BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: Stu
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 09:29 AM

"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."
This statement alone illustrates the gap between the USA and the civilised world. Your society, which celebrates and glorifies violence, has gone so far down the road of machismo posturing and self-doubt it's citizens are compelled to arm themselves with weapons manufactured to kill people as they have become so scared when stepping outside the front door. It's a real shame you insist in exporting this culture of lunacy across the world.


"What is twisted if this was the founding fathers' point of view also?"
Nice to see progress has been made since then eh? Several of the founding fathers also thought slavery was good so will we be seeing that making a comeback anytime soon?

"were they better educated in the late 1700's than we of today"
Irony?

"There is a wait period and that time is supposed to be used for a background check to determine if you are mentally stable . . ."
How in the name of God do you define mentally stable if you think it's OK to run a round with a gun in your handbag? Jesus, the posts on this page are a fascinating insight into the results of allowing guns to flood a society. Certainly puts the likes of Bush into context.

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 10:17 AM

Happily we haven't had to live in a society where citizens are not trusted to own guns, so we don't have a perverted view on the matter.

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 12:36 PM

"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."

He is incorrect that its in the Constitution. It is in fact in US statute Law as Title 10 United States Code Section 311. Here is a copy of the exact wording of the Statute. 10 USC 311(b)2 is the section that refers to what Slag is refering to. 10 USC 311(a) refers to the age of service clause.

TITLE 10--ARMED FORCES

Section 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists
of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age
and, except as provided in section 313 of title
32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have
made a declaration of intention to become, citi-
zens of the United States and of female citizens
of the United States who are commissioned of-
ficers of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are--
    (1) the organized militia, which consists of
the National Guard and the Naval Militia;
and
    (2) the unorganized militia, which consists
of the members of the militia who are not
members of the National Guard or the Naval
Militia.



Section 312. Militia duty: exemptions

(a) The following persons are exempt from
militia duty:
    (1) The Vice President.
    (2) The judicial and executive officers of
the United States, the several States and Ter-
ritories, Puerto Rico, and the Canal Zone.
    (3) Members of the armed forces, except
members who are not on active duty.
    (4) Customhouse clerks.
    (5) Persons employed by the United States
in the transmission of mail.
    (6) Workers employed in armories, arse-
nals, and naval shipyards of the United
States.
    (7) Pilots on navigable waters.
    (8) Mariners in the sea service of a citizen
of, or a merchant in, the United States.

(b) A person who claims exemption because
of religious belief is exempt from militia duty
in a combatant capacity, if the conscientious
holding of that belief is established under such
regulations as the President may prescribe.
However, such a person is not exempt from mi-
litia duty that the President determines to be
noncombatant.


TITLE 32--NATIONAL GUARD

Section 313. Appointments and enlistments: age limitations

(a) To be eligible for original enlistment in
the National Guard, a person must be at least
17 years of age and under 45, or under 64 years
of age and a former member of the Regular
Army, Regular Navy, Regular Air Force, or
Regular Marine Corps. To be eligible for reen-
listment, a person must be under 64 years of age.
(b) To be eligible for appointment as an offi-
cer of the National Guard, a person must--
    (1) be a citizen of the United States; and
    (2) be at least 18 years of age and under 64.

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: GUEST,ALCAN1
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 12:50 PM

the above post was mine. Also Alaska as does many States have a State Militia not part of the National Guard. Alaska Militia is called the Alaska State Defence Force or the 49th Military Police Brigade. It is 100% funded by the State and members are required to provide their own weapons. An AR15, M16, M1A1, M14, or HK91 is required to own and maintain as well as any 9 MM or 45 ACP handgun. These are personal weapons bought and paid for by the members themselves and not the State. The members are required to provide all their own equipment etc.

http://www.ak-prepared.com/asdf/default.htm

[EDITED- the rules here prohibit long C & P -usually one screen full is the limit. Please give summation and a link]
--joe clone

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: Stu
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 12:56 PM

"Happily we haven't had to live in a society where citizens are not trusted to own guns, so we don't have a perverted view on the matter."

It's not a case of trusted - people where I live (UK) don't want to own guns, don't feel the need to own guns and don't care for the consequences of a gun culture. This is law by common consent - there is no public desire for ordinary people to own guns, or for ordinary police officers to carry them.

Where there is a gun culture in our inner cities it is largely confined to a certain demographic and rarely spills into the mainstream, and it's results are as ugly as they are anywhere else. Apart from one or two nutters every now and then (such as Hungerford in 1987), we don't have the wholsesale massacres that happen in the states (touch wood). I don't know what the figure for firearms-related deaths are, but I'll put my money on there being a hell of a lot less here than in the US. If you trust your citizens to own guns, why do you bleat so much when one goes off the rails and slaughters some innocent because they want to be noticed in the media-centric world they inhabits in their deluded mind?

Whose view is perverted? I don't condone the owning of lethal weapons by the general population - why would I? If you think that's a healthy society, you're welcome to it. There is a real culture of violence in the US that disturbs many people in the wider world, and it's insidious influence is being felt in many other societies, especially amongst the young.

There is so much machismo associated with this subject it's almost laughable. I wouldn't pry your gun from your cold dead hands because I don't feel so insecure where I live to have to cart around a deadly weapon to make myself feel better. I don't need a gun to make me a 'real man', or because some bloke 200 years ago had to defend his homestead from an foreign power. I don't need an AK47 high-power semi-automatic M16 Winchester recoilless dick extension. And luckily, I guess a lot of Americans don't either. Thank Christ.

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: GUEST,ALCAN1
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 01:25 PM

Lets look at the other side of the coin. SWITZERLAND. Where gun ownership is mandatory for ALL MEN AGES 20 to 42 because they are part of the militia force. Members of the Swiss army keep their weapons - fully automatic assault rifles or pistols - and a small emergency supply of ammunition at home. According to the Swiss Constituition, upon completion of all required military service, the gun becomes the property of the individual soldier.

From the Embassy of Switzerland

Gun Ownership in Switzerland

Traditionally, in Switzerland a great umber of firearms are in private hands. Among these are rifles, shotguns, semi-automatic rifles, pistols and revolvers. The issue of gun ownership is closely linked to the centuries-ol Swiss system and tradition of national defense. This explains why gun ownership is far less restricted in Switzerland than in the other European countries.

All Swiss men, with the exception of those with medical exemptions, serve in the army between the ages of 20 and 42 (52 for higher ranking officers). This compulsory military service is based on the traditional concept of the citizen-soldier. Women can join the army on a volunteer basis.

Members of the Swiss army keep their weapons - fully automatic assault rifles or pistols - and a small emergency supply of ammunition at home. According to the Swiss Constituition, upon completion of all required military service, the gun becomes the property of the individual soldier. Assault rifles are then transformed into semi-automatic weapons. Therefore, military-issue weapons, often generations old, are kept in Swiss households.

Every Swiss municipality has a rifle or pistol range, where members of the army train on a compulsory or volunteer basis while in civilian life. These ranges are open to all members of shooting associations. Many Swiss, from age 16 to very old veterans, train there not only in marksmanship, but also in safe and responsible handling of firearms. This includes the safe storage of weapons and ammunition at private residences.

Many privately purchased firearms are used for hunting or self-protection. Especially in the mountainous parts of the country, hunting is a very old right and popular tradition.

Fireams legislation
Thus far, Switzerland has no federal gun law.Any abuse of a gun or ammunition belongin to the army is, however, severely prohibited.

In 1993, Swiss voters accepted a constitutional amendment. that autohrizes parliament to pass a gun-abuse law aimed at rendering access to weapons more difficult for criminals. The new law will preserve the right of citizens to own guns, in particular Swiss military-issue weapons. It will most probably ban certain categories of weapons, for example fully automatic guns, and ammunition. The acquisition of firearms would be made subject to approval based on a record check, something that has been requested so far only for handguns and only on the basis of an agreement bewteen the Cantons (States) and not of federal law. The right to carry a gun for other than hunting or training purposes would be made subject to proof of legitimate need. The access to gun purchases for non-resident foreigners would be made more difficult. The new law, once passed by parliament, could be subject to a new referendum.

Firearms and crime
The use of firearms in crimes in Switzerland is relatively rare and recently ebven decreasing. In 1994, 68 guns were used in attempted or successful homicides, another 434 firearms in armed robberies.

Export and import regulations
Residents of the United States who want to purchase a firearm in Switzerland and export it or who want to bring a firearm into the country should contact the Federal Military Department, General Secretariat, Section War Material Control, 3003 Bern, Switzerland, directly to obtain information on applicable regulations. Two hunting or sporting rifles or breech-loading shotguns as well as one handgun (pistol or revolver) of a calibre smaller than 6.2 mm (for example .22 calibre) can be brought into the country without a permit, but must be reexported. 100 rounds per rifle or shotgun and 25 rounds per handgun (less than 6.2 mm) are equally admitted. Cantonal regulations on the carrying of arms must, however, at all times be observed.

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: Peace
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 01:33 PM

"And the rifle will jam after the first shit."

Well, with you now here there will be lots to replace it with.

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 01:53 PM

"...people where I live (UK) don't want to own guns, don't feel the need to own guns and don't care for the consequences of a gun culture."


                   Which explains why they bomb double-decker buses instead.

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 02:47 PM

That isn't called for Riginslinger, it just makes you look petty because it isn't true. That type of terrorism has nothing to do with gun laws.

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

The only gun I ever had wasn't mine, it was basically on loan from the police dept I worked for. I had to give it back when I retired. Tne NRA sent me a membership application once. This is the same NRA that threw a temper tantrum when the gov't announced that armor-piercing bullets would not be made available to the public, only to the police. Since only the police are supposed to have bullet-proof vests, this makes sense. I don't need the general public using bullets that can kill me. Sometimes the NRA can be embarassing, and for that reason, they never had me as a member.

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 06:43 PM

"That isn't called for Riginslinger, it just makes you look petty because it isn't true. That type of terrorism has nothing to do with gun laws."


             It seems to be terrorism that the anti-gun folks are concerned about. They're always talking about AK-47's and M16's, but most of the gun owners in America have things like bolt action rifels, shot guns, and twenty-twos.

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

ALCAN1, I know about the definition of "militia" in Title 10, but I was wondering where Slag was finding the definition in the Constitution.

By the way, does the Alaska Defense Force call itself the 49th MP Bde. because Alaska is the 49th state? Just curious, because there is an active (if that isn't the wrong term) unit with that designation in the California National Guard, which has served at least one deployment in Iraq. The Army normally doesn't allow duplication of unit designations.

Also, you may not know (since you aren't a regular member here) but house rules don't allow long cut-and-pastes. It is usually more acceptable to provide a brief summary and a link. There is a link-maker at the bottom of the dialog box.

Keep those cards and letters coming!!

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

What was not called for was the reference to the bombings.

There are hunting rifles and shotguns in the UK owned by people who hunt.

But that is not the point. Few people are against weapons for killing animals. The ones expressly built to kill people are the source of controversy.

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

Jack - the organization we're talking about here is the National "Rifle" Association.

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 07:55 PM

Sigh...

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 07:55 PM

It is obvious (to me, anyway) that the Constitution needs to be updated and clarified in this matter. In 1780, everyone KNEW what a militia was and what 'bearing arms' to defend the country meant. But those who wrote the document and the amendment had no concept of either the state of the world in 250 years or the advancements in firearms.
   I sincerely doubt they would have been so brief and vague had they known.

   It simply makes NO sense for every adult who has not been convicted of a felony to have easy access to the range of weapons available today.

I do realize that, because there are so many illegal weapons, it would be extremely difficult to ban most firearms, but because there are so many unstable persons with fairly easy access to weapons, we are foolish to cling to some 'ideal' of setting hard-to-enforce rules, and continuing to sigh and clean up after each incident...whether a Virginia Tech, or a simple robbery with a cheap handgun gone bad.

   There ARE ways to mitigate the carnage...but folks like the NRA must compromise on some issues.

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

The National Rifle Association was started to promote safe use of guns, not to increase the use of guns.

Their courses in proper handling of firearms are considered the best you can find. Please look up a location near you.

About armor-piercing bullets and automatic weapons, does anyone have any proof that their legalization is part of the official policy of the NRA? I doubt that it is.

I first heard that machine guns were banned in 1934 in an interview with Charlton Heston. He was adamant that the ban was a good thing. He had a world-class collection of firearms, all locked in gun safes and their firing mechanisms stored in another locations.

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

Of course the NRA does not officially promote legalization of armor-piercing bullets and automatic weapons! They merely balk at legislation that, in THEIR view 'might' serve as a pathway to restricting any significant access to any weapons their members wish to own!
On paper, they look reasonable... on a practical basis, the rules they are willing to allow have little effect on illegal practices. IF there are unlimited legal guns available, those will be acquired illegally by folks who shouldn't have them.

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 09:39 PM

Here's what I've seen. The anti-gun people harbor some members that are so extreme that they'd happily outlaw spit-wads. While there are gun advocates who are equally extreme and think they should be allowed to drive around in Abrahams tanks. Most of the people are in the middle, but because the media is so quick to focus on the extremes, more rational voices rarely get heard.

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 11:22 PM

I think that Bill has it right. The NRA pushes the extreme edge to insure that no ground is given. They take the side of the nuts and most especially the arms industry.

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 11:25 PM

The NRA seems to take the extreme edge because their opponents take the extreme edge the other way.

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 11:26 PM

I am not at the extreme edge. I would rather see them fighting for sense and safety.

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 11:30 PM

Then it's perfectly fine with you if everyone runs around with lever action 30-30's, right?

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 11:49 PM

If they are running around in properly designated areas during hunting season, yes.

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: Slag
Date: 09 Apr 08 - 02:06 AM

So much to answer and so little time. Artbrooks! Yes. You are correct. It has been too many years since I have gone over this ground that the Militia Act of 1903 just sorta crossed right over there into the Constitution. My apologies. It is Article I. Sec. 8 which enumerates Congress' power to call out the militia. Before the Militia Act 1903 it was understood that every able bodied male at an age in which they would be subject to military duty were considered a part of the militia. A few states such as my own California had separate legislation which established the militia to be certain males of a certain age with the Governor as its head. The California Constitution give a detailed break down of its organization.

So, while the US Constitution does not DEFINE the militia it certainly recognizes its existence and gives Congress authority to wield it when any of several conditions may exist.


I might point out to our English friends that prior to WWII their country went through some anti-gun paroxysms and disarmed it's populace to a great extent. Then came the threat followed by the reality of Germany's tyranny. Who did they turn to to arm the citizenry when it looked as though Hitler's crew was coming over? Well, none other than those evil gun totin' Americans.
There was no way that our gun manufacturers could quickly produce enough arms that the populace of England could muster a reasonable defense by its citizens!...BUT! NOT TO WORRY! The NRA stepped in and its members donated over a million personal arms and ammunition to the people of England (your welcome). Thank God that the ground invasion never came. It was hellish enough with the nightly bombings. But had Hitler's goose steppers tried to take England they would probably have met with a resistance that would have been daunting to say the least.

I don't hunt any more and seldom target shoot. I don't really think much about guns anymore, but don't come breaking into my house late at night cause I know where they are and I still know how to use them, quite well.

The NRA is not a perfect organization and I do not always agree with their total agenda or their reasoning. But I will say this: their enemies are rabid and their assaults on the Second Amendment are devious, convoluted and loaded with seemingly rational steps that would prevent crime but which are really direct toward complete confiscation of citizen arms. The NRA is a true bastion against enemies of our Constitution.

Someone above decries that so much has changed since the time of our founding fathers, well, I have to agree. There have been some tremendous changes and especially in technology. But one thing does NOT change and that is human nature and as long as there are people who hate you for what you are or what you have or what you eat or how you part your hair then I will keep my guns, keep them loaded and pray I never have to use them. You know, that's kinda like life insurance; you never want to use it but your glad you have it. The only real difference is that when you use life insurance, it means that you are dead. If you have to use your firearm (successfully) it means that you are still alive and paying those premiums on that insurance policy.

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: Slag
Date: 09 Apr 08 - 02:07 AM

BTW Artbrooks, who says those commas were not intended? You?

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: Stu
Date: 09 Apr 08 - 03:35 AM

"Which explains why they bomb double-decker buses instead."

This might be the single most pathetic statement I have ever read on this website. We all remember members in the past who used some pretty despicable cheap shots, but this takes the biscuit.

What the fuck has this to do with the debate on gun laws in the USA? You think making cheap, inaccurate jibes about the killing and suffering of innocent civilians is a legitimate debating tactic? Is this all you have? Are you so completely ignorant and stupid that you equate gun ownership with terrorism? Think about what you said.

I see you've been admonished by other posters, but not a hint of apology or regret on your part. You're a great advert for the NRA, hunters and the USA.

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: Slag
Date: 09 Apr 08 - 04:24 AM

Well, for my part Stigweard, it was a cheap shot, irrelavent and had nothing to do with the debate. So put YOUR broad brush away and be the better man for calling it correctly.

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: Stu
Date: 09 Apr 08 - 05:05 AM

"So put YOUR broad brush away and be the better man for calling it correctly."

Well, you might be right, but then we're all guilty of that occasionally. We're never going to agree on this but in all honesty this sort of thing puts me off posting here big style. I love the rough and tumble of a good debate, and in my opinion it's good to get a bit of international dialogue going - you never know what you might learn, but the sort of aggression and lack of feeling shown in Riginslinger's statement is wearying at best, deeply insulting at worst - not to me, but to people who have suffered more than enough.

For the record, I've got no problems with people keeping guns for hunting but that's it. I don't like big knives, RPG's, Ricin either, and if they were to disappear off the streets too then that wouldn't be a bad thing. I don't care for the mindset that turns a person's very existence into an extended siege against everyone else in society; this strikes me a being a dangerous sort of alienation, a sort of dehumanising of everyone else, and this leads to a fragmented and insecure community. I strongly believe most people aren't in favour of carrying guns - if the only society we are capable of creating is one where we have to point a weapon at each other every time we disagree then we are truly fucked. But then perhaps we are anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 09 Apr 08 - 08:04 AM

"Are you so completely ignorant and stupid that you equate gun ownership with terrorism?"


                      It's not me that equates gun ownership with terrorism, it's the wigged-out anti-gun freaks who equate gun ownership with terrorism.

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Apr 08 - 09:10 AM

Get over yourself Rigin. It was you that you equated gun ownership with terrorism on this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 09 Apr 08 - 12:07 PM

"...the gap between the USA and the civilised world. Your society, which celebrates and glorifies violence, has gone so far down the road of machismo posturing and self-doubt it's citizens are compelled to arm themselves with weapons manufactured to kill people as they have become so scared when stepping outside the front door. It's a real shame you insist in exporting this culture of lunacy across the world."


                            I guess I mistook this for a definition of terrorism. I must have been wrong about that.

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Apr 08 - 12:21 PM

Yes, you were wrong. You apparently do not know what terrorism is.

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: Midchuck
Date: 09 Apr 08 - 12:34 PM

Then it's perfectly fine with you if everyone runs around with lever action 30-30's, right?

If they are running around in properly designated areas during hunting season, yes.

I like guns but I don't hunt.

There are two reasons for this.

1) Deer have such big brown eyes.

2) During hunting season, there are more crazy people with guns in the Vermont woods than even in New York City.

I would shoot an animal if I were really hungry and the grocery stores were out of food, or I were out of money but still had ammo, or I were just way out in the woods with no food. I would shoot a person if he/she were trying to do me, or some other person, serious bodily harm and there were no cop around (and there's never a cop around unless you drive over the speed limit or try to hold up a donut shop). Or if the Joint Chiefs of Staff announced they were suspending the Constitution due to some emergency or other, and American civilians had to fight their own military (which is what the framers of the Constitution really had in mind). Otherwise, I'll stick to tin cans and paper targets.

Peter.

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: Stu
Date: 09 Apr 08 - 12:37 PM

"I guess I mistook this for a definition of terrorism. I must have been wrong about that."

I guess you must. Remedial stuff really, even for some good ole boy like yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Apr 08 - 12:41 PM

>>Or if the Joint Chiefs of Staff announced they were suspending the Constitution due to some emergency or other, and American civilians had to fight their own military (which is what the framers of the Constitution really had in mind).<<

If that is the case, shouldn't it be the right to anti-tank weapons and stinger missiles?

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: artbrooks
Date: 09 Apr 08 - 06:20 PM

Midchuck, if that happened (and it would more likely be the Pres. than the JCS doing it), the US military would be right out there with you. The oath says "I swear to protect and defend the Constitution" ahead of anything else.

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: skipy
Date: 09 Apr 08 - 06:41 PM

Guns should only in the hands of the armed forces & the police.
That's all I have to say on the subject.
Skipy

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: Slag
Date: 10 Apr 08 - 01:23 AM

I understand the "feeling" skipy, but then you would have what is commonly known as a "police state".

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: Slag
Date: 10 Apr 08 - 01:26 AM

Glorious Leader, Chairman Mao, wisely and correctly stated " All political power flows from the end of a rifle barrel."

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: Stu
Date: 10 Apr 08 - 03:27 AM

The pen is mightier than the sword.

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: Slag
Date: 10 Apr 08 - 04:15 AM

Check the lyrics to "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance" Gene Pitney ca 1962. Words are great for rational people behaving rationally. Unfortunately not everybody is rational and even the rational ones are often NOT rational 100% of the time.

Rodney King asked the question "Why can't we all just get along" to which the answer came along "Don't know: don't care. I'm gonna smash your head with this here brick and take all your money."

And lastly, it's very difficult to write with a bullet between your eyes.

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: pdq
Date: 10 Apr 08 - 01:32 PM

BAN PENS!

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: kendall
Date: 10 Apr 08 - 04:34 PM

stigweard, I have one gun. A souvenier of my old law enforcement days. It is a snub nose .38 with a 2 inch barrel. Hardly a "dick extension".

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: GUEST,Chief chaos
Date: 10 Apr 08 - 06:03 PM

I got my info directly from the NRA magazine in the office where I was working at the time.

Ads for fingerprint resistant handgrips, the question you didn't bother to ask, were in the magazine!

The ads for the parts to turn certain types of semi-auto weapons into full auto were in the smallprint section of another magazine which I believe was Soldier of Fortune. The manufacturer of these "parts" also advertises other merchandise in the NRA magazine.

Again, I support the right to keep and bear arms. I'm not anti-gun.

As far as the DC handgun ban goes, I support it.

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

Frankly, I think the DC hangun ban goes too far, though I'll admit I don't see a lot of value in handguns.

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: GUEST,Chief Chaos
Date: 10 Apr 08 - 11:05 PM

The office where I work lays on the far side of a very bad neighborhood in DC. You can drive to work but risk car jackings at gunpoint while driving through (and it has happened). You also risk being mugged at gun point if you park outside the office instead of at the very limited parking deck (and it has happened). You can also take the metro or commuter train and then take the van/bus from the station to the office and get shot at while going through the neighborhood (and it has happened). The one thing that you can't do is bring a gun to work (Federal law!)

What this tells me is that the ban didn't fully work to begin with but at least it wasn't as easy for these folks to get the hand guns in the first place. There are numerous "gang banger" shrines throughout the area and a notable amount of innocent bystanders have been killed. In all of these cases it was either a direct shooting or an indirect shot that killed them. It's true that a person pulls the trigger but the handgun itself is just too easy.

Again, none of these people were suffocated with a pillow, stabbed with an icicle or beaten to death!

Cars can be and are a deadly weapon in the wrong hands. The statistics of the number of deaths does cause people to pause. The saving grace is that billions of people survive the daily drive versus the relatively minor amount that don't. And there has been an outcry over the years otherwise we wouldn't have seatbelts, airbags, crumplezones, curbs, traffic lights, crossing barriers, etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: Slag
Date: 11 Apr 08 - 01:51 AM

CoC (Chaos, from which derives the word "War") I have every American Rifleman, the official magazine of the NRA gong back to 1984. Please tell me which issue had that advertisement. I'd like to check it out. Also SOF is not connected with NRA in any way. They pretty much play to either 12 year olds going on 30 or 30 year olds who never got beyond 12. As far as I know it is illegal to advertise conversion parts or kits.

DC can be one bad town if you don't know where you are going. Not much of an ornament for gun control. 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.

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: Stu
Date: 11 Apr 08 - 04:35 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.

Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil?
From: Leadfingers
Date: 11 Apr 08 - 06:57 AM

100 - and I dont approve of guns on the street - Except perhaps with Army or SERIOUS Law enforcement .