NRA and today's compromise
- Thread starter F4GIB
- Start date
- Status
NRA
I have some questions for all the (emotional) children out there who whine and scream about NRA actions, or lack there of;
Are you a member? And I don't mean an annual member. I mean someone who has the depth of commitment to shell out the buck to become a life member, and thereby gain a vote, a vote that can determine NRA leadership, and thereby the policies of the organization.
If you really believe the NRA is mishandling the fight to retain our rights, then get off your ...high horse, drag out your wallet, and actually join the front lines, instead of remaining a whining kibitzer if the fight for our (and our children's) rights.
Until I joined Internet forums, the only NRA bashing I ever heard came from the anti gun side. All the other groups, GOA, JFPO, and all the others are helping to do the work, but they do not have the clout (nor the recognition) that the NRA has. The other side, and the politicians, can (and do) dismiss all the smaller groups, because they do not have either the member base or the capabilities that the NRA has.
When it comes to politics, it boils down to a numbers game (for most politicians, anyway), and the NRA still has the numbers to be considered a force to be reckoned with, even though membership is down from a few years back. Politicians today only listen to the NRA because they fear what political influence the NRA can bring to bear. Being right, and living up to our Constitution has little to do with the practical application of political influence, at least as viewed by our current politicians.
I see rants that go something like "if the NRA caves on this I'm going to cancel my membership..." Fine, take your ball and go home. What an adult attitude.
I see a lot of people whining about how the NRA "sold out" by not stopping this bill or that one. Especially the '86 freeze of the machinegun registry. Blaming the NRA for that one is tantamount to blaming Glock for the VT shootings. It is on the same level of logic as the anti-gunners, and you all know how we all hate that! The freeze was snuck in at the last minute, by the dirtiest of sleazy legislative tricks, a last minute voice vote. The NRA leadership had a choice, bad, or worse. And they made their choice, the greatest good for the greatest number. Sorry if that doesn't sit well with you, hell, it didn;t set well with me, but I understand that the only other choice was to try and kill a bill that they had worked for years to get passed. And that would (not only have cost us what the GOPA gained) have cost us a tremendous amount of prestige, and thereby political power, in the eyes of the bulk of politicians. The NRA leadership did catch a huge amount of flak from the membership, and you may note that the policy in recent years has been to withdraw support from bills when the anti's add poison amendments to them. We do learn, you see.
Political influence is as much about appearance as it is about reality. And one reality is that if we don't appear to reasonable concessions (and that is reasonable from a middle of the road point of view) then the politicians won't even be interested in making any kind of compromise in our favor. And if they won't do that, then we have to show them (again) our political power. And we can only do that at election time. In the meantime, another bad law goes on the books, and more gun owners suffer.
We taught them a couple of big lessons in 94. One was that we do have real political power. While the media ignored us, and focused on the Republican "Contract with America" as the reason the Dems got the boot from congressional power, the Dems (in no less than the person of the party leader Pres. Clinton) admitted to themselves that it was the AWB that cost them the election.
The second lesson they learned from the '94 defeat was not to try to take too much too fast. And since then, they have made no major gains in gun control, while we have made several. Not as much as we would like, but more than we had, and we have kept them pretty much at bay. It is an unending and largely thankless task. But it has to be done, or we all lose.
So draw your own personal line in the sand, plant your feet and cry out NO Retreat, Come and Take Them!, and when the mislead. misinformed masses of "the great unwashed" steamroller over you, we will mourn, and sadly shake our heads at how you chose to waste your chance to actually be effective, and chose instead to become a martyr in your own mind.
There may come a time when our only choice is to become the "300", but the time is not yet. There may come a day, but it is not this day.
Before you fall on your sword in protest over this latest affront to the rights of free men, let's learn a little more about what is actually being proposed, and how we can pull it's teeth, while appearing to be calm reasonable, rational individuals, instead of ranting fanatics. It was the actions of a ranting fanatic that brought about this latest round of legislation.
By all means, give aid and support to your favorite pro gun organizations, but before you give up on the NRA because they didn't do what you thought they ought to, get involved to the point where you can direct their efforts. Otherwise, I don't see you having a right to complain.
I have some questions for all the (emotional) children out there who whine and scream about NRA actions, or lack there of;
Are you a member? And I don't mean an annual member. I mean someone who has the depth of commitment to shell out the buck to become a life member, and thereby gain a vote, a vote that can determine NRA leadership, and thereby the policies of the organization.
If you really believe the NRA is mishandling the fight to retain our rights, then get off your ...high horse, drag out your wallet, and actually join the front lines, instead of remaining a whining kibitzer if the fight for our (and our children's) rights.
Until I joined Internet forums, the only NRA bashing I ever heard came from the anti gun side. All the other groups, GOA, JFPO, and all the others are helping to do the work, but they do not have the clout (nor the recognition) that the NRA has. The other side, and the politicians, can (and do) dismiss all the smaller groups, because they do not have either the member base or the capabilities that the NRA has.
When it comes to politics, it boils down to a numbers game (for most politicians, anyway), and the NRA still has the numbers to be considered a force to be reckoned with, even though membership is down from a few years back. Politicians today only listen to the NRA because they fear what political influence the NRA can bring to bear. Being right, and living up to our Constitution has little to do with the practical application of political influence, at least as viewed by our current politicians.
I see rants that go something like "if the NRA caves on this I'm going to cancel my membership..." Fine, take your ball and go home. What an adult attitude.
I see a lot of people whining about how the NRA "sold out" by not stopping this bill or that one. Especially the '86 freeze of the machinegun registry. Blaming the NRA for that one is tantamount to blaming Glock for the VT shootings. It is on the same level of logic as the anti-gunners, and you all know how we all hate that! The freeze was snuck in at the last minute, by the dirtiest of sleazy legislative tricks, a last minute voice vote. The NRA leadership had a choice, bad, or worse. And they made their choice, the greatest good for the greatest number. Sorry if that doesn't sit well with you, hell, it didn;t set well with me, but I understand that the only other choice was to try and kill a bill that they had worked for years to get passed. And that would (not only have cost us what the GOPA gained) have cost us a tremendous amount of prestige, and thereby political power, in the eyes of the bulk of politicians. The NRA leadership did catch a huge amount of flak from the membership, and you may note that the policy in recent years has been to withdraw support from bills when the anti's add poison amendments to them. We do learn, you see.
Political influence is as much about appearance as it is about reality. And one reality is that if we don't appear to reasonable concessions (and that is reasonable from a middle of the road point of view) then the politicians won't even be interested in making any kind of compromise in our favor. And if they won't do that, then we have to show them (again) our political power. And we can only do that at election time. In the meantime, another bad law goes on the books, and more gun owners suffer.
We taught them a couple of big lessons in 94. One was that we do have real political power. While the media ignored us, and focused on the Republican "Contract with America" as the reason the Dems got the boot from congressional power, the Dems (in no less than the person of the party leader Pres. Clinton) admitted to themselves that it was the AWB that cost them the election.
The second lesson they learned from the '94 defeat was not to try to take too much too fast. And since then, they have made no major gains in gun control, while we have made several. Not as much as we would like, but more than we had, and we have kept them pretty much at bay. It is an unending and largely thankless task. But it has to be done, or we all lose.
So draw your own personal line in the sand, plant your feet and cry out NO Retreat, Come and Take Them!, and when the mislead. misinformed masses of "the great unwashed" steamroller over you, we will mourn, and sadly shake our heads at how you chose to waste your chance to actually be effective, and chose instead to become a martyr in your own mind.
There may come a time when our only choice is to become the "300", but the time is not yet. There may come a day, but it is not this day.
Before you fall on your sword in protest over this latest affront to the rights of free men, let's learn a little more about what is actually being proposed, and how we can pull it's teeth, while appearing to be calm reasonable, rational individuals, instead of ranting fanatics. It was the actions of a ranting fanatic that brought about this latest round of legislation.
By all means, give aid and support to your favorite pro gun organizations, but before you give up on the NRA because they didn't do what you thought they ought to, get involved to the point where you can direct their efforts. Otherwise, I don't see you having a right to complain.
44amp, very well said. I totally agree. Everyone should join as many pro-gun organizations as they can but IMHO the NRA should be the first one. We need NRA's membership to be as large as possible since numbers is what the politicians understand.
44amp, for people like you, it's never time to take a stand. The time to take a stand was a long time ago. In my opinion, it seems that you prefer the death by a 1,000 cuts the government is using and selling out your own principles to gain a little bit more time.
The NRA better get something BIG in return for this, otherwise any support for the organization I have will cease. If they want the bill so bad, then they better give us something. Repeal of the "sporting purposes" clause would be good. End to "Gun Free School Zones" would too.
The NRA better get something BIG in return for this, otherwise any support for the organization I have will cease. If they want the bill so bad, then they better give us something. Repeal of the "sporting purposes" clause would be good. End to "Gun Free School Zones" would too.
Last edited:
Jeff22
Member
HIPPA and privacy of health information
We just had an update on how to deal with the mentally ill from an LE perspective, which focused a lot on the procedure for doing an emergency mental detention (when a person is found to be a danger to themselves or others and is taken in for observation. In Wisconsin, it's for 72 hours. In this state, it's really hard to do an involuntary commitment absent threats or suicide attempts)
One of the things we discussed was HIPPA.
HIPPA -- the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 -- among other things, regulates the privacy of health information.
45 CFR 164.512 (f) -- Disclosure of information for Law Enforcement purposes
45 CFR 164.512(j) -- Uses and disclosures of information to avert a serious threat to health or safety.
HIPPA does not in any way prohibit the government from establishing a data base on those judged to be mentally incompetent. See the references to the Code of Federal Regulation above.
We just had an update on how to deal with the mentally ill from an LE perspective, which focused a lot on the procedure for doing an emergency mental detention (when a person is found to be a danger to themselves or others and is taken in for observation. In Wisconsin, it's for 72 hours. In this state, it's really hard to do an involuntary commitment absent threats or suicide attempts)
One of the things we discussed was HIPPA.
HIPPA -- the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 -- among other things, regulates the privacy of health information.
45 CFR 164.512 (f) -- Disclosure of information for Law Enforcement purposes
45 CFR 164.512(j) -- Uses and disclosures of information to avert a serious threat to health or safety.
HIPPA does not in any way prohibit the government from establishing a data base on those judged to be mentally incompetent. See the references to the Code of Federal Regulation above.
It is about when to take the stand and for what. What are we taking a stand for here?! Enforcing a law that says that the mentally adjudicated here should not be able to get guns. Do we all go ahead and proclaim that we strongly believe that persons like Cho should be able to get firearms regardless?! Well, this will go "very well" with the general electorate. Read Bartholomew Roberts remarks in his posts that this would be a political suicide of grand proportions, not only for the NRA but for the RKBA movement as a whole. Which part of this you guys do not understand?! Something like this will put every non gunny citizen firmly in the anti-gun camp and then we all be standing, very alone and eventually very defeated.
Posturing, rattling the saber, and crying out loud every time is not a strategy. Look at Saddam this was his strategy and now he is a dead man. You pick your battles, and you outmaneuver the enemy. The greatest military tacticians of mankind understood that and were successful.
Is the key word here "judged"? In my previous posts I was referring to records of people who go to counseling, etc. Somehow, some folks are scared that if they even seen a counselor for depression or something like that, their records will end up in the hands of the government and they will not be able to purchase firearms.
I believe that to be impossible.
Wow you folks' willingness to give up MY rights never ceases to amaze me. The ad-hominem attacks against those who rile against the NRA and it's willingness to support gun-grabbers amazes me.
The NRA is run by corporatists and beholden to them because of the massive money they take from them. Why would I join an institution that - like you - so easily gives up the fight for my God given rights?
Bottom line: If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck - it's definitely the NRA ceding ground on gun control.
The NRA is run by corporatists and beholden to them because of the massive money they take from them. Why would I join an institution that - like you - so easily gives up the fight for my God given rights?
Bottom line: If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck - it's definitely the NRA ceding ground on gun control.
Mongo the Mutterer
Member
44AMP good post. I am a Life Member.
We should not, repeat should not, give up anything at this point. We should get the Lautenberg misdemeanor language out of the Bill, and then come out in support of the increased funding for reporting. Win, Win.
I don't see NICS going away, ever. Hate to say it but that is my view.
What we can do is GET SOMETHING OUT OF THIS. The Democrats know d**n well that they can't push their agenda, especially with the second amendment supporting Democrats who were just elected to give them the majority. They are scared to death of the NRA. Use the fear.
We should not, repeat should not, give up anything at this point. We should get the Lautenberg misdemeanor language out of the Bill, and then come out in support of the increased funding for reporting. Win, Win.
I don't see NICS going away, ever. Hate to say it but that is my view.
What we can do is GET SOMETHING OUT OF THIS. The Democrats know d**n well that they can't push their agenda, especially with the second amendment supporting Democrats who were just elected to give them the majority. They are scared to death of the NRA. Use the fear.
JohnBT
Member
"The NRA is run by corporatists and beholden to them because of the massive money they take from them."
I assume you have evidence of this? Yes? No? I'd like to see it if it exists.
John
I assume you have evidence of this? Yes? No? I'd like to see it if it exists.
John
Bartholomew Roberts thanks for this link, I skimmed by it before it real helpful. Good info to know.
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/...ccess.gpo.gov/cfr_2001/aprqtr/27cfr178.11.htm
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/...ccess.gpo.gov/cfr_2001/aprqtr/27cfr178.11.htm
Daniel T
Member
Thanks for using 25% of your posts on this forum to insult a member you know nothing about.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and half of its posts consist of NRA bashing - it's definitely an anti-NRA troll.
JohnBT
Member
Maybe yes, and maybe no. Could be. I know lots of cliches too. 
But they make poor arguments and are hardly convincing.
John
But they make poor arguments and are hardly convincing.John
Daniel T
Member
classic - make the same wild, refuted claims over and over again...
Bottom line: Your "message" seems to consist solely of " THE NRA IS EEEEVIL!!!11".
Which, perhaps not-so-coincidently, sounds very familiar.
Bottom line: Your "message" seems to consist solely of " THE NRA IS EEEEVIL!!!11".
Which, perhaps not-so-coincidently, sounds very familiar.
It seems to me that The NRA is merely supporting a bill that gets them LOTS of political mileage and cedes very little to the anti-gun crowd. This bill is more about funding than any new restrictions on ownership. It helps provide funding so that those adjudicated mentally defective in a court of law(NOT declared to have depression or anxiety by their primary care doc or psychiatrist) will get reported to the data bank (which is what was supposed to be happening any way).
This also helps lay the blame for this shooting on mental illness, not directly on the guns themselves like the anti-gun crowd would like to. The Democrats get to vote for a "feel good" piece of legislation to please their more liberal supporters, and thus, may not feel as pressured to vote for HR1022 when it comes to a vote.
Frankly, I'm always quite annoyed at our legislators need to constantly pass new laws. Unfortunately, it keeps on happening. In this case (if nothing "sneaky" gets tacked on to it), it seems as if this law is ceding very little (if anything) that doesn't already exist, while at the same time getting the NRA a decent amount of political mileage.
This also helps lay the blame for this shooting on mental illness, not directly on the guns themselves like the anti-gun crowd would like to. The Democrats get to vote for a "feel good" piece of legislation to please their more liberal supporters, and thus, may not feel as pressured to vote for HR1022 when it comes to a vote.
Frankly, I'm always quite annoyed at our legislators need to constantly pass new laws. Unfortunately, it keeps on happening. In this case (if nothing "sneaky" gets tacked on to it), it seems as if this law is ceding very little (if anything) that doesn't already exist, while at the same time getting the NRA a decent amount of political mileage.
Sorry, I disagree completely.
NRA supports preventing those who have been adjucated by a court to be a danger to themselves or others from buying a gun. That's common sense. Dingell is a very pro-gun Democrat..
Note that even some of the rabid anti Dems in Congress are not catering to the Brady's calls for gun bans - they are directing their attention to modifying mental heatlh regulations. This is a paradigm shift - in the wake of Columbine (1999), there was a strong attempt to pass gun control. But not here.
And personally, I agree - it makes no sense to have an Instant Check system and not check for this obvious danger. So just who is the Instant Check system supposed to be checking - only healthy law-abiding gun-owners? Remember these are people that a court has determined are a danger to themselves or others. This does NOT include those who receive mental health treatment or therapy, simply under the care of a mental health doctor or those who exhibit "Brittney Spears" behavior, etc.
Of course there is a potential for abuse, like when Clinton prohibited 90,000 veterans with "post-traumatic stress syndrome" from owning guns. NRA is still trying to straighten that out. I hope NRA is involved with this kind of effort so that we stay protected. Dems may not want to attack gun-rights right now, but elections have a way of changing things.
IMO, the big danger to gun-owners here is coming from GOA and JPFO who, predictably, are already disagreeing with NRA's position. Anyone surprised? As often happens, our worst enemies are on our own side. These tiny groups will stop at nothing to fundraise, even adopting positions that make gun-owners look like neandrethals. Remember, their goal is to support themselves by convincing fellow neandrethals that NRA is betraying them. If they can convince .01% of NRA members to send them money instead of NRA, it's a financial boon for them!
Mike
NRA supports preventing those who have been adjucated by a court to be a danger to themselves or others from buying a gun. That's common sense. Dingell is a very pro-gun Democrat..
Note that even some of the rabid anti Dems in Congress are not catering to the Brady's calls for gun bans - they are directing their attention to modifying mental heatlh regulations. This is a paradigm shift - in the wake of Columbine (1999), there was a strong attempt to pass gun control. But not here.
And personally, I agree - it makes no sense to have an Instant Check system and not check for this obvious danger. So just who is the Instant Check system supposed to be checking - only healthy law-abiding gun-owners? Remember these are people that a court has determined are a danger to themselves or others. This does NOT include those who receive mental health treatment or therapy, simply under the care of a mental health doctor or those who exhibit "Brittney Spears" behavior, etc.
Of course there is a potential for abuse, like when Clinton prohibited 90,000 veterans with "post-traumatic stress syndrome" from owning guns. NRA is still trying to straighten that out. I hope NRA is involved with this kind of effort so that we stay protected. Dems may not want to attack gun-rights right now, but elections have a way of changing things.
IMO, the big danger to gun-owners here is coming from GOA and JPFO who, predictably, are already disagreeing with NRA's position. Anyone surprised? As often happens, our worst enemies are on our own side. These tiny groups will stop at nothing to fundraise, even adopting positions that make gun-owners look like neandrethals. Remember, their goal is to support themselves by convincing fellow neandrethals that NRA is betraying them. If they can convince .01% of NRA members to send them money instead of NRA, it's a financial boon for them!
Mike
This legislation is not a compromise for NRA - as stated above, this is not a change in their position *AND* it is the right course of action to help prevent a re-occurence of VT.
However, it IS a compromise for those Democrats who now support changing mental health regs but previously would attack gun-rights (like after Columbine).
If anything, it's another example of how NRA has successfully moved the gun debate AWAY from further restrictions.
Mike Haas
Owner and Author, http://AmmoGuide.com/
NRA Benefactor Member, volunteering as...
Electronic Communications Director, NRA Members' Councils of California
http://NRAMembersCouncils.com/ - aka http://calnra.com/
President, NRA Members' Council of West Contra Costa County
NRA-ILA EVC, CA Congressional District 7
Also...
Webmaster, Fifty Caliber Institute, http://fiftycal.org/
Webmaster for NRA Attorneys in CA., http://tmllp.com/
Webmaster, http://calgunlaws.com/
Co-founder, http://E-GovMail.com/
Co-founder, http://ProjectBoreSnake.org/ (PLEASE SUPPORT OUR TROOPS!)
------------------------------------
You may enjoy some of my personal web sites...
------------------------------------
http://NRAWinningTeam.com/
http://PatriotBoxers.com/
http://NRAMembersCouncils.com/lifeclock/
However, it IS a compromise for those Democrats who now support changing mental health regs but previously would attack gun-rights (like after Columbine).
If anything, it's another example of how NRA has successfully moved the gun debate AWAY from further restrictions.
Mike Haas
Owner and Author, http://AmmoGuide.com/
NRA Benefactor Member, volunteering as...
Electronic Communications Director, NRA Members' Councils of California
http://NRAMembersCouncils.com/ - aka http://calnra.com/
President, NRA Members' Council of West Contra Costa County
NRA-ILA EVC, CA Congressional District 7
Also...
Webmaster, Fifty Caliber Institute, http://fiftycal.org/
Webmaster for NRA Attorneys in CA., http://tmllp.com/
Webmaster, http://calgunlaws.com/
Co-founder, http://E-GovMail.com/
Co-founder, http://ProjectBoreSnake.org/ (PLEASE SUPPORT OUR TROOPS!)
------------------------------------
You may enjoy some of my personal web sites...
------------------------------------
http://NRAWinningTeam.com/
http://PatriotBoxers.com/
http://NRAMembersCouncils.com/lifeclock/
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
You know one concern I have always had with 922(g) is that once you are "adjudicated mentally defective" you are stuck there forever because ATF does not do relief from disability requests because Congress does not fund them.
I even found that fact mentioned by a commitment manual advising mental health professionals how to address the fears of their patients concerning mental health treatment.
In Cho's case, even the court-ordered outpatient counseling was enough to remove his rights under federal law because he was found to be a danger to himself; but what about someone who receives counseling and then lives 20 years as a peacable citizen? Under current law, they are forever barred from owning firearms if they were found by a court to be a danger to themselves or others at one time. In fact, these fears are exactly why mental health professionals oppose the NICS requirement.
Seems to me like this bill would be a good opportunity to team up with mental health professionals and get Congress to fund relief from disability again.
I even found that fact mentioned by a commitment manual advising mental health professionals how to address the fears of their patients concerning mental health treatment.
In Cho's case, even the court-ordered outpatient counseling was enough to remove his rights under federal law because he was found to be a danger to himself; but what about someone who receives counseling and then lives 20 years as a peacable citizen? Under current law, they are forever barred from owning firearms if they were found by a court to be a danger to themselves or others at one time. In fact, these fears are exactly why mental health professionals oppose the NICS requirement.
Seems to me like this bill would be a good opportunity to team up with mental health professionals and get Congress to fund relief from disability again.
TooTaxed
Member
If you are considering not joining the NRA due to their support of this issue, consider these two things:
(1.) the NRA is far and away the most effective pro-gun organization in the US, reporting proposed legislation at every level of government nationwide and by actively organizing pro-gun support actions. Probably 99% of their effort is good.
(2.) If you want to take issue with the NRA over this matter, you can most effectively do so as a member. Lots of anti-gun individuals...many of whom pretend to be members of gun owners...blast the NRA. They would like nothing better than to drive a wedge between the NRA and sportsmen, weakening the pro-gun capability.
So...to truly make your voice heard, join the NRA and work within...as I am.
(1.) the NRA is far and away the most effective pro-gun organization in the US, reporting proposed legislation at every level of government nationwide and by actively organizing pro-gun support actions. Probably 99% of their effort is good.
(2.) If you want to take issue with the NRA over this matter, you can most effectively do so as a member. Lots of anti-gun individuals...many of whom pretend to be members of gun owners...blast the NRA. They would like nothing better than to drive a wedge between the NRA and sportsmen, weakening the pro-gun capability.
So...to truly make your voice heard, join the NRA and work within...as I am.
One thing that has been brought up lately that *might* be another addition to a bill, if not this one, then another would be people who are on medication for depression, or anxiety, or panic attacks etc. Because these drugs can alter moods, or slow down the CNS I see this coming into play soon. I would just really hate to see a bill that would prevent a gun owner or potential gun owner from seeking the help they need.
On another note, I agree that under many circumstances a person who might be a danger to themselves or others at one point in their life may fully recover. I would like to see something like a 3-5 year expiration period once someone is judged no longer a danger to anyone.
On another note, I agree that under many circumstances a person who might be a danger to themselves or others at one point in their life may fully recover. I would like to see something like a 3-5 year expiration period once someone is judged no longer a danger to anyone.
TooTaxed
Member
JLStorm, I really like your second point...
Some things are just not worth getting upset over
And some things are. Everybody makes their own decisions, based on their values. But for someone to arbitrarily decide they know another's values judging them from a single post on a subject gives me a strong desire to respond in kind, but I will refrain, as I believe this forum is supposed to be "The High Road".
To all who agreed and even defended my position, thank you. We seem to be able to see a bit more clearly than some.
All the information I have at this time indicates that the proposed legislation is not a serious infringement on our rights. Although there are some provisions which could be "improved" (and very well may be if the NRA works with the legislators), the overall impetus is to strengthen the ability of the govt to enforce long established (and basically sound) principles. Dangerously crazy people should not have guns. How can one argue against this and still appear rational? I would think not only guns, but knives, and cars, and any other objects that they could hurt themselves or others with should be kept from their grasp. I see no problem with this.
However, there is a potential problem with the execution of the concept. And that problem is who decides (and how they decide) just who is a dangerously crazy individual. It is a potential slippery slope, and we must be on guard against sliding down hill.
At the moment, (and traditionally) it is the courts who make the legal determination. They take the recommendations of mental health professionals into account, but it is a court that makes the legal judgement. Is this a perfect system? No. Will mistakes be made? Yes. That is inevitable, as there are human beings involved in the process. But it is the system we use, and I believe the best one available.
I am not in favor of placing the legal judgement solely in the hands of mental health professionals. My reasoning is that first, the "official" diagnoses of mental illness is an evolving process, evidenced by the fact that a few decades ago homosexuality was a valid "mental illness" and today it is not. Second, these professionals are individuals too, and may allow their personal bias to affect their recommendations. It is not beyond possibility that if they had the actual legal authority that many would use it to further their own personal agendas. Court judges may also do this, but our system is set up to prevent that. it doesn't always work as well as we might wish, but at least there is a legal mechanism in place to use when needed.
I don't see the proposed bill changing that. If different info comes to light, I will, of course re-evaluate my position.
The danger to us of having the politicians at work again on this issue is that some will try and broaden the categories of prohibited persons. I do oppose this, as should we all. Especially when it is done with the broadest brush possible, as the Clintons did to the veterans trying to cope with PSTD. I have known some of them, and while some of them are ill to the point of being a danger to themselves and others, many (likely most) certainly are not. Placing them all in the category of prohibited persons was wrong. And doing it by administrative fiat was not only wrong, but displayed the arrogance typical of that elitist administration. Judgements of this kind should be done on an individual case by case basis.
TO one particular individual: I do have my own "line in the sand". I drew it back in '68. We aren't there yet, I hope we never get there, but demanding the NRA throw down the gauntlet and delare to the nation "this far, and no further" especially over this particular bill is one way to move us a long way down the road we should not take.
One big thing that helps us in our struggle is the fact that the huge majority of gun owners in this country are known to be sane, rational, and reasonable individuals. People who are not shouting "come and take them" and "vote from the rooftoops" over and over every time the issue comes up. That is our "silent majority", and those people are the ones who's votes the politician's fear. They are the ones that give the NRA it's political power in the eyes of the politicians, and not those who they consider the gun owner "lunatic fringe".
Many gun owners are students of history. Many of us are students of military history. And one lesson military history teaches is that fixed fortifications always fall. It may be soon, or it may be late, but they always fall, unless the enemy is defeated on the field of battle. The enemy is not defeated infront of the walls of your fortress, for when his losses become too severe, he merely retreats, until he has gathered enough strength to attack again. To defeat the enemy, you must do so on the field of battle, which requires the ability to maneuver. Once defeated on the open field, the enemy may be driven back into such fortresses as he has, and defeated there, gaining final victory.
Taking a fixed position too soon severly limits your ability to respond to attack. It takes away your ability to maneuver, including counterattack. While there are positions that must be defended, retreating into them before being defeated in the field, or even engaging the enemy, denies one the options necessary for victory, in effect giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
This simple premise seems escape many people, but fortunately for us, not all. And it does apply in the realm of politics as well.
Think about it. I believe a number of NRA members do.
And some things are. Everybody makes their own decisions, based on their values. But for someone to arbitrarily decide they know another's values judging them from a single post on a subject gives me a strong desire to respond in kind, but I will refrain, as I believe this forum is supposed to be "The High Road".
To all who agreed and even defended my position, thank you. We seem to be able to see a bit more clearly than some.
All the information I have at this time indicates that the proposed legislation is not a serious infringement on our rights. Although there are some provisions which could be "improved" (and very well may be if the NRA works with the legislators), the overall impetus is to strengthen the ability of the govt to enforce long established (and basically sound) principles. Dangerously crazy people should not have guns. How can one argue against this and still appear rational? I would think not only guns, but knives, and cars, and any other objects that they could hurt themselves or others with should be kept from their grasp. I see no problem with this.
However, there is a potential problem with the execution of the concept. And that problem is who decides (and how they decide) just who is a dangerously crazy individual. It is a potential slippery slope, and we must be on guard against sliding down hill.
At the moment, (and traditionally) it is the courts who make the legal determination. They take the recommendations of mental health professionals into account, but it is a court that makes the legal judgement. Is this a perfect system? No. Will mistakes be made? Yes. That is inevitable, as there are human beings involved in the process. But it is the system we use, and I believe the best one available.
I am not in favor of placing the legal judgement solely in the hands of mental health professionals. My reasoning is that first, the "official" diagnoses of mental illness is an evolving process, evidenced by the fact that a few decades ago homosexuality was a valid "mental illness" and today it is not. Second, these professionals are individuals too, and may allow their personal bias to affect their recommendations. It is not beyond possibility that if they had the actual legal authority that many would use it to further their own personal agendas. Court judges may also do this, but our system is set up to prevent that. it doesn't always work as well as we might wish, but at least there is a legal mechanism in place to use when needed.
I don't see the proposed bill changing that. If different info comes to light, I will, of course re-evaluate my position.
The danger to us of having the politicians at work again on this issue is that some will try and broaden the categories of prohibited persons. I do oppose this, as should we all. Especially when it is done with the broadest brush possible, as the Clintons did to the veterans trying to cope with PSTD. I have known some of them, and while some of them are ill to the point of being a danger to themselves and others, many (likely most) certainly are not. Placing them all in the category of prohibited persons was wrong. And doing it by administrative fiat was not only wrong, but displayed the arrogance typical of that elitist administration. Judgements of this kind should be done on an individual case by case basis.
TO one particular individual: I do have my own "line in the sand". I drew it back in '68. We aren't there yet, I hope we never get there, but demanding the NRA throw down the gauntlet and delare to the nation "this far, and no further" especially over this particular bill is one way to move us a long way down the road we should not take.
One big thing that helps us in our struggle is the fact that the huge majority of gun owners in this country are known to be sane, rational, and reasonable individuals. People who are not shouting "come and take them" and "vote from the rooftoops" over and over every time the issue comes up. That is our "silent majority", and those people are the ones who's votes the politician's fear. They are the ones that give the NRA it's political power in the eyes of the politicians, and not those who they consider the gun owner "lunatic fringe".
Many gun owners are students of history. Many of us are students of military history. And one lesson military history teaches is that fixed fortifications always fall. It may be soon, or it may be late, but they always fall, unless the enemy is defeated on the field of battle. The enemy is not defeated infront of the walls of your fortress, for when his losses become too severe, he merely retreats, until he has gathered enough strength to attack again. To defeat the enemy, you must do so on the field of battle, which requires the ability to maneuver. Once defeated on the open field, the enemy may be driven back into such fortresses as he has, and defeated there, gaining final victory.
Taking a fixed position too soon severly limits your ability to respond to attack. It takes away your ability to maneuver, including counterattack. While there are positions that must be defended, retreating into them before being defeated in the field, or even engaging the enemy, denies one the options necessary for victory, in effect giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
This simple premise seems escape many people, but fortunately for us, not all. And it does apply in the realm of politics as well.
Think about it. I believe a number of NRA members do.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
