PDM

This isn't about negotiations. Its about public relations and winning hearts and minds of moderates. The NRA sucks in that area.

I know Feldman came out in favor of background checks at gun shows, for which he was roundly critscized by gun rights groups. I believe he also negotiated some agreement regarding trigger locks with the Clinton administration while he was at the NRA, for which he alsko took flak. If you go to their website and read their views on assault weapons, it seems they are against any ban. That's as much as I know, which is why I was asking about them. Feldman has clearly rubbed some gun rights people the wrong way, but in my view on non-consequential issues that don't infringe on the 2A. As for LaPierre's "good guy with a gun" remark, yes of course a good guy with a gun is not only one of the best answers to criminal threat but also a fundamental right. I didn't say it was wrong. I said it was simplistic. It isn't the only answer. I believe there is more we can do, consistent with the 2A, to keep guns away from criminals and mentally ill people. Life is usually not black and white, and the Second Amendment certainly isn't.

I completely agree that the "antis" are ultimately not interestetd in compromise. I am under no illusion that they just want to be "reasonable." They want to ban guns, or come as close to that goal as possible. I agree, HOWEVER, there are millions and millions of people -- enough to sway the outcome of the debate -- who don't particularly care about gun control vs gun rights and probably agree that people should be able to own guns of some sort, who will ultimately determine who wins. Those people believe the antis "let's just be reasonable rhetoric." So, are we best served by a person like La Pierre and the NRA's ridiculous "press conference" or someone who comes off as thoughtful and even willing to compromise on some issues? Digging in our heels and saying no compromise is certainly easier, but I don't think its safer for us. Plus, I truly believe that ground can be given on the background check issue without compromising one inch on gun bans. By giving just a little I think we would get a lot.

His willingness to engage in dialogue with the other side and to consider restrictions on who can purchase guns. La Pierre came off as a creepy old man, utterly out of touch with what has become a national dialogue. Armed security in schools is a good idea but his "the only answer to a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" remark was simplistic and in fact wrong. We can oppose gun bans that violate the 2A while acknowledging that perhaps more can be done to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill. I think he did our cause tremendous harm. I feel like a man without a country, threatened by gun ban extremists who won't listen to reason with only the NRA and their absolutist stance to represent me.

Anyone familiar with them? I know that the founder Richard Feldman used to work for the NRA but was considererd too moderate. He left to start this new organization, but I don't think they've gained much traction. After La Pierre's press conference I've concluded that unfortunately I'm done with the NRA and the approach of this organization seems more in line with my views.

Gun rights advocates generally do a bad job of explaining the assault weapons ban issue from our perspective. The simplest way to approach it is to start with the Constitution. Does the Second Amendment draw any line as to what type of "arms" are protected and what type can be banned? As much as some 2A activists like to argue that the 2A gives us the right to own anything and everything the military has, that is not so. Heller explained that line can be and in fact is drawn: Arms in common use for lawful purposes, in particular self-defense, are protected by the 2A. True military weapons -- howitzers, grenade launchers, machine guns and nuclear weapons can all be banned so the typical reductio ad absurdum arguments of gun contol activists ("so why not just let everyone own nuclear weapons") is nonsense. Semi-automatic firearms, modern firearms owned in the tens of millions by law abiding Americans and used for self-defense and all sorts of sporting purposes, clearly fall within the test articulated in Heller and are protected by the Second Amendment. Period. That is probably why savy gun control activists avoid coming out and saying they want to ban all semi-autmoatic firearms, which they clearly do want to do, and instead seek to ban the made up, artificial category of "assault weapons" with the hope of squeezing as many semi-automatic firearms in this category as possible. Using all sorts of sensationalist and inaccurate terms -- "powerful firearms", "rapid fire", "no one needs them" etc., etc. -- they portray this one artificial subset of semi-automatic firearms, defined by meaningless features (flash hiders, collapsible stocks, etc) and magazine capacity as more dangerous and lethal than any other firearm. So, in reality, "assault weapons" is a meaningless term that is used by gun controllers and the media to refer to one particular subset of semi-automatic firearms that are no more and no less lethal than any other firearm and in fact have lawful uses and can't be banned under the Second Amendment. The proposed ban a) makes no sense and b) is unconstitutional. I like to ask -- let's say, God forbid, that next week a maniac walks into a mall with a pump shotgun, lever action rifles, and two .357 revolvers with speed loaders, and kills 20 people without a single semi-auto. Will there then be a cry to ban these guns as well? Should we ban speed loaders that enable rapid loading of revolvers? Should civilians only be able to own single shot firearms, or perhaps muskets? Some may say "yes that is exactly what we want" and the only answer to that is fine I get it, you want to repeal the Second Amendment. Then let's make that the topic of our "discussion on gun control" not the bs assault weapons ban. Let politicians propose a constitutional amendment deleting the 2A. Let's see how the country feels about that.

Agree 100%. I was never a fan of Wayne LaPierre (even his name is terrible) and I'm less of a fan now. That said, I am will remain a member and will continue to contribute because I feel like I have no other alternative.

Yes, but in other cases it didn't work (eg Virginia Tech). Also, there needs to be a way from discouraging people with mentally ill people living in the home from owning guns. I'd like to see a law in place enforcing that. I know others disagree, but the topic should at least have been raised during this press conference.

Great idea by the NRA, but I do think it would have been helpful if they at least addressed the background check issue since we all agree (I hope) that mentally ill people shouldn't be able to purchase guns. There have got to be ways to improve the system in that respect without infringing on anyone's rights. I'd be surprised if any schools in outside of states that are extremely gun friendly are willing to be associated with any NRA sponsored program.

With all of the depressing news in the last week I'm thinking I need a new gun to perk me up. I don't need another semi-auto, even if I could find one now whichI can't. So... I'm thinking of a center-fire bolt action, which i don't yet have. Specifically, the Savage scout rifle caught my eye -- available in .308 and 7.62x39. I would mount a Leupold Scout Scope on it and could come in under $1k for the gun, mount, scope and a bipod. I am generally familiar with the difference in these calibers, both in terms of cost, accuracy, range, etc. I don't hunt so don't really need the .308 and this will be mostly for fun at the range, likely nevery beyond 200 yards (and normally at the 100 yard range at Cherry Ridge). I believe that a 7.62x39 could be used for deer hunting in a pinch in any event. Questions: 1) anyone have this gun and 2) anyone think the 7.62x39 round would not be better than the .308 given my intended use? Still seems to be 7.62 available and the steel cased stuff is pretty cheap. Any thoughts?

The NRA needs to do a better job of educating pro-gun politicians and other pro-2A people that go on talk shows. I watched the Sunday Morning This Week program which was a roundtable forum on gun control: It was actually somewhat more balanced and less hysterical than other news programs on the issue. At one point, the conversation of course turned to "assault weapons" with George Will (who is awesome) correctly noting that the former AWB really didn't do anything to lessen violence and that these mass killings have occurred in Norway, Scotland, China and other places with very strict gun control laws. Joe Klein responded that Lanza specifically chose an assault rifle and semi-automatic pistols and left "deer rifles" behind and made the usual reference to hunters not needing assault weapons.. George Stephanopolous asked Jason Chefez, as Republican pro-2A congressman from Utah, whether there were any lines that should be drawn. That should be a soft-ball question, but Chefez gave some lame response to the effect that he is a ccw holder and owns a glock and made some vague reference to laws on the books. Very, very weak and the WRONG ANSWER. There is a very specific, informed, fact based answer to these types of questions concerning line drawing and assault weapons and the NRA needs to get this simple message out: 1. Yes we do draw a line as to which guns fall under the Second Amendment protection. The Supreme Court has told us where to draw that line: firearms in common use for lawful purposes, specifically and centrally self-defense, are protected by the 2A. The 2A is not about hunting (that needs to be repeated over, and over and over). People may not like that, and continue to make bs arguments about what "well regulated" and "milita" mean, but that is now IRRELEVANT to a policy debate. 2. It is pretty clear that howitzers, bazookas, machine guns, grenade launchers, etc. are not protected by the 2A. (Perhaps the NRA doesn't make this point because they don't want to make the admission, but from a tactical perspective they ought to acknowledge the legal reality.) Machine guns are already heavily regulated and effectively banned in most of the country and have never been used in a mass killing (at least since the Valentine's Day massacre). THAT is where the line can be and in fact has already been drawn. 3. Semi-automatic firearms, of which AR-15s are just one type, clearly fall under the 2A protection under both prongs of the test as described by the Supreme Court: they are in common usage and widely owned in the millions and have numerous lawful legitimate uses, including primarily self-defense. There is a reason virtually every law enforcement agency in the country has switched to semi-autos. They are more effective defensive tools than revolvers. 4. Finally, Ar-15s and other military "style" rifles are simply one subset of this class of 2A protected firearms. They are not any more or less dangerous than any other firearm and are put up as a boogey man target for feel good, expedient legislation that will do nothing to mitigate violence. And yes, people do "need them" and routinely use them for hunting, target shooting and self-defense. If Joe Klein or anyone else wants to ban all semi-autos, then come out and say that explicitly. Don't propose some meaningless ban of a class of semi-autos that in fact are rarely used in the commission of crime. Those need to be the talking points that the NRA makes and that pro-2A politicians and spokespeople make consistently, and clearly.

Hilarious and spot on! He is a fop and an imbecile.

It's a matter of degree. If a kid has fun playing a video game, even a violent one (assuming the kid is of an appropriate age), that's fine, for an hour, maybe two. But is he sitting there, isolated, alone in his room for hours on end, is the game played constantly? Same for TV. Also, no kid should be allowed to have a TV or uncontrolled/unmonitored access to a computer in their bedroom. There is too much garbage and sickness online. Kids need to socialize, to be outside, to get involved in sports or other activities if they aren't athletically inclined, to have their parents actively involved in their lives. Hopefully to have some religious or spiritual component in their lives. To be given a celar sense of responsibility -- chores to do -- and a clear sense of right and wrong, with swift, uncompromising, serious consequences if they choose wrong. Too many parents us TV, computers and video games as babysitters rather than taking an active role in their kids' lives.

This may come as a surprise to no one, but .223 ammo online is virtually gone. Tracer rounds and extremely expensive match grade ammo is available. I found 10 boxes of winchester training ammo at .75 per round and grabbed that.

I also just made an additional donation. I have been really wavering on what I'm hoping them to do. Where I'm coming out: flexibility on improving background checks; zero flexibility on gun bans; maybe -- maybe, discussion of magazine capacity restrictions. I'm hoping for them to bring up concealed carry although of course not expecting an acknowledgement or compromise from the other side on that.

That's BS. Under your logic, we couldn't bar a mentally ill person from owning a gun because they haven't done anything yet. They are barred because their owning a gun is an unacceptably high risk and they are presumed not to be able to responsibly exercise their consitutional right to keep and bear arms. This is the same thing. It isn't Minority Report -- it's limiting a right because of a specific, identifiable, high risk associated with the exercise of that right. We all know that no right is absolute, including the 2A right. There are categories of people that clearly be prohibited from owning guns, and that should include the category of someone who has a mentally ill person in the home.

The OP's point about accountability is the first thing I thought of when I heard about this. I couldn't give a rat's a** whether this mother had the guns locked up or not. She shouldn't have owned them, period. With a seriously mentally ill person in the house, the risk of owning guns is just too great. As we all know, any safe can be broken into and there have been cases of family members cutting locks or otherwise obtaining secured firearms and using them to kill people. Nothing is 100% -- mental illness isn't always apparent and very rarely people do snap, and there is nothing we can do about that. But when a mother KNOWS that a child, or spouse, or elderly parent living in the home is seriously distrubed, DON"T OWN FIRGGIN GUNS! Although the Kellerman studies were utter BS, there clearly are circumstances in which where a gun in the home is in fact more likely to be used to kill a family member and others than to be used in self defense. This was one of those cases. In my opinion, there should be a law that makes it a felony to possess any firearm when there is a person living in the home who has received and currently has a medical diagnosis of a serious mental illness (which can be defined -- bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, paranoia, severe depression, etc). While laws may not dissuade criminals, a law like this most certainly would dissuade a law abiding person with a mentally ill person in the home from owning a gun.

The police are not the bad guys here. The prosecutor on the other hand... If this were a serious emergency, responding to reports of gunfire, how the hell did the prosecutor get involved so quickly? Would be helpful to have an LEO chime in. If it were me, I would most definitely have a polite sit down with the Chief, and then demand to talk to someone in the prosecutor's office to find out how/why he was there. You always have the option of filing a complaint against the prosecutor for misconduct.

You already live here in NJ? How about if all of those nice pinned 15 round AR mags that you bought, or 15 round mags for your Glock 19 or HK? Let's say those are banned with no grandfather clause? What are you going to do then?

Really unbelieveable what mass psychic trauma and hysteria can do. Not surprising that this comes from Feinstein and her cohorts, but it's all the people who were in the middle, on the fence, or just didn't care all that much, that have now been shoved to her side of the see-saw because they just need to do "something", logic be damned. That is what will send us all flying into the abyss. Over the past few days I've been kind of pissed at the NRA, for not responding, for never being willing to have a dialogue, but I am gradually coming around. When I actually see BS like this in print and the more that I see people jumping on this gun ban bandwagon without thought or nuance the more I'm inclined to send the NRA a fat check and say "circle the wagons."

Wow. From time to time I questioned why I bought the guns that I did over the past few years. Now I'm glad that I did because I'm beginning to think it may not be too easy to buy anymore for the forseeable future.

Ya know, I've become so sickened by the media coverage of this tragedy -- and I really do believe that the media contributes to the likelihood of copycat shooters -- that I've been thinking that perhaps the NRA is right, and that there silence has been respectful and smart. But that window is rapidly drawing to a close. In a day, maybe two, they will need to say something. Rightly or wrongly (mostly wrongly), this issue has become virtually solely about guns. They need to break their silence and be smart, very, very smart about what they say. Perhaps they are first meeting with pro-2A congress people. That would be a good place to start because whatever they do say the landscape has changed and they will be faced with a fight the likes of which has not been seen before.

Don't know who you are addressing or what you mean by grandstanding, but the difference is that while yes, the same agenda has been pushed by the antis for years, not too many people were listening. Most politicians weren't, the majority of Amercians weren't, and Senators with 'A' ratings from the NRA most certainly weren't. ALL of those people are now on board for additional restrictions of one sort or another, ergo more restrictive gun laws of some sort almost certainly will pass this time. The NRA should be working to mitigate that to the extent possible and perhaps even turning the tables and forcing the antis to put up or shut up on their bs claims to "want a conversation" on the second amendment. A "conversation" requires two sides, so I say let's talk to them and see what comes of it. Worst case we'll be no worse off than we would be if we refuse any compromise.

You are right, but is the answer A) keep falling back on the "what part of 'infringed' don't you understand" BS or B) play their game and perhaps not lose too much ground? The horror in CT was a game changer. People -- both died in the wool gun banners and people on the fence, and probably even a fair number of gun owners -- want something, anything done. If we/the NRA choose option A and fall back on the tried and true no negotiating, we're right you're wrong arguments, there is zero question in my mind that they (and we) are going to get steam-rolled. Assault weapons ban with 10 round mag limit for sure, possibly no grandfather clause. How do you feel about turning in all of your legally purchased pinned 15 round AR mags, or all of the 15 round mags for your Glock 19, or perhaps your AR (or becoming an instant felon). Or, we can try option B with dialogue along the lines of the following: Messrs Bloomberg, Schumer, etc. Restricting firerams based on cosmetic features makes no sense. However, we do understand that some people believe that larger magazines do make it marginally easier for mass killings to occur. [And please spare me the BS about 20 and 30 round magazines being unreliable, we know they aren't, and the BS about someone being able to just use multiple 10 round magazines. If that were true, if 10 are as good as 20, why aren't we, who want them for self-defense, satsified with 10??] So let's have a discussion about that. Why do you think 10 rounds is the right number? Where is your evidence to support that? And oh, by the way, here's a list of 50 commonly owned firearms --- owned in the millions nationwide -- that are manufacture with magazines that accept between 10 and 20 rounds. Why shouldn't the max number be 20, to reduce the huge economic impact on law abiding gun owners. An oh, by the way, you claim to support the 2A which a court of appeals has now clearly stated applies outside the home, so let's discuss why concealed carry laws, as to which there is zero evidence that they negatively impact public safety, shouldn't be expanded nationwide, and why NYC's gun laws shouldn't be made more rational and "sensible." etc., etc., etc. Give the pro gun politicians like Manchin and others who are ready to turn on us something to work with and I bet they will. We need to play chess here, not checkers. And being the party of "no compromise", the party of absolutists, is most definitely going to get all gun owners hosed.

One "common sense" argument against ammo bans is: if people can own guns -- and even the antis "admit" that they don't want to ban guns -- isn't it better that law abiding people be able to practice with and be proficient in the use of those guns. What possible "common sense" purpose could punitive taxes or other limitations on ammo have? If you acknowledge that the 2A gives people the right to own guns, there can't be actual or de facto ammo bans. I don't think we should shy away from dialogue just because the antis will raise absurd arguments. They should be engaged and called out on those arguments.