[QUOTE]WASHINGTON -- Adolphus Busch IV, heir to the Busch family brewing fortune, resigned his lifetime membership in the National Rifle Association on Thursday, writing in a letter to NRA President David Keene, "I fail to see how the NRA can disregard the overwhelming will of its members who see background checks as reasonable."The resignation, first [URL="http://www.ksdk.com/news/article/376098/3/KSDK-Exclusive-Adolphus-Busch-IV-resigns-NRA-membership-"]reported by KSDK[/URL], came a day after the Senate rejected a series of amendments to a gun control bill, including a bipartisan deal to expand background checks for gun sales. The NRA had vigorously opposed all those measures.
"The NRA I see today has undermined the values upon which it was established," wrote Busch. "Your current strategic focus clearly places priority on the needs of gun and ammunition manufacturers while disregarding the opinions of your 4 million individual members."
Reached for comment on Busch's resignation, NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam told The Huffington Post, "We disagree with his characterization, but we wish him all the best."
[/QUOTE]
On prior NRA support for background checks
[QUOTE]"Was it not the NRA position to support background checks when Mr. LaPierre himself stated in 1999 that NRA saw checks as 'reasonable'?" Busch wrote, referring to NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre's testimony at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in the wake of the 1999 Columbine High School shooting.At that time, LaPierre said the NRA believed that universal background checks were a "reasonable" choice. The group even [URL="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/31/nra-gun-show-loophole_n_2593937.html"]took out ads[/URL] in major newspapers that read, "We believe it's reasonable to provide for instant background checks at gun shows, just like gun stores and pawn shops."
[/QUOTE]
[URL]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/18/adolphus-busch-iv-nra_n_3112750.html[/URL]
[URL]http://www.ksdk.com/news/article/376098/3/KSDK-Exclusive-Adolphus-Busch-IV-resigns-NRA-membership-[/URL]
[QUOTE=Raidyr;40333232]"The NRA I see today has undermined the values upon which it was established," wrote Busch. "Your current strategic focus clearly places priority on the needs of gun and ammunition manufacturers while disregarding the opinions of your 4 million individual members."[/QUOTE]
Bam. Well said.
Sorry but 90% of American's think background checks are a good idea. Anyone with a god damn brain thinks that.
Fucking NRA.
As a supporter of the Second Amendment, I still say loudly and clearly, [I]fuck[/I] the NRA.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;40333318]As a supporter of the Second Amendment, I still say loudly and clearly, [I]fuck[/I] the NRA.[/QUOTE]
Its something most of facepunch can agree on.
Funny how the people who want to restrict the second amendment with heavier gun control and impossible to enforce background checks are up in arms about CISPA (Which is also a terrible bill). You use gun violence as a reason to widdle away the second amendment, yet infringing on other rights that could have prevented a bombing are out of the question.
Infringing on a right is infringing on a right, whether its your [I]favorite[/I] right or not.
[QUOTE=T2L_Goose;40333349]Funny how the people who want to restrict the second amendment with heavier gun control and impossible to enforce background checks are up in arms about CISPA (Which is also a terrible bill). You use gun violence as a reason to widdle away the second amendment, yet infringing on other rights that could have prevented a bombing are out of the question.
Infringing on a right is infringing on a right, whether its your [I]favorite[/I] right or not.[/QUOTE]
Background checks don't infringe upon the second amendment.
It's just 'regulating the militia'.
Background checks seemed like the only reasonable thing pushed out by the Obama administration regarding gun control. However I can understand why they the NRA blocked it, even though I think the background checks seemed okay.
By shooting down this legislature, they effectively stopped the momentum of the Obama administration's gun control initiatives. I'd take the current background checks over the Feinstein bill any day.
[QUOTE=alexguydude;40333289]Sorry but 90% of American's think background checks are a good idea. Anyone with a god damn brain thinks that.
Fucking NRA.[/QUOTE]
I don't know a single Republican who thinks more background checks are a good thing. And this is coming from a republican dominated town and a republican dominated family.
[QUOTE=T2L_Goose;40333349]Funny how the people who want to restrict the second amendment with heavier gun control and impossible to enforce background checks are up in arms about CISPA (Which is also a terrible bill). You use gun violence as a reason to widdle away the second amendment, yet infringing on other rights that could have prevented a bombing are out of the question.
Infringing on a right is infringing on a right, whether its your [I]favorite[/I] right or not.[/QUOTE]
It's funny that people disagree on two wildly different pieces of legislation
????
Nah, the real humor is a measure with ~90% popular support not passing the Senate. Epic representative democracy fail lol!!!!
[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;40333385]Background checks seemed like the only reasonable thing pushed out by the Obama administration regarding gun control. However I can understand why they the NRA blocked it, even though I think the background checks seemed okay.
By shooting down this legislature, they effectively stopped the momentum of the Obama administration's gun control initiatives. I'd take the current background checks over the Feinstein bill any day.[/QUOTE]
Obama never supported anything other than than this law when it comes to policy. Shortly after the shootings he teased an AWB and magazine limits but when Harry Reid sniped Feinstein's bill it set a clear tone: Nothing other than maybe strengthening background checks or closing some loopholes will be part of the Democrat's platform. Democrats and Republicans compromised on an extremely weaksauce bill which Obama practically begged for and it didn't even pass. There is no momentum. If this bill had passed it might well have been the only gun control measure under the Obama administration. Instead a policy that had massive support failed amongst a congress that's already at single-digit approval rating.
If you don't want to see gun control, you damn well better hope that an actual progressive doesn't get elected in 2016, because this isn't going to be forgotten.
[QUOTE=T2L_Goose;40333349]Funny how the people who want to restrict the second amendment with heavier gun control and impossible to enforce background checks are up in arms about CISPA (Which is also a terrible bill). You use gun violence as a reason to widdle away the second amendment, yet infringing on other rights that could have prevented a bombing are out of the question.
Infringing on a right is infringing on a right, whether its your [I]favorite[/I] right or not.[/QUOTE]
people shouldn't have a right to pry into people's private lives, just as people shouldn't have the right to carry around tools that have the express purpose of killing/maiming people
some laws make sense, some don't
(please explain why it's dumb not to allow people the tools to kill other people (a morally repugnant act) rather than just rating this post)
[QUOTE=NoDachi;40333377]Background checks don't infringe upon the second amendment.
It's just 'regulating the militia'.[/QUOTE]
The militia is separate from the right to bear arms. The militia is only part of that.
[quote]A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.[/quote]
[quote]A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.[/quote]
Notice the difference? The former was how the 2nd was originally written, and the latter how it was changed and passed. The reason for this change was that the right to bear arms would not be a function of the militia, and the militia not tied to the right to bear arms. At the time, the militia was commonly considered to be the entire populace that qualified for service, but the intent of the changes was the separate the two concepts. The 2nd does not permit, nor was it intended to permit, the regulation of arms, but rather only the militia itself, separate from arms. Given the intended purpose of the 2nd (check to the state), it would seem counterproductive to give the right to arms and then apply regulations to it. The militia clause exists so as the states could regulate the reserves and paramilitaries, not to regulate the right to arms, which, like speech, was written so as to be more or less unregulatable, but was anyhow as time passed.
[QUOTE=T2L_Goose;40333349]Funny how the people who want to restrict the second amendment with heavier gun control and impossible to enforce background checks are up in arms about CISPA (Which is also a terrible bill). You use gun violence as a reason to widdle away the second amendment, yet infringing on other rights that could have prevented a bombing are out of the question.
Infringing on a right is infringing on a right, whether its your [I]favorite[/I] right or not.[/QUOTE]
source to the/a bombing being discussed somewhere online????
[QUOTE=LordCrypto;40333588]source to the/a bombing being discussed somewhere online????[/QUOTE]
The people who are behind CISPA are saying that they could have stopped a bombing like Boston if they were able to monitor those types of discussions. How do we know it wasn't being discussed online? If only we had CISPA...
I obviously don't support CISPA, but this is the same type of logic gun control advocates use. They're all for throwing away the second amendment, but as soon as any other amendment is touched that they consider "more important", they freak out.
Gun control is our CISPA.
[QUOTE=T2L_Goose;40333623]
Gun control is our CISPA.[/QUOTE]
You are comparing two entirely different pieces of legislation that you happen to disagree with.
Also universal background checks aren't "throwing away" the second amendment, stop being silly.
[QUOTE=Generic.Monk;40333527]people shouldn't have a right to pry into people's private lives, just as people shouldn't have the right to carry around tools that have the express purpose of killing/maiming people
some laws make sense, some don't
(please explain why it's dunb not to allow people the tools to kill other people rather than just rating this post)[/QUOTE]
Are you really saying that everyone who owns a gun intends to kill someone? lol.
Right, so, with your logic: People shouldn't have the right to talk about blowing up people or buying bomb parts online. We should allow the government to log our online interactions, just in case. Otherwise those people could kill/maim someone.
You can't throw everyone into the boat when such a small group of people are the bad guys. Not every gun owner is a murderer or psychopath. Not every facebook user and internet user is a terrorist.
[editline]18th April 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Raidyr;40333633]You are comparing two entirely different pieces of legislation that you happen to disagree with.
Also universal background checks aren't "throwing away" the second amendment, stop being silly.[/QUOTE]
I'm comparing them because they infringe on our rights. How is that hard to understand. I know that they both do different things, but they both infringe on our rights.
One infringes on right of privacy and property, the other infringes on the second amendment.
Could someone please explain to me how the NRA has the ability to override the government?
[QUOTE=Ledivad;40333683]Could someone please explain to me how the NRA has the ability to override the government?[/QUOTE]
It doesn't, but it represents a notably large industry and has lots of money which it donates generously on election years. So, like all other lobbies it has a stake in politics.
[QUOTE=T2L_Goose;40333654]
I'm comparing them because they infringe on our rights. How is that hard to understand. I know that they both do different things, but they both infringe on our rights.
One infringes on right of privacy and property, the other infringes on the second amendment.[/QUOTE]
It's not hard to understand, you're just creating a false equivalency to try and connect a flawed cybersecurity bill with a no-nonsense gun control law. Enhancing background checks doesn't infringe on your rights.
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];40333559']The militia is separate from the right to bear arms. The militia is only part of that.
Notice the difference? The former was how the 2nd was originally written, and the latter how it was changed and passed. The reason for this change was that the right to bear arms would not be a function of the militia, and the militia not tied to the right to bear arms. At the time, the militia was commonly considered to be the entire populace that qualified for service, but the intent of the changes was the separate the two concepts. The 2nd does not permit, nor was it intended to permit, the regulation of arms, but rather only the militia itself, separate from arms. Given the intended purpose of the 2nd (check to the state), it would seem counterproductive to give the right to arms and then apply regulations to it. The militia clause exists so as the states could regulate the reserves and paramilitaries, not to regulate the right to arms, which, like speech, was written so as to be more or less unregulatable, but was anyhow as time passed.[/QUOTE]
And while that may have been written into the constitution at a time when it took two minutes to reload a single shot in a musket, it makes sense, in this age of a divided population, anti-intellectualism and a push for theocracy, that a government exercise prudence in allowing its populace to obtain weapons. If someone can't pass the background checks, well, let them be free to bear muzzle-loaded muskets.
The biggest problem with a population having a right to bear arms (Which those who wrote the constitution could never have anticipated) was just how weapons technology would improve over the years, to the point that a single person could now massacre scores of men all by himself.
I'd like to see someone pull off the VT shooting, or Sandy Hook, with a musket.
Let's not forget that no science in those days was dedicated to mental disorders.
As I posted in a previous thread, nobody has a right to drive a car. It is a privilege conferred only unto those who have demonstrated that they can handle a vehicle responsibly. And cars aren't even designed with murder in mind.
I'm all for background checks if they don't take more then 6 months to complete. Currently in westchester county I can expect to wait nearly a year for a response for a pistol permit just so i can own a pistol to shoot at the range.
Anyone who wants to shoot up a school or kill someone can easily get a gun behind closed doors faster. I'm not asking for Day or two instant responses but it's a known fact if you know the judges who approve them you can get it done faster, which is stupid.
Once again, All for background checks just not them taking forever. Get what I'm saying? I understand if they were doing thorough investigations, but they arn't, They just take there sweet time or will decline you for any reason such as "No need to issue or no need for person to have one" in my county.
So I go up to blue bear mountain in my county shooting rifles and the constant talk is how the fact they got declined to shoot for hobby even with completely clean backgrounds. I see the need for this, But I want more transparency on these background checks and shorter times then over 6 months to sometimes a year.
[QUOTE=Ledivad;40333683]Could someone please explain to me how the NRA has the ability to override the government?[/QUOTE]
Because the United States allows private corporations to donate vast sums of money to political candidates and lobbyists.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;40333724]Because the United States allows private corporations to donate vast sums of money to political candidates and lobbyists.[/QUOTE]
Essentially, the United States Supreme Court has legitimized bribery.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo[/url]
What most people don't understand is that background checks are already in place. What this bill would do is require people to get a background check and process it through an FFL if they are purchasing a firearm through private sale similar to what California and a few other states already have in place.
I think it should be left up to the states. In any event it's not going to prevent criminals from getting firearms. A private sale can literally take seconds, and if the person was intending to commit a crime with it anyway dodging a background check will be the least of his/her concerns when it comes to the list of charges they'll get.
We've already gone round and round with this in the other thread. I'm just going to have to agree to disagree on this.
[QUOTE=archangel125;40333720]And while that may have been written into the constitution at a time when it took two minutes to reload a single shot in a musket, it makes sense, in this age of a divided population, anti-intellectualism and a push for theocracy, that a government exercise prudence in allowing its populace to obtain weapons. If someone can't can't pass the background checks, well, let them be free to bear muzzle-loaded muskets.
The biggest problem with a population having a right to bear arms (Which those who wrote the constitution could never have anticipated) was just how weapons technology would improve over the years, to the point that a single person could now massacre scores of men all by himself.
I'd like to see someone pull off the VT shooting, or Sandy Hook, with a musket.
Let's not forget that no science in those days was dedicated to mental disorders.
As I posted in a previous thread, nobody has a right to drive a car. It is a privilege conferred only unto those who have demonstrated that they can handle a vehicle responsibly. And cars aren't even designed with murder in mind.[/QUOTE]
The 2nd, like the 1st, was designed to cover improving technologies. Its goal wasn't to give every American the right to own a musket, else it would have said so, it was to give every American the right to own a military-grade firearm.
[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;40333749]What most people don't understand is that background checks are already in place. What this bill would do is require people to get a background check and process it through an FFL if they are purchasing a firearm through private sale similar to what California and a few other states already have in place.
I think it should be left up to the states. In any event it's not going to prevent criminals from getting firearms. A private sale can literally take seconds, and if the person was intending to commit a crime with it anyway dodging a background check will be the least of his/her concerns when it comes to the list of charges they'll get.[/QUOTE]
I was just going to say this
This bill in particular not being passed means nothing. It accomplished nothing.
[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;40333749]What most people don't understand is that background checks are already in place. What this bill would do is require people to get a background check and process it through an FFL if they are purchasing a firearm through private sale similar to what California and a few other states already have in place.
I think it should be left up to the states. In any event it's not going to prevent criminals from getting firearms. A private sale can literally take seconds, and if the person was intending to commit a crime with it anyway dodging a background check will be the least of his/her concerns when it comes to the list of charges they'll get.[/QUOTE]
Nobody argued about the illegal gun trade. And yet, most mass shootings were perpetrated by people who had obtained guns legally. And I believe that most would-be mass shooters would not have the wit or patience to obtain them illicitly.
[QUOTE=archangel125;40333739]Essentially, the United States Supreme Court has legitimized bribery.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo[/url][/QUOTE]
Thats campaign funds. Bribery and campaigning are two different things
[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;40333749]What most people don't understand is that background checks are already in place. What this bill would do is require people to get a background check and process it through an FFL if they are purchasing a firearm through private sale similar to what California and a few other states already have in place.
I think it should be left up to the states. In any event it's not going to prevent criminals from getting firearms. A private sale can literally take seconds, and if the person was intending to commit a crime with it anyway dodging a background check will be the least of his/her concerns when it comes to the list of charges they'll get.[/QUOTE]
Fucking this. As already said the whole idea of "universal background checks" has already been torn apart in the other thread.
All it would create is a defacto registry which isn't allowed to begin with along with wasting money on something that will do nothing.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
