BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?

Subject: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Apr 08 - 01:50 PM

Mick subtly hinted that a RIP thread may not be the best palce for passionate political argument.

So perhaps this thread can be a safety valve.

My opinion on the NRA, which I did not express in the Heston thread, is complicated.

On the one hand, I support some of their aims, responsible ownership, gun safety, fighting unreasonable restrictions.

On the other hand, they often go too far. I don't think any civilian with a pulse should freely be able to buy submachine guns, cop killer bullets and other weapons that make it mre difficult for the police to do their jobs. There are two countries I know of where just about everyone has access to an assault weapon and military ammunition. Iraq and Afghanistan.

The NRA goes way beyond what is good for society in its arguments and rhetoric. Its ads and its political statements and lobbying are shrill, unreasonable and they stifle real debate. God bless Mr. Heston, but his "Cold Dead Hands" speech was a key part of the irresponsible strategy.

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: Peace
Date: 07 Apr 08 - 01:54 PM

Good luck with this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Apr 08 - 01:56 PM

I am fighting them here so I don't have to fight them over there. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: Peace
Date: 07 Apr 08 - 01:57 PM

When only outlaws have guns then only inlaws will get married (or something like that).

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: Rapparee
Date: 07 Apr 08 - 02:03 PM

When only inlaws are outlaws then only outlaws will be inlaws. And vice-versa.

I am NOT NOT NOT going to either defend or attack. I own firearms, I shoot, I hunt (yeah, like I have time!), and I make no apologies for it. Nor will I post here again, as this will degenerate into a thread on gun control, name calling, and all sorts of rabid responses. And I'm just not up to it.

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Apr 08 - 02:09 PM

>>I am NOT NOT NOT going to either defend or attack. I own firearms, I shoot, I hunt (yeah, like I have time!), and I make no apologies for it. Nor will I post here again, as this will degenerate into a thread on gun control, name calling, and all sorts of rabid responses. And I'm just not up to it.<<

That's my point though. As a gun owner, haven't there been times when the NRA has embarrassed you with their stances?

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: Wesley S
Date: 07 Apr 08 - 02:12 PM

I'm in favor of gun ownership. I just don't think that every gun should be available at the drop of a hat. The waiting time should be based on how fast you can reload it and how fast it fires. A muzzle loading black powder rifle you can pick up tomorrow. A 9MM pistol with a 14 shot clip - you'll have to wait 90 days.

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: Midchuck
Date: 07 Apr 08 - 02:27 PM

Jack, have you bought a submachine gun, as a civilian? Any full-auto weapon requires a special license that a normal civilian with no law enforcement connection just can't get.

Or are you assuming that some of the so-called "assault weapons" that you see for sale are full auto? Many of them look just like the full auto versions made for military use, but are in fact semi-auto.

I would agree that civilians should not have access to full auto weapons. I don't think even police should. Using one implies a certain contempt for the well-being of bystanders whose taxes are paying the police to protect them. But you appear to believe that any civilian can buy one now.

In fact, the only civilians with access to full auto weapons are criminals and terrorists, who can go to the black market.

Peter.

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: Donuel
Date: 07 Apr 08 - 02:29 PM

neither, its just another focal group that is exploited by single issue politics.

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: irishenglish
Date: 07 Apr 08 - 02:42 PM

Jack, I think what you wrote in your original post is probably the fairest assesment I could make about them as well. If they were just for gun safety, etc, they would be one type of organization. If they were just a lobbying group for all manner of gun rights, that would be another. Because they are all of that combined, they do have an attitude that is rigid, kind of a if you're not for us, you're against us policy, which is not good IMO.

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: Escapee
Date: 07 Apr 08 - 03:14 PM

NRA is good. It's not that we like guns, we like our Constitutional rights, and dislike pols and others who know better than the Founders what those rights are. If you oppose nuts having guns, I suggest that nut control is the way to go.
SKP

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: Peace
Date: 07 Apr 08 - 03:37 PM

"In fact, the only civilians with access to full auto weapons are criminals and terrorists, who can go to the black market."

Found this on the www. That took about five seconds.



"Procedure:

      (It is obviously illegal to modify an AK-47 in this way. Don't!)

      Remove the magazine from the receiver. Remove the Receiver Cover by
      holding in the square button that sticks out the back of the cover.
      Slide the Return Spring and the Bolt-Carrier with Piston assembly out
      of the rifle.

      Using the twist-tie, tie the second Sear back to the pin that runs
      through the receiver of the rifle.

      Now reassemble the weapon. Slide the Piston and Bolt-Carrier back
      into the rifle. Slide the Return Spring back into the Bolt-Carrier
      and slide the other end of it into its guide slot. Push the "button"
      end of the Return Spring while settling the Receiver Cover back into
      place."



FYI

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: Peace
Date: 07 Apr 08 - 03:42 PM

PS Takes it from semi-auto to full auto at a cost of $2.00.

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: irishenglish
Date: 07 Apr 08 - 03:45 PM

Yes, I saw something similar on Dateline or something once, very disturbing, which to me begs the question, why should you be able to obtain the semi auto anyway?

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: Midchuck
Date: 07 Apr 08 - 03:58 PM

Because criminals are.

Peter

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: irishenglish
Date: 07 Apr 08 - 04:00 PM

So I'll go out and get one because a criminal has one now? Sorry, not gonna happen

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: GUEST,chief chaos
Date: 07 Apr 08 - 04:02 PM

Unless and until the NRA rejects ads for their magazine that sell kits for turning weapons full-auto and things like "fingerprint resistant" handgrips I think they're a little more to the profit making side of evil than good. I thought it was supposed to be about "responsible" gun ownership. Who needs fingerprint resistant handgrips on their "personal defense weapon".

by the by, I support the right to keep and bear arms.
I also support the right to arm bears, but that's another thread...

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: irishenglish
Date: 07 Apr 08 - 04:04 PM

If the bears are armed how will the fish fight back?

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: GUEST,Chicken Charlie
Date: 07 Apr 08 - 04:11 PM

Yup, what Jack said.

I should be able to have a hunting rifle, or to carry a gun for my protection, or to target-shoot for sport. I don't need a Thompson with a fifty-round drum, or armor-piercing incendiary bullets.

We no longer fight wars in an 18th century manner, so I'm not sure that a "militia" really IS necessary, unless by that you mean the National Guard or the various reserve units, and they don't take the high-powered stuff home for personal use on the weekends.

It was ironic that when Mr. Heston made his famous "cold, stiff fingers" speech, or whatever it was, he was holding an antique firearm of some sort. I don't want that--I want the Uzis, zip guns, etc. off the street.

CC

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: Donuel
Date: 07 Apr 08 - 04:13 PM

While the Gun Shows (trade sell or buy) do not advertise on TV anymore it is still one place to go and get a gun no questions asked, no waiting period, no kidding. But you have to go all the way to Virginia. SC is even easier.

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: GUEST,Bob Ryszkiewicz
Date: 07 Apr 08 - 04:31 PM

Hmmm...NRA good or Evil.....Couldn't help but notice the small "g" on good's side and a Capital "E" for Evil. Co-incidence? Typo? Inner feelings revealed?

I believe that every citizen has the right to defend himself, his family, and his property...

Guns are tools. Dangerous, but sadly necessary. In the hands of Law Enforcement, the Military, and the responsible citizen, they offer the choice of protection or assault.

The bad guys will always find a way to get guns. I believe the good guys should be able to have them too. Live in Peace, but carry a big stick as well...

The NRA has stood for responsible gun ownership. Mixed in there are fringe elements that are questionable...

I saw a clip of a serial killer in India, he had killed something like 22 people...A picture of him was displayed. He was holding a rock over his head. Yes, 22 people gone. His weapon? A rock...

Guns don't kill people. People kill people, with intent, by accident, mishandling...

Has there ever been a time when there wasn't a war going on?

Found this...The AA-12:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4ebtj1jR7c&feature=related
Let us Pray, that one day, there will be Peace on Earth...bob

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: irishenglish
Date: 07 Apr 08 - 04:39 PM

But if they answered this-
Unless and until the NRA rejects ads for their magazine that sell kits for turning weapons full-auto and things like "fingerprint resistant" handgrips I think they're a little more to the profit making side of evil than good. I thought it was supposed to be about "responsible" gun ownership. Who needs fingerprint resistant handgrips on their "personal defense weapon".

...then I think I could deal with them a little bit more.

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: gnu
Date: 07 Apr 08 - 04:56 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: Peace - PM
Date: 07 Apr 08 - 01:54 PM

Good luck with this thread.
****************************************************************

Yup, been there, done that. Got the T-shirt with the big bullseye... and all the bullshit.

Just do a search. I am confident that few people have woken up since the last go.

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: artbrooks
Date: 07 Apr 08 - 05:13 PM

I am exactly where you are on this, Jack and I'm glad Peace put up the item on converting an AK. However, that process doesn't get you a semi-automatic option. You can do a bit more sophisticated job of conversion by doing something similar with the sear and messing with the side of the receiver, so that the selector switch has a "fully automatic" setting as well as semi-automatic" and "safe". The same thing can be done with the M-16 commercial variants, like the AR-14, but they are more finely machined so it is quite a bit harder.

The failure to extend the ban on assault weapons basically has put mil-spec weaponry on the street. I doubt very much that many of the people carrying them meet the "member of a 'well-organized militia'" requirement of the Second Amendment. I expect that it is possible that somewhere in the US there is somebody who hunts with his AK, but that isn't what they are designed for, and a purpose-built hunting rifle will do a much better job of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: gnu
Date: 07 Apr 08 - 05:52 PM

Nobody who understands hunting would use military bullets. To do so would be against a hunter's code of ethics.

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: GUEST,chief chaos
Date: 07 Apr 08 - 06:20 PM

It's hard to argue against the fact that you can kill people with just about anything, however, in the heat of the moment there doesn't seem to be a lot of pillow, icicle, baseball, etc. caused deaths.

You also don't seem to hear about innocent bystanders killed in accidental pillowings, iciclings, drive by fruitings...

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: Sorcha
Date: 07 Apr 08 - 06:29 PM

What Jack and Rapaire said. I'm outta here now too.

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Apr 08 - 06:36 PM

The NRA killed the Brady Bill, which I thought was reasonable.

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: Sorcha
Date: 07 Apr 08 - 06:39 PM

And yes, the NRA stance HAS embarassed me sometimes. I no longer belong. Not for years. Bye now.

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: Slag
Date: 07 Apr 08 - 06:40 PM

Well Jack, you begin by issuing MISSINFORMATION. The NRA has never advocated the the free accessibility of automatic weapons at any time. ATF has some very high hurdles for anyone who desires to own such weaponry, and rightly so. So here you have set up a straw man and proceed to demonstrate the NRA as an evil organization over something it neither does nor condones. So much for you lack of bias on the issue.

Cop-killer bullets. Now there is a term that is not loaded with bias. If you are referring to armor piercing bullets, I have to agree with you some. There is little need for such a round in the public sector. They can go through many walls and such and do represent an increased danger to the public. As far as I know, such rounds are not made available by those companies which produce ammunition for public sales. People can make their own and I am sure some do. Tell, Jack, how many people in law enforcement have been killed by such armor piercing rounds? I think the answer would be NONE. I could be wrong and if presented with the clear facts, I will so admit.

A lot of comparisons have been made about the danger of cars versus the danger of guns. They are both machines, both tools and both can be deadly to a number of people if misused or used maliciously. There are hundreds of millions of cars in the US and the way about half of them are operated it makes me wonder about the sanity of the DMVs about the country. About 50,000 people die annually on the nation's roadways. That's about how many died in the ten years that was the Viet Nam War. Hundreds of thousands more are injured or maimed in a single year. In ten years worth of travel more people die than in ALL the wars the US has ever been involved in. Where's the protests?

About 10,000 people die annually from gunshot. This includes those who die by police gunfire, suicide (over 5000), homicide and accidental shootings. Too many, I agree, and that is why gun education is one of the NRA's prime goals. Gun safety.

Now here is the difference between cars and guns. To drive is a privileged. You must be licensed and you must demonstrate a certain level of proficiency. Said license can be withdrawn from you for infractions, violations and criminality as well as incompetence. To be armed is your inalienable RIGHT. A person has the right to defend his life and the lives of others. In fact he has an obligation to defend the lives of others and by extension, he has the right to equip himself with the means, reasonable means to do just that. This is the right to keep and bear arms.

The NRA was the first to establish training centers for law enforcement and has erected "Shoot-No shoot" schools which teaches officers when and when not to use deadly force. They teach and promotes hunter safety and game management and they were instrumental in limits being placed on game to insure their continued numbers. They are involved in many such worthy endeavors.

Nowhere has the NRA ever promoted lawlessness or the abuse or misuse of firearms. To make modification to a firearm to either defeat a mechanism or change it so that is will fire automatically is against the law. If you do it, you are a criminal. The AK47 was developed as a sub (smaller that cal.50 ) machine gun for use in war. They are illegal. That weapon has a selector switch, also illegal, which allows the operator to toggle between semi-automatic fire ( one round per squeeze of the trigger) and fully automatic ( a continuous firing as long as the trigger is held down. The civilian version of this rifle does not have a selector switch. The inner mechanism can be easily defeated but, as I said before, it is illegal to do so. Most guns that hold more than one cartridge can be reworked to fire automatically. John Browning's first machine gun was nothing more than a Winchester lever-action rifle that had a tube placed on it to redirect the gasses to move a rod connected to the lever. Convertibility should not be sole the grounds for excluding a weapon from the general populace.

If you believe that people don't have a right to self-preservation then you probably see the NRA as something evil and for that I pity you. It's not guns you fear, it YOU that you fear.

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Apr 08 - 06:48 PM

Well, I grew up shootin' in an NRA shooting club... I had patches all over my jacket and won lots of awards and had a good ol' tine...

The instrutors were really nice people... They didn't ask my mom, who was also in the shoot club, to vote fir one candidtae or another... They didn't have any particular political philosphy... They taught me gun safety and they taught me how to shoot a tight spread, which, BTW are leasons I still apply and can still hold a tight spread... Took out a deer a couple months ago at 250 feet with an open sighted Winchester 410/22 with a very short barrel...

But nevermind that...

That was slong time ago... People rarely killed each other with hanguns... This is now and handguns, which are laousy hunting weapons are being increaingly use to kill other people...

Here is where it gets sticky... Do we allow babies to play with loaded handguns??? Well, no we don't... Do we let kids carry laoded handguns to school??? Well, no we don't... So this discussion isn't really about regulation of handguns but just who should be allowed to have them and where... I think we all recognize that we do have gun control...

I don't know undersatnd why some folks think that mentally ill people and criminals have a right to have handguns... The logic somehow is lost between babies and these folks rights. to have handguns...

To take this one step further I believe that everyone would agree that the owner of a house where a party is being held would have a right to expect and enforece people not showing up with handguns...

To take it just one step gurther, a resturant, a bar, a pool hall, a stadium... This is gun control... I don't see any argument yet but when a town that has a high handgun murder rate decides that handguns, not rifles mind you, should not be owned by ut's citizenry then the modern day NRA jumps up in protest???

There seems to be a disconnect here...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: Big Mick
Date: 07 Apr 08 - 06:48 PM

Well done, Slag. The hounds will soon be baying at your door.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Apr 08 - 07:16 PM

as Rapaire said earlier

"...Nor will I post here again, as this will degenerate into a thread on gun control, name calling, and all sorts of rabid responses."

see?


It's an argument that is easy to find rationales for on either side....depending on your basic mindset. What we really need is a way to identify **why** people come to hold certain types of positions.

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Apr 08 - 07:25 PM

Slag, I did not present any information at all. I presented my opinion. So saying that I presented "MISINFORMATION" is not entirely fair.

I did not say nor did I intend to imply may of the things you are arguing that I said. I won't go over it point by point, anyone who is interested in what I actually said can go back and read my posts.

I do think that the NRA aggressively pushes for looser and looser gun laws and that this leads to more and deadlier weapons in the hands of bad guys, children and idiots.

Your argument about automobiles gave me pause, for a second, but then it is much more difficult to qualify to drive a car, and to have a hand gun. There are tests, licenses, insurance, registration.

Doesn't the NRA fight all of those things with respect to guns?

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Apr 08 - 07:35 PM

Bill,

I just tried to shift the argument from the RIP thread to here. I am not concerned that Rapaire doesn't want to post. I am concerned that Mick felt free to try to paint anyone that disagreed with slag a baying hound. But I believe that I dealt with that in the same tone in which it was delivered.

I have a problem with every special interest which would rather paint the other side as evil, or silly rather than try to discuss serious problems. This pushing pushing pushing until you get 50 percent plus one vote then passing a law and defending it tooth and nail until the other side can get 50 percent plus one vote and over turn it, is hurting the country.

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: Slag
Date: 07 Apr 08 - 07:43 PM

Thanks Mick. You see what passes for rational argument form some folks.

Bobert. I suspect that criminals will always be armed. By definition, they do NOT obey the law(s). So where is the sense in disarming their intended victims? All we want is a fighting chance to protect our lives and the lives of our families.

It is the law abiding citizen that consents to play by the rules. Why put her or him in a "no-win" situation? Responsible gun ownership is what I advocate. You don't leave weapons or ammo lying around where children or the uneducated can reach them. If you assume the responsibilities of citizenship and agree to live peaceably and lawfully with your neighbors and countrymen then this extends down to the exercise of your rights, ALL of your rights. We don't phone in bomb threats because we have the freedom of speech, we don't go around shooting people because we have the right to carry arms. We don't let people search us without a warrant (fly anywhere lately") and so on. It is a question of personal responsibility. And when someone insists on being irresponsible then the law steps in to protect us from such a one.

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Apr 08 - 07:59 PM

well, Jack...the truth is, I rather agree with YOU...but I have debated guns & NRA with Mick a couple of times before (who knows- I may BE one of the "baying hounds" he is waiting for *grin*) but Mick & I still get along.

The thing is, Mick heats up FAST ...and usually cools down fast... HE could have refrained from that remark...just as you could have tempered your reply.

I am not terribly bashful about having opinions here, but IF I choose to enter a debate/discussion, I intend it to be about substance...not about ME or THEE. I like airing ideas, not displaying my testosterone levels.

(You know, I couldn't even get Martin Gibson to insult me seriously...*grin*)

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Apr 08 - 08:03 PM

How about a definite maybe on this? I am in favour of chimps bearing guns, okay? But not all chimps. Let me emphasize that. Not ALL chimps.

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Apr 08 - 08:39 PM

Yeah, Slag-ster, the crimals will always find a way to own guns but should we be facilitators... Should we be making it easy... I'm less concerned with convicted murderers who are back on the street than I am with the guy who has a string or misdomeanor assualts, or the guy like the Va Teck shooter who had been in the mantal health system...

When I was in social work I knew a lotta folks who got killed by their friends and family... Iwent into homes where I could almost predict that gun violence would occur... Protective services couldn'r care less until the kid or wife was lieing in a pool of blood... Then they would say stuff lie, "Our hands are tied"...

And their hands were tied becuase very angry husbands, with court orders to keep away from the wife and kids, could walk into a gun store and walk out with a handgun... This happens every day somewhere in America... Social workers know who shouldn't have access to handguns... Teachers certianly know...

It was, ahhhh, 1978 and I went to a home and the kids had welts and bruises all over them and mom and dad were screaming at each other and the kids... The mother had bruses on her face... I went to protective services and reported what I had seen... Their response was "Sorry, if you din't witness the abuse then we can't do anything abhout it"... This still goes on todua, BTW... Amonth later, angry hubby walked into a gu shop on Southside Richmond, bought a hand gun, took it home and killed his wife and 3 of 4 of his kids... The one that survived only survived because she was outta thye house at the time...

There are fols who plainlu don't nedd to posess handguns, or guns, period... Cops knopw who they are... The court system knows... Teachers know... Social workers know... Family members know... Neighbors know...

Yet the NRA, because it represents the interets of folks who ***make money*** on handguns couldn't care less about these very disturbed people who have a high likely hood of using these handguns to kill fellow human beings???

So here is ol' Bobert's opinion on where the NRA is mssin' a golden opportunity... If they would get on board here is how gun ownersip would play out:

1. John Doe wants a gun.

2. John Doe, in order to own one legally has to complete an NRA (or similar() course in resposible gun ownership.

3. Upon completion, John Do9e gets a certificate allowing hinm to purchase his gun or guns.

4. John Doe then makes application to a local ATF office wherer a back ground cheak is performed and if ol' John ain't under some protective order, a guy who is involved with mental health serivices or has as history of violent acts then he gets a certificate to purchase a gun...

What the heck is wrong with this??? Most people are killed by their friends or ex-freinds... This would go a long way toward cutting down on murder in America...

Is is perfect?? Heck, no... But it is a start and it says to the general population that we collectively care about life... That, in itself, would speak volumes...

And the NRA could be on the vanguard of such an approach, if they would get their heads outta making money toward making everyone safer...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Apr 08 - 08:45 PM

>>From: Bill D - PM
Date: 07 Apr 08 - 07:59 PM

well, Jack...the truth is, I rather agree with YOU...but I have debated guns & NRA with Mick a couple of times before (who knows- I may BE one of the "baying hounds" he is waiting for *grin*) but Mick & I still get along.
<<

I heat up and cool down quickly too. Mick and I have had words before no doubt we will again.

Obviously preemptive argument like "here comes the hounds" is not rational debate. But I don't have any problem with it as long as I can reply in kind.

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: GUEST,Chicken Charlie
Date: 07 Apr 08 - 11:11 PM

Bob Rys.-- You get an A on ability to string cliches together. I'm tempted to reply, "Guns don't kill people; Republicans do." But I won't.

What does war have to do with the issue of whether I need full-auto capability on my personal weapons? IMO, nothing.

Crooks will always have guns. Another profundity, but we don't have to make it so easy, do we?

Artbrooks--I believe you are misquoting and therefore misinterpreting the II Amend. The word "member" isn't there is it? The way I recall it, it just says that a militia is necessary, so everybody should be able to have a gun. I don't think the People's Liberation Army would be stopped by a bunch of gang-bangers with Saturday night specials, esp. since the bangers would probably be too busy crapping their drawers to shoot.


Slag--As usual, you're as full of it as a Christmas goose.

If no cops were killed in the North Hollywood bank shoot-out, it was just by the grace of God, because I know several police and civilians were seriously injured, and a couple almost died, if none actually did. I don't think I need automatic capability and AP ammo to defend myself, but I don't want criminals to come after me with them, either.

"the law steps in to protect us ...." Oh, right. That is so effing naive I can't believe you're on this planet. How soon did the law step it at the Texas Tower and Columbine, etc., etc., and etc.

They did step in in N. Hollywood, or tried to, and got themselves shot up for trying.

You should be a bartender; you're so good at putting a twist in things.

CC

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Apr 08 - 11:17 PM

Okay, I've just burned up a piece of my life reading this frikkin' thread...and you're ALL wrong! Every danged last one of you. You heard me. All of you. Yeah. You're wrong. So there.

Let's fight about it. ;-) He who reaches 50,000 words first and hits "submit" wins.

Go!

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: artbrooks
Date: 07 Apr 08 - 11:31 PM

CC, please look again. The quote is the part inside the single quotation marks ('), as is proper grammar in this case. The statement inside full quotes (") is my interpretation of what that clause means. The US Supreme Court is currently deliberating the correctness of my interpretation.

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: Slag
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 12:54 AM

It is already hard for someone to legally obtain a weapon in California. There is a wait period and that time is supposed to be used for a background check to determine if you are mentally stable, a felon or have some other condition which would preclude you from owning a gun such as a restraining order. And I concur with these steps although I don't think it should take 15 days to conduct such and investigation. All this information is on tap in .gov somewhere. Then you have to go through a Federally licensed dealer to even exchange firearms between friends or family. It's ridiculous for the most part.

Weapons are easy for criminals to obtain through theft or fraud or they can make their own quite easily. There was even one instance where a prisoner in a state penitentiary made a completely functional semi-automatic pistol from odds and ends from the machine shop, clip included.

The VA Tech story would have had a completely different ending if just one of the students had a CCW. The carnage would have been greatly reduced. As it was, ALL THE LAW ABIDING STUDENTS WERE COMPLETELY DISARMED BY THE STATE THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO PROTECT THEM. They were victims from the onset and it was the state that made them so. They demonstrate the lie that the state can protect you. It can't. When it comes down to you: your life, only YOU can protect you, if you have the means.

In an ideal world, there would be no need for weapons of self defense because "just everybody would get along so well!" But we do not live in an ideal world and to insist that we live as though we do is delusional. It's worse that delusional. It's suicidal.

Inside the first few pages of "The American Rifleman" there is a page of newspaper excerpts which demonstrate how ordinary folks have used guns to halt crimes in progress, usually without a shot being fired. Sometimes its a dog attack on a child and sometimes it's a house breaker who will not stop for anything. Sometimes it's a spouse who has armed herself with something more than a piece of paper that some judge has given her. In all the cases presented and the millions which only create a few lines in local newspapers it is the armed citizen which has made the difference.

So, where is the twist? Seems like straight shooting to me. As for the N. Hollywood bank robbery, if there hadn't been a local gun shop which gave those officers high powered rifles to take down the bad guys the story might have had the deaths of a few of LA's finest. What you fail to understand is that the battle line has been drawn. The bad guys HAVE the guns and no law is going to disarm them. Yeah, it's a crappy deal but what are you going to do? Lay down and surrender and hope they don't kill you just for fun? Well, what ever floats your boat but include me out. What is twisted if this was the founding fathers' point of view also? Seems YOU are the one with twisted logic here. Stay out of those bars. It may help.

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: GUEST,ALCAN1
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 01:14 AM

""Procedure:

      (It is obviously illegal to modify an AK-47 in this way. Don't!)

      Remove the magazine from the receiver. Remove the Receiver Cover by
      holding in the square button that sticks out the back of the cover.
      Slide the Return Spring and the Bolt-Carrier with Piston assembly out
      of the rifle.

      Using the twist-tie, tie the second Sear back to the pin that runs
      through the receiver of the rifle.

      Now reassemble the weapon. Slide the Piston and Bolt-Carrier back
      into the rifle. Slide the Return Spring back into the Bolt-Carrier
      and slide the other end of it into its guide slot. Push the "button"
      end of the Return Spring while settling the Receiver Cover back into
      place."


And the rifle will jam after the first shit. You obviously dont know anything about guns and the ATF rules of manufacture.

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: GUEST,ALCAN1
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 01:19 AM

"Jack, have you bought a submachine gun, as a civilian? Any full-auto weapon requires a special license that a normal civilian with no law enforcement connection just can't get."

No law enforcement connection is needed. However you do have to have the "cheif local lawenforcment officer" in your area sign the ATF Form 4. If you cannot obtain the signature then you can take it to any of the approved listed by the ATF such as the DA, Judge, State Police, Mayor, or if that fails you can ask the ATF to sign directly or incorporate. Corperations dont need the signature. I know this process well as I own full auto lawfully.

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 01:23 AM

"Unless and until the NRA rejects ads for their magazine that sell kits for turning weapons full-auto"

Not true. Any parts kits in and of themselves to modify to full auto is a Machingun even if parts arent in the gun. They only have to be under the control of a person. The parts themselves would put you in violation of 18USC 922(o). Where in the hell do you get your informarion from?

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: GUEST,ALCAN1
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 01:36 AM

"The failure to extend the ban on assault weapons basically has put mil-spec weaponry on the street. I doubt very much that many of the people carrying them meet the "member of a 'well-organized militia'" requirement of the Second Amendment. I expect that it is possible that somewhere in the US there is somebody who hunts with his AK, but that isn't what they are designed for, and a purpose-built hunting rifle will do a much better job of it."

Not true. The 1994 Ban only banned weapons with a detachable magazine and 2 or more of the following. Pistol grip, Bayonat Lug, Folding Stock, Flash Suppressor, Threaded Barrel to accept a flash suppressor, Granade laucher. The post Sept 13, 1994 weapons could have 1 of the banned features but not more then 1. So the exact same guns were sold all through the ban but the external looks were changed. The ban had nothing to do with function.

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: Slag
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 02:31 AM

And FYI if you are a male citizen of the US between the ages of 17 and 35 you are automatically a member of the militia. Read your US Constitution. This does not exclude older citizens but only means that those over the age of 35 may defer their duty. The amendment clearly states in English, meant to be understood by the common man (were they better educated in the late 1700's than we of today?) that it is the right of the "PEOPLE" to keep and bare arms.

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: artbrooks
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 08:07 AM

Slag, I am reasonably familiar with the Constitution; a copy of it sits on my desk. Please point out the Article and Section that includes that language. As for the relative level of education, perhaps if there were not several extraneous commas in the Second Amendment this disagreement would have never begun.