Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

El Mariachi

How would you folks remodel the NRA?....

Recommended Posts

Truth be told, I still haven't joined up with them....nor have really researched their history. But I'm getting the feeling that they're in dire need of a make-over.

 

What would you Guys & Gals like to see in a new NRA? Or failing that, a new, up-2-date, more modern organization for firearm owners, aficionados and 2A fans?......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

Make it mandatory for every gun owner. Beyond that nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Truth be told, I still haven't joined up with them....nor have really researched their history. But I'm getting the feeling that they're in dire need of a make-over.

 

What would you Guys & Gals like to see in a new NRA? Or failing that, a new, up-2-date, more modern organization for firearm owners, aficionados and 2A fans?......

 

Well, since the conversation has changed from just hunting rifles.... they could start by changing their name to something more applicable to modern times. Like this: The Organization for Rifles, Guns, Assault Shotguns and Magazines.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Or ORGASM for short........ :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Make it mandatory for every gun owner. Beyond that nothing.

Talk about irony. You can't own a gun unless you are a member of the NRA. Hmmm. Not sure that will fly very well with the folks who think that doctors asking about guns in the home with infants is a threat to second amendment rights. I have no doubt that the NRA could rationalize it, though, and I suspect that quite a few folks would go right along with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem I have with the NRA is that there are aspects of its advocacy which make it appear to be much more like an industry trade group rather than a group protecting the rights of individuals. There is a good bit of overlap between the two, but not always.

 

For instance, the recent brouhaha over the UN Small Arms Treaty. I can find nothing substantive that supports the notion that it will in any way impede the freedoms of US citizens. and yet the NRA is mobilizing its members in opposition. One might go so far as to make the leap that folks concerned with their individual rights are being used to support the cause of manufacturers. Perhaps an organization concerned only with the rights of individuals would pick a different battle.

 

So, in essence, a large organization dedicated exclusively to "firearm owners, aficionados and 2A fans" would be good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Make it mandatory for every gun owner. Beyond that nothing.

Talk about irony. You can't own a gun unless you are a member of the NRA. Hmmm. Not sure that will fly very well with the folks who think that doctors asking about guns in the home with infants is a threat to second amendment rights. I have no doubt that the NRA could rationalize it, though, and I suspect that quite a few folks would go right along with it.

These big government Statist types will stop at nothing to control every aspect of your life and limit your rights.

 

Can't buy the good vodka unless you're an upper level Party member. Can't own a gun unless you join the NRA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


 

 

Make it mandatory for every gun owner. Beyond that nothing.

Talk about irony. You can't own a gun unless you are a member of the NRA. Hmmm. Not sure that will fly very well with the folks who think that doctors asking about guns in the home with infants is a threat to second amendment rights. I have no doubt that the NRA could rationalize it, though, and I suspect that quite a few folks would go right along with it.

they are nothing if not ironical....

haha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

That's the best you guys have? Sheesh..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the best you guys have? Sheesh..

Think about what you are suggesting for a moment. You would add the requirement of membership in an organization that, as JMD so aptly points out, is an industry trade group, as a prerequisite to exercising one's second amendment rights. Is that not a check on those rights? Shall not be infringed, except for that little membership thingeroo. Doesn't that sound just a tad ironic to you?

 

If Ted Nugent walked into a gun shop, declared his interest to buy a gun, and was told "lets see that membership card", he would crap his pants (again).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

What irony? You should endorse it... its registration with the NRA holding the member list. The beauty is it gives the NRA more power in DC. I'm ok with that. I don't view them as an evil organization. Just like the ACLU..

 

oh and WRT JMD's saying they're an industry group - so what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great idea. If you buy a car you must join AAA. Sail boat? US Sailing. Buying Porn? Jerkoffs Anonymous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What irony? You should endorse it... its registration with the NRA holding the member list. The beauty is it gives the NRA more power in DC. I'm ok with that. I don't view them as an evil organization. Just like the ACLU..

 

oh and WRT JMD's saying they're an industry group - so what?

Why should I endorse something I do not advocate? Perhaps you should stick to what you think, and not assume things about what someone else does. I know Rush makes a lot of bank by telling his listeners what other people think, and while he is entertaining, that does not mean that he or anyone else knows what someone else is thinking. In other words, nice straw man.

 

I do not look to the NRA to protect my second amendment rights, because the NRA couldn't give a shit about my second amendment rights.

 

PS. Forced participation in a private enterprise.... The TEA people will not like that. Wait. Yeah, they probably will go along with it, as long as it isn't Obummer's plan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great idea. If you buy a car you must join AAA. Sail boat? US Sailing. Buying Porn? Jerkoffs Anonymous.

Some people just don't understand what America is about.

 

They want to force you to join things, and put up rules to stop you from exercising the certain unalienable rights endowed by your Creator.

 

They know best and only your complete and unquestioning compliance will satisfy them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

 

Great idea. If you buy a car you must join AAA. Sail boat? US Sailing. Buying Porn? Jerkoffs Anonymous.

Some people just don't understand what America is about.

 

They want to force you to join things, and put up rules to stop you from exercising the certain unalienable rights endowed by your Creator.

 

They know best and only your complete and unquestioning compliance will satisfy them.

 

 

Welcome to the Tea Party - both you and Sol. ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Great idea. If you buy a car you must join AAA. Sail boat? US Sailing. Buying Porn? Jerkoffs Anonymous.

Some people just don't understand what America is about.

 

They want to force you to join things, and put up rules to stop you from exercising the certain unalienable rights endowed by your Creator.

 

They know best and only your complete and unquestioning compliance will satisfy them.

 

 

Welcome to the Tea Party - both you and Sol. ...

thaea.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The NRA has not, does not, and will not suggest mandatory membership

 

so let's all not get all jiggy, running down the road after that strawman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

its the big bad NRA... Scary....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its the big bad NRA... Scary....

 

 

Have you been keeping tabs on Colion? Mutha-phuker is the best thing to happen to the NRA (and America) since they started installing vaginas on women....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Great idea. If you buy a car you must join AAA. Sail boat? US Sailing. Buying Porn? Jerkoffs Anonymous.

Some people just don't understand what America is about.

 

They want to force you to join things, and put up rules to stop you from exercising the certain unalienable rights endowed by your Creator.

 

They know best and only your complete and unquestioning compliance will satisfy them.

 

 

Welcome to the Tea Party - both you and Sol. ...

You're just not making a lick of sense.

 

By saying "Welcome" it sounds like you're a member, thus your views are representative of the organization. So if I oppose your mandated NRA membership and your view that there is no difference whatsoever between the interests of consumers protecting their rights and the interests of manufacturers protecting their bottom line why would I join?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The NRA has not, does not, and will not suggest mandatory membership

 

so let's all not get all jiggy, running down the road after that strawman.

Find me a place in this thread where someone ascribed that view to the NRA.

 

Speaking of strawmen...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem I have with the NRA is that there are aspects of its advocacy which make it appear to be much more like an industry trade group rather than a group protecting the rights of individuals. There is a good bit of overlap between the two, but not always.

The NRA was obliged to go there after anti gun nutters decided that destroying the industry was easier than ammending the Constitution.

Several large cities sued the industry for damages, suggesting that gun manufacterers were liable for crimes commited using a weapon of their make. The courts found this to be utter bullshit, but the costs incurred fighting this nonsense were huge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The NRA has not, does not, and will not suggest mandatory membership

 

so let's all not get all jiggy, running down the road after that strawman.

Find me a place in this thread where someone ascribed that view to the NRA.

 

Speaking of strawmen...

Find me a place in this thread where I said someone ascribed that view to the NRA.

 

Na na na na nah !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its the big bad NRA... Scary....

LMFAO! So, then - what's your solution to ensure that even 'criminals' join up?

 

Has it occurred to you that even Wayne LaPierre himself would not endorse your suggestion?

 

Unless he were to invoke the "Sometimes..." exemption, that is...

 

No idea is good if it doesn't work...

 

Criminals won't participate in a "universal" system. They'll always steal or get their guns, and everything else they want, on the black market. Reasonable people know that criminals will never be part of the "universe."

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

 

its the big bad NRA... Scary....

 

 

Have you been keeping tabs on Colion? Mutha-phuker is the best thing to happen to the NRA (and America) since they started installing vaginas on women....

 

Why? because it exposes the lie that the 2nd Amendment is just the province of white males? Yea there's that. Or that it shows that yet another black citizen agrees with a predominantly Republican issue?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

 

The problem I have with the NRA is that there are aspects of its advocacy which make it appear to be much more like an industry trade group rather than a group protecting the rights of individuals. There is a good bit of overlap between the two, but not always.

The NRA was obliged to go there after anti gun nutters decided that destroying the industry was easier than ammending the Constitution.

Several large cities sued the industry for damages, suggesting that gun manufacterers were liable for crimes commited using a weapon of their make. The courts found this to be utter bullshit, but the costs incurred fighting this nonsense were huge.

 

Ya... so? These people have issues. They fear the big bad NRA. Yet they don't seem to understand that the pro-2nd Amendment world extends way beyond them. The NRA is just the most publicly visible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The problem I have with the NRA is that there are aspects of its advocacy which make it appear to be much more like an industry trade group rather than a group protecting the rights of individuals. There is a good bit of overlap between the two, but not always.

The NRA was obliged to go there after anti gun nutters decided that destroying the industry was easier than ammending the Constitution.

Several large cities sued the industry for damages, suggesting that gun manufacterers were liable for crimes commited using a weapon of their make. The courts found this to be utter bullshit, but the costs incurred fighting this nonsense were huge.

I agree that it's bullshit and do recognize that the anti-gunners will try and erode the current interpretation of the 2nd any way they can. That being said, I would prefer an organization that speaks only for the individual, and chooses which battles to fight based on that. The evaluation of what does or does not present a step down the slippery slope can vary quite a bit depending on whose interests are being kept it mind.

 

What are your thoughts on what interest the individual American gun rights supports has in opposing the UN Small Arms Treaty?

 

 

The NRA has not, does not, and will not suggest mandatory membership

 

so let's all not get all jiggy, running down the road after that strawman.

Find me a place in this thread where someone ascribed that view to the NRA.

 

Speaking of strawmen...

Find me a place in this thread where I said someone ascribed that view to the NRA.

 

Na na na na nah !

It's in your post I quoted. That's why I quoted it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What are your thoughts on what interest the individual American gun rights supports has in opposing the UN Small Arms Treaty?

 

This is a question sovereignty I suppose. The concept of any UN legislation being binding on a US Citizen, that would contravine the Constitution is unacceptable. And I agree with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The problem I have with the NRA is that there are aspects of its advocacy which make it appear to be much more like an industry trade group rather than a group protecting the rights of individuals. There is a good bit of overlap between the two, but not always.

The NRA was obliged to go there after anti gun nutters decided that destroying the industry was easier than ammending the Constitution.

Several large cities sued the industry for damages, suggesting that gun manufacterers were liable for crimes commited using a weapon of their make. The courts found this to be utter bullshit, but the costs incurred fighting this nonsense were huge.

 

The gun companies have deeper pockets than an individual member therefore they will have more say, its human nature.

In interest of full discloser, I am a member of the NRA but I don't own a single firearm. How ever I do have an American made Crossman .177 cal pellet gun with a nice scope to keep the tree rats in my yard at bay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Get rid of the hick fascism. Concentrate on training people, and with emphasis on how easy it is to ruin ones whole life in an instant. Talk about the guy who's going to be spending the rest of his life in the can because he picked a fight with some kids over loud music more, and the encouraging people to believe they are about to fight a civil war less.

 

http://truth-out.org/news/item/13457

 

Quit pandering to the wing-nuts. Seek to support measures that will make it more difficult for crazy people to have guns, lest their actions cause a reactionary movement against guns.

 

This will hurt gun sales, of course. Steps must be taken to see the management doesn't become addicted to manufacturers money. Opening up the leadership nomination process beyond the secretive nomination committee would be essential for any changes at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Get rid of the hick fascism. Concentrate on training people, and with emphasis on how easy it is to ruin ones whole life in an instant. Talk about the guy who's going to be spending the rest of his life in the can because he picked a fight with some kids over loud music more, and the encouraging people to believe they are about to fight a civil war less.

 

http://truth-out.org/news/item/13457

 

Quit pandering to the wing-nuts. Seek to support measures that will make it more difficult for crazy people to have guns, lest their actions cause a reactionary movement against guns.

 

This will hurt gun sales, of course. Steps must be taken to see the management doesn't become addicted to manufacturers money. Opening up the leadership nomination process beyond the secretive nomination committee would be essential for any changes at all.

This. They could do far more to secure second amendment rights with a rational approach like this, than they will ever do by pandering to the wingers. Much like the FreedomWorks Tea Party vs. the rational GOP bringing people to The Party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

and Mr. "let's not lure the poor burglars in" represents a more rational view of the Second Amendment?

 

Sorry, I'll stick with the NRA as it is thanks. I like my Bill of Rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A "Scared Straight" session with that guy or somebody like him might be a good idea. A trip to the prison to hear him describe how he went from having a nice family, a flying hobby, house with a picket fence, all that and a bag of chips.....to earning his keep with the Aryan Brotherhood in Cell Block B on his knees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This will hurt gun sales, of course. Steps must be taken to see the management doesn't become addicted to manufacturers money. Opening up the leadership nomination process beyond the secretive nomination committee would be essential for any changes at all.

Too late for that, I'm afraid... They will continue to ignore the 4th Crack Commandment of Notorious B.I.G. at their peril...

 

 

“Never get high / on your own supply..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

A "Scared Straight" session with that guy or somebody like him might be a good idea. A trip to the prison to hear him describe how he went from having a nice family, a flying hobby, house with a picket fence, all that and a bag of chips.....to earning his keep with the Aryan Brotherhood in Cell Block B on his knees.

 

think about this often there Mark?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What are your thoughts on what interest the individual American gun rights supports has in opposing the UN Small Arms Treaty?

 

This is a question sovereignty I suppose. The concept of any UN legislation being binding on a US Citizen, that would contravine the Constitution is unacceptable. And I agree with that.

The point which I already made is I can find nothing reputable to support the notion that the Treaty in question will have any impact whatsoever on the individual right to keep and bear arms in the United States.

 

Unless you can prove otherwise, I'd like to return the discussion to how that might be an example of a case where the organization makes a political point that has not all that much to do with protecting the Second Amendment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Truth be told, I still haven't joined up with them....nor have really researched their history. But I'm getting the feeling that they're in dire need of a make-over.

 

What would you Guys & Gals like to see in a new NRA? Or failing that, a new, up-2-date, more modern organization for firearm owners, aficionados and 2A fans?......

I would disband the organization. It has done so much harm to America.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Get rid of the hick fascism.

 

 

Yes

 

The flag waving bible thumping annoys the hell out of me.

A calm, but firm presense without the hyperbole would be more effective and easier to support.

 

Pepe LePew should move in to the backroom and let someone else move the NRA forward.

 

Tom Selleck would be a good choice. He's been on the BOD and knows the Org. and knows how to communicate.

 

So did Ol' Chuck, but that didn't stop the AGN's from trying to lynch him. Lot's of facism in the anti gun nutters camp too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What are your thoughts on what interest the individual American gun rights supports has in opposing the UN Small Arms Treaty?

 

This is a question sovereignty I suppose. The concept of any UN legislation being binding on a US Citizen, that would contravine the Constitution is unacceptable. And I agree with that.

The point which I already made is I can find nothing reputable to support the notion that the Treaty in question will have any impact whatsoever on the individual right to keep and bear arms in the United States.

 

Unless you can prove otherwise, I'd like to return the discussion to how that might be an example of a case where the organization makes a political point that has not all that much to do with protecting the Second Amendment.

Apparently this guy and many others diagree with you.

 

By the way, I'm not the least bit inclined to "prove" anything to anybody.

 

This is PA. Take it or leave it. Don't matter much anyway.

 

"The U.N. Arms Trade Treaty that passed in the General Assembly today would require the United States to implement gun-control legislation as required by the treaty, which could supersede the laws our elected officials have already put into place," Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., said in a statement. "It's time the Obama administration recognizes it is already a non-starter, and Americans will not stand for internationalists limiting and infringing upon their Constitutional rights."

 

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/02/senators-vow-to-oppose-un-arms-trade-treaty/#ixzz2PoKitaSW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

What are your thoughts on what interest the individual American gun rights supports has in opposing the UN Small Arms Treaty?

 

This is a question sovereignty I suppose. The concept of any UN legislation being binding on a US Citizen, that would contravine the Constitution is unacceptable. And I agree with that.

The point which I already made is I can find nothing reputable to support the notion that the Treaty in question will have any impact whatsoever on the individual right to keep and bear arms in the United States.

 

Unless you can prove otherwise, I'd like to return the discussion to how that might be an example of a case where the organization makes a political point that has not all that much to do with protecting the Second Amendment.

Apparently this guy and many others diagree with you.

 

By the way, I'm not the least bit inclined to "prove" anything to anybody.

 

This is PA. Take it or leave it. Don't matter much anyway.

 

"The U.N. Arms Trade Treaty that passed in the General Assembly today would require the United States to implement gun-control legislation as required by the treaty, which could supersede the laws our elected officials have already put into place," Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., said in a statement. "It's time the Obama administration recognizes it is already a non-starter, and Americans will not stand for internationalists limiting and infringing upon their Constitutional rights."

 

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/02/senators-vow-to-oppose-un-arms-trade-treaty/#ixzz2PoKitaSW

I already said that outrage was being drummed up. That you found somebody outraged supports my point, but does not in any way support your contention that the outrage is legitimate. Finding "many others" who are also outraged does not add legitimacy either. John Kerry, in the very same article you just quoted, said there was nothing to be outraged about. Which is just as worthless as the statements by Inhofe.

 

I went to the effort of looking around for something objective that said it could have an impact on our rights as US citizens and supported that premise. Didn't find squat.

 

If you choose not to follow that methodology, that's fine too. Must send a tingle up one's leg to worry about the Blue Hats coming in their black helicopters to take our guns away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't matter. Whatever you turn it into, you are changing an organization to meet some external perception.

 

Any give is perceived as weakness and the sharks gather.

 

If you believe something, say it and back it up. Otherwise, the other guy gets to call the tune you are dancing to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

The point which I already made is I can find nothing reputable to support the notion that the Treaty in question will have any impact whatsoever on the individual right to keep and bear arms in the United States.

 

Unless you can prove otherwise, I'd like to return the discussion to how that might be an example of a case where the organization makes a political point that has not all that much to do with protecting the Second Amendment.

Apparently this guy and many others diagree with you.

 

By the way, I'm not the least bit inclined to "prove" anything to anybody.

 

This is PA. Take it or leave it. Don't matter much anyway.

 

"The U.N. Arms Trade Treaty that passed in the General Assembly today would require the United States to implement gun-control legislation as required by the treaty, which could supersede the laws our elected officials have already put into place," Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., said in a statement. "It's time the Obama administration recognizes it is already a non-starter, and Americans will not stand for internationalists limiting and infringing upon their Constitutional rights."

 

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/02/senators-vow-to-oppose-un-arms-trade-treaty/#ixzz2PoKitaSW

I already said that outrage was being drummed up. That you found somebody outraged supports my point, but does not in any way support your contention that the outrage is legitimate. Finding "many others" who are also outraged does not add legitimacy either. John Kerry, in the very same article you just quoted, said there was nothing to be outraged about. Which is just as worthless as the statements by Inhofe.

 

I went to the effort of looking around for something objective that said it could have an impact on our rights as US citizens and supported that premise. Didn't find squat.

 

If you choose not to follow that methodology, that's fine too. Must send a tingle up one's leg to worry about the Blue Hats coming in their black helicopters to take our guns away.

Yeah, the paranoia is running pretty deep on this one, a Google search of 'UN Arms treaty supersedes 2nd Amendment' drums up page after page of little but wingnut hysteria... The little bit I've read on the treaty suggests it's clear that it will have no control whatsoever on any nation's domestic gun policy, but that the signatories of the treaty will simply agree to write their own 'regulations' regarding the trafficking of guns... Obviously, our own law and policy makers will craft such regulations themselves... Not to mention, I believe there's already a SCOTUS decision or two that make it pretty clear that no international treaty can supersede the US Constitution...

 

Enforcement is left up to the nations that ratify the treaty. The treaty requires these countries to cooperate on its implementation and to assist each other in investigating and prosecuting violations...

 

Secretary of State John Kerry welcomed the approval of "a strong, effective and implementable arms trade treaty that can strengthen global security while protecting the sovereign right of states to conduct legitimate arms trade." He stressed that the treaty applies only to international trade "and reaffirms the sovereign right of any state to regulate arms within its territory."

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57577490/u.n-passes-landmark-global-arms-trade-treaty/

 

yeah, the NRA should be really proud of the company they're keeping on this one, alright...

 

 

Britain and a small group of other treaty supporters sought a vote in the 193-member world body after Iran, North Korea and Syria blocked its adoption by consensus last week. The three countries voted "no" on Tuesday, while Russia and China, both major arms exporters, abstained. The United States, the world's largest arms exporter, voted in favor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I "imagine" that the only way the provisions of the UN Small Arms treaty could ever be theoreticaly met would be to implement a national gun AND ammo registration data base to track the "end user" and any transfers said end user might make from now to eternity. Note that END USER is used through out the text in the provisions of this resolution.

 

If that's what you, then just come on out and say it. Look how bloody expensive it was and how well it worked in Canada. I beleive they shit canned it a while back as a waste of resources. Can anybody here say with a straight face that a government wouldn't use such a database (assuming it actualy functioned correctly) if it decided that arms confiscation was the only way it could preserve it's power. Goverments and the world evolve. What is the case today may not be the case tommorow, 50 years, 100 years from now.

 

This is just pearl clutching on a global scale. The UN is a toothless dog and while it has value as a global forum, it's ability to enforce some scheme like this is nonexistant. Hows that war on drugs going ? WE MUST DO SOMETHING !

 

Ultimately, this all boils down to the question of whether a government should be subserviant to it's people, or should the people be subserviant to the government. The latter scenario is the case in the overwhelming majority of nations on this planet. They would like to keep it that way. Hence this treaty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, the paranoia is running pretty deep on this one, a Google search of 'UN Arms treaty supersedes 2nd Amendment' drums up page after page of little but wingnut hysteria... The little bit I've read on the treaty suggests it's clear that it will have no control whatsoever on any nation's domestic gun policy, but that the signatories of the treaty will simply agree to write their own 'regulations' regarding the trafficking of guns... Obviously, our own law and policy makers will craft such regulations themselves... Not to mention, I believe there's already a SCOTUS decision or two that make it pretty clear that no international treaty can supersede the US Constitution...

 

Well, if that's your search criteria, I'm not surprised at your results.

 

When issues like this come up, I usually try to go to the source. In this case , the UNODA whose web page includes

 

Marking and tracing

If national law enforcement officials were able to trace small arms back to their last legitimate owner, who might then be held accountable, this would form an effective measure against illicit trade and diversion. For that purpose, it is essential that the weapon be marked upon production and import, and that appropriate records be kept. Existing stocks should also be marked. Although many weapons are marked upon production and import, international cooperation in marking and tracing of small arms is in its infancy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What irony? You should endorse it... its registration with the NRA holding the member list. The beauty is it gives the NRA more power in DC. I'm ok with that. I don't view them as an evil organization. Just like the ACLU..

 

oh and WRT JMD's saying they're an industry group - so what?

Why should I endorse something I do not advocate? Perhaps you should stick to what you think, and not assume things about what someone else does. I know Rush makes a lot of bank by telling his listeners what other people think, and while he is entertaining, that does not mean that he or anyone else knows what someone else is thinking. In other words, nice straw man.

 

I do not look to the NRA to protect my second amendment rights, because the NRA couldn't give a shit about my second amendment rights.

 

PS. Forced participation in a private enterprise.... The TEA people will not like that. Wait. Yeah, they probably will go along with it, as long as it isn't Obummer's plan.

Wow. I'm assuming your nurse gave you a bit more oxygen than normal for you to enter the conversation, instead of just being an Uncle Hank, wheezing critic in a wheel chair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Yeah, the paranoia is running pretty deep on this one, a Google search of 'UN Arms treaty supersedes 2nd Amendment' drums up page after page of little but wingnut hysteria... The little bit I've read on the treaty suggests it's clear that it will have no control whatsoever on any nation's domestic gun policy, but that the signatories of the treaty will simply agree to write their own 'regulations' regarding the trafficking of guns... Obviously, our own law and policy makers will craft such regulations themselves... Not to mention, I believe there's already a SCOTUS decision or two that make it pretty clear that no international treaty can supersede the US Constitution...

 

Well, if that's your search criteria, I'm not surprised at your results.

 

When issues like this come up, I usually try to go to the source. In this case , the UNODA whose web page includes

 

r />

Marking and tracing

If national law enforcement officials were able to trace small arms back to their last legitimate owner, who might then be held accountable, this would form an effective measure against illicit trade and diversion. For that purpose, it is essential that the weapon be marked upon production and import, and that appropriate records be kept. Existing stocks should also be marked. Although many weapons are marked upon production and import, international cooperation in marking and tracing of small arms is in its infancy.

 

Good info, thanks...

 

However, that's all prefaced with a mighty big IF, and thus reads more like a recommendation, than a mandate, to me...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

.. removed ..

 

When issues like this come up, I usually try to go to the source. In this case , the UNODA whose web page includes

 

r />

Marking and tracing

If national law enforcement officials were able to trace small arms back to their last legitimate owner, who might then be held accountable, this would form an effective measure against illicit trade and diversion. For that purpose, it is essential that the weapon be marked upon production and import, and that appropriate records be kept. Existing stocks should also be marked. Although many weapons are marked upon production and import, international cooperation in marking and tracing of small arms is in its infancy.

 

Good info, thanks...

 

However, that's all prefaced with a mighty big IF, and thus reads more like a recommendation, than a mandate, to me...

 

That if is just a preface comment. Look at the actual recommendation which is pretty demanding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Put more effort into awareness/consequences

 

2. Provide a rational spokesperson to present issues

 

3. As someone here suggested earlier; Create a MADD type of group that attacks the underlying mental health/criminal components

 

4. Create their own TV channel that highlights responsible gun ownership and self defense

 

WL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The problem I have with the NRA is that there are aspects of its advocacy which make it appear to be much more like an industry trade group rather than a group protecting the rights of individuals. There is a good bit of overlap between the two, but not always.

The NRA was obliged to go there after anti gun nutters decided that destroying the industry was easier than ammending the Constitution.

Several large cities sued the industry for damages, suggesting that gun manufacterers were liable for crimes commited using a weapon of their make. The courts found this to be utter bullshit, but the costs incurred fighting this nonsense were huge.

 

Ya... so? These people have issues. They fear the big bad NRA. Yet they don't seem to understand that the pro-2nd Amendment world extends way beyond them. The NRA is just the most publicly visible.

 

 

Actually, the paranoia is an NRA manufactured product circa 1977, the "Cincinatti Revolution".

Charlton Heston was a moderate alternative within that crowd.

And they stole the 2nd A gag from the Black Panthers.

 

 

Pasted from <http://www.salon.com/2013/01/14/the_nra_once_supported_gun_control/>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After the coup, the NRA ramped up donations to congressional campaigns. “And in 1977, new articles on the Second Amendment appeared” in American Rifleman, Burbick noted, “rewriting American history to legitimize the armed citizen unregulated except by his own ability to buy a gun at whatever price he could afford.” That revisionist perspective was endorsed by a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee chaired by Utah Republican Orrin Hatch in 1982, when staffers wrote a report concluding it had discovered “long lost proof” of an individual’s constitutional right to bear arms.

 

The NRA’s fabricated but escalating view of the Second Amendment was ridiculed by former U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger—a conservative appointed by President Richard Nixon—in a PBS Newshour interview in 1991, where he called it “one of the greatest pieces of fraud—I repeat the word ‘fraud’—on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”Pasted from <http://www.salon.com/2013/01/14/the_nra_once_supported_gun_control/>

 

 

Rick, it's a "poisoned chalice" (as Jeff said), it won't remodel well. But I would start by desisting with the constitutional hooey.

 

Then I would suspend lobbying. Then try for damage control on gun lobby riders. Why? Because of them, For two decades the federal government has conducted almost no scientific research on how criminals get guns, what triggers shooting rampages, why Americans use firearms more than other nations and whether more guns would bolster or hinder safety.

 

 

I admit that a dozen other organizations can fill the spot of the NRA as long as great numbers of Americans are gun-simple. But here are examples of their work in WA DC. You may debate any, but get real, I don't see how the whole is acceptable, or sustainable.

  1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention can’t research gun violence,
  1. The Federal Bureau of Investigation can’t use data to detect firearms traffickers.
  1. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives can’t require background checks on older guns.
  1. Guns are now back into national parks (a provision tacked onto a bill outlining restrictions for credit card companies).
  2. Limits have been placed on how the government collects and shares information,
  1. a limit on how it oversees dealers,
  1. a limit on how it partners with state and local law enforcement
  2. and a limit on LE research on gun-related deaths and injuries.
  1. Now Restricted: ATF ability to manage data, make decisions and delegate functions to other agencies, incl the FBI.
  1. Negative on ATF request to change the definition of antique firearms (exempted from federal firearms licensing procedures or background checks)
  1. Removed some requirements for dealers to perform inventory checks,
  2. Dictated that background check records be destroyed within 24 hours (thus nixing ID of straw men)
  1. Nixed centralized database of the millions of on-hand gun sales records
  1. ergo disallowed knowledge of where guns used in crime may have come from.
  1. Required that agency records be stored in boxes in warehouses or on microfiche
  1. Barred the CDC from spending research money to “advocate or promote gun control”
  1. incl National Institutes of Health being barred from such research.
  2. Major research into firearm deaths and injuries was abandoned
  1. Result: lost research funding for 20 years if institutes conduct research on the gun problem

<http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/04/02/187543/quietly-and-behind-the-scenes.html>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Truth be told, I still haven't joined up with them....nor have really researched their history. But I'm getting the feeling that they're in dire need of a make-over.

 

What would you Guys & Gals like to see in a new NRA? Or failing that, a new, up-2-date, more modern organization for firearm owners, aficionados and 2A fans?......

 

Well, since the conversation has changed from just hunting rifles.... they could start by changing their name to something more applicable to modern times. Like this: The Organization for Rifles, Guns, Assault Shotguns and Magazines.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Or ORGASM for short........ :D

 

C'mon.... "ORGASM"???? No one? Not even booothy? Wow, tough crowd here tonight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What are your thoughts on what interest the individual American gun rights supports has in opposing the UN Small Arms Treaty?

My thoughts as an "end user" are that our government can fuck off if they want to keep "national records as appropriate" on guns that I own, and the UN can most definitely fuck off for ten solid years if they want to see such records.

 

http://www.un.org/disarmament/ATT/docs/Presidents_Non_Paper_of_22_March_2013_(ATT_Final_Conference).pdf

 

Article 11

Record keeping

1. Each State Party shall maintain national records, pursuant to its national laws and

regulations, of its issuance of export authorizations or its actual exports of the

conventional arms covered under Article 2 (1).

2. Each State Party is encouraged to maintain records of conventional arms that are

transferred to its territory as the final destination or that are authorized to transit or trans-ship territory under its jurisdiction.

3. Each State Party is encouraged to include in those records: the quantity, value,

model/type, authorized international transfers of conventional arms covered under

Article 2 (1), conventional arms actually transferred, details of exporting State(s),

importing State(s), transit and trans-shipment State(s) and end users, as appropriate.

4. Records shall be kept for a minimum of ten years.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

What are your thoughts on what interest the individual American gun rights supports has in opposing the UN Small Arms Treaty?

My thoughts as an "end user" are that our government can fuck off if they want to keep "national records as appropriate" on guns that I own, and the UN can most definitely fuck off for ten solid years if they want to see such records.

 

http://www.un.org/disarmament/ATT/docs/Presidents_Non_Paper_of_22_March_2013_(ATT_Final_Conference).pdf

Article 11

Record keeping

1. Each State Party shall maintain national records, pursuant to its national laws and

regulations, of its issuance of export authorizations or its actual exports of the

conventional arms covered under Article 2 (1).

2. Each State Party is encouraged to maintain records of conventional arms that are

transferred to its territory as the final destination or that are authorized to transit or trans-ship territory under its jurisdiction.

3. Each State Party is encouraged to include in those records: the quantity, value,

model/type, authorized international transfers of conventional arms covered under

Article 2 (1), conventional arms actually transferred, details of exporting State(s),

importing State(s), transit and trans-shipment State(s) and end users, as appropriate.

4. Records shall be kept for a minimum of ten years.

 

 

You will note that item one uses "shall" while items two and three use "encourage."

 

Do you know the difference between those two words, Tom?

 

Sounds like you don't, so maybe you should hold off on all the "fuck off" until you get that stowed away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did say "want" to keep or see such records, not "demand" to keep or see them, which reflects the difference between the two words.

 

But OK, I encourage our government and the UN to fuck off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did say "want" to keep or see such records, not "demand" to keep or see them, which reflects the difference between the two words.

 

But OK, I encourage our government and the UN to fuck off.

 

 

^This^....is beautiful.....:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Truth be told, I still haven't joined up with them....nor have really researched their history. But I'm getting the feeling that they're in dire need of a make-over.

 

What would you Guys & Gals like to see in a new NRA? Or failing that, a new, up-2-date, more modern organization for firearm owners, aficionados and 2A fans?......

Well, since the conversation has changed from just hunting rifles.... they could start by changing their name to something more applicable to modern times. Like this: The Organization for Rifles, Guns, Assault Shotguns and Magazines.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Or ORGASM for short........ :D

C'mon.... "ORGASM"???? No one? Not even booothy? Wow, tough crowd here tonight.

sorry, jeff...it got lost in the hilarity of a madatory membbership requirement to own a gun suggestion...

i thought it was funny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did say "want" to keep or see such records, not "demand" to keep or see them, which reflects the difference between the two words.

 

But OK, I encourage our government and the UN to fuck off.

Oh, I'm with you on that. I encourage our government not to create a national registry but how that relates to the UN Small Arms Treaty I have no idea.

 

I encourage the government to fuck off and not regulate soft drink sizes. This too has nothing to do with the UN Small Arms Treaty, but gosh darn it I feel pretty strongly about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I did say "want" to keep or see such records, not "demand" to keep or see them, which reflects the difference between the two words.

 

But OK, I encourage our government and the UN to fuck off.

Oh, I'm with you on that. I encourage our government not to create a national registry but how that relates to the UN Small Arms Treaty I have no idea.

The treaty encourages our government to create such a registry of end users.

 

Article 11

Record keeping

1. Each State Party shall maintain national records, pursuant to its national laws and

regulations, of its issuance of export authorizations or its actual exports of the

conventional arms covered under Article 2 (1).

2. Each State Party is encouraged to maintain records of conventional arms that are

transferred to its territory as the final destination or that are authorized to transit or trans-ship territory under its jurisdiction.

3. Each State Party is encouraged to include in those records: the quantity, value,

model/type, authorized international transfers of conventional arms covered under

Article 2 (1), conventional arms actually transferred, details of exporting State(s),

importing State(s), transit and trans-shipment State(s) and end users, as appropriate.

4. Records shall be kept for a minimum of ten years.

 

It would be worse if the treaty demanded that we create such a registry, but encouraging it is not something I support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Make it mandatory for every gun owner. Beyond that nothing.

Wouldn't that be a registry?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

Yup... we know how those "public" records can be used.

 

 

 

What are your thoughts on what interest the individual American gun rights supports has in opposing the UN Small Arms Treaty?

My thoughts as an "end user" are that our government can fuck off if they want to keep "national records as appropriate" on guns that I own, and the UN can most definitely fuck off for ten solid years if they want to see such records.

 

http://www.un.org/disarmament/ATT/docs/Presidents_Non_Paper_of_22_March_2013_(ATT_Final_Conference).pdf

>Article 11
Record keeping
1. Each State Party shall maintain national records, pursuant to its national laws and
regulations, of its issuance of export authorizations or its actual exports of the
conventional arms covered under Article 2 (1).
2. Each State Party is encouraged to maintain records of conventional arms that are
transferred to its territory as the final destination or that are authorized to transit or trans-ship territory under its jurisdiction.
3. Each State Party is encouraged to include in those records: the quantity, value,
model/type, authorized international transfers of conventional arms covered under
Article 2 (1), conventional arms actually transferred, details of exporting State(s),
importing State(s), transit and trans-shipment State(s) and end users, as appropriate.
4. Records shall be kept for a minimum of ten years.

 

 



So are you a sock for Gaston?

 

 

 

Make it mandatory for every gun owner. Beyond that nothing.

Wouldn't that be a registry?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

I did say "want" to keep or see such records, not "demand" to keep or see them, which reflects the difference between the two words.

 

But OK, I encourage our government and the UN to fuck off.

Oh, I'm with you on that. I encourage our government not to create a national registry but how that relates to the UN Small Arms Treaty I have no idea.

 

 

The treaty encourages our government to create such a registry of end users.

Article 11

Record keeping

1. Each State Party shall maintain national records, pursuant to its national laws and

regulations, of its issuance of export authorizations or its actual exports of the

conventional arms covered under Article 2 (1).

2. Each State Party is encouraged to maintain records of conventional arms that are

transferred to its territory as the final destination or that are authorized to transit or trans-ship territory under its jurisdiction.

3. Each State Party is encouraged to include in those records: the quantity, value,

model/type, authorized international transfers of conventional arms covered under

Article 2 (1), conventional arms actually transferred, details of exporting State(s),

importing State(s), transit and trans-shipment State(s) and end users, as appropriate.

4. Records shall be kept for a minimum of ten years.

It would be worse if the treaty demanded that we create such a registry, but encouraging it is not something I support.

 

 

Well you certainly are a moving target.

 

There are many things which "encourage" policy. I try to keep my powder dry for things that actually mean something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JMD, does a treaty that encourages a policy have nothing to do with said policy? I think the two are related if one encourages the other, especially if that encouragement were to be ratified by our Senate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Truth be told, I still haven't joined up with them....nor have really researched their history. But I'm getting the feeling that they're in dire need of a make-over.

 

What would you Guys & Gals like to see in a new NRA? Or failing that, a new, up-2-date, more modern organization for firearm owners, aficionados and 2A fans?......

Well, since the conversation has changed from just hunting rifles.... they could start by changing their name to something more applicable to modern times. Like this: The Organization for Rifles, Guns, Assault Shotguns and Magazines.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Or ORGASM for short........ :D

C'mon.... "ORGASM"???? No one? Not even booothy? Wow, tough crowd here tonight.

sorry, jeff...it got lost in the hilarity of a madatory membbership requirement to own a gun suggestion...

i thought it was funny.

 

Thank you elle. I was starting to lose faith here.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

honestly, i was suprised some people (you know who they are) didn't jump all over that with the whole guns/cock/power trip line.... :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or..... we could rename the National Rifle Association to SCARE: Society for the Carrying of Assault Rifles Everywhere

 

There could even be a special chapter for sailors only called: SCARY :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

military minds are good with acromyns

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

acromyns

 

"Acromyms"??? Did you mean Acro-Mimes?

 

mimes.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they have those in the military??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they have those in the military??

 

Yes! Haven't you heard? They are our "silent killers". :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In reply to the OP...

 

More of this:

 

4bb60fd9803fca3c8abc48f1d7b0b05f.jpg

 

and less of this:

 

charlton_heston_nra.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If Ted Nugent walked into a gun shop, declared his interest to buy a gun, and was told "lets see that membership card", he would crap his pants (again).

 

Sol, I thought you might get a chuckle out of this -

 

http://www.tednugentdeadorinjail.republicankryptonite.com/

 

That's hilarious. Did he promise to eliminate the deficit by the end of his first term?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

 

 

If Ted Nugent walked into a gun shop, declared his interest to buy a gun, and was told "lets see that membership card", he would crap his pants (again).

 

Sol, I thought you might get a chuckle out of this -

 

http://www.tednugentdeadorinjail.republicankryptonite.com/

 

That's hilarious. Did he promise to eliminate the deficit by the end of his first term?

 

No I think he promised to shut down Gitmo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

After the coup, the NRA ramped up donations to congressional campaigns. “And in 1977, new articles on the Second Amendment appeared” in American Rifleman, Burbick noted, “rewriting American history to legitimize the armed citizen unregulated except by his own ability to buy a gun at whatever price he could afford.” That revisionist perspective was endorsed by a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee chaired by Utah Republican Orrin Hatch in 1982, when staffers wrote a report concluding it had discovered “long lost proof” of an individual’s constitutional right to bear arms.

 

The NRA’s fabricated but escalating view of the Second Amendment was ridiculed by former U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger—a conservative appointed by President Richard Nixon—in a PBS Newshour interview in 1991, where he called it “one of the greatest pieces of fraud—I repeat the word ‘fraud’—on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”Pasted from <http://www.salon.com/2013/01/14/the_nra_once_supported_gun_control/>

 

 

Rick, it's a "poisoned chalice" (as Jeff said), it won't remodel well. But I would start by desisting with the constitutional hooey.

 

Then I would suspend lobbying. Then try for damage control on gun lobby riders. Why? Because of them, For two decades the federal government has conducted almost no scientific research on how criminals get guns, what triggers shooting rampages, why Americans use firearms more than other nations and whether more guns would bolster or hinder safety.

 

 

I admit that a dozen other organizations can fill the spot of the NRA as long as great numbers of Americans are gun-simple. But here are examples of their work in WA DC. You may debate any, but get real, I don't see how the whole is acceptable, or sustainable.

  1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention can’t research gun violence,
  1. The Federal Bureau of Investigation can’t use data to detect firearms traffickers.
  1. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives can’t require background checks on older guns.
  1. Guns are now back into national parks (a provision tacked onto a bill outlining restrictions for credit card companies).
  2. Limits have been placed on how the government collects and shares information,
  1. a limit on how it oversees dealers,
  1. a limit on how it partners with state and local law enforcement
  2. and a limit on LE research on gun-related deaths and injuries.
  1. Now Restricted: ATF ability to manage data, make decisions and delegate functions to other agencies, incl the FBI.
  1. Negative on ATF request to change the definition of antique firearms (exempted from federal firearms licensing procedures or background checks)
  1. Removed some requirements for dealers to perform inventory checks,
  2. Dictated that background check records be destroyed within 24 hours (thus nixing ID of straw men)
  1. Nixed centralized database of the millions of on-hand gun sales records
  1. ergo disallowed knowledge of where guns used in crime may have come from.
  1. Required that agency records be stored in boxes in warehouses or on microfiche
  1. Barred the CDC from spending research money to “advocate or promote gun control”
  1. incl National Institutes of Health being barred from such research.
  2. Major research into firearm deaths and injuries was abandoned
  1. Result: lost research funding for 20 years if institutes conduct research on the gun problem

I read through the list and thought how pathetic it is that we have to pass so many laws to actually restrict the power of the Federal Government.

 

Unfortunately, we could use a hell of a lot more laws to restrain the reach of the Fed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

If Ted Nugent walked into a gun shop, declared his interest to buy a gun, and was told "lets see that membership card", he would crap his pants (again).

Sol, I thought you might get a chuckle out of this -

 

http://www.tednugentdeadorinjail.republicankryptonite.com/

That's hilarious. Did he promise to eliminate the deficit by the end of his first term?

There are those far more concerned with where Nugent does his eliminating, & not so much what's in 'em.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I admit that a dozen other organizations can fill the spot of the NRA as long as great numbers of Americans are gun-simple. But here are examples of their work in WA DC. ...

  • Guns are now back into national parks...

But I thought that was Obama's doing, not the NRA's.

 

This post said he defended it:

 

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=123134&p=3302543

 

And this one has a direct quote from Obama saying so:

 

...

...in fact, my administration has not curtailed the rights of gun owners - it has expanded them, including allowing people to carry their guns in national parks and wildlife refuges.

 

The fact is, almost all gun owners in America are highly responsible. They're our friends and neighbors. They buy their guns legally and use them safely, whether for hunting or target shooting, collection or protection. And that's something that gun-safety advocates need to accept....

...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the vast majority of gun owners ARE responsible. However, the vocal minority that claim any "infringement" as a removal of a right, compared to the danger that unrestricted sales has on the general populace, give the entire gun owning "community" a bad rap.

 

I'm including in "infringements" things such as standard liability rules, prohibition of data collection, etc, etc.

 

I personally don't think any of the headline grabbing restrictions will make a hill of beans difference - the real difference, if we want to make one, will be in treating the gun manufacturers and the effects of guns in society as any other industry. We would then learn what will make a difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Holding manufacturers liable for criminal misuse of their products is not a "standard" product liability rule, it's a twisted one. And if we're going to twist things that way, let's hold auto manufacturers liable for drunk drivers. As for data collection, I'm still in the ACLU camp on government databases. Gun nuts that they are. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the vast majority of gun owners ARE responsible. However, the vocal minority that claim any "infringement" as a removal of a right, compared to the danger that unrestricted sales has on the general populace, give the entire gun owning "community" a bad rap.

 

I'm including in "infringements" things such as standard liability rules, prohibition of data collection, etc, etc.

 

I personally don't think any of the headline grabbing restrictions will make a hill of beans difference - the real difference, if we want to make one, will be in treating the gun manufacturers and the effects of guns in society as any other industry. We would then learn what will make a difference.

Since a firearm does only one thing (fire a bullet out of the holey end), what kind 'studies' and/or 'effect treating' do we need? Either guns continue to shoot bullets....or they get redesigned so that they don't. There's no middle ground, so there's no need for 'special treatments', as they already do what they're designed to do. Kinda like a tire. The focus instead needs to focus on what causes psychos to become murderers.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

then why does the industry need liability protection, and why the shyness of collecting data?

First off, I'd say that the gun-controlling owner in this situation needs to be held accountable:

 

 

 

 

Authorities are deciding whether to charge anyone after police say a 6-year-old was shot in the head by a 4-year-old in New Jersey.

The older boy is in serious condition.

Authorities are still investigating how the younger child obtained the .22-caliber rifle from his family's Toms River home Monday night.

Police Chief Michael Mastronardy says the children were outside the 4-year-old's home when the boy went inside, got the rifle and shot the 6-year-old about 15 yards away. It's not clear if the 4-year-old pulled the trigger or if the rifle accidentally discharged.

The parents of the 4-year-old were home at the time.

No names have been released.

The shooting comes amid debate over gun control laws in the wake of the Connecticut school shooting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the vast majority of gun owners ARE responsible. However, the vocal minority that claim any "infringement" as a removal of a right, compared to the danger that unrestricted sales has on the general populace, give the entire gun owning "community" a bad rap.

 

I'm including in "infringements" things such as standard liability rules, prohibition of data collection, etc, etc.

 

I personally don't think any of the headline grabbing restrictions will make a hill of beans difference - the real difference, if we want to make one, will be in treating the gun manufacturers and the effects of guns in society as any other industry. We would then learn what will make a difference.

 

There's a good argument for why we need the NRA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites