Now watch someone claim it "provides for the common defense" which it also doesn't do.

How is in the constitution. Why is in debates in congress and ratifying committees.

Florida was owned by Spain and the Constitution is full of stuff about treating Native Tribal Governments with respect.

Or a huge standing army.

That he was. He was also a savage murderer. But that is immaterial to his abilities at firing a weapon. Practice to proficiency is a better measure. 5 minutes is a long time in order to pull off 155 rounds, even with reloading.

Rachel Maddow had a show about this last week. Her information said that it was less than 5 minutes from the time he shot out the glass to the time he killed himself. If you include the walking down the hall, into rooms...etc, it was a lot less than 5 minutes to shoot off those 155 rounds

Certainly with bow and arrows, Chinese throwing stars or a honkin' machete - he could've caused the same carnage. Maybe usin' a car, even!

Gun proliferation in our cockeyed society IS a problem. But then so's unjustified wars, trillion-dollar weapons systems we don't need, tar sands pipelines, coal-burning powerplants and privatized EVERYTHING! These are ALL things that need the attentions of those who care. But if you stop and think about it - each and every one of those counter-common-sense doings traces it's roots to ONE common denominator.......MONEY IN THE POLITICAL SYSTEM!

short time is the problem. When are the smart sensible people going to wake up and make the moves to prevent this type of mass murder in the future. There needs to be restrictions placed, we have seen the response from groups like NRA and it is not responsible.

Assault weapons need to be banned, but the chickenshit Dems from OMG red states won't back this. Harry Reid, the chief chickenhawk, refused to change the filibuster rules, so this can't go thru and even background checks probably won't fly either.

They need to be banned ASAP.

Did they find any Occupy guide books or membership certificates in their homes? No? Hmm, looks like your pathetic reach for equivalence is in trouble.

The prime characteristic of the Occupy Movement is a high level of participatory democracy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_movement#Structure
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_democracy

Anarchists deny any type of governing authority, including any type of democracy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy

So, no - these guys aren't Occupy.

I know people who associated with them in Cleveland and subsequently came to DC.

They were involved in Occupy Cleveland and the encampment, attending GAs, going to rallies and events--up until the day they were arrested. So whatever ideological basis you'd like to use may be fine to demonstrate non-alignment of their views but you really can't deny they were involved with Occupy. The proof is in the pudding.

I suppose if enough people support a thing even a participatory democracy could decide a system is so corrupt and the media is so complicit that the only means of making a statement is to blow stuff up (a person hears the term "stochastic terrorism" bandied about a lot these days). I mean, how could a movement with the Guy Fawkes mask as it's unofficial icon in anyway ever be associated with bombings?



Conversely, I'm aching to know what was in those NRA pamphlets that encourages anyone to shoot-up a school.

But what you're saying is that those who adhere to the anarchist creed are better associated with the Cleveland 5. Interesting. Do you rankle those with the anarchist A avatar for their associations to the Cleveland 5 the same way you will undoubtedly seek to saddle non-NRA affiliated 2A supporters with Lanza's actions?

The so-called supporters of this delightful pentad showed up at the courthouse mainly to announce that these guys were “in no way representing or acting on behalf of Occupy Cleveland.” A strange sort of support indeed. And this is from a group, don't forget, whose only membership requirement is that you claim to be a member.

NRA membership is a slightly more codified thing, and they offer guidebooks on how to act as an NRA member - which is what was found in the Lanza house. I'm not saying that exhortations to shoot children are in that guidebook, but apparently Lanza saw that activity as merely a logical extension of what was.

I am sure the NRA books offer many handy tips on safe gun handling. So what's the problem? You're in the middle of it, I guess, so you don't see it. The reality presupposed by the NRA books and the culture in general is that guns are good, guns are great, guns are necessary and guns are great tools for getting done what needs to be done. In fact, guns are serious tools with deadly implications and an incredibly narrow range of usages. Mostly what they get used for, anybody with a fucking hole punch could do much less expensively. (Or you could use a bow and arrow and actually look skillful and impressive.) And the other use is, well, killing babies and other living things.

to the restrictions some might prescribe?

(However, to be fair, as you're new here I am genuinely unaware of what restrictions you might suggest.)

Glad to have you aboard. And I'm not actually new here - been around since 2004 under a different name, took a while off and couldn't sign in with my old monicker.

then where are the crimes to ban alcohol? Alcohol kills and maims more people by orders of magnitude than illicit gun usage. Underaged drinking alone claims 4700 lives per year -- that's 4.5 Sandy Hooks PER WEEK. Moreover, many of the crimes associated with guns also have alcohol as a significant contributing factor. Add in crime, domestic violence, sexual assault and compare that with the utility of alcohol (none) and you have to wonder what exactly is the nature of the complaint against guns.

At least guns do have legitimate uses for defense. In the case of sexual assault alcohol contributes to roughly 70% of the incidences but a person committing sexual carries a gun less than 10% of the time. So a potential victim who is lawfully carrying a gun has a significant chance of possessing the means of averting the assault.

My concern is guns.

broken families, unsafe conditions, financial loss, lives ruined, drain on public resources? Why not go after that which destroys more lives by such a greater magnitude?

do they also have places where people can practice blowing things up ?

Get a grip. You just want to silence those you choose not to agree with. Apparently your respect for speech is as deep as your respect for personal self-defense.

Besides, everyone keeps telling me they can't really be Occupy because Occupy is too loosely organized. Occupy is all things. Occupy is no thing. How can I accuse Occupy of anything if it doesn't really exist? You're defending something that isn't really there.

When did blowing-up bridges become the hallmark of economic justice?

to harm an abortion clinic worker or vandalize a clinic should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law up to and including life in prison without parole is serious bodily harm was inflicted. But no need to limit it to abortion clinics. I abhor all political violence of any stripe even if that means those who perpetrate it in the name of economic justice; a genuine cause the idiots damage more than they damage bridges.

Are there any other distractions you wish to offer?

Not surprising at all but sickening none the less.

You're a 2A opponent here trying to make the gun nuts look silly?

Drawing some equivalence between these clowns and Adam Lanza is more than silly, actually. They never had their hands on any actual explosives, for one thing. "So much for the efficacy of anti-weapon laws against determined maniacs," indeed. I'd say the efficacy is present and accounted for in this case, so you've really chosen a poor example. And yet here you are, nonsensically fighting people who only want to see the same assiduousness applied to guns.

Not for lack of trying.

They asked one guy, who turned out to work for the FBI. Had they tried harder, they might have found some legitimate illegal channels to procure explosives, or else pulled an Oklahoma City with some fertilizer. They barely tried at all. They are the least fearsome criminals you could possibly have chosen for your example.

As for the rest of your post: is it really so hard to get through life without a popgun? You act like wanting one but not being able to get it puts you at some higher risk than the rest of us poor gunless saps.

One minute these guys have nothing to do with Occupy (which doesn't really exist) and now they're poor, beset-upon patsies.

I'm just pointing out that you look really dumb trying to prop these dumbbells up as some monstrous cabal of infrastructure havoc-wreakers who are in any way equivalent to the Newtown ghoul.


as for the rest,

1) The individual may be able to decide, but the actual answer is "No, it's not."

2) Which is it? And I think you forgot to add "in their minds" at the end of that sentence.

There is no screening process for OWS. Anybody could show up and call themselves THE GRAND WIZARDS OF OCCUPY WALL STREET but it doesn't mean anything.

NRA certification, on the other hand, is an individualized screening process with a stamp of approval at the end.

The NRA is conferring its blessing on people whose behavior it cannot predict or control. If the gun experts can't discriminate between "good guys with guns" and "bad guys with guns," how is anybody else supposed to?

Obviously you can't blame the DMV for car accidents because it has screened and approved someone for a driver's license. However, cars are a basic necessity for most Americans due to the widespread lack of public transportation--while a gun in almost all cases is not. We need cars; we don't need guns. See: Britain, Japan, etc.

In fact, the belief of some people that property damage or theft deserves potentially fatal violence is a significant part of what's wrong with the NRA and its supporters.

Oh screw it, you can have them all for the rest of the year. Nominations are closed.

Start with Lanza and Tom Sellick.

WE ARE THE NRA!

Than Lanza and other prominent (?) NRA members.

Wayne, Ted, et al.

Shame these pricks!

The state of CT requires by law that you have a pistol permit if you wish to own and/or transport (like to the range) one.

The state of CT further requires by law that you obtain an NRA certificate: "You are required to complete a handgun safety course prior to submitting the application, which must consist of no less than the NRA's "Basic Pistol Course."

So, along with this one person, every police officer, firearms instructor, collector, and pistol owner in the state is also "The NRA"... The state of CT requires it.

http://www.ct.gov/despp/cwp/view.asp?a=4213&Q=494614&desppNav_GID=2080

that anyone can have one of these (and obviously do) helps your cause at all. The NRA USED to be about gun safety but now that they get their funds from gun manufacturers, they know scaring people by telling them they're one step from their guns being confiscated get a whole shitload of guns sold which means more money in their pockets. They've turned into nothing more than gun selling whores.

1. I dispise what is the current NRA.
2. I agree with most of your comments.

Yes, indeed the NRA used to be about gun safety, wildlife conservation, hunter education, etc... They are no longer that NRA.

However, I was remarking on the OP that went out of their way to link and post a picture as if this dirtbag is the face of the NRA through a logical association fallacy. This dirtbag is not the face of the NRA because he held a certificate.

To me the face of the NRA are the shit-bags, LaPeierrererer, Nugent, Ollie North, etc... To me they are a shit ton of worthless, misrepresenting their members. This is why I am no longer a member and cannot see myself ever becoming one again.

I hold many certificates, from many different organizations, however I am not "The Face" of any of those organizations. I feel the same applies here.

It seems the NRA brings out the worst in me. But they are the face of gun owners and it's their own fault when after every single incident where an innocent person(s) gets killed they immediately (and I do mean immediately) get their faces on the tv to stress the guns are not the problem.

I'm a liberal who has taken a lot of heat for my position on guns - I don't hate them and believe we have a right to have them save for high capacity guns whose only purpose is to kill a lot of people quickly and the NRA has become nothing but hypocrites on the issue - they USED to back universal background checks but now that a black President is calling for it, it's fascism.

... the NRA certificate awarded by the NRA to Adam Lanza, the mutilator of 20 children and adults? It's all over their hands.