NRA's media event today: your thoughts?

[ReconRat]

Feinstein's response to the NRA was at something like 1:15pm.

I find nothing anywhere yet...

[baptizo]

A small school in Texas has armed teachers....I read it on Newsmax yesterday.

http://www.newsmax.com/US/Gun-Toting-Teachers/2012/12/20/id/468520

I'm all for what the NRA is suggesting and will seriously consider becoming a member to help them pay for it.

[Disclaimer]

I didn't see the NRA conference because this was happening while it was going on...

http://www.wjactv.com/news/news/sources-1-trooper-shot-another-injured-blair-co/nTcf5/

[redkow97]

Owning and wearing body armor (as far as I've read) is completely legal in Ohio unless done so while committing a crime.

The problem is likely the ambiguity of the statute. "during the commission of a felony" does not say WHO has to be committing the felony. If Jack is committing a felony, and Jill is wearing body armor next to him (as a bystander, not an accomplice) she's wearing body armor during the commission of a felony. She's just not the one commiting it.

Poor wording that should be revised.

[redkow97]

And Casper, you can disagree all you like about the police not being responsible for our safety, but that is a cold hard fact.

Police simply do not have the numbers to adequately prevent crimes or protect the pubilc from criminals.

At any given time of day, in any populous area, there are more criminals breaking the law than police officers on duty to stop them. That is while the military is substantially larger than the police.

Off-duty officers in schools is a different story. They're not "on patrol," and thus aren't being diverted from other duties. I have no issue with that.

But calling for military occupation of our schools (and that's what it would be - whether you want to think of it that way or not) is a heck of a request.

It seems that most of us agree that teachers who volunteer to be trained are the most practical and effective solution.

[Scruit]

The problem is likely the ambiguity of the statute. "during the commission of a felony" does not say WHO has to be committing the felony. If Jack is committing a felony, and Jill is wearing body armor next to him (as a bystander, not an accomplice) she's wearing body armor during the commission of a felony. She's just not the one commiting it.

Poor wording that should be revised.

I don't think any reasonable person would conclude that a bystander or victim of a felony was doing *anything* "during the commission of a felony". I agree the wording should change to "while committing a felony".

[Disclaimer]

And of course after reading the 13pg PDF of the transcript and letting LaPierre get his political and "factual" potshots in for things. Some of the accusations are lacking definition, so -- time to go fact checking.

http://news.yahoo.com/fact-checking-nra-press-conference-185542748.html

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2012/12/fact-checking-nra-press-conference/60261/

As I suspected.

[rsvRidr]

And of course after reading the 13pg PDF of the transcript and letting LaPierre get his political and "factual" potshots in for things. Some of the accusations are lacking definition, so -- time to go fact checking.

http://news.yahoo.com/fact-checking-nra-press-conference-185542748.html

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2012/12/fact-checking-nra-press-conference/60261/

As I suspected.

hmmmm.. 13 pages and only 4-5 discrepancies that may not be completely true.

Hell, the Whitehouse has more lies in a 10 minute press briefing

Someone mention Benghazi......

[Disclaimer]

Those discrepancies become pretty important when the NRA is basing the foundation of their reasoning for action on them.

I think the most telling was

"But do know this President

zeroed out

school emergency planning grants in

last year's

budget, and scrapped "Secure Our Schools"

policing

grants in

next year's

budget."

This is also true, but also quite bold of LaPierre to bring up, since he began his speech by attacking "gun-free school zones" and ignored the record of the NRA efforts on community policing. In the 1994 crime bill that included the original assault weapons ban, Bill Clinton included a new program called "Community Oriented Policing Services" that meant to add 100,000 new police officers to our streets (which LaPierre is essentially now proposing by putting cops in every school.) The NRA opposed that bill in 1994 and later mocked the COPS program for failing to meet its promise. Now he's complaining about the loss of "Secure Our Schools" grants. They were administered by COPS.

[Tonik]

Those discrepancies become pretty important when the NRA is basing the foundation of their reasoning for action on them.

I think the most telling was

It was attached to a weapons ban. How do you think the libs would react if the R's gave Obama his fiscal cliff plan 100 percent but attached an abortion ban?

[rsvRidr]

Those discrepancies become pretty important when the NRA is basing the foundation of their reasoning for action on them.

I think the most telling was

Some 18 years ago the NRA remarked that they were not in favor of a program that a Dem President supported will he was also enacting an AWB and that is what they are basing the foundation of their reasoning now?

[madcat6183]

Off-duty officers in schools is a different story. They're not "on patrol," and thus aren't being diverted from other duties. I have no issue with that.

But calling for military occupation of our schools (and that's what it would be - whether you want to think of it that way or not) is a heck of a request.

.

I agree with most of what you said, but don't see how you are getting military occupation? The people who could/would be there could also be deputized, or given private security clearance. I was a private security guard for a few months and had my carry license for that too, I was definitely NOT military in any way. Granted I couldn't carry in schools, but I'd assume that would change if the kind of proposal went that way. Privately contracted security guards with the proper training, background checks, and licenses are 100% not miltary related.

My cousin is a "contractor" in Afghanistan now, after serving however many years in the Army Rangers, he isn't military anymore either....... Same thought process, private contractors.

Again, that is just one option, as I said they could also go through with a police agency to get licensed. I mean CHL's are actualyl approved by the Sherriff in OH, not the military, isn't that similar thinking?

I mean I do not know the laws about how someone gets any type of approval to carry in a school other than law enforcement, since military can't even carry in schools legally, but maybe someone does.

Sorry my spelling is so bad, I'm dosing off at work and can't keep things straight.

Edited December 21, 2012 by madcat6183

[Disclaimer]

So, why mention the "Secure our schools" initiative NOW, when they opposed it "some 18 years ago"? The NRA didn't say -- we don't like the AWB, but do like the COPS program... they were all or nothing.

Just like I'd expect the Dems to be with Tonik's hypothetical. Though, I don't see how abortion relates to the fiscal cliff. More community policing relates to reduced gun violence and crime which was the main goal of the AWB, right? So, that makes more sense.

[Scruit]

Obama just released a video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5ynVMBxOus

Looks like he's going for:

- Grandfathered AWB

- Grandfathered hi-cap magazine ban (I'd be ok with a hi cap clip ban but I'm sure that was just a mistake on his part)

- NICS check for private sales.

EDIT: Politically, he *has* to make an AWB stick now, because he's just caused the sale of an epic number of semi-auto rifles. AWB fails, he'll be remembered as the president responsible for one of the largest increases in firearms ownerships in history. He might as well have offered a free handy from Emma Watson with every sale.

Edited December 21, 2012 by Scruit

[rsvRidr]

So, why mention the "Secure our schools" initiative NOW, when they opposed it "some 18 years ago"? The NRA didn't say -- we don't like the AWB, but do like the COPS program... they were all or nothing.

Are you sure they did not. Just like most bills, politicians put some good stuff in there,then stuff it to the rim with shit. Why would the NRA (some 18 years ago)state their approval for legislation that included a ban on firearms and ultimately against what they and their membership want. The question should be,if the legislation was so important why did the politician first try to pass it with an AWB buried in with it.

More community policing relates to reduced gun violence and crime which was the main goal of the AWB, right? So, that makes more sense.

Main goal of the AWB, I'm sure everyone has their on feelings on this, but history has shown that the 1994 AWB did little or nothing(depending on what channel your watching at the time), to reduce gun violence and/or crime.

Majority of 'gun related' crimes do not even involve guns that listed in the AWB. But lets pass it again if it will make everyone feel better:rolleyes:

[Dying Shadow]

Hmmmmm free hand from Emma Watson, I should of bought 5 ARs.

[Disclaimer]

Are you sure they did not. Just like most bills, politicians put some good stuff in there,then stuff it to the rim with shit. Why would the NRA (some 18 years ago)state their approval for legislation that included a ban on firearms and ultimately against what they and their membership want. The question should be,if the legislation was so important why did the politician first try to pass it with an AWB buried in with it.

Quite the contrary, what I have read is the NRA explicitly mocked the COPS portion of the bill which really had nothing to do with guns. I could understand if they didn't agree with the AWB, but then to go through and mock portions that are non-weapons related just shows it's all a political game. I understand that a lot of bills have additional "stuff" attached to them, but they went out of their way to mock the COPS part of it to score political points because it was a Dem in the Whitehouse. Now all of a sudden, because it's the NRAs idea now, the basic premise of the COPS program is a good idea and they can be hypocritical to score more political points by saying "Obama cut the 'Secure our Schools' funding -- for shame you silly Democrat". Please

Main goal of the AWB, I'm sure everyone has their on feelings on this, but history has shown that the 1994 AWB did little or nothing(depending on what channel your watching at the time), to reduce gun violence and/or crime.

Majority of 'gun related' crimes do not even involve guns that listed in the AWB. But lets pass it again if it will make everyone feel better:rolleyes:

Again, I haven't broached the discussion about the effectiveness of the bill, just that it had a noble and good goal of trying to address gun violence and crime... which, regardless of your political affiliation, you should agree with the goal, no? The approach to attain the goal is under debate depending on your political stance and information YOU think is correct, but the goal is noble.

As with the individual mandate in Obamacare, which was a GOP idea back in the 90s, which is all of a sudden a horrible idea because it was a Dem compromise... it's the exact opposite for NRA (which has a predominantly GOP base, lets be honest) which proposes additional community/school policing. It's a good idea because the NRA proposed it, but was a dumb idea 18yrs ago because a Dem wanted it.

So, my only real point is that the NRA is full of political lies just like many other organizations that are agenda-related in nature, so for people to start jock-riding the NRA for this latest press release is silly. By all means, if you like the NRA and everything it stands and has always stood for, great -- whatever floats your Kimbers, but this press release shouldn't be seen as anything uber-enlightening to people.

[imaposer]

I thought the NRA screwed up trying to pin the blame on movies, music and video games. The blame game is a tactic of the other side. He should have stuck to what can we do about it. I only partially agree with the cops in schools plan, I'd rather see it not come to that, but at least it's a proposal that would actually do something unlike the knee jerk ban everything crap from the other side.

That said, I have never been a member of the NRA, but I think I'll be joining along with signing the wife up here in the next few days. If I stay a member, or if it's a one time deal depends on if it's possible to be a member and not get bombarded with their give more more more! crap I hear they are so bad about sending out. I'm also going to get tickets to the friends of the NRA banquet at my gun club in Feb.

[rsvRidr]

Quite the contrary, what I have read is the NRA explicitly mocked the COPS portion of the bill which really had nothing to do with guns. I could understand if they didn't agree with the AWB, but then to go through and mock portions that are non-weapons related just shows it's all a political game. I understand that a lot of bills have additional "stuff" attached to them, but they went out of their way to mock the COPS part of it to score political points because it was a Dem in the Whitehouse. Now all of a sudden, because it's the NRAs idea now, the basic premise of the COPS program is a good idea and they can be hypocritical to score more political points by saying "Obama cut the 'Secure our Schools' funding -- for shame you silly Democrat". Please

Again, I haven't broached the discussion about the effectiveness of the bill, just that it had a noble and good goal of trying to address gun violence and crime... which, regardless of your political affiliation, you should agree with the goal, no? The approach to attain the goal is under debate depending on your political stance and information YOU think is correct, but the goal is noble.

As with the individual mandate in Obamacare, which was a GOP idea back in the 90s, which is all of a sudden a horrible idea because it was a Dem compromise... it's the exact opposite for NRA (which has a predominantly GOP base, lets be honest) which proposes additional community/school policing. It's a good idea because the NRA proposed it, but was a dumb idea 18yrs ago because a Dem wanted it.

So, my only real point is that the NRA is full of political lies just like many other organizations that are agenda-related in nature, so for people to start jock-riding the NRA for this latest press release is silly. By all means, if you like the NRA and everything it stands and has always stood for, great -- whatever floats your Kimbers, but this press release shouldn't be seen as anything uber-enlightening to people.

You win, your kool-aide is much stronger than mine.

I'm sure banning guns with bayonet lugs,threaded flash hiders and pistol grips will prove to be a noble cause for America just like in the past.

[Disclaimer]

So, you're NOT in favor of reducing gun violence and crime? Got it.

[rsvRidr]

So, you're NOT in favor of reducing gun violence and crime? Got it.

Reading comprehension not you strong suit, huh?

[jbot]

i agree that it was a mistake to try to point a finger at the media/entertainment industry, and more grievous was their scapegoating on gaming industry. that was a giant they don't want to fuck with... they may rue that mistake in the coming months.

otherwise, i dont get the hub bub... the high school we went to had police. i actually thought it was fairly common place.

[Disclaimer]

Reading comprehension not you strong suit, huh?

You keep drinking that koolaid

[cOoTeR]

I read it and I didn't really see anywhere that it said they were going to fight the ban too hard.

I'm all for having secret armed teachers. The problem with an armed guard or policeman is smaller schools will only have 1. Now in that case jumping him or her in an ambush style attack takes that protection out and provides the attacker with more ammo and an extra weapon.

[Disclaimer]

Columbine had an armed guard...