How Pro Gun is the NRA?

[a_unique_person]

The NRA, according to Richard G, is not pro gun enough. What do you think?

(This is a JK Copyright Poll).

[corplinx]

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.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by corplinx
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.

So you don't believe the 'National Rifle Association' is not pro gun?

[Troll]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


So you don't believe the 'National Rifle Association' is not pro gun?

No. Or yes. Depends on whether or not you meant the double negative there.

Pro gun? Define that. Pro second ammendment/gun ownership rights? Yes they are.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
The NRA, according to Richard G, is not pro gun enough. What do you think?

(This is a JK Copyright Poll).

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!

[shanek]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
The NRA, according to Richard G, is not pro gun enough. What do you think?

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.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by shanek


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.

Well said, shanny...

"Ditto" for me...

[corplinx]

Originally posted by shanek


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.

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]

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?

[John Harrison]

Originally posted by Crossbow
[B]

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

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 (http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvcopk.html) 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.

2) They oppose any new restrictions on firearm sales

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.

3) They eagerly report on any elected officials that support any legislation that they view as 'anti-gun'

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]

Thank you, John, you beat me to it, re: "cop-killer" bullets.

[corplinx]

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.

[Dancing David]

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

[corplinx]

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.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Supercharts
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?

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]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


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.

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.

[shanek]

Originally posted by corplinx
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?

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]

Originally posted by corplinx
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.

I'd say Gun Owners of America (http://www.gunowners.org) fits in the middle, although some may consider them "fringe."

[a_unique_person]

Stop Press

Ted Nugent supports GOA!

http://www.tednugent.com/supports.shtml

[Houngan]

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.

[peptoabysmal]

The real problem is when people who have never used a firearm begin to pass laws concerning firearms. These laws usually don't make sense, and are costly to enforce.

One of the best experiences of my youth was a NRA sponsored course in gun safety. It focused on hunting, which I used to enjoy a great deal, and it taught me the correct way to handle a firearm safely. It also taught a great many other things like respect for other peoples property and lives.

Now, there are a bunch of whining, pampered aristocrats accusing the NRA of being out to arm madmen with the highest caliber weapon possible. I just don't buy it.

[Richard G]

These organizations are MUCH more pro second amendment than the NRA.

http://www.saf.org/
http://www.ofcc.net/
And the Ted Nugent USA linked by AUP

The NRA has turned into such a fat cash cow, with millions of dollars worth of dues coming in, that if they achieved their ultimate (stated) goal of unhindered gun rights, alot of fat cat lawyers, executive board memebers , etc. would be out of a job.

Its just like the Federal goverment, they have become too big for their own good.

Charlton Heston himself (NRA President) said in an interview that no one in America needs to own an "assault weapon". According to the law he was refering to, my 9mm handgun is an "assault weapon". KMA Mr. Heston.

(Ted Nugent is one of the greatest freedom fighting patriots in America today).

[Kiri]

There's no Planet X option!!

And what if I want to choose (A) AND (B)?

[Kiri]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
The real problem is when people who have never used a firearm begin to pass laws concerning firearms. These laws usually don't make sense, and are costly to enforce.

One of the best experiences of my youth was a NRA sponsored course in gun safety. It focused on hunting, which I used to enjoy a great deal, and it taught me the correct way to handle a firearm safely. It also taught a great many other things like respect for other peoples property and lives.

Now, there are a bunch of whining, pampered aristocrats accusing the NRA of being out to arm madmen with the highest caliber weapon possible. I just don't buy it.

I tend to agree: the NRA does good things for gun owners. I'd only criticize them for occasionally sounding like they DO want everyone to be able to own a howitzer.
Opposition groups ALSO err towards extremism, though.

I can't take a hard-line position either way.

[Dancing David]

Thank You for your responses:

On registration: the constitution garuntees my right to acsess the highways, but I can't ride a bike on them. Why aren't the same arguements used for automobiles? We require people to get thier cars registered and liscensed, why not guns?

I agree we need to crack down on the black market, how can we do that. I would propose regegistration but would be thrilled to hear about other strategies.

Why is the First Amendment less important than the Second, many municipalities restrict acsess to pornography and magazines like High Times. But if a municipality restricts hand guns then there is a huge outcry.

Peace
dancing david

PS Pro wrestling is the cure, couldn't I start with something else like old war movies?

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by Dancing David
On registration: the constitution garuntees my right to acsess the highways, but I can't ride a bike on them. Why aren't the same arguements used for automobiles? We require people to get thier cars registered and liscensed, why not guns?

Driving is a privilege; firearms ownership is a right.

I would propose regegistration but would be thrilled to hear about other strategies.

How would firearms registration assist in combating the black market?

Why is the First Amendment less important than the Second...

It isn't. Who said it was?

[Denise]

Aaah! Ted Nugent! Ok, back to the topic....

[Dancing David]

Thank You I guess that cars aren't mentioned in the Constitution, still I should be able to walk on the Interstate if I am so stupid as to do so.

Registration: I have a feeling that right now guns are being purchased every day and then sold illegally to people who aren't entitled to have them by law. Would it not serve as a deterent if the purchaser had to register each gun? Maybe not, I realise that serial numbers can be ground off.

On the First Amendment: The organizations which support free speeech are generaly reviled in our society. As someone who lives in the conservative heartland I just notice how excited everyone gets over the mere registration of guns. They don't get upset at all when free speech is limited.

I do believe that Americans should continue to bear arms!

Peace
dancing david

[Houngan]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Thank You I guess that cars aren't mentioned in the Constitution, still I should be able to walk on the Interstate if I am so stupid as to do so.

Registration: I have a feeling that right now guns are being purchased every day and then sold illegally to people who aren't entitled to have them by law. Would it not serve as a deterent if the purchaser had to register each gun? Maybe not, I realise that serial numbers can be ground off.

On the First Amendment: The organizations which support free speeech are generaly reviled in our society. As someone who lives in the conservative heartland I just notice how excited everyone gets over the mere registration of guns. They don't get upset at all when free speech is limited.

I do believe that Americans should continue to bear arms!

Peace
dancing david

David,

You've got the point that everyone gets, if the genie weren't already out of the bottle. Guns last a long, long time, and with the current amount available in the US, registration would do nothing to stop the black market. Especially since the law doesn't address private transfer of weapons. I can buy all the guns I want (being an upstanding member of the community), register them, and then hand them out at the local homeless shelter. My legal culpability? None.

H.

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Registration: I have a feeling that right now guns are being purchased every day and then sold illegally to people who aren't entitled to have them by law. Would it not serve as a deterent if the purchaser had to register each gun? Maybe not, I realise that serial numbers can be ground off.

There are in excess of 20,000 gun laws on the books in the US, spanning federal, state, and municipal levels. One would think those would act as deterrents also, but they do not. "Straw purchases" are already illegal, as is the transfer to/possession of a firearm by anyone who cannot fulfill legal requirements for purchase/ownership.

As noted by John Lott here (http://www.tsra.com/Lott25.htm):
In theory, if a gun is left at the scene of the crime, licensing and registration will allow a gun to be traced back to its owner. But, amazingly, despite police spending tens of thousands of man hours administering these laws in Hawaii (the one state with both rules), as well as in big urban areas with similar laws, such as Chicago and Washington, D.C., there is not even a single case where the laws have been instrumental in identifying someone who has committed a crime.
(amazing, isn't it? :) )
... and, here (http://www.tsra.com/Lott_10.htm):
Even in the unlikely case that the average criminal uses the same gun just twice, only 0.09% of all guns are used for criminal purposes in any given year.

In the end, as has been demonstrated repeatedly in the past, such measures are ineffective against gun crime or criminals, who have this nasty habit of disobeying the law ;) . Law-abiding gun owners end up being penalized for the ineffectiveness elsewhere in the system. We need enforcement of existing laws, not more legislation.

[Kiri]

Originally posted by Dancing David


PS Pro wrestling is the cure, couldn't I start with something else like old war movies?

Yeah, get yourself a copy of "The Dirty Dozen"!

[Thanz]

From a strictly legal perspective (not cost - what I propose would cost a ton of money) what is wrong with a system that requires registration and liscensing for firearms?

The specific system I would advocate is a licence to individuals, who would be required to demonstrate proper safety in handling and storing guns in some sort of test (like a driving test) before being able to purchase a gun. The license would be firearm class specific, like a drivers licence is. Once someone has a license, they can buy a gun, which is registered in a manner similar to a car. Registration would involve the granting of some sort of part that makes the weapon operable, and this part of the gun is non-transferable. It is an individual part (like a licence plate for a car) and the person who buys a gun privately would have to prove they have the proper licence, and then register the gun to get the part.

Any accidents in the home that are due to the improper handling of the firearm would be the legal responsibility of the owner of the gun.

I know that setting up this system would cost a bundle. But from a legal stndpoint, what is the problem with it? It does not deny someone their rights - it just regulates it. From what I understand, gun ownership is already somewhat regulated. So what specifically would make this system illegal (if, indeed, it would be)?

[Kiri]

Originally posted by Thanz
From a strictly legal perspective (not cost - what I propose would cost a ton of money) what is wrong with a system that requires registration and liscensing for firearms?

The specific system I would advocate is a licence to individuals, who would be required to demonstrate proper safety in handling and storing guns in some sort of test (like a driving test) before being able to purchase a gun. The license would be firearm class specific, like a drivers licence is. Once someone has a license, they can buy a gun, which is registered in a manner similar to a car. Registration would involve the granting of some sort of part that makes the weapon operable, and this part of the gun is non-transferable. It is an individual part (like a licence plate for a car) and the person who buys a gun privately would have to prove they have the proper licence, and then register the gun to get the part.

Any accidents in the home that are due to the improper handling of the firearm would be the legal responsibility of the owner of the gun.

I know that setting up this system would cost a bundle. But from a legal stndpoint, what is the problem with it? It does not deny someone their rights - it just regulates it. From what I understand, gun ownership is already somewhat regulated. So what specifically would make this system illegal (if, indeed, it would be)?

This would probably meet a constitutionality test, but it wouldn't address the problem of guns being in the wrong hands, either from theft or black-market sources.

[Wolverine]

Well, we've gone hijack crazy here so I'll start a new thread specifically devoted to the concept of gun registration.

Stay tuned.