Once again, the NRA shows itself to be an extremists, wacked-out organization. I'm glad they're not coming to Ohio for their convention, and I'm glad Columbus passed this measure. The NRA can go do something anatomically impossible to itself, for all I care.
CaptOveur From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (8 years 8 months 16 hours ago) and read 1195 times:
If I owned a buisness in CMH I would be pretty pissed.. All those empty hotel rooms that could have been filled, and empty seats at restaraunts... I guess the money of a group who supports gun rights is somehow less green than that of a group who thinks we should ban guns that look "bad"
LTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 12832 posts, RR: 13
Reply 5, posted (8 years 8 months 15 hours ago) and read 1190 times:
While the City of Columbus will lose millions in income, what is the cost to the city and county there every year due to gun violence, including police, justice system, medical, social services costs and so on? While the city is banning what are 'legal' weapons per Federal and even State laws, clearly their ban is to control the use and access to what are primarly weapons designed for hunting and killing people, not legitiment hunting and killing animals. The class of weapons banned by that City (and many other urban places too) recognizes that what are weapons for military purposes to kill people are far too often used or possessed illegally by criminals or to commit criminal actions and they desire to reduce the access to such weapons by criminals.
Far too many in the USA have this misguided and romantic view of the 2nd Amendment. While I do not discount the necessity of many people with limited and difficult access to law enforcement for the need of weapons for self defense, times are very much different than in the late 1700's. We have a formal military structure in the USA, with weapons supplied by the Government. Unlike the late 1700's, a bunch of private people with guns are not going to keep our government in line, but rather people interested in good governance, voting, being an informed citizen, participating in government and in our communities. Some of the greatest and best changes in the USA came from people speaking out with voices, not with a gun. In recent years in the USA we are quickly surrendering more of our lives to corrupt politicans tending to corporate and special interests that are very much taking away our freedoms including freedom of personal safety, trading away our jobs to China, getting involved in questionable wars and creating highly questionable laws like parts of the Patriot Act.
What the City of Columbus said was that they were more concerned with gun violence and not the NRA's money. Let them go to Texas, or Utah or Montana for their convention where their pro-gun access views are welcomed and fit in better.
JoseMEX From Mexico, joined Oct 1999, 1539 posts, RR: 27
Reply 9, posted (8 years 8 months 6 hours ago) and read 1146 times:
Oh, Columbus...I have great memories of that town: a couple of years ago I was not able to purchase a beer at the Nationwide Arena because I could not show proof that I was over 18 (or whatever the legal drinking age is there).
I was 37 at the time. I showed them my (mexican) passport, but they wouldn't take it.
Falcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (8 years 8 months 6 hours ago) and read 1139 times:
CaptOveur, not bent out of shape over anything. I just don't have a love-affair with guns like a lot of people. I don't understand it, and I'll never own one. I've been alive almost 44 years, and never had the need for one. I think those who think they absolutely need one for protection believe the bull cookies put out by groups like the NRA. I'm not one of them.
Daedaeg From United States of America, joined Feb 2003, 655 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (8 years 8 months ago) and read 1083 times:
Quoting CaptOveur (Reply 15): That number is probably shockingly close to the number of murders by TV remote.. Not counting the countless deaths from Americans being too fat to get out of their recliners.
This sort of comparison is unfair. Fat people make a choice over their own health. A little girl sitting on a porch and subsequently shot by gang members doing a drive-by is not a choice. What's wrong with owning a simple hand gun and a hunting rifle. Why the hell does anyone need a semi automatic rifle?
Fokker Lover From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (8 years 8 months ago) and read 1081 times:
The only way to win a war is to learn everything you possibly can about your enemy. That means studying them and possibly looking at things from their point of view. Every scrap of knowledge is pertinent.
Anybody who has never fired a gun, never held one, or knows absolutely nothing about the differences in the internal workings, has an opinion that is as useful as the 12 year olds on here giving advice about sex.
The article stated that semi-auto rifles (do you understand that term?) with detachable magazines and pistol grips were banned.
I can see that the anti's are afraid of detachable magazines because of the possibility of a quick reload.
Pistol grips are a different story. That is pure feel good nonsense that does nothing to make people safer. People fear things they don't understand. Since most anti's know absolutely nothing about guns, they fear a pistol grip and things that look "menacing".
I'm glad that the NRA won't be spending MY dues money in Columbus. They are welcome to spend it here in Youngstown. We have a brand new convention center that could really use the business.