|
07 Apr 08 - 01:50 PM (#2309274) Subject: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor 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. |
|
07 Apr 08 - 01:54 PM (#2309278) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: Peace Good luck with this thread. |
|
07 Apr 08 - 01:56 PM (#2309285) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor I am fighting them here so I don't have to fight them over there. ;-) |
|
07 Apr 08 - 01:57 PM (#2309287) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: Peace When only outlaws have guns then only inlaws will get married (or something like that). |
|
07 Apr 08 - 02:03 PM (#2309294) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: Rapparee 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. |
|
07 Apr 08 - 02:09 PM (#2309302) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor >>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? |
|
07 Apr 08 - 02:12 PM (#2309307) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: Wesley S 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. |
|
07 Apr 08 - 02:27 PM (#2309320) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: Midchuck 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. |
|
07 Apr 08 - 02:29 PM (#2309321) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: Donuel neither, its just another focal group that is exploited by single issue politics. |
|
07 Apr 08 - 02:42 PM (#2309334) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: irishenglish 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. |
|
07 Apr 08 - 03:14 PM (#2309352) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: Escapee 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 |
|
07 Apr 08 - 03:37 PM (#2309373) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: Peace "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 |
|
07 Apr 08 - 03:42 PM (#2309379) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: Peace PS Takes it from semi-auto to full auto at a cost of $2.00. |
|
07 Apr 08 - 03:45 PM (#2309382) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: irishenglish 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? |
|
07 Apr 08 - 03:58 PM (#2309391) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: Midchuck Because criminals are. Peter |
|
07 Apr 08 - 04:00 PM (#2309395) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: irishenglish So I'll go out and get one because a criminal has one now? Sorry, not gonna happen |
|
07 Apr 08 - 04:02 PM (#2309397) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: GUEST,chief chaos 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... |
|
07 Apr 08 - 04:04 PM (#2309398) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: irishenglish If the bears are armed how will the fish fight back? |
|
07 Apr 08 - 04:11 PM (#2309399) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: GUEST,Chicken Charlie 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 |
|
07 Apr 08 - 04:13 PM (#2309401) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: Donuel 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. |
|
07 Apr 08 - 04:31 PM (#2309416) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: GUEST,Bob Ryszkiewicz 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 |
|
07 Apr 08 - 04:39 PM (#2309422) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: irishenglish 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. |
|
07 Apr 08 - 04:56 PM (#2309433) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: gnu 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. |
|
07 Apr 08 - 05:13 PM (#2309454) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: artbrooks 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. |
|
07 Apr 08 - 05:52 PM (#2309485) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: gnu Nobody who understands hunting would use military bullets. To do so would be against a hunter's code of ethics. |
|
07 Apr 08 - 06:20 PM (#2309510) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: GUEST,chief chaos 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... |
|
07 Apr 08 - 06:29 PM (#2309517) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: Sorcha What Jack and Rapaire said. I'm outta here now too. |
|
07 Apr 08 - 06:36 PM (#2309526) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor The NRA killed the Brady Bill, which I thought was reasonable. |
|
07 Apr 08 - 06:39 PM (#2309527) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: Sorcha And yes, the NRA stance HAS embarassed me sometimes. I no longer belong. Not for years. Bye now. |
|
07 Apr 08 - 06:40 PM (#2309528) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: Slag 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. |
|
07 Apr 08 - 06:48 PM (#2309533) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: Bobert 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~ |
|
07 Apr 08 - 06:48 PM (#2309534) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: Big Mick Well done, Slag. The hounds will soon be baying at your door. Mick |
|
07 Apr 08 - 07:16 PM (#2309572) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: Bill D 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. |
|
07 Apr 08 - 07:25 PM (#2309586) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor 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? |
|
07 Apr 08 - 07:35 PM (#2309599) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor 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. |
|
07 Apr 08 - 07:43 PM (#2309604) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: Slag 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. |
|
07 Apr 08 - 07:59 PM (#2309624) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: Bill D 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*) |
|
07 Apr 08 - 08:03 PM (#2309629) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: Little Hawk 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. |
|
07 Apr 08 - 08:39 PM (#2309658) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: Bobert 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~ |
|
07 Apr 08 - 08:45 PM (#2309662) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: Jack the Sailor >>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. |
|
07 Apr 08 - 11:11 PM (#2309737) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: GUEST,Chicken Charlie 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 |
|
07 Apr 08 - 11:17 PM (#2309738) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: Little Hawk 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! |
|
07 Apr 08 - 11:31 PM (#2309746) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: artbrooks 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. |
|
08 Apr 08 - 12:54 AM (#2309769) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: Slag 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. |
|
08 Apr 08 - 01:14 AM (#2309773) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: GUEST,ALCAN1 ""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. |
|
08 Apr 08 - 01:19 AM (#2309776) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: GUEST,ALCAN1 "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. |
|
08 Apr 08 - 01:23 AM (#2309778) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: GUEST "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? |
|
08 Apr 08 - 01:36 AM (#2309782) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: GUEST,ALCAN1 "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. |
|
08 Apr 08 - 02:31 AM (#2309811) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: Slag 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. |
|
08 Apr 08 - 08:07 AM (#2309956) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: artbrooks 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. |
|
08 Apr 08 - 09:29 AM (#2310018) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: Stu "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. |
|
08 Apr 08 - 10:17 AM (#2310058) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: Riginslinger 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. |
|
08 Apr 08 - 12:36 PM (#2310189) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: GUEST "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. |
|
08 Apr 08 - 12:50 PM (#2310207) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: GUEST,ALCAN1 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] |
|
08 Apr 08 - 12:56 PM (#2310219) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: Stu "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. |
|
08 Apr 08 - 01:25 PM (#2310256) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: GUEST,ALCAN1 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. |
|
08 Apr 08 - 01:33 PM (#2310264) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: Peace "And the rifle will jam after the first shit." Well, with you now here there will be lots to replace it with. |
|
08 Apr 08 - 01:53 PM (#2310298) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: Riginslinger "...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. |
|
08 Apr 08 - 02:47 PM (#2310368) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor 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. |
|
08 Apr 08 - 03:14 PM (#2310423) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: RangerSteve 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. |
|
08 Apr 08 - 06:43 PM (#2310622) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: Riginslinger "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. |
|
08 Apr 08 - 07:43 PM (#2310660) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: artbrooks 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!! |
|
08 Apr 08 - 07:45 PM (#2310661) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: Jack the Sailor 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. |
|
08 Apr 08 - 07:52 PM (#2310665) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: Riginslinger Jack - the organization we're talking about here is the National "Rifle" Association. |
|
08 Apr 08 - 07:55 PM (#2310667) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: Jack the Sailor Sigh... |
|
08 Apr 08 - 07:55 PM (#2310668) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: Bill D 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. |
|
08 Apr 08 - 08:03 PM (#2310676) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: pdq 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. |
|
08 Apr 08 - 08:21 PM (#2310692) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: Bill D 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. |
|
08 Apr 08 - 09:39 PM (#2310739) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: Riginslinger 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. |
|
08 Apr 08 - 11:22 PM (#2310787) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor 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. |
|
08 Apr 08 - 11:25 PM (#2310792) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: Riginslinger The NRA seems to take the extreme edge because their opponents take the extreme edge the other way. |
|
08 Apr 08 - 11:26 PM (#2310793) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor I am not at the extreme edge. I would rather see them fighting for sense and safety. |
|
08 Apr 08 - 11:30 PM (#2310797) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: Riginslinger Then it's perfectly fine with you if everyone runs around with lever action 30-30's, right? |
|
08 Apr 08 - 11:49 PM (#2310805) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor If they are running around in properly designated areas during hunting season, yes. |
|
09 Apr 08 - 02:06 AM (#2310838) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: Slag 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. |
|
09 Apr 08 - 02:07 AM (#2310839) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: Slag BTW Artbrooks, who says those commas were not intended? You? |
|
09 Apr 08 - 03:35 AM (#2310867) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: Stu "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. |
|
09 Apr 08 - 04:24 AM (#2310886) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: Slag 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. |
|
09 Apr 08 - 05:05 AM (#2310907) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: Stu "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. |
|
09 Apr 08 - 08:04 AM (#2310950) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: Riginslinger "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. |
|
09 Apr 08 - 09:10 AM (#2311004) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Get over yourself Rigin. It was you that you equated gun ownership with terrorism on this thread. |
|
09 Apr 08 - 12:07 PM (#2311166) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: Riginslinger "...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. |
|
09 Apr 08 - 12:21 PM (#2311181) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Yes, you were wrong. You apparently do not know what terrorism is. |
|
09 Apr 08 - 12:34 PM (#2311194) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: Midchuck 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. |
|
09 Apr 08 - 12:37 PM (#2311196) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: Stu "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. |
|
09 Apr 08 - 12:41 PM (#2311201) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor >>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? |
|
09 Apr 08 - 06:20 PM (#2311521) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: artbrooks 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. |
|
09 Apr 08 - 06:41 PM (#2311537) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: skipy Guns should only in the hands of the armed forces & the police. That's all I have to say on the subject. Skipy |
|
10 Apr 08 - 01:23 AM (#2311774) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: Slag I understand the "feeling" skipy, but then you would have what is commonly known as a "police state". |
|
10 Apr 08 - 01:26 AM (#2311775) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: Slag Glorious Leader, Chairman Mao, wisely and correctly stated " All political power flows from the end of a rifle barrel." |
|
10 Apr 08 - 03:27 AM (#2311805) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: Stu The pen is mightier than the sword. |
|
10 Apr 08 - 04:15 AM (#2311834) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: Slag 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. |
|
10 Apr 08 - 01:32 PM (#2312183) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: pdq BAN PENS! |
|
10 Apr 08 - 04:34 PM (#2312360) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: kendall 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". |
|
10 Apr 08 - 06:03 PM (#2312449) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: GUEST,Chief chaos 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. |
|
10 Apr 08 - 10:13 PM (#2312605) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: Riginslinger Frankly, I think the DC hangun ban goes too far, though I'll admit I don't see a lot of value in handguns. |
|
10 Apr 08 - 11:05 PM (#2312628) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: GUEST,Chief Chaos 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. |
|
11 Apr 08 - 01:51 AM (#2312672) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: Slag 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. |
|
11 Apr 08 - 04:35 AM (#2312723) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: Stu "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. |
|
11 Apr 08 - 06:57 AM (#2312796) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: Leadfingers 100 - and I dont approve of guns on the street - Except perhaps with Army or SERIOUS Law enforcement . |
|
11 Apr 08 - 07:32 AM (#2312819) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: Midchuck "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. |
|
11 Apr 08 - 09:21 AM (#2312887) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: 3refs 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. |
|
11 Apr 08 - 10:23 AM (#2312939) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: Riginslinger "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. |
|
11 Apr 08 - 10:51 AM (#2312961) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: pdq 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. |
|
11 Apr 08 - 10:58 AM (#2312965) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: Stu "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. |
|
11 Apr 08 - 01:25 PM (#2313109) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor >> 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. |
|
11 Apr 08 - 01:35 PM (#2313122) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: Wesley S 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. |
|
11 Apr 08 - 02:09 PM (#2313139) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: pdq 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. |
|
11 Apr 08 - 02:15 PM (#2313146) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: kendall 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." |
|
11 Apr 08 - 02:17 PM (#2313147) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: Wesley S Yeah - It's just a shame that the 5 year old wasn't packing that night. She could have prevented the whole thing. |
|
11 Apr 08 - 02:28 PM (#2313155) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: 3refs 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!!!! |
|
11 Apr 08 - 03:59 PM (#2313217) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: Riginslinger 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. |
|
11 Apr 08 - 04:40 PM (#2313244) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: kendall Wesley S your reply is silly. I am not 5 years old, and I damn well could head off a killing. |
|
11 Apr 08 - 05:02 PM (#2313269) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: artbrooks 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. |
|
11 Apr 08 - 06:52 PM (#2313336) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: Riginslinger Judging by that, it seems to me like it is not legal. |
|
11 Apr 08 - 06:55 PM (#2313340) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: Riginslinger If I remember right, the customer has a choice of a 4 inch or a 6 inch barrel. |
|
11 Apr 08 - 07:46 PM (#2313368) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: Ebbie "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. |
|
11 Apr 08 - 07:49 PM (#2313369) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: kendall 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! |
|
12 Apr 08 - 01:40 AM (#2313471) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: Slag 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. |
|
12 Apr 08 - 04:45 AM (#2313513) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: Stu "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. |
|
12 Apr 08 - 06:18 AM (#2313552) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: Slag 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. |
|
12 Apr 08 - 07:35 AM (#2313600) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: artbrooks 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. |
|
12 Apr 08 - 08:29 AM (#2313618) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: kendall 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. |
|
12 Apr 08 - 10:44 AM (#2313668) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: Riginslinger "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. |
|
12 Apr 08 - 11:39 AM (#2313708) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: kendall ooo buckshot? how many of those balls would fit into a .41 calibre shell? A 12 gauge shotgun shell holds nine OO buckshot. |
|
12 Apr 08 - 02:12 PM (#2313781) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: Riginslinger 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. |
|
12 Apr 08 - 03:55 PM (#2313842) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: kendall A "Belly gun" at best. |
|
12 Apr 08 - 05:07 PM (#2313888) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: Bill D 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. |
|
12 Apr 08 - 06:06 PM (#2313923) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: Slag 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. |
|
12 Apr 08 - 06:21 PM (#2313929) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: Bill D 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. |
|
12 Apr 08 - 07:57 PM (#2313975) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: Bobert 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~ |
|
12 Apr 08 - 10:38 PM (#2314029) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: Riginslinger "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. |
|
12 Apr 08 - 10:45 PM (#2314031) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: Riginslinger "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. |
|
12 Apr 08 - 11:08 PM (#2314039) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: artbrooks 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. |
|
12 Apr 08 - 11:26 PM (#2314041) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: Bill D "...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 |
|
12 Apr 08 - 11:33 PM (#2314043) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: Bill D 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". |
|
13 Apr 08 - 12:15 PM (#2314304) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: kendall The definition of "Belly gun" is that it has little or no accuracy and must be very close to the target. |
|
13 Apr 08 - 12:17 PM (#2314306) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: GUEST,Chief Chaos 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. |
|
13 Apr 08 - 12:20 PM (#2314309) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: kendall 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. |
|
13 Apr 08 - 07:42 PM (#2314600) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: Bill D "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! |
|
13 Apr 08 - 08:32 PM (#2314654) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: Big Mick 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 |
|
13 Apr 08 - 10:04 PM (#2314721) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: Slag 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. |
|
13 Apr 08 - 11:40 PM (#2314797) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: Bill D 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.) |
|
14 Apr 08 - 12:54 AM (#2314840) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: artbrooks 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. |
|
14 Apr 08 - 01:42 AM (#2314853) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: Big Mick 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 |
|
14 Apr 08 - 03:44 AM (#2314898) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: Stu "Many states, Maine included, have a law that prohibits any felon from owning a gun," Oh Christ. |
|
14 Apr 08 - 11:39 AM (#2315173) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: Bill D 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. |
|
14 Apr 08 - 02:48 PM (#2315405) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor 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. |
|
14 Apr 08 - 04:45 PM (#2315537) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: kendall 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? |
|
14 Apr 08 - 04:47 PM (#2315539) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Keeping people from owning guns is not punishment. |
|
14 Apr 08 - 06:12 PM (#2315616) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: Bill D Punish, Kendall? Is limiting availability of arsenic...or dynamite..punishment? Both do have uses. ...but they aren't nearly as interesting to collect, are they? Yes, I'm being a smart-alec, but guns are craved by people who have little use for them simply because they have such a history and ....ummmm..'panache'. For WAY too many folks, just 'having' a gun makes them feel.....something... important? safe? powerful? It differs, but I have seen it work. It doesn't make everyone who has one feel that way, but kids 'find' them and take them to school, and 'play' with them among friends. Ask yourself...if we could collect *ALL* guns,and start over, just distributing them to qualified and sane people who need them, what might we do different? And how might we approach that ideal from where we are now? |
|
14 Apr 08 - 06:41 PM (#2315641) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: gnu JtS... yes, it is. Bill.... keep them out of the hands of the rich? Or out of the hands of their "hired guns"? Make sure that only "good men" have access to guns? Men that we can trust? That we know will not abuse power? That will be fair and just to all? That will be tolerant of others, no matter their race, creed, colour, religeon? Good luck with that. Ah, history... but, I said that in the past, eh? |
|
14 Apr 08 - 07:36 PM (#2315702) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: Big Mick It is worse than punishment. And it is not about it being a privilege. It is the taking away of an existing right. I currently have the "right" to keep and bear arms. It is enforced in various ways by various States (and I hope the current DC case will resolve that mess). But it is in fact a right. And as I have said many times. In order to repeal a right, you must have a reason. That reason cannot, nor should it be, that someone might do something horrific. If they do, that is a crime and they should pay the price. But the hallmark of a free society, is that certain rights are considered automatic and repeal requires a very difficult standard be reached. This is one of our oldest rights. None of the reasons anti's give will resolve the problems they seek to resolve, and will simply result in the overwhelming majority of responsible gun owners not having their weapons. In fact the evidence is pretty good that it would result in more violent crime, deaths, and injury. I repeat another fact. Fertilizer, kerosene, and a few other items were used by a decorated veteran to kill an awful lot of folks, including a bunch of babies in a daycare center, in the worst act of domestic terrorism in USA history. There have been a number of other acts or attempted acts that tried using the same stuff. Terrorist networks teach how to use these items. I have yet to hear the cry for banning or limiting access to these items. Mick |
|
14 Apr 08 - 08:56 PM (#2315754) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: GUEST,Chief Chaos Big Mick, I agree and support that individual citizens have the right to keep and bear arms even though I believe that the original intent was to provide for a state militia. If you ever head to Williamsburg you'll find that the fire arms were all kept in a central armory under guard (except for those kept at the governor's residence). Although the bombing of the Murrow bldg was indeed done with the materials you cited (I am being deliberately vague about this, no need to give any lurking malcontents any more information than they already have), trying to ban or limit these materials would be ludicrous. For one you'd have to ban anything that might be used to ignite/set off one of the materials. This includes just about every type of flammable liquid there is. For another the material in question can go bang all by itself. There is no way to really ban the material as it is a main ingredient in a multitude of other materials. I will be direct about this though...if you attempt to buy this material in a bulk amount without a good reason you will be under scrutiny - you just won't know it. I don't believe that the founding fathers ever envisioned the types of fire arms that we have available today. In their time a fire arm was usually a one shot affair, hardly accurate without a good deal of training or experience even when the enemy was standing in front of you in a straight line! The odds of a shot going off were constrained by humidity and other factors affecting the powder(which also produced a considerable amount of smoke)and sometimes just plain luck. There were multibarreled weapons of course but I don't think that even the most barrelled weapon of the time was over four barrels (due to weight)and still had to be loaded in singular fashion. Compare that to today with highly accurate weapons with multiple magazines which may contain up to 40 (so-called "banana clips" - don't get excited Chongo!)(and yes, these large capacity magazines are currently illegal) bullets of various types (bailiff wadcutters, hollow points, armor piercing, steel jacketed, lead ball, copper tipped)propelled at higher velocities by very much improved smokeless powder. This is what makes me pause when someone brings up the "intent" of the founding fathers. I don't have a problem with someone wanting to carry, with appropriate license, training, and care, a handgun for self defense or to defend their home and property. If you need a so-called "assault rifle" to defend yourself, home and property you are probably involved in an illegal affair to begin with. My problem with the NRA is that they "appear" to me to want to do away with any regulation of the fire arms industry including allowing armor piercing ammunition, high capacity magazines, fingerprint resistant grips, concealed weapons (whether folding stock, sawed-off, or built to look like something they are not like cell phones) and ownership without license, permit or control of any kind (excepting criminals and the insane which as I've stated before often aren't until after the weapon has been brandished or fired). |
|
14 Apr 08 - 11:38 PM (#2315835) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: Slag C of C, the musket and ball was the "state of the art" military weapon of its day. And whether you believe it or not there were a number of repeating arms (read "semi-automatic") in common use in Europe as well as America. They were as multifunctional as today's military (type?) arms are. With very few exceptions (and those exceptions are quite controlled) all the full auto stuff, bombs, rockets, grenades, Hell-fire missiles and such are under the tight control of the national military groups, National Guards and State Militias. "Assault" rifle has never been clearly defined. Most of what goes as a definition is nothing more than the cosmetic appearance of the weapon; things like whether the hand grip extends a given distance below the stock or if it has a bi-pod lug or a bayonet lug. I have never heard of a crime being committed with a fixed bayonet, have you? That would be a purely military application and would make no sense whatever for holding up the local 7-11 store. "Assault" for the most part is for the benefit of the ignorant who are afraid of the unknown (arms) in the first place. It's a "scare" word, a buzz word to signal the faithful that what ever it is linked to is surely EVIL, you know, kinda like the reaction you hope to elicit when you mention the NRA?! How about those evil "fingerprint resistant" grips? You know, what is commonly known as "checked" grips which have been around about as long of firearms? Even longer as they were on swords and daggers, not to mention hammers and screwdrivers and all sorts of hand tools long before the day of firearms. And why are the really there? To disguise or hide the fingerprint identity of the user? NO! They are there to afford the user a better GRIP! Be real. Some thugee who is going to be conscious of his fingerprints on his weapon of choice, be it a knife, a gun or a screwdriver (I was once robbed by a screwdriver-wielding punk when I was in the Air Force) they will wipe off their prints. One is more likely to find a tell tale print on a cartridge casing or barrel than the grip. A diamond checked grip is more likely to provide you with a DNA sample. The things criminals do are CRIMINAL. They modify guns for concealment. They make silencers. They are CRIMINALS. It's what they do. The NRA is NOT a criminal organization. If they were, they would have been put out of business long ago. They do NOT advocate ANY criminal activity. If they had, they would have been put out of business a long time ago. Nor do they endorse any criminal group or endeavor of any kind. The NRA was created following the US Civil War because so many Union soldiers were simply awful marksmen. The Southern boys, though comparatively fewer in number were far better marksmen and they made every shot count and came near to winning the war do to that fact alone. The goal of the NRA was to train civilians in marksmanship and also in the hunter's ways. It has always had the best interests of the nation at heart and has always stood as a proud supporter of the Bill of Rights and in particular the Second Amendment. If you every study the Bill of Rights you will find that there was a debate as to whether to have what is now the Second Amendment the First. The two are so closely interdependent that they both vie for first consideration. This is also seen in the Great Seal as the Eagle carries both the olive branch and arrows but looks first to the olive branch. I find that people who want to vilify and portray the NRA as something evil are either ignorant of who and what the NRA is or does or they actually want to change the political character of this nation and make it some it is not: something less than what it is, in my opinion. It isn't really the NRA they are opposed to but what they represent, namely the freedoms which are enumerated in the Bill of Rights. |
|
15 Apr 08 - 03:23 AM (#2315897) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: Stu ""Many states, Maine included, have a law that prohibits any felon from owning a gun," "Stigweard, what's wrong with keeping guns out of the hands of criminals?" Please tell me you can see the irony in those statements. |
|
15 Apr 08 - 10:14 AM (#2316185) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: Riginslinger Yeah, there was a gun in the hands of Dick Cheney a while back, and... |
|
15 Apr 08 - 01:37 PM (#2316399) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: Jack the Sailor >>Yeah, there was a gun in the hands of Dick Cheney a while back<< He was offered the NRA gun safety class, but he had other priorities. ;-D |
|
15 Apr 08 - 02:45 PM (#2316473) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor McCain at the NRA. Note that there is a cockroach on the plaque behind him. My question, why didn't anybody shoot it? |
|
15 Apr 08 - 07:11 PM (#2316779) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: Bill D Well, Mick...I know you will not see these points....but I'd like for them to at least appear as one dissenting opinion in the thread. "In order to repeal a right, you must have a reason." Indeed... "That reason cannot, nor should it be, that someone might do something horrific." No? Would that not depend on context? Let rephrase it a bit. "...that something horrific might result." Farmers used to have the 'right' to possess & use DDT to control pests, and we got great benefit for awhile...but then some horrific things happened, and DDT was banned. (No...the metaphor does not extend so far as to indicate 'banning' of guns) "If they do, that is a crime and they should pay the price." Yes, and making & distributing DDT is most likely a crime...but there are pretty weak laws pretending to control making & distributing firearms. "But the hallmark of a free society, is that certain rights are considered automatic and repeal requires a very difficult standard be reached. This is one of our oldest rights." And, of course, this is the crux of the matter, and an item of VERY wide disagreement. In THIS country, gun ownership is 'considered' a right...due to the vague phrase in the 2nd amendment. In England and other countries, it is NOT considered a 'right'. I can't think of anything about firearms that should automatically put them in the same category as "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Of COURSE if a privilege has long standing and gets to be perceived as a right, then yes, "repeal requires a very difficult standard be reached." Do you not see that this is exactly the fundamental thing being debated? I, and others, believe that history and technology have changed the situation so that "difficult standards" have been reached, and that that vague phrase in the 2nd amendment needs to be clarified and rewritten in order to allow restructuring of the firearms laws in this country. Once again...*I* am not advocating anything like 'banning' of guns, nor do I think it is possible, but right now, nothing is working, and *I* think that minuscule 1.2%...which translates to 20,000-30,000 lives, is more than too much. I am STILL waiting for any ideas on how to reduce the pain, and still preserve some of the 'privileges'. |
|
15 Apr 08 - 07:20 PM (#2316786) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: pdq "and making & distributing DDT is most likely a crime..." And you can support that statement, BillD, or are you just filling in the missing piece of the puzzle with your own prejudices and suppositions, as usual? |
|
15 Apr 08 - 07:34 PM (#2316798) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: pdq Yep, DDT: is a big bad meanie |
|
15 Apr 08 - 08:18 PM (#2316827) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: gnu Can you depend on the police to protect you? In the 1930's, people thought they could. What is different? |
|
15 Apr 08 - 09:04 PM (#2316849) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: pdq More on the "twin boogeymen", guns and DDT: Is There Something Better? "The history of the 'Roll-Back Malaria' program, sponsored by the World Bank, the World Health Organization, and United Nations agencies, is proof that right now, there is nothing better than DDT for controlling malaria mosquitoes. (For the moment, we will leave aside the question of drug treatment for people with malaria, and the need for public health infrastructure.) These organizations and other donor groups came up with the idea of stopping malaria by promoting the distribution of bed nets impregnated with insecticides. No insect control measures, no swamp draining, no infrastructure improvement, no personnel training or increase in public health facilities, just bed nets.The goal of Roll-Back Malaria in 1998 was to halve the deaths from malaria by the year 2010. As the increase in malaria throughout Africa testifies, this program has been an abysmal failure." read it if you dare |
|
15 Apr 08 - 09:55 PM (#2316872) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: Bill D Yes, I am quite aware that the use of DDT has been re-started in some nations. To my knowlege, it is still banned in the USA. I do know that this use WILL have sad effects on various aspects of the environment while it is killing some mosquitoes. I am not qualified to comment on better ways to prevent malaria, and have not read much either way. I used the comparison because, off the top of my head, DDT was another example of something which has some good uses, but many problems. |
|
15 Apr 08 - 11:26 PM (#2316924) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: Big Mick Bill, you continue with predicates that just aren't so, buddy. First, let me quote the Constitution of the United States: 'Nuff said as to whether it is a right or privilege. Farmers never had the right to use DDT. That simply fell under the area of law that acknowledges that people have the ability to do things that are not specifically forbidden. The use of pesticides is open to regulation, including banning its use. Furthermore, DDT is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, hence it has no special status. The "right to keep and bear arms" is specifically mentioned. So much for that analogy. Bill D said, "I can't think of anything about firearms that should automatically put them in the same category as "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". " To many that is exactly what firearms are about. Life and liberty, and the ability to live a life of happiness, exactly are dependent on the ability to protect their families from danger. Some feel it is the government that has the potential, others just want to not be unarmed against thugs, crooks, and those that would steal or threaten their families. The pursuit of happiness for many, such as my family, is found in the generations old enjoyment of the shooting arts for hunting and pleasure. The essential point is that it really doesn't matter which of these is why I exercise my right, it is simply a right I have. And nothing you have said answers the central point I have made so many times. I will try it another way. By taking away the weapons from folks that are not violationg the law, are not responsible for any significant amount of the problems you see, what is you hope to accomplish? The numbers indicate that law abiding citizens are not the source of the problem. And law breakers will just ignore what is proposed. So what is it you will accomplish in whatever it is you would like to see happen? As to your comment on what 1.2% translates to, I am disappointed. You know full well that I am not attempting to mitigate the loss of life. I was simply showing you that the tactic of trying to use a number because is perceived in a way that is beneficial to you is disengenuous. I merely used the more accurate way of measuring a problem, which is a pure percentage. In order to justify taking an action, especially something with the potential implications of changing the Bill of Rights, you must be able to demonstrate an overwhelming case for changing it. Another way to look at this is simply to use the abstract of this. Should we change the Constitutional right for an item that is not a factor in over 98% of the deaths in this country? You opened that post with this, "Well, Mick...I know you will not see these points...." . Once again, my friend (sincerely said), you just don't understand me. I am known as a pretty good debator. That is because I challenge myself much harder on subjects I feel strongly about than anyone else ever could. As a left wing guy on most issues, and yet a hunter and gun rights person, I have worked this in my mind in so many ways. Ultimately where I come down isn't on the side of some "I've always had guns and I just don't want to give them up" type of place. I come down here because I don't see significant controls solving any of the problems that people are angry about. These controls being proposed will not control violent crime. They will not stop drive bys. They will have little or no measurable effect on the suicide rate. And they give the criminals a free pass. BTW, I found your reference to England and her laws humorous. The primary reason for the Second Amendment was because of the English rulers. But that is simply an aside to all this. All the best, Mick |
|
16 Apr 08 - 01:44 AM (#2316975) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: Slag The thing that always puzzles me in debates such as this and for the typical arguments such as Bill D has voiced is, why are the "anti-s" so against the law abiding citizen? It always seems to be the focus of he debate. They never decry the criminal or the terrorist. Those folks who are intent upon harming others doesn't seem to phase them at all. They are excited about someone who would never harm anyone intentionally, with out just cause, owning a weapon. Why is that? Are they really saying something about themselves? That they don't trust themselves in possession of such power? I know some people who are not suited by nature or by upbringing for the degree of freedom which is afforded to US citizens. The daughter of Joseph Stalin couldn't hack it here. Some folks feel the real need for others around them to keep them from??? they know not what. Is that what is going on? And by extension, or projection they cannot conceive of other ordinary folk not needing such structure or support to keep them in line? It's a real mystery to me. Big Mick and pdq covered quite nicely the fallacy of the comparison of DDT usages with the RIGHT to be armed. I would only note for information that the main objection to DDT in North America is its entry into the wildlife, particularly in the thinning of the eggshells of preditory birds and their potential extinction. Rightly so, it was banned. Here it was (at least in the end) a question of economics. In Africa it is a question of the life or death of human beings. |
|
16 Apr 08 - 07:52 AM (#2317118) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: kendall DDT was banned in the USA because of the harm it did to wildlife. So, what did we do? we export it to other countries. I will not buy grapes from Chile. If you want to get real picky about the 2nd amendment, consider this; in those days, the militia was made up of men not over 45 years old. So, shouldn't that mean that if you are over 45 you have no need to own a gun? ...from my stiff, arthritic senile hands... |
|
16 Apr 08 - 09:36 AM (#2317226) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: Stu "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." This statement, and the way it is interpreted and applied here is living proof a written constitution can become an albatross around the neck of any country attempting to become civilised. |
|
16 Apr 08 - 10:11 AM (#2317257) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: artbrooks And it has always had at least two, diametrically opposite, interpretations. More here. |
|
16 Apr 08 - 10:27 AM (#2317275) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: Big Mick I suspect the DC case will be the first step in the resolution .... one way or the other. All the best, Mick |
|
16 Apr 08 - 11:13 AM (#2317309) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: Bill D I agree, stigweard, but as you see, many of those who were raised with firearms choose to see that albatross as something else...a good luck symbol? A potential meal in hard times? I don't know. But it hangs about our necks and occasionally gets in the way, no matter what it is labeled. ------------------------------------------------------------------- I do see the points Big Mick makes about honest recreational use of guns, and to a lesser extent, about 'protection' of home & family. But I am unable to translate those values into 'needs'. Many studies have been done about whether owning guns really are a deterrent to crime or good protection for the family. Statistics can be cited for both sides. I see as many cases where things went wrong as where someone was 'saved' by having a gun. --------------------------------------------------------------- Mick...as a good debator, you obviously see the mechanism of semantically linking clear & obvious 'facts' that are not in dispute with various points that YOU wish to defend or assert in your thesis. No one is arguing whether the Constitution says "right", or that some of it was directly inspired by the attitude of English kings, or that some uses of firearms have been beneficial......and *I* specifically am *not* suggesting any wholesale"...taking away the weapons from folks that are not violationg the law, (and who)are not responsible for any significant amount of the problems you see."...such as yourself. I AM saying, once again, that the **USE** of 'right' in the 2nd amendment to refer to "bearing arms" is a different sense than that of the right to 'freedom', and that it OUGHT to be understood as a 'privilege'. (Of COURSE, you would not like this interpretation to be widely adopted....I quite understand.) Now...if I am going to make such a claim, I ought to back it with something more than a 'feeling'....right? Ok...when the Bill of Rights was written, everyone knew what a 'militia' was, and that in times of crisis, men might be called on to defend their state or country against something like....well, England deciding to re-take the 'colonies. If they WERE called, they would have been expected to bring with them the weapon(s) they commonly used for hunting and self-protection against various dangers. You know...better than I....what these weapons consisted of. This continued up about time of the Civil War, during which many changes in firearms were occurring. Fast forward a couple hundred years....if the country is threatened or needs to go to the aid of allies, the 'militia'...now known as the Armed Forces, was NOT expected to bring their own weapons. In fact, I doubt they were allowed to...for various reasons. (standardization...etc..) Also, by this time, the country, most states & even down to many small towns had codified and instituted a trained and paid set of officials and/or soldiers so that it was not necessary to issue general calls to the citizens when help was needed! In special times, a draft was put in place, and the resultant 'militia' was ISSUED arms BY the government....for very good reasons. Now, you toss in in passing...".... Some feel it is the government that has the potential, " to be the danger. And yes, there are illegal 'militias' who argue that scenario, and cache weapons 'just in case'. I hope you don't kid yourself about their efficacy or logic! They certainly have no 'right' to do many of the things they do....even by 2nd amendment standards! You ask .." So what is it you will accomplish in whatever it is you would like to see happen?" Obviously, I wish for SOME change in the way we design laws and the way they are enforced...specifically, in what KINDS of firearms are allowed and how permits are issued for them, in order to begin reducing that 1.2%...which I stubbornly see as many thousands of deaths and many, many thousands of injuries and crimes committed with guns. I also still wish, from the honest, careful gun owners like you and Kendall, some better ideas and leadership in rational overhauling of the current system. Frankly, I am weary of righteous assertions that "..violators of the laws should be punished!" and " we DO have laws against automatic weapons." as if that is ALL that is needed. It seems to come down to - You believe that all those deaths & injuries are regrettable, but part of the price we pay for clinging to a 'right' that even legal scholars differ about, while I believe that BECAUSE the world is very different now, those death & injury statistics are way too high. Being #1 in the world..even in the "more accurate way of measuring a problem" of using percentages, is not what I aspire to! No doubt you would phrase that last paragraph differently, my friend, but if any of this ever gets to the Supreme Court or a revised 2nd amendment, you will hear experts use language similar to mine...at far greater length. |
|
16 Apr 08 - 11:52 AM (#2317346) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: Bill D Yes...it will be very interesting to see how the DC case plays out. I rather expect to us move backward, considering the current makeup of the court. |
|
04 Jun 08 - 10:11 AM (#2357171) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: gnu Here ya go, Bill D. Fact is, they know they can do it with the gun laws we have. Less than 20 years ago, this was a RARE occurance. Not any more. |
|
04 Jun 08 - 11:50 AM (#2357273) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: Bill D Uh-huh...and for gun safety, they recommend locking firearms, unloaded, in a cabinet. Do you suggest that old man (one year older than ME!) should have carried a pistol strapped to his waist? I can't imagine how anyone could prepare for such an assult except by being on continuous alert with loaded guns at the ready. Explain to me what I'm missing. |
|
04 Jun 08 - 12:51 PM (#2357318) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: gnu Something VERY simple. I said, "Fact is, they know they can do it with the gun laws we have." Our laws include locking up the guns and also locking up, separately, the ammo. Where is the deterrent against home invasion? How many elderly, or others, can afford one of those monitored emergency response alerts? What about those that live an hour drive from the police? Etc, etc.... |
|
04 Jun 08 - 02:22 PM (#2357404) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: Jim Dixon I think I was once a member of the NRA. Technically, I might have been a "junior member," if there was such a thing. It happened when I was in high school, sometime in 1961-65. My school had a target-shooting rifle team that competed against other schools. A change in rules was announced so that members of the team could earn an athletic "letter." I was a very non-athletic, nerdy kid who knew I had no chance to earn an athletic letter any other way, so I thought I'd try target shooting. (If they had offered a chance to win a letter by playing chess, I would have preferred that.) It was harder than I thought. They used special target-shooting rifles that are heavier than ordinary rifles. They make them heavy on purpose because, theoretically, the extra inertia slows down the "wobble" that naturally happens when you're taking aim. That's assuming you have the muscles to support the weight. If you're rather weak, like I was, I think the extra weight made you wobble more, not less. The champion shooters also lifted weights. After a year or so, I figured I'd never excel at target shooting, so I lost interest and quit. I did earn a couple of badges first. I can't remember what rank I achieved, but I remember the badges said "National Rifle Association" on them. That was the extent of my involvement. If the NRA had a political agenda in those days, I wasn't aware of it. Today, I don't own a firearm, and have no desire to. If the NRA were to stick to promoting firearm safety, and promoting harmless sports like target shooting, I would have no objection to them. But since they don't, I think they're more evil than good. |
|
04 Jun 08 - 02:48 PM (#2357419) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: gnu Well... there are lots of "bad" things about the NRA, but I think there are some good things. Specifically, the legal and safe ownership of guns for self-defense. How far you take that is a grey area, but I believe that every person should have the right to defend themselves and their property, PERIOD! On that note, I shall leave, as I have nothing more to say that I haven't said in a number of threads already. Unless someone comes up with some way to change my mind. |
|
04 Jun 08 - 05:44 PM (#2357574) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: Slag Individual responsibility is the responsibility of, Hmmmm?...! the INDIVIDUAL! We all have an individual responsibility to use our rights and privileges, well, responsibly. I know I have just given you a double tautological argument but it seems the we (I) am explaining simple truths to, ... well, if you aren't getting it, I'm just sorry for you. The Constitution is not the cause of people who break the law. The First Amendment isn't the cause of liars, haters or traitors. How is the NRA "evil" if it promotes a right already enunciated by the Constitution? Unless the Constitution is evil? Is that the thrust of your argument? Then I suggest you change the Constitution...by Constitutional means which is to say by the will of the established, proper majority of the PEOPLE of the USA, not by a handful of judges who exceed their bounds by legislating from the bench. So far I have not heard one factual statement as to how the NRA is evil or one of the "lots of 'bad' things. Just a load of emotional opinion and anecdotal stories about how some INDIVIDUALS have abused their rights. |
|
04 Jun 08 - 06:18 PM (#2357623) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: NRA good or Evil? From: Riginslinger Good! |