Shame on the NRA for ignoring gun safety

Something is wrong when, in just 7 years, the AR style semi-automatic rifle suddenly becomes the weapon used in 50% of the top 10 deadliest mass shootings in US history. That quick of a jump to the top 10 should be a red flag to anyone with a brain, but not the NRA, a group that claims to be about gun safety. They want us to think any gun can do what an AR does, and constantly tell us "it's the person and not the gun". Well sorry folks, the design of that particular gun gives the "person" the ability to shoot more people more quickly. AR style rifles are not really, as the NRA will tell you, just like any other semi-automatic. The Las Vegas shooter would never have been able to do what he did with a semi-automatic handgun or semi-auto hunting rifle. Handguns don't have the range and hunting rifles aren't built to accept accessories like bump stocks.


If the NRA was really serious about gun safety it would be looking into why this weapon has made it to the top 10 so quickly, and how it has increased death tolls overall in mass shootings.

Don't let the NRA fool you with their "facts"

The NRA wants to protect AR style semi-automatic rifles (referred to as assault rifles) from being banned. Therefore, they are quick to point out that most mass shootings in America have been carried out with handguns. Technically they are correct (if you go back far enough and ignore recent history). But, like most propaganda , the so called “truth” is often used to cover up the real truth. Next time one of your NRA friends claims you don't know the facts about guns, actually let them know the real facts.

Fact: Of the 10 deadliest mass shootings in US history, 5 involved an AR style semi-automatic rifle, 1 involved an Uzi, 1 involved a bolt action rifle, and only 3 involved handguns.

Fact: 50% of the 10 deadliest mass shootings in American history were committed with an AR. Handguns were used in only 30%.

Fact: Of the 10 deadliest mass shootings, 177 people were killed by an AR style weapon, 21 were killed involving an Uzi, 18 were killed by a bolt action rifle, and 51 were killed by handguns.

Fact: AR style weapons killed more than 3 times the number of people killed by handguns in the 10 most deadliest mass shootings in US history.

Fact: 6 of the 10 deadliest mass shootings occurred just within the last 10 years. 5 of them were committed with an AR style semi-automatic. Only 1 of them was committed with a handgun.


Let those roll around in their heads for awhile.


Sources:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/14/health/parkland-among-deadliest-mass-shootings-trnd/index.html

Why doesn't Trump give Putin a nickname?

Everybody else gets one, but Putin never gets disrespected by the orange one. What's up with that?

Trump's exact words concerning the recent poison attack in Great Britain:

Trump to reporters-

"As soon as we get the facts straight, if we agree with them, we will condemn Russia or whoever it may be."


Translation- I may never accept that it was my buddy Putin because there's always that possibility it was an overweight guy making nerve gas in his basement.

How Many Militias Are There?

I'm not a constitutional scholar, so I'm not going to going to try and debate the 2nd Amendment. However, I wanted to point out some of the arguments I hear being used when discussing the 2nd Amendment.

Here is the 2nd Amendment:

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.

Because the 2nd Amendment is contained in the Bill Of Rights, it is obvious that the Founders considered it a right of the people “to keep and bear Arms”. No one I know disputes that. However, there seems to be a bit of a caveat with the way the Founders wrote the amendment. They started with “A well regulated Militia”, meaning a well- trained, practiced, fighting force. Why didn't the Founders, being men that chose words carefully, just say “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” and leave it at that?

One side of the argument says the Founders were emphasizing a need to be ready to go against the government if it ever became tyrannical. Supporters of this view point out that the Founders were constantly writing about liberty and freedom and the fight against tyranny. They think the Founders wanted us, the people, to be organized and well trained as a militia to someday go against the whole system if necessary.

However, as much as the Founders were all about checks and balances, this view doesn't seem to square with the way the word “militia” is used in other parts of the Constitution. The other side of the discussion points out section 8 of The Constitution which says Congress has the power “To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.”

Here, in section 8 of The Constitution, the Founders seem to be saying the militia works with the government and not as a protection against it. In fact, at one point in section 8 it says “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”.

Are there two militias talked about in The Constitution? The pro- gun answer is "yes". They define the militia in the 2nd Amendment as a force of the people constantly ready to fight tyranny, and the militia in section 8 as more like the National Guard. The other side says the Founders had one definition of militia spelled out clearly in section 8 of the Constitution. Unfortunately, the Framers of the Constitution are not here to confirm which side is right.

Personally, I think the Founders were clear on what they considered a militia to be and spelled it out in section 8. To my thinking they would have been inclined to use the term consistently throughout the Constitution. But, what fun is that?

I am not here to debate. I'm just sharing what I've been finding.

Have a nice day.

This may seem petty, but it made me laugh

I was listening to a little Rush Limbaugh today. I know I shouldn't, but it prepares me to refute my coworkers when they repeat his BS. Anyway, Limbag had just finished talking about how uninformed and willfully ignorant Liberals and the Left are when he got a call from one of his ditto heads. The caller, one of his “well informed listeners”, actually thought Robert Mueller was head of the FBI, and that he (Mueller) should be fired for dropping the ball on the Parkland High School shooting. Talk about your low informed! I'm not making this up.

Something I don't hear anyone talking about with the Parkland school shooting

There was a good guy with a gun on site.

Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel confirmed that accused mass murderer Nikolas Cruz managed to shoot up the Parkland high school without ever encountering the school resource deputy.

“He was on campus and he was armed,” Israel said. “At this point, the only thing I can tell you definitively is he never encountered Cruz.”

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/armed-guard-florida-school-encountered-rampaging-gunman-article-1.3822777

The Flordia house voted down a motion to take up an assault weapons ban

They pretty much told the kids 'no way'. My advice to the students: vote 'em out!

Sorry, didn't see that this had already been posted.


https://www.local10.com/news/parkland-school-shooting/florida-house-votes-down-motion-to-take-up-weapons-ban-with-douglas-students-present

Is this a dumb question, or is there a real contradiction here?

If the 2nd Amendment exists to help the citizenry fight against a tyrannical government, why are so many 2nd Amendment supporters in favor of a strong military? I'm not trying to generalize here, but just about every 2nd Amendment supporter I know wants the military to be as big and bad as possible, all the while thinking he'll be able to take it on barricaded inside his house some day.

Suicides are killings Too

Does it make anyone else mad that gun nuts complain when suicides are included in gun death statistics? They are always quick to point out that suicides count for a significant portion of gun deaths each year, as if suicides somehow don't count as "real" gun deaths. They also like to complain when accidental gun deaths numbers are included.