Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

NRA?


FennRx

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 96
  • Created
  • Last Reply

The basic principles of the NRA are OK. However, I could do without their stance on so-called "assault weapons" and such that really have no place in our society. I think the NRA is probably controlled/run more by gun manufacturers and "marketeers" than most people think, not by true defenders of the Constitution. But that is just me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The basic principles of the NRA are OK. However' date=' I could do without their stance on so-called "assault weapons" and such that really have no place in our society. I think the NRA is probably controlled/run more by gun manufacturers and "marketeers" than most people think, not by true defenders of the Constitution. But that is just me.[/quote']

 

What is your idea of an "assault weapon"? Do you know what the NRA's position is, on "assualt weapons"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you have to understand 2 things:

 

1) neither side can give an inch at this point. if the NRA were to say, we are ok with not having "assault rifles," then the other side would say "see, even the NRA admits that guns are not safe."

 

2) there is a lot of bullspit being flung by the opposition on this whole "assault weapons" thing. for example, under the expired ban, magazine that held over 10 rounds (for HANDGUNS!) were illegal. so if i have a mag that hold 11 rounds i'm a criminal, but if i carry 4 10-round mags thats ok?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

What is your idea of an "assault weapon"? Do you know what the NRA's position is' date=' on "assualt weapons"?[/quote']

 

Actually, I started to put in my post -- "Please don't ask me to define assualt weapon" because that's the response one usually gets. It's pretty clear to me -- it's a weapon for criminals, homegrown terrorists, or wusses trying to compensate for something. Does that help?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a Life member of the NRA. I have been an NRA instructr/coach and have helped the NRA to train new shooters in the SAFE handling of rifles and pistols and experienced shooters in competition shooting. The NRA promotes firearm safety in hundreds of ways. The NRA advocates responsible firearm ownership, safe usage and firearms sport (from basic to the Olympics) including skeet, trap, rimfire and center fire, air rifles, air pistols, and police/security training and safety. The NRA helps manufacturers to make high quality safety oriented products. It is a strong support of shooting athletes and shooting sports. I am glad I joined and could never list all of the benefits I have received. All of my rifles and pistols will be donated to the NRA when I die.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Actually' date=' I started to put in my post -- "Please don't ask me to define assualt weapon" because that's the response one usually gets. It's pretty clear to me -- it's a weapon for criminals, homegrown terrorists, or wusses trying to compensate for something. Does that help?[/quote']

You live in the city, don't you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The basic principles of the NRA are OK. However' date=' I could do without their stance on so-called "assault weapons" and such that really have no place in our society. I think the NRA is probably controlled/run more by gun manufacturers and "marketeers" than most people think, not by true defenders of the Constitution. But that is just me.[/quote']

 

Yea, assault weapons have no place here, until you need one. What will you do then, hope some guy has a bunch of illegal ones stashed away?

 

You need to realise that our right to bear arms is a measure to protect us from out of control government, not just so we can go kill Bambi, or pop holes in a paper target.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I went to an NRA meet-the-candidates seminar one time. It seemed like half of the people there didn't even care about or own guns, they were interested in citizens' rights. I thought it would just be a bunch of gun owners, but it definitely was not. This raised my respect for the NRA dramatically and I see it as our most important civil rights organization because its work is focused on the civil rights aspect of the second amendment.

 

I took the time to learn a little about the NRA and found that, although it was founded just after the civil war, it was not a very political organization until about 1968, when pending federal legislation made it realistic to assume that guns might be banned. This mobilized a lot of people against the legislation. Since then, the NRA is usually thought of by the general public as a political organization, but that is just part of it. The NRA proper serves its traditional role of educating people in the safe use of firearms, in being the sanctioning body for many shooting sports, and for being a sort of library / museum / publisher for firearms history. Lately, this has expanded to some coverage of hunter advocacy. The Institute for Legislative Action is the part of the NRA that advocates second amendment rights, and is what most people see as the public face of the NRA.

 

In the area of safety, they deserve a lot of credit. They are the ones that have developed almost all of the safety education that is used in this country, and worked with government agencies to get it to the people. Remarkably, no other organization has done anything significant to promote the safe use of firearms. This education has flowed through the population effectively. Although there are many times more guns in private ownership today than in decades past, the rate of accidental and negligent injuries and and deaths due to firearms use has declined to a very low rate per capita.

 

You gotta give them credit when credit is due.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just read the post above about assault weapons. The problem with the popular argument against assault weapons is that it is a lie. The guns identified as assault weapons by the Clinton ban were mostly semi automatic weapons with a military look to them. They are functionally no different than the mainstream firearms that have been available in different cosmetics since semi automatic firearms became commonly available nearly 100 years ago.

 

The news organizations almost always depict these "assault weapons" as being fully automatic machine guns. That is not the type of firearm that is actually subject to this ban. In fact, machine guns are regulated separately and cannot be owned without a special federal license. The use of machine guns to depict the guns in question is a deliberate deception.

 

The simple fact is that civilian firearms usage follows military developments. The reason for this is that it is very expensive to develop good reliable firearm designs. Firearms that look like the TV assault weapons look that way because production realities make it practical, and because people see military firearms and they identify them as "normal", so that's what they buy. It's kind of a marketing phenomenon.

 

One important cosmetic feature of guns popularly identified as assault weapons is their color. Old style guns made use of hardwoods that are now expensive to work with. Today, plastic is much cheaper to work with, and can yield ergonomically better firearms. So plastic is used increasingly, and is quickly becoming accepted as the preferred material by gun shoppers. Black or gray is the most common color for the plastics.

 

Put into a guitar context, this is a lot like the initial reaction to Fender guitars. People in the early 50s were used to seeing "traditional" looking guitars. The Fenders were odd looking and met with a lot of resistance by observers. But musicians quickly found value in them and adopted them, and now they are not only mainstream, but definitive and archetypal.

 

There is a military definition of "assault weapon", and this definition encompasses weapons that are seldom found in private ownership, although there is a legal means by which to obtain and own them.

 

Finally, when contemplating a technology to be banned it is circumspect to first ask whether there are any problems being solved by the ban. The use of military style rifles in crime is so low as to be statistically insignificant, as is objectively verifiable in state crime statistics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Actually' date=' I started to put in my post -- "Please don't ask me to define assualt weapon" because that's the response one usually gets. It's pretty clear to me -- it's a weapon for criminals, homegrown terrorists, or wusses trying to compensate for something. Does that help?[/quote']

 

A baseball bat used in anger against another could be considered an "assault" weapon. How about a butter knife? Or perhaps a flower vase? How about a kick to one's testicles? What, they gonna ban my foot? The term "assault weapon" is too vague a term. A muzzleloader could be considered an "assault weapon" if it were used to kill someone, you are after all, "assaulting" the victim, are you not? Hmm...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

A baseball bat used in anger against another could be considered an "assault" weapon. How about a butter knife? Or perhaps a flower vase? How about a kick to one's testicles? What' date=' they gonna ban my foot? The term "assault weapon" is too vague a term. A muzzleloader could be considered an "assault weapon" if it were used to kill someone, you are after all, "assaulting" the victim, are you not? Hmm...[/quote']

 

 

It's not too vague for me.

 

If you buy it as an "assualt weapon", you've got a problem. Remember the 30 year old right wing gun-nut in the CNN/YouTube Presidential debate who asked the candidates if they would protect his “baby” — the Bushmaster AR-15 semiautomatic rifle he cradled in his arms (and probably caressed most nights).

 

Biden nailed him when he said “I’ll tell you what, if that’s his baby, he needs help.” “I don’t know that he is mentally qualified to own that gun. I’m being serious.”

 

I agree with Biden. But, I guess some folks have to own something like that to feel whole, secure and loved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was a member when I was in high school back in the late '70s.

They're one of the last few defenders of constitutional democracy our country has. I think the NRA is a good thing.

 

I am member for the core reason that they're main goal is the protection of the right of gun ownership. I am firm believer that law abiding citizens should be allowed to own guns to protect themselves, their family and their property. Certainly criminals don't care about following the laws and they have no problem acquiring and using guns... But I digress...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

A little league baseball bat can cause the same result and be just as effective a weapon if used properly. Are you going to ban little league baseball bats too?

 

No. But, I would just consider folks deranged and a menace to society who buy a baseball bat, machete, etc., for the purpose of killing someone because they have some irrational fear that seems to afflict most gun nuts and "assualt weapon" advocates. "Assault" weapons have no other use except perhaps to the perverted who get some strange sexual satisfaction from them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I am member for the core reason that they're main goal is the protection of the right of gun ownership. I am firm believer that law abiding citizens should be allowed to own guns to protect themselves' date=' their family and their property. Certainly criminals don't care about following the laws and they have no problem acquiring and using guns... But I digress...[/quote']

 

Law abiding citizens are allowed to own guns.

 

With or without the NRA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...