|
|
Post by txdancermom on Feb 24, 2018 2:19:33 GMT
I sincerely hope we are. I think that people are finally seeing how unreasonable they are. I believe the founding fathers put in the 2nd amendment for good reason, and that if we choose we have the right to arm ourselves. Carrying a handgun or owning a rifle for hunting, that is your choice. dh and I choose not to have guns, and until recently I would have said I never even touched a gun.
However, when the weapons (AR-15s) create injuries that are so violent that surgeons can't repair the damage (there was an er doc that wrote a commentary in the Washington Post this week), those weapons do not need to be in the hands of the citizenry. those weapons are meant for nothing but total destruction of whatever they hit, they are not for hunting, they were designed for warfare.
There also need to be background checks on every gun purchase, including gun shows. And families and others need a way to get guns out of the hands of those who are felt to be a danger to themselves or others. And there needs to be an increase in funding for mental health care, make it available to anyone who needs it.
I admire the kids who witnessed and survived the shooting in Florida and are speaking out and making their voices heard. I think the companies that are standing up to the NRA and revoking their discounts/special privileges. I hope many others do, letting the NRA know that we are not going to accept this bullying behavior much longer.
jmho
|
|
|
|
Post by pierogi on Feb 24, 2018 3:54:06 GMT
I think that it will take awhile, but change is coming. Your words to God’s ear. ❤️ |
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Feb 24, 2018 4:18:39 GMT
There have been discussion that military and law enforcement could be extempt. "Congress is in recess until next week. Cornyn, who was in the Capitol on Friday to preside over a brief pro forma session, said he thought an age restriction would be problematic if an 18-year-old Marine or police officer were told he or she could not buy a gun. "I can see that it would be difficult to enforce," he said. "I'm not sure why we would go to those lengths when I don't think that gets to the root of the problem." www.cnn.com/2018/02/23/politics/john-cornyn-gun-age/index.html |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Aug 18, 2025 19:29:37 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2018 5:30:16 GMT
State run firearms stores. Databases up the wazoo. LOTS of rules. That's what we have for alcohol and legal pot. That's what we should have for guns.
|
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Feb 24, 2018 5:42:16 GMT
State run firearms stores. Databases up the wazoo. LOTS of rules. That's what we have for alcohol and legal pot. That's what we should have for guns. They could be privately owned firearms stores. We have them here and we have strict gun laws. They are not on every corner or in every town though. Liquor stores are private too and there are lots of them all over. Medical pot dispensaries are few and far between. |
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Feb 24, 2018 14:17:29 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by melanell on Feb 25, 2018 3:53:25 GMT
15 companies have now severed ties with the NRA. It seems like they are becoming toxic. There is an Amazon boycott being suggested on Twitter to try to convince them to stop hosting NRA TV. Here is the link for anyone interested in reading about it: Link via Twitter to ask Amazon to drop NRA TV(I have not read this entire thread, so my apologies if this was already mentioned here or elsewhere.) |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Aug 18, 2025 19:29:37 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2018 5:48:46 GMT
First state gun reform legislation since Parkland. It was introduced before Parkland. It has been voted on since and is expected to be signed into law by Oregon's governor. Closing an important loophole in DV/gun legislation. Let's face it - a lot of the shooters are angry white males who go off based on some real or perceived slight or insult or rejection. "Fueled by anguished voices in the aftermath of the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, Oregon's Legislature on Thursday banned people convicted of stalking and domestic violence or under restraining orders from buying or owning firearms and ammunition. The passage of the bill by the state Senate on a 16-13 vote appears to mark the first time a state legislature has passed a gun-control measure since the Feb. 14 shooting in Parkland, Florida, said Anne S. Teigen, a criminal justice expert with the National Conference of State Legislatures in Denver. The measure was introduced before the Florida slayings. Oregon Gov. Kate Brown had lobbied for the bill, telling a Senate committee this week to hear the anguished voices rising in the aftermath of the Florida attack in which 17 people were killed. The Democratic governor said she intends to sign into law the measure that the House earlier approved to protect victims of domestic violence." www.sun-sentinel.com/news/nationworld/fl-reg-oregon-gun-control-bill-20180223-story.html |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Aug 18, 2025 19:29:37 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2018 14:19:13 GMT
This is HUGE!!!
"Breaking News: Dick's Sporting Goods, one of the U.S.'s largest sports retailers, will stop selling assault-style rifles and require gun buyers to be 21"
It feels like something has shifted.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Aug 18, 2025 19:29:37 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2018 14:20:41 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by pierkiss on Feb 28, 2018 14:23:51 GMT
I’m not sure there will be any change in their stronghold until the majority of the members of Congress who have accepted money from the NRA are voted out. That will really show that the will of the people has changed, and that they can no longer buy the politicians to do what they want. I worry hat day will never come.
|
|
|
|
Post by verdepea on Feb 28, 2018 14:28:44 GMT
Thank you Dicks Sporting Goods! I appreciate your transparency and your change of heart and actions..
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Aug 18, 2025 19:29:37 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2018 14:30:05 GMT
I’m not sure there will be any change in their stronghold until the majority of the members of Congress who have accepted money from the NRA are voted out. That will really show that the will of the people has changed, and that they can no longer buy the politicians to do what they want. I worry hat day will never come. Agreed! In a democracy, we get the government we deserve. We deserve this government because too many of us don't care who is in power, don't vote, don't pay attention. If people start to get informed and vote, in every single election, we will have a better government who will do the will of the people w/in the confines of the Constitution and/or we can amend the Constitution if SCOTUS deems it unconstitutional to enact common sense gun reforms (so far, they have upheld MANY restriction as consistent w/2A). The vast majority of people want gun reform and healthcare for all. Until they start voting in greater number, running for office, donating to candidates, etc., those will be out of reach. But I think the tides are turning - in many ways - on #metoo, guns, healhcare, etc. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Aug 18, 2025 19:29:37 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2018 14:33:10 GMT
While I love this, judging by the comments in my feed, the gun lovers are just going to boycott them and go elsewhere. One man, local to me, says his "responsible" teenagers have guns and he'll go to a different store to buy whatever they want. Fuck. |
|
|
|
Post by gar on Feb 28, 2018 14:38:03 GMT
While I love this, judging by the comments in my feed, the gun lovers are just going to boycott them and go elsewhere. One man, local to me, says his "responsible" teenagers have guns and he'll go to a different store to buy whatever they want. Fuck. It’s going to take time but baby steps are being taken in the right direction. Your youth will grow up and mature with a different mind set. |
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Feb 28, 2018 14:45:31 GMT
It's interesting to me that Dick's is so readily able to define what an assault-style rifle is. We're so often told here that this is a designation without meaning.
It was pointed out elsewhere that Dick's did something similar after Sandy Hook, but it didn't stick. So we'll see.
|
|
|
|
Post by pierkiss on Feb 28, 2018 15:00:23 GMT
It's interesting to me that Dick's is so readily able to define what an assault-style rifle is. We're so often told here that this is a designation without meaning. It was pointed out elsewhere that Dick's did something similar after Sandy Hook, but it didn't stick. So we'll see. Maybe this time it will be different because this killer bought one of his guns at their store. Not one used in the attack, but still. Maybe they are feeling guilty, and this is them trying to lessen any guilt or culpability they may be feeling as a corporation? I dunno. I hope it sticks, and I hope other chains follow suit. |
|
|
|
Post by pierkiss on Feb 28, 2018 15:02:56 GMT
And also, remember how CVS (I believe, might have been a different drug store) decided to ban the sale of cigarettes in their stores? There was a whole lot of bitching and moaning about that, with threats to boycott and whatnot. CVS is still going strong, so I’m assuming the lack of cigarette sales hasn’t impacted their bottom line too much. Perhaps Dick’s can take the hit in less gun sales because they know they will make up that lost money in sales from other parts of their store?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Aug 18, 2025 19:29:37 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2018 15:12:49 GMT
It's interesting to me that Dick's is so readily able to define what an assault-style rifle is. We're so often told here that this is a designation without meaning. It was pointed out elsewhere that Dick's did something similar after Sandy Hook, but it didn't stick. So we'll see. Oh so do the manufacturers, they also call them assault rifles. Oddly enough you can get both automatic and semi automatic ASSAULT rifles. The ones that point it out on here might want to check their facts! I hope for you all that Dick's are listening this time because it's the kids that are calling for change...a different generation. But it's not going to work without an owner's registration because there's nothing stopping a dad/mum buying one for their under 21 son/daughter. Unless you also have a transfer of ownership registration nothing will change to keep them out of the hands of young people. |
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Feb 28, 2018 15:18:18 GMT
It's interesting to me that Dick's is so readily able to define what an assault-style rifle is. We're so often told here that this is a designation without meaning. It was pointed out elsewhere that Dick's did something similar after Sandy Hook, but it didn't stick. So we'll see. Oh so do the manufacturers, they also call them assault rifles. Oddly enough you can get both automatic and semi automatic ASSAULT rifles. The ones that point it out on here might want to check their facts! I hope for you all that Dick's are listening this time because it's the kids that are calling for change...a different generation. But it's not going to work without an owner's registration because there's nothing stopping a dad/mum buying one for their under 21 son/daughter. Unless you also have a transfer of ownership registration nothing will change to keep them out of the hands of young people. Which is why the ban they’re calling for is so important. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Aug 18, 2025 19:29:37 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2018 15:24:06 GMT
Oh so do the manufacturers, they also call them assault rifles. Oddly enough you can get both automatic and semi automatic ASSAULT rifles. The ones that point it out on here might want to check their facts! I hope for you all that Dick's are listening this time because it's the kids that are calling for change...a different generation. But it's not going to work without an owner's registration because there's nothing stopping a dad/mum buying one for their under 21 son/daughter. Unless you also have a transfer of ownership registration nothing will change to keep them out of the hands of young people. Which is why the ban they’re calling for is so important. Exactly! I still find it incredible that you can not drink alcohol until 21 but can buy a gun at 18. Doesn't make sense to me. |
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,919 
|
Post by lizacreates on Feb 28, 2018 16:31:25 GMT
And also, remember how CVS (I believe, might have been a different drug store) decided to ban the sale of cigarettes in their stores? There was a whole lot of bitching and moaning about that, with threats to boycott and whatnot. CVS is still going strong, so I’m assuming the lack of cigarette sales hasn’t impacted their bottom line too much. Perhaps Dick’s can take the hit in less gun sales because they know they will make up that lost money in sales from other parts of their store? The fundamental difference, though, is that cigarette-smoking has long been anathema since we’ve been successful in portraying it as a public health issue with the full support of the Surgeon General. Guns, however, are not. Our own Center for Disease Control has been banned by Congress from studying gun violence. Unfortunately, we’re not even able to correlate guns with public health without causing what’s tantamount to a civil war! |
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Feb 28, 2018 16:39:40 GMT
And also, remember how CVS (I believe, might have been a different drug store) decided to ban the sale of cigarettes in their stores? There was a whole lot of bitching and moaning about that, with threats to boycott and whatnot. CVS is still going strong, so I’m assuming the lack of cigarette sales hasn’t impacted their bottom line too much. Perhaps Dick’s can take the hit in less gun sales because they know they will make up that lost money in sales from other parts of their store? The fundamental difference, though, is that cigarette-smoking has long been anathema since we’ve been successful in portraying it as a public health issue with the full support of the Surgeon General. Guns, however, are not. Our own Center for Disease Control has been banned by Congress from studying gun violence. Unfortunately, we’re not even able to correlate guns with public health without causing what’s tantamount to a civil war! Yes. I've been saying that we need to have a 'hearts and minds' campaign that makes the ownership of multiple guns, military style guns, etc. something that is looked down on as a risky choice. The NRA - backed by their gun manufacturing sponsors - has done a great job of painting the ownership and use of weapons designed for killing as a wholesome family activity that everyone has a "right" to enjoy. Let's have billboards touting the dangers of gun ownership, the number of kids killed by their parents' guns, and the number of children overall killed by gun violence. We do this with drunk driving, distracted driving, poor eating choices, ignoring seatbelts, drugs, smoking, and every other public health risk there is. But for some reason we can't seem to get out the message that people who own a gun or guns are much, much more likely to be shot by a gun. Yes, we can also point out anomalies where people warded off an attack with their gun. And we can point to people who ate bacon every day and smoked a pack of cigarettes a day and lived to age 90. It doesn't mean we advocate those behaviors as healthy and recommended. I think a start would be to require gun advertisements to carry a warning like cigarette advertisements do. |
|
Nink
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,963
Location: North Idaho
|
Post by Nink on Feb 28, 2018 16:48:30 GMT
I'm not sure this brings anything to the debate, but just for comparison, I'm trying to obtain my WA state limited xray license. So far I've gone through TWO different background checks and yesterday I received a packet in the mail containing a fingerprint card that I need to take to a local police/sheriff's station and have them fingerprint me, I then need to send it back to the state of WA so they can submit it to the FBI and run it through a database. All this just so I can do your Bone Density test. It seems f---ing crazy to me that you don't have to do at least this much to buy a gun.
|
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Feb 28, 2018 17:11:40 GMT
This is HUGE!!! "Breaking News: Dick's Sporting Goods, one of the U.S.'s largest sports retailers, will stop selling assault-style rifles and require gun buyers to be 21" It feels like something has shifted. Yes!!!!!!! |
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Feb 28, 2018 17:20:59 GMT
I think a start would be to require gun advertisements to carry a warning like cigarette advertisements do. Guns are dangerous just as second hand smoke is dangerous, particularly to those in your home and those you are close to, particularly KIDS! |
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Feb 28, 2018 17:23:18 GMT
I'm not sure this brings anything to the debate, but just for comparison, I'm trying to obtain my WA state limited xray license. So far I've gone through TWO different background checks and yesterday I received a packet in the mail containing a fingerprint card that I need to take to a local police/sheriff's station and have them fingerprint me, I then need to send it back to the state of WA so they can submit it to the FBI and run it through a database. All this just so I can do your Bone Density test. It seems f---ing crazy to me that you don't have to do at least this much to buy a gun. That's good, but your point is better..... Think of all the licenses one needs to do jobs or just get around and do things. |
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,919
|
Post by lizacreates on Feb 28, 2018 17:39:36 GMT
The fundamental difference, though, is that cigarette-smoking has long been anathema since we’ve been successful in portraying it as a public health issue with the full support of the Surgeon General. Guns, however, are not. Our own Center for Disease Control has been banned by Congress from studying gun violence. Unfortunately, we’re not even able to correlate guns with public health without causing what’s tantamount to a civil war! Yes. I've been saying that we need to have a 'hearts and minds' campaign that makes the ownership of multiple guns, military style guns, etc. something that is looked down on as a risky choice. The NRA - backed by their gun manufacturing sponsors - has done a great job of painting the ownership and use of weapons designed for killing as a wholesome family activity that everyone has a "right" to enjoy. Let's have billboards touting the dangers of gun ownership, the number of kids killed by their parents' guns, and the number of children overall killed by gun violence. We do this with drunk driving, distracted driving, poor eating choices, ignoring seatbelts, drugs, smoking, and every other public health risk there is. But for some reason we can't seem to get out the message that people who own a gun or guns are much, much more likely to be shot by a gun. Yes, we can also point out anomalies where people warded off an attack with their gun. And we can point to people who ate bacon every day and smoked a pack of cigarettes a day and lived to age 90. It doesn't mean we advocate those behaviors as healthy and recommended. I think a start would be to require gun advertisements to carry a warning like cigarette advertisements do. I agree wholeheartedly EXCEPT that to do so would be running smack up against the (revisionist) Second Amendment which is constantly being invoked. How do you fashion a message that will neutralize the NRA’s screaming of NO, NO, IT’S NOT SCIENCE, IT’S ADVOCACY!!! The repeal of the Dickey Amendment has a great deal of support from medical professionals but who’s going to fund them? As far as I know, even the funding for gun research (via National Institutes of Health) had been abandoned once Obama left office. Yes, there will be independent advocacy groups that can take little steps to get out the message, but you need a critical mass to achieve the goal. How do we achieve critical mass when 40%+ of the population own guns, with a goodly portion (probably, I don’t know for sure) convinced that any step to gun control is a step closer to widespread confiscation? I recognize the validity of your suggestions, but I also know that without the support of Congress, which was central to the outing of Big Tobacco’s lies, how do we sustain such a campaign? Honestly, without sounding defeatist, the only way I see for any true success is to flip both the House and Senate. (Ok, I know writing “revisionist” may be totally gratuitous, but sometimes I can’t help myself.) |
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Feb 28, 2018 18:23:32 GMT
Innocent children are killed by smokers.
Innocent children are killed by shooters.
|
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Feb 28, 2018 18:43:29 GMT
Yes. I've been saying that we need to have a 'hearts and minds' campaign that makes the ownership of multiple guns, military style guns, etc. something that is looked down on as a risky choice. The NRA - backed by their gun manufacturing sponsors - has done a great job of painting the ownership and use of weapons designed for killing as a wholesome family activity that everyone has a "right" to enjoy. Let's have billboards touting the dangers of gun ownership, the number of kids killed by their parents' guns, and the number of children overall killed by gun violence. We do this with drunk driving, distracted driving, poor eating choices, ignoring seatbelts, drugs, smoking, and every other public health risk there is. But for some reason we can't seem to get out the message that people who own a gun or guns are much, much more likely to be shot by a gun. Yes, we can also point out anomalies where people warded off an attack with their gun. And we can point to people who ate bacon every day and smoked a pack of cigarettes a day and lived to age 90. It doesn't mean we advocate those behaviors as healthy and recommended. I think a start would be to require gun advertisements to carry a warning like cigarette advertisements do. I agree wholeheartedly EXCEPT that to do so would be running smack up against the (revisionist) Second Amendment which is constantly being invoked. How do you fashion a message that will neutralize the NRA’s screaming of NO, NO, IT’S NOT SCIENCE, IT’S ADVOCACY!!! The repeal of the Dickey Amendment has a great deal of support from medical professionals but who’s going to fund them? As far as I know, even the funding for gun research (via National Institutes of Health) had been abandoned once Obama left office. Yes, there will be independent advocacy groups that can take little steps to get out the message, but you need a critical mass to achieve the goal. How do we achieve critical mass when 40%+ of the population own guns, with a goodly portion (probably, I don’t know for sure) convinced that any step to gun control is a step closer to widespread confiscation? I recognize the validity of your suggestions, but I also know that without the support of Congress, which was central to the outing of Big Tobacco’s lies, how do we sustain such a campaign? Honestly, without sounding defeatist, the only way I see for any true success is to flip both the House and Senate. (Ok, I know writing “revisionist” may be totally gratuitous, but sometimes I can’t help myself.) I think it's not a coincidence that the NRA turned into a lobbying arm for the gun manufacturers - and manufactured the fiction of an individual right guaranteed by the 2nd - about the time big tobacco lost its political influence. The gun sellers saw the writing on the wall and decided to redefine the ownership and use of their product by individuals as a "right" - making it all but impossible for Congress to do anything to limit their sales. Second amendment, reinterpreted as corporate welfare for gun companies. And America bought it wholesale. |
|
