BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: Midchuck
Date: 11 Apr 08 - 07:32 AM

"though I'll admit I don't see a lot of value in handguns"

They're useful for killing people - it's what they're made for.

That being the case, how could I have fired hundreds (maybe thousands) of rounds through handguns over the years, and never killed anyone (which I have, and haven't, respectively)?

P.

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: 3refs
Date: 11 Apr 08 - 09:21 AM

First of all, I'd like to say that I'm very happy that there are associations that advocate ownership, safe and proper use of firearms. Although I'm not a member of any association, I do benefit from their efforts.

Here's what I had to do yesterday when I purchased a new rifle and scope from a local firearms dealer here in Canada.

Before I could even handle the rifle I wanted, I had to produce a valid Canadian "Possession and Acquisition" license. When I decided to purchase the rifle, I had to produce my drivers license as my second piece of photo I.D.(our new drivers licenses in Ontario have a computer chip, hologram and are tamper resistant)After 5 minutes of paper work, he made a phone call to Miramichi, NB, which is where the Canada Firearms Centre is, and spoke with an R.C.M.P constable. He stated who he was and why he was calling. After a bunch of bla bla bla, he hands the phone to me! I had to verify specific information and answer several questions. I really was quite impressed with the whole procedure considering what was being done.

Now it's up to me to use and properly store my firearms and not let them fall into the wrong hands! That is where all the problems lay(lie)! I think the penalties for improper storage or unlawful possession of firearms are inadequate at best. Minimum periods of incarceration need to be applied as well as severe fines.

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Apr 08 - 10:23 AM

"I have fired hundreds (maybe thousands) of rounds through handguns over the years, and never killed anyone..."


                Like everything else, this discussion always seems to gravitate to those folks who want any and all kinds of guns, and those who want guns for hunting. There are a number of us out here who usually only shoot guns at paper targets.

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: pdq
Date: 11 Apr 08 - 10:51 AM

It is much easier to blame guns for drive-by shootings that to work on solutions for the social problems that are behind such violence.

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: Stu
Date: 11 Apr 08 - 10:58 AM

"That being the case, how could I have fired hundreds (maybe thousands) of rounds through handguns over the years, and never killed anyone (which I have, and haven't, respectively)?"

Hopefully because you weren't pointing them at anyone.

Look, I'm not against sporting handguns or guns for hunting but the fact is a Magnum 45 or whatever is not made for sporting reasons - it is a device to kill someone as efficiently as possible. You might fire them down the range, but the reason they are made is to kill people, and in the US there are thousands (tens of?) these weapons in the hands of criminals, nutters and misguided souls, where they shouldn't be because the market is uncontrolled and because the unique culture of violence exists in this particular country - a love affair with deadly weapons that is written into the very constitution.

This has lead to comments like this:
"All the righteous citizens have surrendered their means of defense and huddle behind closed doors in those parts of the town. Well, I guess in that way it's not too different than any large city in the US"

Here's the news: You're fucked until you stop looking at life down the sights of a gun. If Slag is right, and the unarmed citizens of your urban hinterlands are too shit scared to go out of their front doors at night then the American dream has failed. It can't provide it's citizens with security, it glorifies brutal violence and has a culture so steeped in the macho posturing of a large proportion of it's male population you have to wonder if someone is adding testosterone to the donuts.

Slag's comment betrays this alpha-male attitude by suggesting that if you don't have a gun you are weaker for it, as you don't have a 'means of defence'. The very idea a person has to carry a gun in order to be able to go about the business of living their lives is about a damning an indictment of the state of a society as it's possible to get.

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 11 Apr 08 - 01:25 PM

>>
From: pdq
Date: 11 Apr 08 - 10:51 AM

It is much easier to blame guns for drive-by shootings that to work on solutions for the social problems that are behind such violence.<<

What do you think, that fewer gins would lead to drive by stabbings and beatings.

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: Wesley S
Date: 11 Apr 08 - 01:35 PM

The recent driveby killing here in Ft Worth wiped out a 5 year old girl and a grandmother at a birthday party. I suspect nothing would have happened if the killers had used knives or bats instead. Driveby killers tend to be cowards. Yes - guns are part of the problem. Guns in the wrong hands are the bigger problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: pdq
Date: 11 Apr 08 - 02:09 PM

fact: Guns are used five times as often to prevent crimes than to perpetrate them.

fact: We have almost as may guns in the US as we have citizens. Thinking that a silly law (that few people will respect) will make them go away is delusional.

fact: Guns in the wrong hands are indeed the problem. Put then in better hands. Everyone I know with a gun is sane, has not been convicted of a felony, and respects his/her weapons.

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: kendall
Date: 11 Apr 08 - 02:15 PM

A chain saw in the wrong hands is a killer too.

..hand guns are made for one purpose, to kill people. That's ONE reason for them. Another is, to keep someone from being killed. That's why I carry.

One of the questions on the test I took for a job in law enforcement was, define this statement" "A sword, in its scabbard keeps another so."

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: Wesley S
Date: 11 Apr 08 - 02:17 PM

Yeah - It's just a shame that the 5 year old wasn't packing that night. She could have prevented the whole thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: 3refs
Date: 11 Apr 08 - 02:28 PM

BTW

I see absolutely no reason to have a handgun that fires 5 rounds of .410 shotgun shells.
The Taurus, or "The Judge" as it has been nicknamed, has recently been introduced as a weapon to hunt small game and for target shooting.
As a firearms owner and proponent of stricter penalties for misuse, I think this particular gun should be banned!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Apr 08 - 03:59 PM

3refs - I saw that handgun in a magazine. It also chambers .45 Colt ammunition. I wondered at the time, though. I thought a shotgun had to have a minimum barrel length.

                  Wasn't that what the Feds were orginally after Randy Weaver for, selling a sawed-off shot gun? I would have thought that this Tuarus handgun would have been illegal the minute it rolled off the assembly line.

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: kendall
Date: 11 Apr 08 - 04:40 PM

Wesley S your reply is silly. I am not 5 years old, and I damn well could head off a killing.

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: artbrooks
Date: 11 Apr 08 - 05:02 PM

The only Supreme Court case (I think) that ever considered a Second Amendment argument (Miller, 1939) ruled that there was no Constitutional right to carry a sawed-off shotgun. In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument." I wonder how this "pistol" would fit in.

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Apr 08 - 06:52 PM

Judging by that, it seems to me like it is not legal.

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Apr 08 - 06:55 PM

If I remember right, the customer has a choice of a 4 inch or a 6 inch barrel.

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: Ebbie
Date: 11 Apr 08 - 07:46 PM

"fact: Guns are used five times as often to prevent crimes than to perpetrate them.

fact: We have almost as may guns in the US as we have citizens. Thinking that a silly law (that few people will respect) will make them go away is delusional.

fact: Guns in the wrong hands are indeed the problem. Put then in better hands. Everyone I know with a gun is sane, has not been convicted of a felony, and respects his/her weapons."

Man. I would love to see some official stats on those statements.

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: kendall
Date: 11 Apr 08 - 07:49 PM

I believe that restriction was on a regular shotgun that was sawed off to make it concealable. A Pistol that fires 410 shells might do for shooting pepper into a clam chowder, but it certainly isn't a serious weapon!

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: Slag
Date: 12 Apr 08 - 01:40 AM

Artbrooks, I congratulate you. You are right on top of the thing. It seems that the Supreme Court was judicious, cautious and quite narrow in its ruling. Just imagine if they were as narrow in the interpretation of the First Amendment.

Stigweard what has name calling got to do with anything. False characterizations are all the same as "Straw man" arguments and it is really beneath the level of the rest of the dialogue on this subject from both (or more) sides. You don't know me. You don't know what I do. Just because someone takes steps of precaution does that automatically make him a blustering coward, which is how you have sought to portray me?

Whether you like it or not armed citizenry is, in part, what this country has been about from its inception. It is what the Battle of Lexington fought for. It was about the common man shaking off the tyranny of the Throne and the Aristocracy and the birth of Democracy. Join the Revolution, my friend, and rejoice that the power now lies in the hands of those once oppressed. Before, you had NO CHOICE! Today you can decide for yourself whether to be armed. You can decide to speak your mind without fear of the knock at the door. I do not condemn your stance as it is your right to have freedom of conscience. It's just that YOUR rights cannot super cede MY rights, so let it go at that, OK?

Concerning .410 pistols. I had an uncle who carried one on his dairy farm for shooting rattlesnakes. Every arm fills a niche somewhere. This single shot "pistol" had a very long barrel but I never got the chance to measure it as it had been disposed of before I reached an age where I could handle it. I once shot a Derringer chambered for a .410! What an insane weapon! It felt as though a bomb had gone off in my hand! Once was enough. So, OK not EVERY weapon fills a niche!!!

During WWII the Army Corps of Engineers built a revetment that served some purpose of their and served the local high school as a football stadium. After the war the school put in a bullet backstop and began teaching marksmanship! Different world, eh? Kids would bring their guns to school. Gun racks in pickup trucks were a common sight and no one thought anything of it. What has changed? I would proffer the erosion of morality, the loss of respect for others in general and Godlessness, but then that's another thread altogether, isn't it?

The sport of pistol hunting has been on the rise for more than thirty years. The "Thompson Contender" company which makes a platform for interchangeable barrels has been one of the pioneering companies in this movement. Big game is now often taken with pistol. Paper punching probably still represents the widest use of pistols but pistols ARE sporting weapons.

One of the things I hate to see is where a bunch of jerks have gone out into the country to shoot and leave there trash and target materials and brass lying all over the place. They help to give genuine hunters and sportsmen a bad name. Same goes for morons who go out and kill everything they see. These types ought to be and are prosecuted when caught. The same goes for those who drink and shoot or "hunt". Along these lines, my father finally gave up deer hunting in the Sierras as crowds began coming up from LA and went crashing about in the underbrush, shooting at noises and sudden movements! These type folks have no business fielding a weapon. Now THAT is scary. My Dad then took up hunting upland game, that is, quail, chukar, pheasant, dove and that is what I cut my teeth on. We always made sure we knew where everyone in our party was and if any others were about we made sure they knew where we were. No one was ever hurt or even came close to being injured. We would ALWAYS police up after ourselves and we would leave the land as we had found it, or better. And if we had luck, we'd always offer the land owner part of our take. Gentlemanly conduct goes a long way to further the sport of hunting. In fact, gentlemanly conduct furthers many causes. I highly recommend it.

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: Stu
Date: 12 Apr 08 - 04:45 AM

"Just because someone takes steps of precaution does that automatically make him a blustering coward, which is how you have sought to portray me? "

That's not what I meant and my comments weren't an designed to offend - I certainly didn't name-call and I apologise if that's how my post came across. My point is this culture of violence - I'm not sure where you got the idea I was calling you a coward from though.

I don't understand this mindset, but then I live in a different country and our cultures are very different at heart. I'd be happy to shake of the tyranny of the Throne and Aristocracy myself, but I'm afraid if the US version of a Republic is the alternative then perhaps better the devil you know. I am glad I don't live somewhere where people feel the need to arm themselves in order to function on a daily basis.

You know what - life's too short for this. I can't wait to get back to America (We're hoping to dig dinosaurs in Dakota, get around the big museums to see the dinosaur exhibits and re-visit New York), and I won't be packing a piece to protect myself - we'll take our chances and we will come in peace.

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: Slag
Date: 12 Apr 08 - 06:18 AM

I was reacting to the following excerpt (emphasis mine):

Here's the news: You're fucked until you stop looking at life down the sights of a gun. If Slag is right, and the unarmed citizens of your urban hinterlands are TOO shit SCARED to go out of their front doors at night then the American dream has failed. It can't provide it's citizens with security, it glorifies brutal violence and has a culture so steeped in the MACHO POSTURING of a large proportion of it's male population you have to wonder if someone is adding testosterone to the donuts.

Give me a break, OK? No one is looking at "life" down gun sights. Just consider this. In a totalitarian society the only guns are in the hands of the police and every one gets along SO NICELY! As long as you don't offend the powers that be! Then life can get very messy and there is nothing you can do about it except repent and toe the party line... that is, if they let you live.

Free societies pay a price. Freedom is not free. When some one is free they CAN choose to do wrong, commit crime and the like. Then those who use their freedom responsibly must take measures to protect themselves and their neighbors from those who choose wrong over right.

It behooves a free society to educate their populace about these factors and to teach the young the difference between wrong and right and to not abuse freedom. FREEDOM is the right of the individuals to do the right and responsible thing. LICENSE is to choose to be self-serving at the expense of others rights. Freedom only works in a society that is well educated, sober-minded and willing to take on sacrifice for the good of the whole of society. That is personal responsibility.

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: artbrooks
Date: 12 Apr 08 - 07:35 AM

Perhaps so. However, I "choose" not to carry anything more dangerous than a Swiss Army knife, and cringe whenever I see my alleged civilian "protectors" walking around with a gun holstered on their hips.   Where I live, concealed carry requires a minimum of training, but carrying a gun openly doesn't. I cringe at the thought of these bozos blazing away in my vicinity at some miscreant.

We recently had an incident here in Albuquerque in which a guy caught someone trying to hotwire his car in the middle of the night. He pulled his gun and ran him off..ok so far. He then chased him for two blocks, over a fence, into an arroyo, and shot him dead because he "assumed a threatening stance". He was convicted of manslaughter, sentenced to (I think) 3 years in jail and to pay the criminal's family (again, I think) $500 a month for 5 years. There is a very vocal movement for a full pardon - let the bugger rot.

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: kendall
Date: 12 Apr 08 - 08:29 AM

One of the first lessons I learned as a law enforcement officer was, NEVER shoot at a fleeing felon.(And certainly not at anyone who is not presenting an immediate danger to you).

The old law says, "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth and a life for a life." It does not say, a life for a car, tv, radio,etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 12 Apr 08 - 10:44 AM

"A Pistol that fires 410 shells might do for shooting pepper into a clam chowder, but it certainly isn't a serious weapon!"


                   They make 000-Buckshot rounds now in .410. That would certainly do a number on a bowl of clam chowder.

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: kendall
Date: 12 Apr 08 - 11:39 AM

ooo buckshot? how many of those balls would fit into a .41 calibre shell? A 12 gauge shotgun shell holds nine OO buckshot.

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

000 buckshot is smaller. I looked it up; it will hold 3 pellets in a two-and-a-half in cartridge, and 5 pellets in a three inch cartridge. I tried to find if the cylinder would chamber a three inch cartridge, but couldn't find it anywhere.

          My guess is 00 buckshot would be too big, and would just function like a loose fitting slug.

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: kendall
Date: 12 Apr 08 - 03:55 PM

A "Belly gun" at best.

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Apr 08 - 05:07 PM

As usual, the discussion has moved from opinions of the NRA to opinions of guns in general and even of specific types of guns.

We have several issues at once: 1)Should ANY guns be allowed to the public at large? (those who are not members of law enforcement, etc.)
2)If they are, WHO may own a firearm?, 3)What kinds of firearms may they own? 4)Since the laws currently do allow 'some' people to possess guns, how should those laws be enforced and registration be managed? 5)finally, is the NRA being reasonable in the ways they act in promotion, education and lobbying in relation to firearms?
It may even be that some of these issues have sub-issues.

I will comment here about a number of recent posts on the issue of whether the fact that guns sometimes, prevent crime.
*IF* someone like Kendall...or Big Mick were the only sort who had carry permits, or kept handguns 'handy', I would not worry...but that's not how it works.
1)There are people who, although not criminals or inclined to commit crimes, STILL should not have guns of any kind. Even if YOU favor legal ownership, you know people who should never handle a firearm. (This may mean those who are too old, infirm or psychologically not able to..or those whose attitude makes them dangerous, whether or not they have even been in trouble).
2)*IF* many people are unable or unwilling to keep firearms, what is the procedure for protecting them from crime...or accidents? A society where only a small % of the populace is 'protected' is little different than one where none are! Even if some program of 'manditory' training were instituted, YOU know people who should not be expected to protect themselves with guns.
3)There ARE countries and areas where it is NOT common to have crimes committed with guns. What are the differences between them and the USA?
4)Since we know the current situation *IS* that many guns...legal and illegal...are available, is it even possible to alter that situation if we desired?

I am beginning to drift...but there are, of course, other issues, such as ammunition, education, laws, reasonable punishment for infractions, causes of increasing violence...etc....

It simply ain't easy! NO single position is 'right'...and those who ignore the sub-issues in order to defend one are kidding thenselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: Slag
Date: 12 Apr 08 - 06:06 PM

Well, Bill D, one of my points is that a "right" is just that, a right. It is not ALLOWED. The priviledge of an allotment means that the right to the thing being alloted is retained by someone other than YOU. These are the SPECIAL people ( "some animals [pigs] are more equal than others"), you know, the party members, the aristocracy, those who know BETTER than YOU!

The Bill of Rights ENUMERATES our inalienable rights. It does NOT create them. This is why I stress the point of personal responsibility. Some people prove by irresponsible behavior that do not deserve and should not have the right to be armed. The person whom artbrooks mentioned above fills the bill. Two wrongs does not make it right.

Again, it is a FREE society. You can choose to do wrong and when you do society can then remove your rights in total or in part; or even your life, if it is so minded. We are in this Revolution, this experiment, together and so we are responsible to each other. This is the message which is NOT being taught in schools today. In fact, many of today's classrooms resemble an experiment in anarchy, teacher beware! If someone had intentionally set about to disrupt and destroy the American Idea it would closely resemble what we have today with gangs (tribalism) and the aforementioned anarchy.

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Apr 08 - 06:21 PM

As I have pointed out before, the Bill of Rights is old. Especially the part about 'bearing arms'. I cannot imagine it being written that way knowing what we do now about society and considering advances in modern arms.

and ...gee..

"The Bill of Rights ENUMERATES our inalienable rights. It does NOT create them."

Such an interesting idea....it is very easy to argue that it does create them. Why is not a list of 'inalienable rights' just an opinion of one group of men at one point in history?

The rules which govern society must be tweaked occasionally as society itself changes. This INCLUDES ownership of firearms, no matter what the NRA and those who want to own firearms might wish.

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Apr 08 - 07:57 PM

Let's get real here...

As I have pointed out before, we have gun control... Lots of gun control... We don't let babies and kids play wiith them... We try to keep them outta schools and, for the most part, do that rather well... We keep them outta church and sports arenas and lots of places... We restrict some adults access to guns based on past behavior...

So let's get beyond whether or not we should have gun control becuae we have it, everyone knows it and that is a non issue...

Where the rub comes into play is in the NRA, which is a multi-million dollar lobby and being so it has to create subterfuge to keep it's memebers sending in their dollars...

Where the rub cames in, part B, is that the Republican Party has taken ownership of the NRA and used it's subterfuge as a wedge issue to keep the NRA's rather right winged and redneck base all fired up at election time... Nevermind that Joe Six-Pack has just6 lost his job because it was ent overseas... Joe-Sixpack is ready and willing to blame the liberals who want gun control for all of his woes...

This is what the right wing does... It takes the Epsilons of our society and uses the BIG THREE: abortion, gays and guns to keep it's base mobilized... And they do it very well, I might add...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 12 Apr 08 - 10:38 PM

"A "Belly gun" at best."


                      But it still chambers .45 Colt, which generates over 400 ft. lbs. of muzzle energy, more than a .38 special, 9mm, or a .44 special, though one might question its accuracy.

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 12 Apr 08 - 10:45 PM

"This is what the right wing does... It... uses the BIG THREE: abortion, gays and guns to keep it's base mobilized... And they do it very well, I might add..."


                      I don't disagree with this at all, but this formula is where some of us might very well begin to feel a little uncomfortable.

                        I don't want to make somebody else's decision related to an abortion--it's none of my business. And I think it's totally wrong to involve myself in someone else's life style choices--gay or straight. But I have a real problem with liberal ideas about gun control.

                      In the first place, when I see most of them talk about the issue, it becomes very apparent very early on that they have no idea what they're talking about. Maybe if they fact-checked their material before the opened their mouths they'd have better luck with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: artbrooks
Date: 12 Apr 08 - 11:08 PM

Riginslinger, I am a liberal. I believe that anyone who is not a registered loonie or a criminal has a right to own and carry (if they are properly trained) handguns and long arms. I believe that the (local) government has an obligation to register these firearms and ensure that proper training is conducted and received. I do not believe that the US Constitution has a single thing to do with this. I do not think anyone outside the military and (maybe) law enforcement has any business carrying assault weapons, automatic or not, rocket launchers or hand grenades.

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Apr 08 - 11:26 PM

"...We don't let babies and kids play wiith them... We try to keep them outta schools and, for the most part, do that rather well..."

awww..Bobert, my friend..We only have a 'few' school shootings each year?

and is THIS 'doing pretty well'?: "Richard Aborn, a national gun control advocate and former homicide prosecutor, cited the following statistics: Across the U.S., 15 kids die every day from gunshot wounds. Injuries from firearms are the fourth leading cause of accidental death for children between the ages of 5 and 14. A youngster between the ages of 10 and 19 commits suicide with a handgun every six hours. Hospital emergency rooms treat four kids for gunshot wounds for every one that is killed by gunfire."

(that was from the N.Y. Times

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Apr 08 - 11:33 PM

More: "In the U.S. for 2001, there were 29,573 deaths from firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 16,869; Homicide 11,348; Accident 802; Legal Intervention 323; Undetermined 231.(CDC, 2004) This makes firearms injuries one of the top ten causes of death in the U.S. The number of firearms-related injuries in the U.S., both fatal and non-fatal, increased through 1993, but has since declined steadily.(CDC, 2001) However, firearms injuries remain a leading cause of death in the U.S., particularly among youth (CDC, 2004)."

read the rest of it (with chart showing our 'special' place in world rankings!)

And you wonder why, even as I recognize how difficult it is to regulate firearms, I still think we should keep trying?! Current systems and laws are...lemme think of a word....ummmm..."pathetic" comes to mind..or "laughable".

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: kendall
Date: 13 Apr 08 - 12:15 PM

The definition of "Belly gun" is that it has little or no accuracy and must be very close to the target.

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: GUEST,Chief Chaos
Date: 13 Apr 08 - 12:17 PM

My point was not that the NRA mag carried the ad for the parts and pieces but accepted advertising revenues for other items that the same company makes.
I believe responsible gun owners don't want plans, parts or pieces to turn a semi-auto into full auto available to criminals and therefor are willing to forgo them themselves.
Unfortunately all too often the sanity question is only asked after someone has pulled the trigger.

Bobert - unfortunately you have a segment of the NRA that would like to overturn any regulation that bans fire arms from churches, universities, sporting events, etc.

As far as a sheathed sword preventing another sword from being drawn that's just plain idiocy. Lots of people got holes poked through them when both "fencers" were plainly "carrying".

Funnily enough, the only time any of my men came into any danger (from guns) was when they were plainly carrying themselves! In both cases even though they were plainly armed, the people they were dealing with (who were up until then "legal" gun owners) decided to "go for their weapons". In neither case were my officers being jack booted thugs that these folks needed to defend themselves against. One was a drunk boat owner (my officers were there to ask him if he was planning on cleaning up an oil spill his fishing vessel had created) and the other was a retired military officer that pulled a loaded and cocked .45 out of his desk drawer and idly pointed at my officers. My officers were there to let him know they were there in his public marina and to tell him how nice it was. Other than that it's been nearly twenty years without having guns pointed at any of my people.

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: kendall
Date: 13 Apr 08 - 12:20 PM

Many states, Maine included, have a law that prohibits any felon from owning a gun, and recently, domestic violence has joined the list of offenses that will cost you your gun. I am all for this. Any man who beats a woman or child does not deserve to own a gun.
There is a big difference between freedom and license.

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Apr 08 - 07:42 PM

"Any man who beats a woman or child does not deserve to own a gun."

absolutely!



But until they are caught and convicted, they may have one!


Why do I keep harping on this theme? Because there are so many careless, unstable & just plain mean guys out there who haven't YET flipped out or decided to use a gun to settle some imagined grudge.....besides all the potential criminals who think it might be easier to get money if they have a gun.

I don't know how to make legal guns available to honest, careful, sane people without opening things up to idiots.....I'd sure be glad to hear ideas!

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: Big Mick
Date: 13 Apr 08 - 08:32 PM

Bill D said: Why do I keep harping on this theme? Because there are so many careless, unstable & just plain mean guys out there who haven't YET flipped out or decided to use a gun to settle some imagined grudge.....besides all the potential criminals who think it might be easier to get money if they have a gun.

We call that a gratuitous assertion, podnuh. These can be just as gratuitously denied. So, no there aren not so many. But you can correct me by providing a cite or two on how many "unstable & just plain mean guys outh there" there are and how you know they are just waiting to flip out. Careful now, buddy. No demagoguery, or one off "I knew a guy..." kinds of stories. I am after substantiated, not manufactured stuff. And while you are at it, perhaps you can explain how the number of guns out there already haven't led to this wholesale slaughter you are so worried about. And perhaps you can explain how the police authorities in the State of Michigan are very satisfied with the effects of the "shall issue" CCW laws.

Just wonderin',

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: Slag
Date: 13 Apr 08 - 10:04 PM

Bill D, What kind of argument is:

"As I have pointed out before, the Bill of Rights is old. Especially the part about 'bearing arms'. I cannot imagine it being written that way knowing what we do now about society and considering advances in modern arms." ?

Wheels are "old". Shall we stop using them? What a ludricrous statement! Brrr.

"The Bill of Rights ENUMERATES our inalienable rights. It does NOT create them." To which you wrote:

"Such an interesting idea....it is very easy to argue that it does create them. Why is not a list of 'inalienable rights' just an opinion of one group of men at one point in history?"

Well, yes, I guess that it was just the opinion of one group of men at a point in history. It was that OPINION and all that followed it that established the GREATEST NATION the world has seen to date. It is THAT opinion which protects your ability to make such hare-brained statements. You ought to be thankful for the opinion that:

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with CERTAIN UNALIENABLE RIGHTS, THAT AMONG THESE ARE LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS-That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent from the Governed..."

A "right" does not have to be spelled out. You have the right to be here because you ARE here. You have a right to breath the air and drink the water. You have the right to protect your life. The fact that these rights are written out is not what establishes them. We hold these Truths to be SELF-EVIDENT, SELF-EVIDENT!

God help us all and save us all from those who would see our rights as just some old idea or opinion that has had its day.

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Apr 08 - 11:40 PM

Mick...please see my earlier post with specific figures on how many folks who are not qualified to have guns there seem to be. If that doesn't move you, come see me, and I will introduce you to a few.

Perhaps we just differ on how much "wholesale slaughter" is too much.

And perhaps my assertions are not totally 'Gratuitous'.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Slag..."Wheels are "old". Shall we stop using them?"

If you don't see the flaw in that comparison, I can't explain it to you.

It was that OPINION and all that followed it that established the GREATEST NATION the world has seen to date."

and again...bad logic. Because they were 'great men' it does not follow that everything they did or said is automatically appropriate forever.


"A "right" does not have to be spelled out.

I must disagree. Some rights are matters of convention, and are different in different societies. And if YOU do not see the basic difference between the fairly basic right to be free and the declared right to own and bear firearms, we have quite a communication problem. Even legal scholars do not all agree that ownership of firearms is precisely what the founding fathers meant...and many agree with me that it should be a LIMITED right, if allowed at all.

If it is so obvious that ALL the 'rights' given by our Constitution are so obvious, why aren't they that clear to other cultures. (Yes, I do think our system is better than most...but only a fool would think it can't be improved.)

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: artbrooks
Date: 14 Apr 08 - 12:54 AM

Once again, the question of whether or not the "right to keep and bear arms" is universal or subject to some connection with "a well regulated militia" is currently under review by the US Supreme Court.

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: Big Mick
Date: 14 Apr 08 - 01:42 AM

Well..... let's see here. First thing that jumps out is that the total deaths by guns that Bill cites comes to about 1.2% of the total deaths for the year (gun deaths according to Bill's source = 29573 divided by total deaths in 2002 of 2,443,387). Hardly a terrible crisis, given that the numbers that the good prof is hardly trying to be objective and did not seek to balance the numbers for a number of factors, such as violent crime deterred, stopped, or lives saved BY THE LEGAL INTERVENTION (The study indicates that legal intervention caused 300+ deaths). Second, the numbers include deaths from guns that have nothing to do with the NRA being good or evil, such as unspecified, or accidents. Thirdly, the fact that a number of them were suicides, it seems fairly obvious that those folks were committed to killing themselves and would have done so anyway. The study cited was being used by this person to imply that this is a raging problem. This person clearly was trying to sway opinion by throwing every kind of death that occurred, whether it would have been prevented by some form of gun control or the outright banning of private ownership of weapons or not.

I knew you couldn't resist the demagogic comment, "If that doesn't move you, come see me, and I will introduce you to a few..." comment, and I would simply point out that it doesn't mean much. But I would be happy to show you, for each of these folks you show me, 10 others that are responsible owners who obey the law and aren't wackos running around shooting their wives, children and folks out for a Sunday drive. But as I said, that really doesn't mean much. As an aside, there was just a case of an armed man in Grand Rapids, Michigan, caught on a gas station security camera as another man picked up a heavy metal lid with the intention of doing him great bodily harm. The man pulled his weapon and shot and killed the assailant. The police department and the prosecutor, reviewed that tape and came to the conclusion that he was completely justified and that the implement could have killed or very seriously injured him. Of course had he not been armed, and had he been hurt or killed, you certainly wouldn't be suggesting that it is too bad he wasn't armed so he could protect himself. This is exactly why there is an inverse proportional effect as to the number of deaths/injuries from violent crime and strict gun control laws. Where citizens have the right to carry arms, under very strict rules of training and use, deaths/injuries from violent crime are demonstrably lower.

By the use of these studies, in the manner in which you are citing them, it speaks exactly to what the real agenda is. And it is ridiculous. Law abiding citizens who responsibly own, and use, guns are not causing the deaths. The notion that even one death is reason enough to ban them flys in the face of all intellectual reason. And I can assure you of one thing.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: Stu
Date: 14 Apr 08 - 03:44 AM

"Many states, Maine included, have a law that prohibits any felon from owning a gun,"

Oh Christ.

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Apr 08 - 11:39 AM

Obviously, Mick, we will always have different views on the matter. I hardly think that moves my 'aside' comment into the category of demagogic.

You do a calculation of the % of total deaths caused by gunshots, and get 1.2%. That sure looks like a nice, small number compared to 25,000+. Even the number 4, as in ..."injuries from firearms are the 4th leading cause of accidental death for children between the ages of 5 and 14." doesn't look too big. Even "six" in
"A youngster between the ages of 10 and 19 commits suicide with a handgun every six hours" might not seem impressive.

To enlarge on what I said earlier, it may just be that we have a different threshold of tolerance for statistics about death & injury. And noting that the US seems to always rank 1st in the world in death by firearms, indicates to me that we have a problem.

You'll note that, even with my pretty dim view of the cost/benefit value of allowing those "...10 others that are responsible owners who obey the law" to have guns, I am NOT damanding, as you seem to imply, that "The notion that even one death is reason enough to ban them .."
Where did I ever say anything like that?

I am quite aware that "...Law abiding citizens who responsibly own, and use, guns are not causing the deaths."....but I am also aware that some of the deaths result from guns being stolen FROM those law abiding citizens and from accidents, even among those who TRY to be careful.

The original question here was about the NRA, and by extension I suppose, about the spirited defense of 'legal' firearms by folks such as yourself. What I see & hear from the NRA is a basic resistance to almost ANY restriction of firearms, lest those 'responsible' folks lose a few privileges. (That's PRIVILEGES, Slag...not rights. I should have made that point earlier.)

In my post at 12 Apr 08 - 05:07 PM, I suggest that the situation needs a lot more rational study...simply BECAUSE we do have so many weapons "out there" that are not easily going away, even if we tried!

I admit, I do not have a simple answer...but I do not believe the 'answer' is to let things go as they are and go thru the motions of "enforcing existing laws". THAT system has gotten us that seemingly permanent place on top the charts of deaths by gunshot. All you 'responsible' gun owners need to work a bit harder to REDUCE the problem, not just argue that 1.2% is not very big.

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Apr 08 - 02:48 PM

I think Bill has hit on a good point here.

There is something about US politics that polarizes, divides, draws lines and has otherwise responsible, rational people drawing lines and picking sides.

People defend "their side" rather than arguing over what is right and rational. Responsible gun owners should be leading in the way in the debate over what is right and reasonable rather than helping the NRA constantly try to expand what is allowed.

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: kendall
Date: 14 Apr 08 - 04:45 PM

Bill, my friend, you can't punish a person for what he/she MIGHT do.

Stigweard, what's wrong with keeping guns out of the hands of criminals?

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Apr 08 - 04:47 PM

Keeping people from owning guns is not punishment.