a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
The NRA, according to Richard G, is not pro gun enough. What do you think?
(This is a JK Copyright Poll).
(This is a JK Copyright Poll).
How Pro Gun is the NRA?
- Thread starter a_unique_person
- Start date
-
- Tags
- nra
corplinx
JREF Kid
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 8,952
I don't think are pro-gun per se. More like pro-second amendment (and not the hijacked aclu interpretation). I see them loosening to support mandatary gun safety education for the purpose of buying a firearm.
To me, this is in the spirit of the second amendment since:
you are no good to a state militia if you dont know how to use a gun properly.
To me, this is in the spirit of the second amendment since:
you are no good to a state militia if you dont know how to use a gun properly.
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
corplinx said:
So you don't believe the 'National Rifle Association' is not pro gun?
Crossbow
Seeking Honesty and Sanity
a_unique_person said:
If there are actually people who do not think that the NRA is pro-gun,
Then I would say that they are very ignorant of the NRA!
Let me just run a few NRA themes off from memory:
1) They opposed restrictions on bullets that are designed to penetrate bullet-proof vests,
2) They oppose any new restrictions on firearm sales,
3) They eagerly report on any elected officials that support any legislation that they view as 'anti-gun',
4) They gleefully report any use of firearms to stop, deter, or otherwise check any illegal action,
5) They publish various studies on the use, maintenance, and manufacture of firearms and ammunition,
and so on.
If anyone questions what the NRA stands for, then I suggest that person look at a few issues of the NRA publication, 'American Rifleman'.
I hope this helps!
a_unique_person said:
Assuming "pro-gun" is a euphemism for "pro-second amendment," then the aswer is "not enough." They are in favor of enforcing the existing tens of thousands of gun laws in the US, which haven't kept guns out of the hands of criminals but have prevented law-abiding citizens from having a means of defending themselves.
corplinx
JREF Kid
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 8,952
Re: Re: How Pro Gun is the NRA?
Personally, I wonder if a felon who opts to serve _all_ of his jail time should be allowed to purchase firearms. If you do the time then supposedly your debt to society is paid.
What is the libertarian position on that?
shanek said:
Personally, I wonder if a felon who opts to serve _all_ of his jail time should be allowed to purchase firearms. If you do the time then supposedly your debt to society is paid.
What is the libertarian position on that?
Supercharts
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2002
- Messages
- 1,182
A_U_P must be bored. He's stooped down to the level of a professional provocateur.
His obsession with anything American must somehow pay the bills. How else could he make a living?
His obsession with anything American must somehow pay the bills. How else could he make a living?
John Harrison
Thinker
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 136
Re: Re: How Pro Gun is the NRA?
False: They fought a proposed law based on incorrect information that would have banned all rifle ammunition. They helped write the law that was eventually passed that banned armor piercing ammunition. Link Notice that the original ammunition was not designed to penetrate vests, and that no police officer has been killed by one of these bullets penetrating his vest.
The NRA also backed the 1934 National Firearms Act, and a couple others that I can't remember off the top of my head.
Probably, but it depends on which restrictions you speak of. They generally fight any proposed law that would have no effect on crime but would affect law abiding citizens. "New restrictions" does not automatically mean they are good laws.
Yes. See above. The rest of Crossbow's post is correct as well. I just wanted to clear up the beginning of his post. Carry on.
Crossbow said:
False: They fought a proposed law based on incorrect information that would have banned all rifle ammunition. They helped write the law that was eventually passed that banned armor piercing ammunition. Link Notice that the original ammunition was not designed to penetrate vests, and that no police officer has been killed by one of these bullets penetrating his vest.
The NRA also backed the 1934 National Firearms Act, and a couple others that I can't remember off the top of my head.
Probably, but it depends on which restrictions you speak of. They generally fight any proposed law that would have no effect on crime but would affect law abiding citizens. "New restrictions" does not automatically mean they are good laws.
Yes. See above. The rest of Crossbow's post is correct as well. I just wanted to clear up the beginning of his post. Carry on.
Wolverine
Centered and One
Thank you, John, you beat me to it, re: "cop-killer" bullets.
corplinx
JREF Kid
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 8,952
About a month ago, a man fired through his front door (cops were on the other side). The bullet hit a cop in his armpit (which wasnt kevlar covered) went to his heart and he subsequently died.
That was a cop killing bullet. Mind you, it was from a common 357 magnum handgun and not many of the "armor piercing" rounds available.
The problem with the "cop killer" bullets is that they arent good manstoppers.
The way bullets work in a typical gunfight is that you put enough large holes in someone until their blood pressure drops and the subsequently pass out. Very feew gunfights work out the way my example did. This is why police departments don't use 22 pistols. The hole it makes is very small. Many departments prefer larger calibers like .45 that when expanded make a hole almost an inch in diameter. Just a few bullets like this can drop someone without killing them.
"Cop Killer" bullets are small bullets that aren't made to expand. Not only that, after tearing through the kevlar they wont do as much tissue damage.
In other words, "cop killer" bullets are a myth.
Lets call them "homeland defense bullets" and try to put a different spin on them.
That was a cop killing bullet. Mind you, it was from a common 357 magnum handgun and not many of the "armor piercing" rounds available.
The problem with the "cop killer" bullets is that they arent good manstoppers.
The way bullets work in a typical gunfight is that you put enough large holes in someone until their blood pressure drops and the subsequently pass out. Very feew gunfights work out the way my example did. This is why police departments don't use 22 pistols. The hole it makes is very small. Many departments prefer larger calibers like .45 that when expanded make a hole almost an inch in diameter. Just a few bullets like this can drop someone without killing them.
"Cop Killer" bullets are small bullets that aren't made to expand. Not only that, after tearing through the kevlar they wont do as much tissue damage.
In other words, "cop killer" bullets are a myth.
Lets call them "homeland defense bullets" and try to put a different spin on them.
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
I was raised in a gun family and have shot and will continue to shoot.
I understand history and what the second amendment says, I know that people feel that registering guns is the first step to seizing guns.
However: what is wrong with the registration of firearms? Why should anyone be allowed to own one? It seems that right now the laws allow the 'bad guys' to buy guns and sell them to whoever they want. There is no tracking so everytime an illegal firearm is used we don't know where the chain started.
I read that there are thousands of lifes saved by gun ownership, how is this statistic gathered?
I believe very strongly in the bill of rights and would never want to see gun ownership banned or reduced, I would just like criminals to stop selling guns to anyone who wants one.
Again I support gun ownership and don't not want to get in some flame war.
I guess I am a leftist fairy too, I think that the NRA is pro gun.
I also think that the first amendment protects the NRA's right to say what it says and do what it does.
Peace
dancing david
I understand history and what the second amendment says, I know that people feel that registering guns is the first step to seizing guns.
However: what is wrong with the registration of firearms? Why should anyone be allowed to own one? It seems that right now the laws allow the 'bad guys' to buy guns and sell them to whoever they want. There is no tracking so everytime an illegal firearm is used we don't know where the chain started.
I read that there are thousands of lifes saved by gun ownership, how is this statistic gathered?
I believe very strongly in the bill of rights and would never want to see gun ownership banned or reduced, I would just like criminals to stop selling guns to anyone who wants one.
Again I support gun ownership and don't not want to get in some flame war.
I guess I am a leftist fairy too, I think that the NRA is pro gun.
I also think that the first amendment protects the NRA's right to say what it says and do what it does.
Peace
dancing david
corplinx
JREF Kid
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 8,952
Originally posted by Dancing David
I was raised in a gun family and have shot and will continue to shoot.
I grew up walking armed in the rural woods to fend off feral dogs.
However: what is wrong with the registration of firearms?
Its none of your or the governments business if I own one?
Why should anyone be allowed to own one?
Under current law, there are many classes of people who can't buy them. Felons, stalkers, and other classes.
It seems that right now the laws allow the 'bad guys' to buy guns and sell them to whoever they want.
That would be called the "black market". Its actually illegal. Cracking down on the black market sources would do better than gun registration.
There is no tracking so everytime an illegal firearm is used we don't know where the chain started.
An unregistered firearm (black market) cannot be tracked in this way. Or take a registered firearm, remove the serial number. of course, this all assumes you find the gun used to commit a crime in the first place.
I read that there are thousands of lifes saved by gun ownership, how is this statistic gathered?
No idea. Don't care. Lies, damn lies, statistics. Knowhutimean?
I believe very strongly in the bill of rights and would never want to see gun ownership banned or reduced, I would just like criminals to stop selling guns to anyone who wants one.
Even the UK still has problems with this, a few million black market guns. My guess is a total gun ban will work about as well as making drugs illegal. People will still be able to obtain them and the ones in jail will be hailed as political prisoners.
I guess I am a leftist fairy too
Probably so, just start watching pro-wrestling every Monday and Thursday night until your cured.
I was raised in a gun family and have shot and will continue to shoot.
I grew up walking armed in the rural woods to fend off feral dogs.
However: what is wrong with the registration of firearms?
Its none of your or the governments business if I own one?
Why should anyone be allowed to own one?
Under current law, there are many classes of people who can't buy them. Felons, stalkers, and other classes.
It seems that right now the laws allow the 'bad guys' to buy guns and sell them to whoever they want.
That would be called the "black market". Its actually illegal. Cracking down on the black market sources would do better than gun registration.
There is no tracking so everytime an illegal firearm is used we don't know where the chain started.
An unregistered firearm (black market) cannot be tracked in this way. Or take a registered firearm, remove the serial number. of course, this all assumes you find the gun used to commit a crime in the first place.
I read that there are thousands of lifes saved by gun ownership, how is this statistic gathered?
No idea. Don't care. Lies, damn lies, statistics. Knowhutimean?
I believe very strongly in the bill of rights and would never want to see gun ownership banned or reduced, I would just like criminals to stop selling guns to anyone who wants one.
Even the UK still has problems with this, a few million black market guns. My guess is a total gun ban will work about as well as making drugs illegal. People will still be able to obtain them and the ones in jail will be hailed as political prisoners.
I guess I am a leftist fairy too
Probably so, just start watching pro-wrestling every Monday and Thursday night until your cured.
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
Supercharts said:
No, it was just exactly as I said. The idea that people think the NRA is not pro-gun enough was a novel one for me. I can't think of any organisation that appears more pro-gun to me. (Unless you include the lunatic fringe, but they are a minority, the NRA appears to be pretty popular to me.) I was just interested what the views on this idea were.
corplinx
JREF Kid
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 8,952
a_unique_person said:
There are "pro gun" groups at the state level. Some of them may be more "pro gun" than the NRA. But as far as national goes, I am not sure there is a group between the NRA (mainstream) and Birchers (fringe groups) as far as being pro-gun goes.
Re: Re: Re: How Pro Gun is the NRA?
Once you've served your time, your debt is paid and you should have all rights restored. If that's a problem in particular cases, then make that part of the sentencing: 2 years in jail, followed by 3 years probation, followed by 3 years unable to own/carry a firearm. But to take away one of your rights; it would have to be a part of the sentencing.
corplinx said:
Once you've served your time, your debt is paid and you should have all rights restored. If that's a problem in particular cases, then make that part of the sentencing: 2 years in jail, followed by 3 years probation, followed by 3 years unable to own/carry a firearm. But to take away one of your rights; it would have to be a part of the sentencing.
Wolverine
Centered and One
corplinx said:
I'd say Gun Owners of America fits in the middle, although some may consider them "fringe."
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
The NRA specifically wants to limit new legislation that infringes on personal rights, and instead concentrate on properly enforcing our current set of laws. In this, I think nearly everyone could agree, they are correct. The laws already in place, if enforced, are enough to stop gun crime. Of course, murder is illegal anyway, but that doesn't stop everyone, now does it?
On another note, the realistic number for gun-related foiled crimes seems to ride at about 100,000. Look around a bit, and you'll find a compilation of 13 different studies by a very diverse group (not a bunch of paid propaganda) and see the number hover around 200,000. Just for fun, I cut it in half.
H.
On another note, the realistic number for gun-related foiled crimes seems to ride at about 100,000. Look around a bit, and you'll find a compilation of 13 different studies by a very diverse group (not a bunch of paid propaganda) and see the number hover around 200,000. Just for fun, I cut it in half.
H.