t think of it right now, but its antonym is “patriotic”.

Blankman simply because there is a 2nd Amendment "Right to Bear Arms" doesn't mean that those "arms" need to be assault rifles. And "regulation" doesn't mean "taking away your guns" - now, stop, breathe join the real world. Having a magazine clip with 30 rounds isn't a "need", nor does it infringe on your right to own a firearm. But those people that choose NOT to own a firearm should NOT have to live in fear that an armed crazy, or someone with an ax to grind will take them out in a Mall, or their children while in school!

The fact that you choose to live in fear of everything is NOT the fault of the rest of US, and WE should NOT be in fear of your paranoia that someone is coming to take your stuff (whatever that may be) away. Maybe you need to leave RedState/FAUX NOOZ/Beck/Limberger and the rest alone, step into the real world, breathe deeply, don't be alarmed they won't hurt you.

...but for the fear of Govt run amuck

Uh-huh. I got some news for you - You can stock up on all the machine guns you want, but if the big bad government wants to take you out, you'll never know what hit you. Get real.

Looks like Blanks has bought the whole pile of steaming crap from the worlds largest lobbying group. Scary, scary Obama is going to take away your guns, so you better go buy some. And the gun manufacturers are laughing all they way to the bank.

No one, but NO ONE wants to take away our guns. The second amendment is like mom and apple pie to Americans and that is not going to change. "WE THE PEOPLE" are the government, you fool!

Here's the elephant in the room. All these guys holding assault weapons, threatening violence if anyone tries to take away their guns are going to protect us against the government? These screaming idiots who think that ANYONE should be able to own ANY weapon, with an unlimited capacity of bullets that are made expressly to explode in the flesh of the victim, are worried about the government? I want to know who is going to protect us against them?

I guess I need a bigger gun.

Change begins with US. I do enjoy all the salient, reasonable, and pragmatic solutions and commentary on this blog. But, while it's great that we share them with each other, in times like these, it really is a form of intellectual activism that needs to be taken a big step further.

If you've never before written a member of Congress, there are tabs and a map, on the website below, that will tell you how to find members, and others that show you how to direct, address, and compose your email.

Click this link: http://www.congressmerge.com/onlinedb/

If we really want to be an active part of the solutions to our collective mires we need to let the right people know how we feel. We must inundate the email inboxes of our members of Congress with our wishes and strongly urge them to vote the way we want them to vote...even those in the GOP. The "will of the people" is what they love to opine about--well, let those intransigent obstructionists hear, loudly and clearly, your urgent call to action. If we bombard their inboxes with emails (even simply paste in your post with some polite urgency--promises to vote against them if they don't do our bidding--and suggested action!), we will have a better shot at achieving our goals. Talk is cheap...let's give it some real value.

Clisk this link to facilitate that end:

http://www.congressmerge.com/onlinedb/

If you've never before written a member of Congress, there are tabs and a map, on the website below, that will tell you how to find members, and others that show you how to direct, address, and compose your email.

Let's use all avenues of due process available to us to achieve useful, pragmatic change NOW!

It's all about "fluffing up" the gun-toters, who are quaking in their boots that this is the end of their precious weapons. The NRA knows that reasonable folks will just laugh at these preposterous statements, but as long as they can keep the rabble roused, they're still in the game.

I'm guessing YOU do not espouse your craziness outside your 4 walls...you ARE the minority.

You're right, Scott. I'm a National Merit Scholar. Semi-finalists for that honor are one-half of one percent of graduating high school seniors. So I guess that does make me a minority. Not that I mind.

Hence the term "Educated idiot". Second Amendment Constitutional rights were intended for this type of Dictatorial Presidency.

And you're just a plain old garden-variety idiot? Whatever. At least you're in the majority.

N.B.: Sometimes, that's not a good thing, Scott.

Wonder if scott or annie oakley know what "N.B." means.

Wonder if Liberals know that Scott really does not care?

It's because they're so used to having their butts kissed that they're out of practice. Job opportunity for the ultimate turd polisher, Karl Rove?

speaking of which....I keep hearing of 100k new members ...but still only a minority of the actual population with 80% of us rational human beings think it should be OUR right to go to a shopping mall or theater without worrying about nutcases with assault weapons

The are so repulsive the money is going to dry up , and that is the only power they have

Serious "like"!

Ted Nugent.

This is exactly what it is. If most NRA members are for gun control and the extreme views of the organization only represent a small percentage of its members' views, it's definitely all about gun manufacturers, and their bottom line. It's always about the money.

Please...just because you hear some moron on MSDNC say it...it ain't necessarily so.

Actually, I haven't heard some MSDNC say it. I haven't heard anyone say it. It just seems like a logical direction. If most of NRA members don't support it, then why the heck are NRA upper-echelons supporting the extreme view, which seems to be unpopular with its members? It's because the NRA leaders and representatives don't care much for what its members think. They care about the bottom line.

It's OK, AnnaBe. Scott doesn't understand that people with brains can actually use them to generate original thoughts. He gets his talking points, and when he gets to the end of that rope, he's just done.

With a nod to my favorite author, Richard Mitchell:

Children tend to see their own best qualities in others, while adults tend to see their worst.

I think Scott assumes everyone is spewing hate because he does.

Is THAT why NRA membership has swelled by 250,000?

Nobody said we had a shortage of fear toting gun nuts, Scott. This happens every time there's a shooting. Innocent people get killed in a mass shooting and other people respond with fear. The NRA's already 4.25M membership increased by 5% (or 250K), but if you want to talk numbers, how about the 70+% of its members supporting some kind of gun regulation?

Source: http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/07/24/577091/nra-members-agree-regulating-guns-makes-sense/

I don't know why people join the NRA in droves after a shooting, but what I do know is that members agree to stricter rules for gun ownership. Because you know, that's what we're talking about here, right? Not that you tried to divert the discussion... oh, wait.

Its the NRA's idea. They can pay for it!

Maybe cut welfare?

scott, I don't think big business would like their welfare cut.

50 years of "The war on poverty"...Poverty has never had it so good.....

Would you trade places with all those people who get any type of government assistance?

Sure...After this Failure in chief shoved a WILDLY unpopular health care bill down America's throats...think America learned something about the failure? Remember the "God,Guns and Religion" comment? This failure has been true to his word...and people are going to show him what they think of him...he has some kind of Dictatorial delusion of power.

Careful, your small mind is showing.

You're right. He should have said "Guns, Guns, Guns" and left God out of it.

Sure it is...Government says "take it"...you take it AND like it...right?

That whole Bothersome Constitution thing,you know...add to that this Failures proclivity for pushing things down the throats of Americans like it or not don't help.

Ever bother to read the Constitution, @Scott? It does not provide cover for what the NRA is insisting it does. Add to it, let's say that it did - that doesn't answer the basic question of why the life of the gun is more important to 'gun nuts' than actual lives.

Being as the founding Fathers had to squirrel away weapons to try and gain their freedom from an overly oppressive Government... THAT was one of the big lessons. and to limit the ability and Firepower of the citizenry benefits WHO? It's much easier to keep Those that fundamentally disagree with them in check. You may not like the summation, but in the end...it's the truth.

@Scott -- your reply richly deserves a response from the "we also have fewer bayonets and muskets" book. And it still does not answer why the life of the gun should in all circumstances be more important than actual lives This ad the NRA put out is a vile disgrace -- and not just because it's virulently ignorant. It's a disgrace that, in the wake of the Newtown tragedy, the NRA is still advocating for the life of the gun above all other considerations as the one and only solution.

How long has his children been protected by weapons...not just since his ascendancy to the presidency I will tell you.And the FBI came out with stats that more Americans were killed with blunt weapons than Rifles from 1993-2002...Guns do NOT kill people...criminals do.And it matters not what instrument is used.

Not to put too fine a point on it, the argument the NRA is making is a painfully silly one. I don't ride an armored car to work everyday, (unless you want to count the subway!) does that mean the President of the United States and his family should not have Secret Service protection? Of course not! Does it mean the President thinks my life is not as valuable as his? Of course not! The whole thing is silly.

About the whole "guns don't kill people, people do" argument. Well, scissors don't stab anyone, but you put away all sharp objects when you suspect you may have an unstable person around, don't you? And you don't keep sharp scissors near where children can easily get hold of them. Same concept with gun safety measures - if 'criminals' and unstable people kill with guns, make it harder for them to obtain weapons that wreak massive destruction. Why wouldn't the NRA work towards solutions towards responsible gun ownership instead of pushing for reckless gun ownership through releasing these kinds of silly and despicable ads? Needless to say, I'm beyond disgusted with the likes of LaPierre, et al.

As I am disgusted with the amount of deaths in the mean streets of American urban centers. But PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY and NOT restricting access or putting undue hardships on law abiding citizens.

Newtown is a "mean streets urban center"? Come on. Every post of yours is proving my point that the NRA and its most ardent devotees are not about responsible gun ownership -- after every massacre, the only relevant question for this crowd seems to be, "Oh, too bad people got shot up -- but the gun made it out okay, didn't it?" That's sickening.

If the founders were so worried about their rights to their guns why didn't they put in the constitution instead of waiting to amend it?

Yep, I just cringe when I hear some of the nutty stuff that's being said. But that's been the case since President Obama was first elected--black helicopters, gun confiscation, fake Web sites claiming to represent military leaders warning of impending martial law. The problem is that there are so many people out there WITHOUT CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS who buy it hook, line and sinker.

Change begins with US. I do enjoy all the salient, reasonable, and pragmatic solutions and commentary on this blog. But, while it's great that we share them with each other, in times like these, it really is a form of intellectual activism that needs to be taken a big step further.

If you've never before written a member of Congress, there are tabs and a map, on the website below, that will tell you how to find members, and others that show you how to direct, address, and compose your email.

Click this link: http://www.congressmerge.com/onlinedb/

If we really want to be an active part of the solutions to our collective mires we need to let the right people know how we feel. We must inundate the email inboxes of our members of Congress with our wishes and strongly urge them to vote the way we want them to vote...even those in the GOP. The "will of the people" is what they love to opine about--well, let those intransigent obstructionists hear, loudly and clearly, your urgent call to action. If we bombard their inboxes with emails (even simply paste in your post with some polite urgency--promises to vote against them if they don't do our bidding--and suggested action!), we will have a better shot at achieving our goals. Talk is cheap...let's give it some real value.

Clisk this link to facilitate that end:

http://www.congressmerge.com/onlinedb/

If you've never before written a member of Congress, there are tabs and a map, on the website below, that will tell you how to find members, and others that show you how to direct, address, and compose your email.

Let's use all avenues of due process available to us to achieve useful, pragmatic change NOW!

Excellent post, GA. I hope enough people read down far enough to catch it. Yours is a voice of reason that too often gets drowned out by all the shouting.

Well A) Why the heck do you need an AR15?!

And B) The New York law grandfathers in existing weapons banned under their laws, you just have to register them.

So..American History never really happened and Governments are never oppressive? You are a strange one indeed....