DescentBB

So Reid has put the assault weapons ban off the table, much to Feinsteins chagrin. I wonder if certain people here still think the NRA is a toothless old dog?

it's not OFF the table, it has been separated from the other stuff in the bill. It looks like it will be up to the individual states to do the job......Colorado was the latest, Delaware is working on it now.

It was separated because it would of killed the background check bill that it was part of. It is effectively killed as it won't pass even as a stand alone bill. Like I said slick, the NRA is not the toothless dog you thought it was. As to the states, Colorado county sheriffs are going on record as saying they will not enforce the law. What does that tell you.

wait til the next election.......I think you'll see where the NRA stands(again). BTW, the number of gun owners in the US has plummetted over the past 10 years, so the long-term handwriting is on the wall.

callmeslick wrote:it's not OFF the table, it has been separated from the other stuff in the bill. It looks like it will be up to the individual states to do the job......Colorado was the latest, Delaware is working on it now.

Well, now Reid's apparently going to allow a vote on assault weapons in the Senate after Feinstein threw a fit. But I doubt it will get enough votes to pass.

http://twitchy.com/2013/03/21/harry-rei ... ves-votes/

There always WAS going to be a vote.....

I thought he'd nixed the actual vote until Feinstein had a fit about it? Either way, Harry Reid is a wuss.

The NRA has been effective enough to see many democrats still vote against the antigun bills so I don't think their power is in doubt. Maybe not needed as much lately in the same sense that a good manager works himself out of a job...

The way both party's have locked up certain districts has changed the way the war is fought. If a district has antigun candidates on both tickets you won't see the NRA as a factor there. They may tacitly back a more rabid right winger in those primaries just to keep the message strong and raise funds etc but just because their rabid dog didn't win the primary doesn't mean they had nothing to do with the fact that it is a progun district on both tickets in the main event.

callmeslick wrote: BTW, the number of gun owners in the US has plummetted over the past 10 years, so the long-term handwriting is on the wall.

Not sure where you got that info:

"There have been 65,376,373 background checks completed for Americans purchasing firearms since February of 2009, the first full month of Barack Obama's presidency."

"By comparison, the number of background checks in Obama's first term is 91.1% higher than President George W. Bush's first-term total of 34,214,066."

"Jerry, just remember, if you believe it, it is not a lie" - George Costanza

more guns, fewer owners:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/31/politics/ ... -declining

more signs of the times.....time is clearly on the anti-gun side:
http://www.delawareonline.com/article/2 ... -store-ads

Hmm, pressure from large corporations. Nothing to see here, just keep moving along.

LOL!

Whether fought over resources, land or ideological differences, wars have shaped and reshaped the map of the planet, creating or destroying entire nations. Military history reaches as far back as human memory, with nearly every recorded civilization engaging in armed struggles and some in a state of constant warfare. Early civilizations were established and maintained primarily with military power: Egypt, Rome, Athens, Sparta and the Persian Empire, for example, all rose and fell on the strength of their armies. Modern warfare is characterized by technological innovations from machine guns to nuclear bombs, capable of inflicting damage on a large scale.

Don't fool yourself

what the heck does that have to do with civilians and assault rifles?

callmeslick wrote:what the heck does that have to do with civilians and assault rifles?

What the heck has 99% of anything you have declared, professed, bemoaned, claimed or cited have to do with civilians and assault rifles?!?

Because I'd like to give my kids or grandkids a fighting chance when the next one rolls around, foreign or domestic.

last I checked, we pay big money to maintain a national Defense force.

I wonder how that lower percentage jives with population growth, because it is being stated as “fewer” people own guns, but that chart clearly shows percentage.

in the text of the article--percentage of ownership dropped 18% in 30 years, but total numbers have dropped by 10% in the past 15 or so, so that would seem to answer your question.

callmeslick wrote:more guns, fewer owners:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/31/politics/ ... -declining

Two things I see wrong here.:

1) Like Spidey said graph is based on percentage. I'd be curious to see what 49% of our 1973 population is compared to the 33% of our 2013 population.

2) This info was based on a poll. Assuming it was a good poll, lets look at the climate around owning firearms. In the last 25 years do you think a certain percentage of firearm owners would say yes? I know if I got that poll in the mail I would either say no or just dump the dam thing in the trash.

please, Woodchip, either read the whole article, or at the very least, read the summary of numbers I posted already.....plus, this isn't some sort of singular poll result. Those numbers have been steadily dropping for years. I don't know about you, but I can think of anectdotal proof amongst those I know. Slowly but surely, a lot of folks are giving up the notion of gun ownership, largely as hunting becomes more limited in access, in my experience. The Zombie Apocolypse crowd always had guns to begin with, as did the goofball fringe who are stupid enough to think they can fend off the government in the 21st century with their personal weaponry.

triple play

Triple play

Slick you posted percents. Now compare populations 40 years ago to today. And my stance on answering such a poll is still staring at you.

As to those goofballs, tell that to the Libyans and the Syrians

woodchip wrote:Slick you posted percents. Now compare populations 40 years ago to today. And my stance on answering such a poll is still staring at you.

as I stated above, and using the TEXT OF THE ARTICLE, total numbers are down by 10%. The one graph uses percentage, but the article addresses absolute numbers. Please learn to read. It makes discourse a tad easier.

once again, for clarity, from the article:
" The number of gun owners has gone down almost 10% over the same period, the report found"

Once again, what gun owner is going to answer that poll truthfully.

so, you're saying that these 'responsible' gun owners are either paranoid or habitual liars? Nice, and you all wonder why we might wish to curtail access to certain things?

I guess you're overlooking the New york newspaper that posted address's of gun owners.

woodchip wrote:I guess you're overlooking the New york newspaper that posted address's of gun owners.

which, in what way, would impact an anonymous survey of gun ownership? I return to your words and suggest that paranoia or mendacity would be the only reason not to respond honestly, and that does not speak well of gun owners.

slick the biggest fallacy with your posting the poll is not how acurate it is illustrating the drop in gun ownership.
The big problem is how you are interpreting a drop, of whatever the rate is. You said: "time is clearly on the anti-gun side" which I believe you are implying that guns are going away like the anti-gun side is trying to accomplish.

Just because the number of owners has dipped in the last 30 years doesn't mean that trend was ever going to continue its trajectory to zero owners!

And if you look at the reaction of citizens to the anti-gun movement in the last 5 years it would be a smart bet to say the trend has probably bottomed out and about to start moving back up again. 30 years into the future you'll likely be able to look back and see 2013 was the dip in the chart...

Your logic is weak or else that is rhetoric dribbled on your chin....you might want to get that.... Somebody hand slick a napkin.

um, Will, a drop from 50% of households to 32% of households indicates clearly a minority currently exists. And, as the article and the report noted, the overwhelming numbers of owners are white and older. Thus, while the numbers won't drop to zero(I never wished to suggest that at all), the numbers DO show a trend that will lead to an electoral mandate, and likely sooner than you all think.....

callmeslick wrote:um, Will, a drop from 50% of households to 32% of households indicates clearly a minority currently exists. And, as the article and the report noted, the overwhelming numbers of owners are white and older. Thus, while the numbers won't drop to zero(I never wished to suggest that at all), the numbers DO show a trend that will lead to an electoral mandate, and likely sooner than you all think.....

you are assuming the dynamics that gave us the down turn are static. if gun ownership is the 'frog in the pot' Obama is the impatient cook who turned the heat up too fast....the frogs are starting to hop out of the pot

Lets assume slick is right and gun ownership will go to zero. If that is the case we don't need anymore firearm laws.

And why Slick, is not answering a poll a indication of being a liar? It's a poll and only one poll. I wonder if the NRA took a similar poll what the results might be.

Considering the complete history of man, I don't trust anyone who would try to disarm a population. They are either ignorant or malevolent. Also, taking into account human nature, a successful revolution is not out of the realm of possibility, but neither is a complete assault on personal liberties either.

Did someone just infer that there will be an electoral mandate to screw a minority group.

I must have read that wrong.

woodchip wrote:As to those goofballs, tell that to the Libyans and the Syrians

Funny you should mention those, because the Libyan rebel forces in Misrata were on the brink of annihilation until international air support moved in and enabled them to break out, which was the main turning point in the entire conflict. And considering just how many civilian deaths there have been so far in the Syrian conflict, as well as the very real fear that al-Assad will authorize the use of Syria's chemical weapons against the rebels, I would say that it's hardly a shining example either. If a modern government chooses to wage true total war against its citizenry, then private ownership of small arms will unfortunately do very little to enable victory.

Spidey wrote:Did someone just infer that there will be an electoral mandate to screw a minority group.

I must have read that wrong.

no, but you can infer that the majority gun owners will no longer exist to aid in victimizing the population as a whole......also, I love how y'all keep stating that I am inferring the ownership will approach zero. I clearly did not, and made that pretty clear.