Las Vegas Concert Mass Shooting | Page 3 | INFJ Forum

Las Vegas Concert Mass Shooting

I think we can all agree that there needs to be stricter gun control. Why is it harder for me to get a few ativans than a gun and the modifications necessary to turn it into a fully automatic weapon? Why is buying a little weed a big, secretive endeavor, but need a gun? Hey just head to your local gun store! That's not as true for the state I am living in (MA) as it is for many others (NV, TX etc), but my point stands. One thing all these guys have in common is that's never just one gun. It's always tons of guns, tons of guns of absurd size and power, tons of guns with mass killing modifications, tons of ammo. It really seems like any one person owning that much killing power should have set off red flags somewhere. Sigh, but I remember this exact comment with regards to Adam Lanza. Without the dread taking away of all guns, there's really so much that could be done in terms of regulation and keeping track of potential mass-killers. On the other hand, if this guy had only one gun, would it have been much better? Anyone with enough evil and intent combined with mild mechanical abilities can convert any legal, semi-automatic gun to a mass killing machine using something as benign as 3D printer. However, as we've seen so far, it's never just one gun. It's always a painfully obvious trail of gun obsession. We could at least start with better federal regulation of quantity of gun ownership.
 
\

I mean that's not true. It's happened in Paris with some regularity pretty recently, just as one example.
I was thinking the same thing, but it is the Onion.
 
https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/wednesday-oct-4-2017/id1200361736?i=1000393061776&mt=2

Interesting podcast on the NRA and mass shootings. Also interesting is how the NRA uses generalizations to diffuse the discussion:

- by employing the slippery slope argument of banning one type of gun, to all types of guns, to all types of weapons
- how a gun is a weapon is a tool
- the right to bear arms is a law, is a constitutional law.

By turning the argument from the limitation of guns into the removal of all guns and of all its associations (all your Constitutional rights are under threat!), the NRA effectively shuts down any attempt to legislate guns. There is something diabolical in this tactic, no?
 
This is not the least bit funny, however, it is a pointed reason WHY some individuals shouldn't be handling a gun, period.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Skarekrow
Lots of guns are designed to be used by kids in harsh conditions in war after 10 weeks of training, so they are easy to use and easy to abuse. Which makes them very dangerous.
 
I don’t want to use this tragedy to just shit on guns and the NRA.

An identity crisis

The National Rifle Association was founded in 1871 by National Guard and retired Army officers in New York who vowed to “promote rifle practice” and improve marksmanship. The first president, Civil War general Ambrose Burnside, had seen too many Union soldiers who couldn’t shoot straight. For generations thereafter, the NRA focused on shooting, hunting and conservation, and no one thought of it as a gun lobby.

The turmoil of the 1960s — assassinations, street violence, riots — spurred Congress to pass the Gun Control Act of 1968, the first major piece of gun legislation since the New Deal. Supporters of gun control originally included California Gov. Ronald Reagan, who worried about the heavily armed Black Panthers.

The NRA didn’t like the 1968 law, viewing it as overly restrictive, but also didn’t see it as a slide toward tyranny. The top NRA officer, Franklin Orth, wrote in the association’s publication American Rifleman that “the measure as a whole appears to be one that the sportsmen of America can live with.”

The key word: “sportsmen.”

In 1972, a new federal agency charged with enforcing the gun laws came into being: the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF). Lawmakers raged against the terror of cheap handguns known as Saturday-night specials.

It was in that environment that Neal Knox rose to prominence.

Clifford Neal Knox — born in Oklahoma, raised in Texas, a graduate of Abilene Christian College — started out as a newspaper reporter and editor before founding, at the age of 30, Gun Week magazine.

He wanted to roll back gun laws, even the ones that restricted the sale of machine guns. He believed that gun-control laws threatened basic American freedoms, that there were malign forces that sought nothing less than total disarmament. There would come a point when Knox would suggest that the assassinations of the 1960s and other horrors might have been part of a gun-control plot: “Is it possible that some of those incidents could have been created for the purpose of disarming the people of the free world? With drugs and evil intent, it’s possible. Rampant paranoia on my part? Maybe. But there have been far too many coincidences to ignore” (Shotgun News, 1994).

In the second half of the 1970s, the NRA faced a crossroads. Would it remain an Establishment institution, partnering with such mainstream entities as the Ford Foundation and focusing on shooting competitions? Or would it roll up its sleeves and fight hammer and tongs against the gun-control advocates? Or flee to the Mountain West? The latter was appealing, and the NRA leadership decided to move the headquarters to Colorado and also spend $30 million to build a recreational facility in New Mexico called the National Outdoor Center.

The moderates felt rejected by both the NRA hard-liners and the Washington elite.

“Because of the political direction the NRA was taking, they weren’t being invited to parties and their wives were not happy,” says Jeff Knox, Neal’s son and director of the Firearms Coalition, which fights for the Second Amendment and against laws restricting guns or ammunition. “Dad was on the phone constantly with various people around the country. He had his copy of the NRA bylaws and Robert’s Rules, highlighted and marked. My father and a lot of local club leaders and state association guys organized their troops.”

Theirs was a grass-roots movement within the NRA. The solution was to use the membership to make changes. The bylaws of the NRA gave members power on the convention floor to vote for changes in the NRA governing structure.

“We were fighting the federal government on one hand and internal NRA on the other hand,” Aquilino says.

In Cincinnati, Knox read the group’s demands, 15 of them, including one that would give the members of the NRA the right to pick the executive vice president, rather than letting the NRA’s board decide. The coup took hours to accomplish. Joe Tartaro, a rebel, remembers the evening as “electric.” The hall’s vending machine ran out of sodas.

By 3:30 in the morning the NRA had a whole new look. Gone were the Old Guard officers, including Maxwell Rich, the ousted executive vice president. The members replaced him with an ideological soul mate of Knox’s named Harlon Carter.

Carter, a longtime NRA board member, had arrived in Washington in 1975 as founding director of a new NRA lobbying unit, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA). His pugnacious approach, which rankled the Old Guard, was captured in a letter he wrote to the entire NRA membership to discuss the fight in Congress over gun control: “We can win it on a simple concept —No compromise. No gun legislation.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...4cf65c3ad15_story.html?utm_term=.7e2a2c4408e6


I was not always like that, Skare. Judging from the article, the NRA was transformed into an organization for political propaganda in the 1970s.
 
An identity crisis

The National Rifle Association was founded in 1871 by National Guard and retired Army officers in New York who vowed to “promote rifle practice” and improve marksmanship. The first president, Civil War general Ambrose Burnside, had seen too many Union soldiers who couldn’t shoot straight. For generations thereafter, the NRA focused on shooting, hunting and conservation, and no one thought of it as a gun lobby.

The turmoil of the 1960s — assassinations, street violence, riots — spurred Congress to pass the Gun Control Act of 1968, the first major piece of gun legislation since the New Deal. Supporters of gun control originally included California Gov. Ronald Reagan, who worried about the heavily armed Black Panthers.

The NRA didn’t like the 1968 law, viewing it as overly restrictive, but also didn’t see it as a slide toward tyranny. The top NRA officer, Franklin Orth, wrote in the association’s publication American Rifleman that “the measure as a whole appears to be one that the sportsmen of America can live with.”

The key word: “sportsmen.”

In 1972, a new federal agency charged with enforcing the gun laws came into being: the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF). Lawmakers raged against the terror of cheap handguns known as Saturday-night specials.

It was in that environment that Neal Knox rose to prominence.

Clifford Neal Knox — born in Oklahoma, raised in Texas, a graduate of Abilene Christian College — started out as a newspaper reporter and editor before founding, at the age of 30, Gun Week magazine.

He wanted to roll back gun laws, even the ones that restricted the sale of machine guns. He believed that gun-control laws threatened basic American freedoms, that there were malign forces that sought nothing less than total disarmament. There would come a point when Knox would suggest that the assassinations of the 1960s and other horrors might have been part of a gun-control plot: “Is it possible that some of those incidents could have been created for the purpose of disarming the people of the free world? With drugs and evil intent, it’s possible. Rampant paranoia on my part? Maybe. But there have been far too many coincidences to ignore” (Shotgun News, 1994).

In the second half of the 1970s, the NRA faced a crossroads. Would it remain an Establishment institution, partnering with such mainstream entities as the Ford Foundation and focusing on shooting competitions? Or would it roll up its sleeves and fight hammer and tongs against the gun-control advocates? Or flee to the Mountain West? The latter was appealing, and the NRA leadership decided to move the headquarters to Colorado and also spend $30 million to build a recreational facility in New Mexico called the National Outdoor Center.

The moderates felt rejected by both the NRA hard-liners and the Washington elite.

“Because of the political direction the NRA was taking, they weren’t being invited to parties and their wives were not happy,” says Jeff Knox, Neal’s son and director of the Firearms Coalition, which fights for the Second Amendment and against laws restricting guns or ammunition. “Dad was on the phone constantly with various people around the country. He had his copy of the NRA bylaws and Robert’s Rules, highlighted and marked. My father and a lot of local club leaders and state association guys organized their troops.”

Theirs was a grass-roots movement within the NRA. The solution was to use the membership to make changes. The bylaws of the NRA gave members power on the convention floor to vote for changes in the NRA governing structure.

“We were fighting the federal government on one hand and internal NRA on the other hand,” Aquilino says.

In Cincinnati, Knox read the group’s demands, 15 of them, including one that would give the members of the NRA the right to pick the executive vice president, rather than letting the NRA’s board decide. The coup took hours to accomplish. Joe Tartaro, a rebel, remembers the evening as “electric.” The hall’s vending machine ran out of sodas.

By 3:30 in the morning the NRA had a whole new look. Gone were the Old Guard officers, including Maxwell Rich, the ousted executive vice president. The members replaced him with an ideological soul mate of Knox’s named Harlon Carter.

Carter, a longtime NRA board member, had arrived in Washington in 1975 as founding director of a new NRA lobbying unit, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA). His pugnacious approach, which rankled the Old Guard, was captured in a letter he wrote to the entire NRA membership to discuss the fight in Congress over gun control: “We can win it on a simple concept —No compromise. No gun legislation.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...4cf65c3ad15_story.html?utm_term=.7e2a2c4408e6


I was not always like that, Skare. Judging from the article, the NRA was transformed into an organization for political propaganda in the 1970s.
Yes the NRA used to even push for tighter gun control...but now they are all about the almighty $$$.
 
Every year, voting members of the National Rifle Association (those with 5 or more years of consecutive membership and those with Life or higher-level memberships) are asked to participate in the governance of their organization by voting for a third of their 76-member board of directors.

[...]

Due to the way NRA elections work, the only real competition in the election is for the last few positions, and the vote totals for those marginal candidates are often within just a few votes of each other. That means that just a few extra votes for a candidate can make a big difference, and voting for more than just a few candidates – especially voting for several who are expected to be in the bottom dozen vote-getters – can dilute an individual ballot and cost their favorite a seat.

To their perpetual shame, the vast majority of NRA members eligible to vote simply don’t bother. While the NRA has the reputation of being able to deliver huge numbers of votes for, or against, politicians in state and federal elections, the members take little interest in the internal political matters of their own organization. While every NRA member eligible to vote receives a ballot in their regular NRA magazine, fewer than 7% bother to return them. That’s a pretty poor showing for the oldest and most powerful civil rights organization in the country.

http://firearmscoalition.org/index....-election&catid=19:the-knox-update&Itemid=144

The election of board members is rigged, outsiders are kept out because of the vetting of the candidates. And few members vote and voters are badly informed, so voting members have no chance of changing the political direction of the NRA. So, elections are rigged and the status quo is maintained.



All of these representatives are Republican. The highest ranked Democrat in the House is Sanford Bishop, who ranks 41st in career donations from the N.R.A. Among the top 100 House recipients, 95 are Republican. In the Senate, the top two Democrats are Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Patrick Leahy of Vermont, who rank 52nd and 53rd — behind every Republican but Dan Sullivan of Alaska.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/04/opinion/thoughts-prayers-nra-funding-senators.html?

It turns out the NRA are supporting many politicians, mainly Reps. (Who is supported is not important. It is the influence of money in politics that is scary. In an alternate universe, it is the Dems who are supported.)



120415-westwood-lobbying1.png

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/how-powerful-is-the-gun-lobby/article/2577699

NRA is one of the biggest lobbying organization in the US. It is in the commercial interest of the NRA to maximize gun sales for profit.
 
Yes the NRA used to even push for tighter gun control...but now they are all about the almighty $$$.

That is what I mean. The members of the NRA could wrestle back control of the organization if they were to organize themselves. :gettogether:
 
That is what I mean. The members of the NRA could wrestle back control of the organization if they were to organize themselves. :gettogether:

No truer words ever spoken. ;)

Yeah, I would encourage NRA members then to write or email them with your personal concerns about gun control or lack of gun controls.
That things like “bump stocks” should never be on the market.
I agree, someone needs to lead that charge, and right now, I don’t see anyone on the GOP side...democrats are in minority right now.
@Sandie33 are you up to lead the peoples’ taking back of the NRA!
I know you have endless supplies of energy like myself...lololol.
jk
 
Last edited:
@Sandie33 are you up to lead the peoples’ taking back of the NRA!
I know you have endless supplies of energy like myself...lololol.
Yes! Yes I am, and going to rally a few of my pals Friday night down at our American Legion. We are getting together with many of the Community members and our vetrans to discuss how we can begin to effect change...it all starts somewhere...first thing we need to do is hand Ted Nugget a guitar again and take his firearms away...on a serious note, if we can get a petition circulating online that it is time for a structured change, for both sides, the For & Against, I believe that may assist in the restructuring of the laws...can/do you know how we might get that portion started?
 
Yes! Yes I am, and going to rally a few of my pals Friday night down at our American Legion. We are getting together with many of the Community members and our vetrans to discuss how we can begin to effect change...it all starts somewhere...first thing we need to do is hand Ted Nugget a guitar again and take his firearms away...on a serious note, if we can get a petition circulating online that it is time for a structured change, for both sides, the For & Against, I believe that may assist in the restructuring of the laws...can/do you know how we might get that portion started?
You're such a badass. I love it! Best of luck to you guys!
 
, if we can get a petition circulating online that it is time for a structured change, for both sides, the For & Against, I believe that may assist in the restructuring of the laws...can/do you know how we might get that portion started?

Is this what you mean?
https://www.change.org