NRA Questions

[STGRule]

WheresMyBobber asked some good questions in another post and I was thinking we should start a new topic, as I also would like to hear the answers. This is NOT a NRA Pro or Con thread. Just question and answer time. So, my apologies to WheresMyBobber for not asking him if it was okay first but here is his post:

I really don't want to get into this discussion, but I do want to ask a couple innocent questions regarding "gun rights" since I really don't follow this topic in the political arena.

First some background on my history with firearms - I used to hunt, but lost interest and haven't hunted for about 18 years. I still own a rifle and a pistol, and had a concealed weapons permit for a few years, but since I rarely carry a gun I let it expire (seemed to me that carrying a gun was more of a liabilty than an asset). In my younger days I did some competetive target shooting (22 caliber).

Here are my questions - what are the main issues the NRA has with gun control? Is it background checks? A waiting period before being able to purchase a gun? The outlawing of assault rifles? What are the real issues that cause so much controversy?

No flaming please, these are just honest questions.

[ 09-28-2003, 02:50 PM: Message edited by: STGRule ]

[crabbait]

To me, the bottom line is that registration and "gun control" is a step by step process headed to disarmament. The problem with that is that when honest people are required to surrender their arms only dishonest people (or people with violent intent) will have firearms.

The problem that I have with the NRA is that instead of sticking to their agenda (protecting out right to bear arms through education and lobbying) they have decided to strongly support candidates who's only redeeming value, imho, is their support of our right to bear arms.

There are so many other things that I find important such as other individual rights, the environment, justice for people who are not wealthy or well placed. I cannot support an organization that ignores everything but the right to bear arms (and I am very well armed and have a giant safe to prove it).

[WheresMyBobber]

Crabbait, your post brings up another question I forgot to add to my list. What would be an acceptable definition of "gun control"? I always hear that term used, but it seems pretty vague to me.

Here's one more question: Are there legitimate, credible organizations out there that are trying to outlaw the posession of firearms in the US?


(Thanks for moving this post STG, it should get a better response here and stay informative)

[2LEYS]

Cabbait hit the nail on the head when he said that:

registration and "gun control" is a step by step process headed to disarmament.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I used to not see what the problem was with gun control. But when California decided that a previously legal firearm was now illegal, and since everyones guns were registered, they sent letters to everyone who owned this type of gun. They said turn it in by so and so date or we will come and get it and you will be charged as a felon.

So now I am 100% against any form of gun control.

The problem that I have with the NRA is that instead of sticking to their agenda (protecting out right to bear arms through education and lobbying) they have decided to strongly support candidates who's only redeeming value, imho, is their support of our right to bear arms.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Lobbying and supporting pro-gun candidates is the best way to get things done. The candidates are the ones who decide what laws are passed so why not go that route?

I cannot support an organization that ignores everything but the right to bear arms

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">They are an PRO-gun organization. So they focus on guns. Why should they focus on anything else.

[ 09-28-2003, 10:14 PM: Message edited by: 2LEYS ]

[1pump]

They are an anti-gun organization. So they focus on guns. Why should the focus on anything else.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Huh?? The NRA is anti-gun? :whazzup:

But when California decided that a previously legal firearm was now illegal, and since everyones guns were registered, they sent letters to everyone who owned this type of gun. They said turn it in by so and so date or we will come and get it and you will be charged as a felon.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Where did you come up with this? :whazzup:

[ 09-28-2003, 05:41 PM: Message edited by: 1pump ]

[All Wet]

First of all I must say that for many years I was a yellow dog Democrat. If you ran a yellow dog on that ticket I would have voted for it. Over time the party was taken over by YUPPIEs and the extreme left. Gun control is a Red Herring. The purpose is to distract you from the failure of the left wing agenda. " Some one else is always at fault, criminals are just victims of poor parenting, parents can't correct their children or they will warp their personalities, violence in the movies has no effect on children etc" The people that are against the second ammendment are adamently for the first ammendment. I believe that the founding fathers intent for people to have guns was to keep our government from being taken over from within. Ironically the administrations that have scared me the most were Nixon as revealed in watergate and the present administration and the patriot act.

[1pump]

Here's one more question: Are there legitimate, credible organizations out there that are trying to outlaw the posession of firearms in the US?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Bobber's question aroused my curiosity so I did a Google search on "gun control" and promptly got buried under 2.7 million results. :shocked:

After a quick glance I see that there are many, many organizations on both sides of the issue.
Enough to suit most anybody.

[STGRule]

PLEASE keep this to answering just the questions. If you want to talk about the pros and cons of the NRA and gun control please start your own thread. Thank you.

[WheresMyBobber]

I just did a similar search as you, 1pump, and it does appear that there are groups who's mission is to ban all guns. So there's the answer to that question, as well as identifying one of the issues the NRA deals with. But I'm still not sure about a definition of "gun control", or what issues the NRA has with gun control (besides banning guns).

[duckcall]

Gun control can lead to registration, which can lead to control of guns. The NRA is the only voice with numbers to ensure that the 2nd Amendment is not infringed upon. The NRA wants to ensure that honest gun ownership is protected and that the laws already on the books are enforced, not new ones enacted.

[Stratocaster]

Checks and balances. We need the NRA, because the ACLU, thats "civil liberties" curiously avoids the 2nd amendment. They cant seem to keep politics out of it.

[DanS]

I guess we all have our "honey" amendments, huh fisherdan? Some will defend the first amendment until they're blue in the face and don't seem at all interested in protecting the 2nd amendment. And vice-versa.

We're funny people...........

Thanks Crabbait, it is a rair ocasion where we can agree on something political. As a life member of the NRA and, at the time, the vice president of the NRA's Alaska affiliate, I've seen them support marginal (anti gun) Republican over pro gun Democrats (yes they do exist), OVER THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE STATE AFFILIATE!!!

[Silver Hilton]

Ruth, the issue that the NRA (and I) has with gun control measures is this. Over the last 70+ years, many of the groups associated with pro gun control efforts have been duplicitous, and some of their leaders have been quoted in major media as saying essentially that their goal is total removal of privately owned firearms from american society. The leader of Handgun Control Inc was quoted in the New Yorker to the effect of, "Yeah, we'll say that all we want is for this one or that one to be restricted, but we're really focused on complete elimination of firearms."

Now, I think the NRA is pretty close to being as big a bunch of kooks as the anti gunners. But the paranoia that they exhibit is actually reasonable, since the behavior of their foes has been dishonest and unreasonable for decades. So I think they (the NRA) deserve a little room for slack if they come off as being a bit paranoid.

Like many gun owners I know, I would be happy to support some reasonable regulations (say, competency testing and background checking) around gun ownership, if it weren't for the fact that every time that firearms owners have compromised in the name of reasonableness, they have been abused in the process. Since I have little confidence that the folks trying to remove this right will stop at any point along the continuum before I have no guns, I see no reason to start down the path.

[Hoosier Daddy]

My 0.02. The NRA has a zero tolerance policy on gun control. They don't want any steps towards outlawing guns with the whole "slippery-slope" theory. Fine, I see their point. Unfortunately, they end up alienating a lot of non-gun owners with their no flex, hard line stands. Personally, I think the way they portray themselves contributes to a view of gun owners as beer swilling rednecks running around with assault rifles. Mind you, I don't have any ideas of a better way to do it.....

[Snapset]

All Wet hit the nail on the head. By allowing the citizenry to arm themselves, you allowed them enough power to ensure the continuation of Democracy in the instance that a tyrannical government took over. You could call it small caliber checks and balances. Whether that is true any longer, I don't exactly know.
The NRA is trying to maintain the balance of power.

[roundbelly]

gun control means being able to hit your target. a lot of talk about baning some guns is media made. no gun made ever shot by itself, a person was who shot the gun. the national rifle associatin is one of the few national groups who expound keeping the right to keep and bear arms. they also run the civilan markmanship program and the first hunter safety programs.
my point if if we did not have the nra then some of the extreamist who are natuarly smarter than you and i would manipulate the media to the point that gun owners would be outlaws

[Straydog]

Originally posted by roundbelly:

my point if if we did not have the nra then some of the extreamist who are natuarly smarter than you and i would manipulate the media to the point that gun owners would be outlaws

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Or some other group would have taken up the cause to protect our gun rights.........

[WheresMyBobber]

Thanks to all who replied to this post and for keeping it civil. From the answers on this thread (plus others), and the searches I did on the net, I've learned a few things:

1) The definition of "gun control" depends on who you're talking to. Apparently to the NRA, any form of restriction or registration is a form of gun control, and their interpertation of the 2nd ammendment and infringement upon it is very strict. To other people who also oppose "gun control", some of these things are acceptable.

2) The terms "pro-gun" or "anti-gun" also depend on who you're talking to. A hard line "pro-gun" person might say that if you support any type of registration or restrictions, that you would be an "anti-gun" person. But it also appears that there are "pro-gun" people who do support some of the things that really bother other "pro-gunners".

3) Someone who is pro-gun, someone who is anti-gun, someone who supports gun control, someone who doesnt' support gun control are actually generalizations that may or may not actually fit the full views of that person.

So from what I've read, the only sure thing the NRA, the "pro-gun" people and the anti "gun contol" people have in common is the desire to maintain their right to bear arms. But there are both hard liners and moderates on the issues in between..

Maybe I got it right, and maybe I didn't, but again thanks to those who replied with their thoughts.

[ 09-30-2003, 09:55 AM: Message edited by: WheresMyBobber ]

[Lured In]

As I see it, much of the conflict we have in our society today is a result of moral or ethical shifts that have been occuring over the last several decades.

There are some fundamental assumptions that people on either side of the debate generally adhere to that I think may shed some light as to the reason for disagrement on how to best deal with guns. (these are generalizations that IMHO these groups assume to be true. I am not intending to speak for any group or person, just sharing my opinion.)

"Pro Gun Control Assumptions"
1. Most guns that end up being involved in criminal activity are purchased through legitimate channels such as sporting good stores and such. Background checks prevent criminals from buying guns.
2. Firearms are generally not needed by the public for purposes of self protection or as a deterrance(sp) from violent residential crime.
3. The police will be able to respond quickly enough to help me in the event of a crime against me.
4. (perhaps to a lesser degree) Hunting is not needed to supply food and therefore field caliber weapons such as shotguns and large caliber rifles have little purpose.
5. People that own guns leave them loaded and laying around all the time and that is why little kids find them and shoot people.
6. The 2nd ammendment only affords the constitutional right to keep and bear arms to a militia (usually understood as the military).

If I had to attribute the above assumptions to anything it would be increased urbanization and a lack of experience with rural life. Additionally guns are no longer a common scene for most urban youngsters. For many folks attending high school up into the 1960's, many high school's had target shooting as a varsity sport.(societal shift toward cities, etc.) Again I could be way off on these but, its what I see when I read between the lines of the pro gun control documentation.

For the "anti gun control" folks, I will try to tie in the above numbers so you can see some of where the rift comes into play.

Anti Gun Control Assumptions:
1. Most guns involved in violent crimes were purchased through illegal means (subverting background checks) or stolen.
2. Firearms are needed by the general public for self protection from violent residential crimes. If criminals believe I own a gun, they will be less likely to commit a crime against me or my property.
3. The police cannot respond fast enough to help me in time of need. Yes they will come, but I could be robbed or worse by the time they get there.
4. Hunting is a heritage that has deep roots in our country and the possession of firearms is necessary to continue this heritage.
5. The only way to prevent children from hurting themselves or others with firearms is to prevent access to them and to provide education on how to handle situations involving firearms.
6. The 2nd ammendment specifically affords the right to keep and bear arms to the people, in the event a militia (specifically not a government sponsored military) is needed to prevent the government from taking over the people.

This is not intended to be an exhaustive list, but will hopefully shed some light on why the debate seems to be so hot. I am certain there are probably 100's of other contributing factors, but in these 6 alone, there is a serious gap in beliefs.

Just my .02

[2LEYS]

Why would I want to give an inch to a group that has publicly stated that their goal is the prohibition of all firearms?

[BrionLutz]

LuredIn,

I'm not sure your assumptions are correct.

For example:

1. Most guns involved in violent crimes were purchased through illegal means (subverting background checks) or stolen.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Nope. Most guns involved in gun violence, including crime, are obtained via legal means due the loose gun laws we have in the US.

You also run into a definition problem since typically most gun violence (the kid who just shot his sister and brother) is by definition a crime.

Firearms are needed by the general public for self protection from violent residential crimes.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Nope again...most folks don't feel they need to have a gun for protection from violent residential crime.

Statistically, gun owners and those who live with them are the most likely victims of gun violence. Kind of like wearing seatbelts, the safest thing to do is no guns in the house.

Just two assumptions you made about pro-gun control folks that don't seem to be true. As a pro-gun control licensed to carry guns person my assumptions are that:

1 All guns should be registered including ballistics tests for tracking.

2.All gun owners should be licensed with renewal etc. just like driver's license.

3.All guns must be insured just like cars, particulary for liability.

4. All gun sellers must be licensed by Federal gov't.

To answer STG's initial question about the NRA and why it opposes all gun control, we need to remember how the NRA got started and what it is.

It was started in the late 1800's by gun mfg.s to promote the private ownership of firearms. Prior to the Civil War, gun ownership was not very common in the US. During the Civil War, mfgs. of guns went through an industrial revolution and had huge production capacity. They wanted to capitalize on it and started NRA as a marketing tool.

Gun mfgs declined and provided less and less support. NRA needed to create a new financial base so it went the "evangelical" route creating a "2nd amendment hades" and offering salvation via it's lobbying efforts. It has been hugely successful and needs the "threat" to keep it's financial base motivated.

An interesting fact about gun control, no gun regulation has ever been overturned on 2nd amendment grounds.

Brion

[ 09-30-2003, 08:32 PM: Message edited by: BrionLutz ]

[img]graemlins/dork.gif[/img]

Show us your sources?
How about a link or two.

[ 10-01-2003, 08:23 AM: Message edited by: Keta ]

[Flatfish]

Brion,

I will not respond to you. I would like to, but I shall not be lead into temptation.

CB is pretty accurate in his short lowdown. While the NRA is not perfect( would support Charles Manson if he was a pro gun Republican), they do a good job of getting what they want. Since they are pretty much professional vote getters, results matter. And I can not think of a more effective lobbying organization.

I wish sports anglers had 10% of the voice that the NRA carries.

Mark and the gun toting dog.

[BrionLutz]

Flatfish,

And I can not think of a more effective lobbying organization.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">No one dismisses the effectiveness of the NRA as a political lobbying group. No better evidence of that than the fact that the NRA has been able to slow the progress on gun control despite the fact that gun control enjoys wide popular support.

However, the effectiveness of the NRA was not STG's question.STG asked why the NRA opposed gun regulations.

That has to do with the need of the NRA to keep it's base worked up into a frenzy via the wild stuff you see here.

The funniest example was someone said they needed to have guns in case John Ashcroft got even further out of hand &lt;grin&gt;.

Brion

[2LEYS]

Nope. Most guns involved in gun violence, including crime, are obtained via legal means due the loose gun laws we have in the US.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Due to UNENFORCED gun laws we have today.

1 All guns should be registered including ballistics tests for tracking.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">No crime has ever been solved due to a balistic fingerprinting data base.

2.All gun owners should be licensed with renewal etc. just like driver's license.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Possibly for semi-autos but not all guns.

3.All guns must be insured just like cars, particulary for liability.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Not a chance!!

4. All gun sellers must be licensed by Federal gov't.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Sure. I wouldn't have a problem with that. But I think they should be registered with the state instead.

An interesting fact about gun control, no gun regulation has ever been overturned on 2nd amendment grounds.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Key word- OVERTURNED. But plenty have been rejected. More wordplay from the master of misinterpretation .&lt;grin&gt;

[ 09-30-2003, 09:03 PM: Message edited by: 2LEYS ]

[BrionLutz]

How about a link or two

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I thought you'd never ask &lt;grin&gt;. This provides two delicious bits of info that the NRA freaks out over constantly...that it's the NRA's website is just too ironic.

1. Admission that most Americans didn't own guns prior to the Civil War, contradicting one of the NRA's dearest fantasies about gun ownership being common.

2. Founding by the ex-generals all...ahem..."investors" in the gun mfg. industries in the North that were desparate for a market. Hilarious parallel to Bush Jr being an "investor" in Harken oil or Cheney being anything other than the hired out Dept. of Defense "veteran". We know that both of them, like the Civil War Generals hired by the gun mfg to front for the NRA, were simply the front man hired for their names and connections.

Dismayed by the lack of marksmanship shown by their troops, Union veterans Col. William C. Church and Gen. George Wingate formed the National Rifle Association in 1871. The primary goal of the association would be to "promote and encourage rifle shooting on a scientific basis," according to a magazine editorial written by Church.

Brion

[willametteriveroutlaw]

Originally posted by BrionLutz:
1. Admission that most Americans didn't own guns prior to the Civil War, contradicting one of the NRA's dearest fantasies about gun ownership being common.

[/QB]

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Brion,
The professor who wrote that book was fired for falsifying results..

[BrionLutz]

2LEYS,

Key word- OVERTURNED. But plenty have been rejected.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Overturned is, unfortunately for your arguement, the LEGAL term &lt;grin&gt;. No gun law has ever been overturned on 2nd amendment grounds...amazing isn't it when you consider the NRA's wild arguments and how right wing the courts have become?

The reason of course is that gun regulation is clearly a right of the government...at least according to the courts.

The Exec. and Legislative branches also where a steady stream of increasing gun regulation has been the rule.

Brion

[BrionLutz]

Willametteriveroutlaw,

The professor who wrote that book was fired for falsifying results.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Unfortuantely for your theory, that was the NRA founders who were lamenting the lack of gun ownership in America prior to the Civil War &lt;grin&gt;.

Sounds like you were defending against another source for those facts.

Brion

[ 09-30-2003, 09:09 PM: Message edited by: BrionLutz ]

[Snapset]

STGRule: This is NOT a NRA Pro or Con thread. Just question and answer time

Here are my questions - what are the main issues the NRA has with gun control? Is it background checks? A waiting period before being able to purchase a gun? The outlawing of assault rifles? What are the real issues that cause so much controversy?

No flaming please, these are just honest questions.

OK, Brion, you are putting a very cynical, negative spin on this and threatening to turn a civil, objective discussion into an argument. Do you have anything constructive to add or are you going to continue to try to exhume dead Generals and try to turn them into goblins?

[2LEYS]

The main reason the NRA is against ALL forms of gun control is the fact that these antigun organizations have publicly stated that they want all guns outlawed.

So that being said, each and every gun control law no matter how insignificant is a step on the way to total firearm prohibition.

OK, Brion, you are putting a very cynical, negative spin on this and threatening to turn a civil, objective discussion into an argument. Do you have anything constructive to add or are you going to continue to try to exhume dead Generals and try to turn them into goblins?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Did you really expect any thing more?

Lutz,
Good one
You post a link doesn't support your "Facts"

You'll have to come up with something much better to support your statement, if you can.

[ 10-01-2003, 05:24 AM: Message edited by: Jennie@ifish ]

[willametteriveroutlaw]

Brion,
The british were run out by of concord by armed pesants. If your "theory" about ex generals being paid by gun manufacturers was true.. Couldn't this lack of sales you imply be because of a glut of leftover military rifles and decreased population of male gunowners.
The author I mentioned was cited in almost every anti gun website and touted as a hero for there plight.. Then he admitted his research was faulty and was fired as a professor and everyone who has tried to back his claim has failed..
Article disproving Pre civil war theory Heres another one

[Hogback]

Definition of GUN CONTROL "THE ABILITY TO HIT YHAT YOU ARE SHOOTING AT, MARKSMANSHIP BEGINS AT 600 METERS" The second amendment was written as a last chance protection against tyrany in government.

[skahorse]

First off, I am Pro-Gun advocate. And for the most part take the stance that 2LEYS does; why would I want to give in if someones goal is to completely outlaw guns? However, I think there can be some ideas instituted that would encourage education.

For instance, I have often thought about a government subsidized 20% off the purchase of a firearm for taking a gun safety course(for new owners, or someone who hasn't taken the course yet). You go into buy a $600 handgun and the clerk tells you, "Hey, you could save $120 by simply taking this class tommorrow." Whose going to pass that up? And if you wanted to pass on it, you could. Thereby not infringing your right to buy a firearm when you want.


Now, I want to address a couple of Lutz's questions:

1. All guns should be registered including ballistics tests for tracking.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I don't know enough about ballistics testing or forensics to answer this questions. (Other than what I have seen on CSI &lt;grin&gt. However, it's just another list that could come in handy(See answer to Q. 2)

2.All gun owners should be licensed with renewal etc. just like driver's license.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">The problem here Brion is what if John Ashcroft does become a little over-zealous and starts picking up guns? What if he decides that all anti war protesters need to be forcefully locked up for sedition? Or an even bigger group, non-Christians. All he has to do is check his database to see who has the guns and who doesn't. Removing any chance of fighting back. Personally, I am Christian, and a Bush supporter. However, if Ashcroft attempted this, I would fight against it. That's what this country is about, "anti-tyranny". And as all of the anti-Bush's out there have "realized", that day could come sooner rather than later.

3.All guns must be insured just like cars, particulary for liability.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Now this is ridiculous. Who can afford this? Why not just call this what it is? Outlawing guns, except for the rich. Do you know how much this would cost?!?! The liability involved.. The lawsuits that would occur.. It would be outrageous. There are a lot of people in this country that can't drive because they can't afford car insurance. Now, they can't buy guns either. I don't know about everyone else, but I would be hardpressed to find another $100 - $300 a month, per gun in my budget.

4. All gun sellers must be licensed by Federal gov't.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Anyone want to stop the supply of guns? Here's your list. Any future administrations, occupiers, or anybody else in power want to get all of the guns, well, here's alot of 'em


Now, I don't want to be on a list. I don't want my gun picked up at night because shotguns(or handguns, or whatever..) are no longer allowed. Some say the second ammendment is a protection for Militias only. Well, guess what. I am a militia. I am empowered to correct my government when all else fails. And everyone else here has that right too! Keep me off the lists, if you come for my guns, you will find them, pointing at your head :shocked: :grin:

--Skahorse


P.S. I think this has been said before, but it's funny how people can be so anti-PATRIOT Act(a form of citizen control, though not related to guns) and so Pro-gun control. It baffles me. I am anti-Patriot Act too.

[ 10-01-2003, 07:20 AM: Message edited by: skahorse ]

[Straydog]

Originally posted by skahorse:
"4. All gun sellers must be licensed by Federal gov't."

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">

Anyone want to stop the supply of guns? Here's your list. Any future administrations, occupiers, or anybody else in power want to get all of the guns, well, here's alot of 'em

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">All manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers of new guns currently hold Federal Fireams Licenses, if operating legaly.

[ 10-01-2003, 06:05 PM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

[skahorse]

Straydog,
That's kind of what I thought about the Federal Licensing for Firearm dealers. But, when anyone brings up yet another list, I have a knee-jerk reaction to yell back "No more lists!" :tongue: :smile:

No battle started, it's a valid question. However, this isn't a PATRIOT Act thread, so I'll make it brief. The Bush Administration is not entirely to blame. There are checks and balances in our current form of gov't to keep bad ideas from becoming law. I'm sure every president has a couple of horrible ideas that never make it out of committee, therefore we never see. I hold all representitives responsible for this break down of our gov't system. If you are anti-PATRIOT Act you should be just as outraged with your state Reps and Senators as you are with the Bush Administration. (I believe it passed House and Senate unchallenged, correct?)

Also, not everyone is perfect in everyones eyes. Even after the PATRIOT Act, I would vote for Bush again. I believe he has done a better job than Gore would have. And though I would like to see another legit republican candidate on the ballots this year(which we all know won't happen, i hate that), I will vote for Bush again. Personally, I can not bring myself to vote for a Democrat. Your typical party-line Democrat represents just about everything I am against.

Not too brief, eh?

--Skahorse

[ 10-01-2003, 08:03 AM: Message edited by: skahorse ]

[Straydog]

Skahorse,

Good answer with valid points concerning the support of the legislators.

I guess I am of "the buck stops here" school of thought.

I voted for Bush but can not again.

[ 10-01-2003, 08:10 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

[skahorse]

Something else I wanted to address that Lutz put out there:

Nope again...most folks don't feel they need to have a gun for protection from violent residential crime.

Statistically, gun owners and those who live with them are the most likely victims of gun violence. Kind of like wearing seatbelts, the safest thing to do is no guns in the house.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Now, I have a differing opinion on that, it is just an opinion though. To completely remove guns from your house and therefore your children's education is a little naive. I don't know any statistics on the subject, so I won't try and pass this off as fact. But, what about your child's friend that does have a guns in the house? Will your child know enough to leave if his friend get it out and says "Hey, look at my dad's gun, hehe." Or better yet, will your child know how to take the gun safely(don't grab the trigger) from his friend and check to see if its loaded? I grew up in a household that had plenty of guns, and my Dad taught me from day 1; a. Always assume a gun is loaded. b. Never point it at something you don't intend to kill. c. First thing you always do when you pick up a gun(even when Dad just checked to see if it was unloaded) is check to make sure it's not loaded. To this day (I'm 23 now) it bugs me immensely when a friend that doesn't know how to handle a gun points it(checked unloaded) at me or anyone else. I always, always check to make sure it's unloaded, even when I know I put it away unloaded (5 minutes ago!)

Anyways, my point is a little redundant, common sense gun education goes along way.

--Skahorse


P.S. Lutz, where have you been? We've all missed your insightful/antagonistic approach to these discussions &lt;grin&gt;

[ 10-01-2003, 08:33 AM: Message edited by: skahorse ]

[monoman]

Stray
Even if the Dems run Ms. Clinton...She is a true believer...What about Dean....hang on to your wallet if either of them get in! Oh my, can you think what a Clinton/Dean ticket would do....Can we say lose by hugh margins..but this is a thread for later!

[ 10-01-2003, 03:19 PM: Message edited by: monoman ]

[2LEYS]

I would like to see the gun death statistics with all the urban gang/drug murders taken away. I bet it would paint an entirely different picture.

[Lured In]

Originally posted by BrionLutz:
LuredIn,

I'm not sure your assumptions are correct.

For example:

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica"> 1. Most guns involved in violent crimes were purchased through illegal means (subverting background checks) or stolen.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Nope. Most guns involved in gun violence, including crime, are obtained via legal means due the loose gun laws we have in the US.

You also run into a definition problem since typically most gun violence (the kid who just shot his sister and brother) is by definition a crime.

Firearms are needed by the general public for self protection from violent residential crimes.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Nope again...most folks don't feel they need to have a gun for protection from violent residential crime.

Statistically, gun owners and those who live with them are the most likely victims of gun violence. Kind of like wearing seatbelts, the safest thing to do is no guns in the house.

Just two assumptions you made about pro-gun control folks that don't seem to be true. As a pro-gun control licensed to carry guns person my assumptions are that
Brion </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Brion...you could not have illustrated my point better. Both of the "quotes" of mine you have above are assumptions made by "ANTI GUN CONTROL" folks, not pro gun control such as yourself. Go back and read the "PRO GUN CONTROL" (you) list. You personally supported both #1 and #5 thus validating my assumptions about those who support gun control.

Thank you.

[BrionLutz]

Skahorse,

The problem here Brion is what if John Ashcroft does become a little over-zealous and starts picking up guns?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">We do the same thing we do when he gets overzealous and has secret police arresting folks on secret evidence, locking them up in secret jails, trying them in front of secret judges and convicting them with the testimonty of secret witnesses.

We try and get the EDIT &lt;president&gt; who appointed a EDIT &lt;man&gt; like Ashcroft fired.

The most interesting aspect of the NRA hysteria is that the wild exagerration they fear the most is one of their own, Ashcroft &lt;grin&gt;.

Going along with the NRA fantasy, I suppose if Ashcroft came to the door looking for your gun wouldn't you want to start shooting?

Isn't that the claim of gun lobby, having guns so that if the government gets out of hand, they can can shoot at it?

You'll note that claims of the gun lobby are never about the specifics of current gun control legislation but about an armageddon fantasy.

This gets back to STG's question of why does the NRA oppose all gun control legislation and do so with such hyperbole? Because that is the basis of its succesful marketing campaign to gain financial funding.

Brion

[ 10-01-2003, 09:57 AM: Message edited by: STGRule ]

[Critr Gitr]

I once heard a talk show host ask

"Why do I need to own an 'assault weapon' ?"

His answer "Because the government owns tanks".

[BrionLutz]

Willametteriveroutlaw,

If your "theory" about ex generals being paid by gun manufacturers was true..

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Well..it is the NRA's official history. Now you may have a point that the much of the NRA's interpretation of US history is a bit "theoretical" &lt;grin&gt;.

The point about the facts of the NRA's founding are that it confirms the fact that most of those entering the Union army had no experience with guns due to the increasing population and economic shift of the early industrial revolution. You saw this with the draft riots in the big cities in the Northeast. This shift was greatly accelerated in the US by the Civil War.

We do know that the NRA was founded and financed by the Northeast based industrial gun mfg.s as a marketing tool after the Civil War.

Nothing wrong with that and up until the 60's, the NRA was kind of a benign organization focused mostly on hunting and shooting. I know my Dad signed my brother and I up as members when he got us our first guns. NRA had some shooting programs at the local gun range and we got a discount if we were NRA members.

Hunting and shooting declined as US got more and more urban and the funding and membership for NRA was dropping. It changed its marketing technique to the current political based plan, energizing a small but active market, mostly the "angry white male" demographic that felt threatened by the civil rights movements of minorities, women etc but also by the economic dislocations that has cost US so many mfg. jobs.

Brion

[skahorse]

Oh Brion

The most interesting aspect of the NRA hysteria is that the wild exagerration they fear the most is one of their own, Ashcroft &lt;grin&gt;.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">This is news to me, I didn't know the NRA opposed Ashcroft...? :whazzup: I sure don't oppose Ashcroft. I think the PATRIOT Act was ill-advised. And to re-iterate my previous point, why then aren't you calling for the ouster of our current State Reps and Senators of Oregon? They are just as responsible.

Going along with the NRA fantasy, I suppose if Ashcroft came to the door looking for your gun wouldn't you want to start shooting?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Yes, I would. However, it hasn't happened yet, and he shows no sign of doing so. Until then, I am not concerned. I would be more concerned if another Clinton got in office.

Isn't that the claim of gun lobby, having guns so that if the government gets out of hand, they can can shoot at it?

You'll note that claims of the gun lobby are never about the specifics of current gun control legislation but about an armageddon fantasy.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Armageddon fantasy?!? Are you that naive that you actually think we(the U.S.) have it all figured out now? How many thousands of years of history behind us of past kingdoms and rulers and not one has worked. Every single one has had a violent, bloody ending(or reform, still bloody though). You really think the U.S. is the final solution? That it's impregnable to Dictators or future occupation? That it's invulnerable to any type of attack, from the outside or from within? That is the fantasy Mr. Lutz. We may not see the end of the U.S. in our lifetime, but unless this country pulls a huge upset(never has happened before) and works harmoniously until the end of time, there will be an end to the U.S. as we know it. And if I have learned anything from history, it's to be ready. Not un-armed, sitting on your thumbs thinking everything is OK. How long ago was the Civil War? The Revolutionary War? A couple hundreds years ago, well that's not that long in comparison to how long humans have been here.

This gets back to STG's question of why does the NRA oppose all gun control legislation and do so with such hyperbole? Because that is the basis of its succesful marketing campaign to gain financial funding.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">This I would agree with. But you make it sound like the NRA is the only organization doing this . I won't get into the environmental lies that have been spewed just to increase money and legislation for other special interest groups. Aren't we all supposed to be dead by now from that hole in the ozone layer...? [img]graemlins/stupid.gif[/img]


--Skahorse [img]graemlins/hearton.gif[/img]

[BrionLutz]

LureIn,

Brion...you could not have illustrated my point better. Thank you.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">No...no...thank you &lt;grin&gt;. That is the problem with making assumptions on behalf of others. They kind of become self descriptive more than an accurate description of other folks views.

The stat about gun violence/crime is fascinating, that the victims of gun violence/crime are mostly the gun owner or those who live with them.

If folks were purchasing guns for protection from other gun owners, they are actually increasing their risk of becoming victims of gun violence/crime.

It always reminded me of folks who refused to wear seatbelts because they thought it decreased their safety, thinking they could jump in the back seat or something in case of an accident.

The stats are that seat belts save lives. The stats on guns are that owning a gun greatly increases you and your families risks of being a victim of gun violence/crime.

Brion

[BrionLutz]

Skahorse,

This is news to me, I didn't know the NRA opposed Ashcroft...?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">They don't that's why I thought it was great that you held up Ashcroft as one of the potential dangers for gun owners and for which owning a gun offered some protection.

Until then, I am not concerned.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Then you should not have posed the following concern and question.

The problem here Brion is what if John Ashcroft does become a little over-zealous and starts picking up guns?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Regarding the Armageddon argument, I think you make my point about the NRA focusing not on the specifics of any gun legislation but about the coming Armageddon of good and evil. You ask a lot of rhetorical questions about wild future scenarios vs. the more down to earth specifics of how requiring gun registration would bring on the end of the US as we know it. As one of the participants in Armageddon would point out, the Devil is in the details &lt;grin&gt;.

But you make it sound like the NRA is the only organization doing this

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Not sure that I do or that it would relevant if I did. The question was about the NRA. Since you say you agree with the following statement about the reaons for the NRA's opposition to all gun legislation, I think we can say we've answered STG's question and can move on.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This gets back to STG's question of why does the NRA oppose all gun control legislation and do so with such hyperbole? Because that is the basis of its succesful marketing campaign to gain financial funding.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This I would agree with.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Brion

No links to support your statements Lutz?

What has happened in the past

Ballistic "Fingerprinting" Flawed

Armed Citizens and Crime Control

Lutz, who is the people in the following two paragraphs?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

[ 10-01-2003, 11:32 AM: Message edited by: Keta ]

[Stratocaster]

posted 10-01-2003 08:57 AM

I would like to see the gun death statistics with all the urban gang/drug murders taken away. I bet it would paint an entirely different picture

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I have a feeling we wouldnt be discussing this right now.

[BrionLutz]

Keta,

No links to support your statements Lutz?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">You asked for the link to the NRA website in which they note that the NRA was founded by some ex-Union generals due to draftees coming into Union army having no experience with guns.

Dismayed by the lack of marksmanship shown by their troops, Union veterans Col. William C. Church and Gen. George Wingate formed the National Rifle Association in 1871. The primary goal of the association would be to "promote and encourage rifle shooting on a scientific basis," according to a magazine editorial written by Church.

Was there some other statement you wanted a link to? If so, please quote the statement and I'll get the appropriate link for you...as always &lt;grin&gt;.

Brion

[BrionLutz]

Sakhorse,

The only reason I brought up Ashcroft is because he's one person you are constantly railing against.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">That's why I suggested maybe you should not have mentioned Ashcroft as being a threat to gun owners &lt;grin&gt;. Having done so, your complaint about using the example you created and asked about seems a bit backwards.

However, STG's question was on why the NRA opposed all guns laws and on that we agree and that should provide STG with the answer she was loooking for when she started this NRA thread.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This gets back to STG's question of why does the NRA oppose all gun control legislation and do so with such hyperbole? Because that is the basis of its succesful marketing campaign to gain financial funding.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This I would agree with.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Brion

[BrionLutz]

Willametteriveroutlaw,

Most historians agree that gun ownership was atleast 40% of the populace owned gund pre civil war times.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Really? A poll of university Civil War history professors was published where?

The NRA founders disagreed though they were Civil War generals and being paid for their opinions.

Brion

[crabbait]

Take a chill pill, Brion. As you said, the question has been answered.

[willametteriveroutlaw]

Biron,
Did you even read my links?? I did you that same courtesy before responding.. It is common knowledege that most soldiers had a hard time with marksmanship, because..
a) Its pretty nerve wracking to shoot well when someone is shooting at you.
b) The smoothbores used during the beginning of the civil war were extremely inacurate.
Most historians agree that gun ownership was atleast 40% of the populace owned gund pre civil war times.. Not counting rural.

[skahorse]

Brion,
The only reason I brought up Ashcroft is because he's one person you are constantly railing against. Since you dislike him so much I thought it would be interesting enough to put the scenario in a situation you could understand.

Like I said before, I fear another Clinton in office and thier Attorney General(another Janet Reno :shocked: ) a lot more than I do Ashcroft. I was simply making an example.

--Skahorse

[skahorse]

One more thing, then I am done with this topic. When Armageddon does come, my guns won't make one difference. I'm talking about the end of the U.S. not the end of the world.

--Skahorse

No links to support your statements Lutz?

[BrionLutz]

Keta,

[QB] No links to support your statements Lutz?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">As you see, the mods would prefer I not respond to your questions. You do have the link to the NRA site that did support my statement that the NRA founders were lamenting lack of experience with guns of Union Army recruits.

Guess you'll have to be satistified with that

Brion