NRA gone too far?

[Eyesac]

What's all the fuss about?

Thank you. It's amazing how people will just descend down on this thread if they really disagree with my views.

Then why did you post a poll thread? You wanted to know people's opinions? Well you got it. What's the problem. If I went to a anti-gun forum and posted a poll thread: "has Barak Obama gone too far?" and got called a troll I wouldn't take it personal...

 

[rfurtkamp]

Yes, the NRA has gone too far- consistently supporting NFA '34 and its restrictions (including a longstanding non-support for MG ownership), along with coming way late to the party on other important issues.

It doesn't mean I don't appreciate what they've done for ranges/youth education etc, but the core of the problem for me is the idea that somehow the 2nd Amendment is a 'sporting' one - and in refusing to support legal civilian ownership of MGs and other 'non-sporting guns', NRA is willfully blind.

I can't support an organization that may well make a nice punch and pie but the main course is rotten at the core.

Or, for clarity for the people who will magically not read, the summary:

- I support guns for any individual legally free to be on the streets.
- I do not support registration, required training, permits, or any limitation on firearm purchase, ownership, or non-harmful use.
- The Second Amendment does not bar 'criminals' from having firearms. Our Founding Fathers were violent terrorists, and I never ever forget that.

 

[Bubba613]

I dunno.
States that have shall-issue laws have had them for over a decade and I haven't seen any abuse or attempts to use it as a means of denying outright.
As for using the information to gather guns, not everyone who has a carry permit has a gun.

 

[benEzra]

Zammyman, I have far more posts on Democratic Underground than I do here, and I'm not sure how to vote on your poll. None of the answers fit, IMO.

I disagree with the NRA's sometimes-partisanship on NON-gun issues (what's up with that?), their pandering to the 1950's "sportsman" meme, and their annoying tendency to bury actual facts (for example, that Senator Kerry wanted to outlaw the most popular rifles in America and was abysmally misinformed about Federal firearms law) under questionable hyperbole ("Senator Kerry wants to outlaw straight-stocked Remington hunting shotguns and if he were a hunting dog he'd be a poodle").

But their actual positions on legislation are generally rational and well thought out.

I don't consider the NRA's legislative positions "medium" between the GOA and the Bradyites (the Bradyites are WAY out to lunch, and have completely lost sight of their ostensible goal of fighting violence), but I do consider the NRA's legislative positions rational. And FWIW, the NRA has compromised on many occasions, including the post-VT NICS improvement bill, not to mention the bill that created NICS in the first place, the 1986 AP bullet ban, etc. Not that they've ever gotten any credit for it from the MSM.

BTW, a lot of the hostility to your OP probably comes not only from the heavily slanted poll wording (like I said, for me it is unanswerable), but also the fact that you approvingly cited a press release from one of the most loony-out-to-lunch gun-ban organizations in the United States. SHV makes the Bradyites look downright rational sometimes (such as when Rosenthal claimed that .223 and 7.62x39mm carbines "were originally designed to penetrate police body armor from 1000 yards away"), and they are directly responsible for turning Massachusetts into a gun-owner purgatory. Rosenthal's extremism apparently got him booted from AHSA, which gives you an idea of just where he's at.

And does that article really reflect your own views? Do you REALLY support summarily revoking the gun rights for life of anyone placed on the administrations secret watchlist/blacklist, knowing that that list contains nonviolent environmentalists, nonviolent peace protesters, people put on the list for attending the wrong mosque, people put on the list as children, and people put on the list to meet daily TSA quotas, with no realistic possibility of appeal? I say kudos to the NRA for standing up against Gonzales et al on that.

 

[Mello]

Blue text below is copied from http://www.businesswire.com/portal/...d=news_view&newsId=20070724006046&newsLang=en
When asked if there should be background checks required for all gun purchases: “The problem with having background checks for every single gun purchase is that not every person is in the business of selling firearms. I should not have to go through the ATF procedure to get a license and then to conduct background checks simply because I don’t need his rifle and I want to go to a gun show simply because I want to sell it to someone at the gun show person-to-person.

“Is that the position of the NRA, that people on an anti-terrorist watchlist should not be barred from purchasing guns?”
“We do not believe that they should be barred. We do not know how people are put on the list. Many times people are victims of mistaken identity.”

This illustrates at least two issues. Private sales of firearms. Where is the conflict of rights? Where is the government constitutional power? Why not make all convicted felons who may not possess firearms available on the internet? I'm sure law abiding people would not sell to felons.

The anti-terrorist watchlist is a bad joke. A great percentage of the people listed are there without justification. All of the people on it are there with out due process.

I answered no on the poll, even though I believe there are laws which can infringe on the right to keep and bear arms; such as a person convicted of a violent felony being prohibited from possessing a firearm.

 

[ZombieKiller]

zammyman, i respect whatever you say because you have the right to do so. HOWEVER, you gotta be a lonely, lonely person to say that you're gonna leave and end up staying hours more just to feel important/have your presence felt/whatever it is that you get your kicks out of. Be a man of your word and leave already.

 

[Redneck with a 40]

Isn't it nice to have to ask our benevolent government's permission to exercise our rights, background checks and concealed carry permits.

We should have a nationwide Vermont or Alaska system, no permit required to carry.

What I fear is the govt cracking down on the First Ammendment just like they have the 2nd, I fear this day is coming. The liberals are already trying to shut down conservative talk.

As far as proficiency is concerned, this is a PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY, the govt does not need to babysit people. If someone buys a gun, stuffs it in a drawer, never goes to the range with it, then that person is a dumbass. Its HIS OWN FAULT, he's not competent.

 

[NotSoFast]

None of the above. I don't answer biased polls, either for or against gun control.

 

[JWarren]

ZombieKiller wrote:

zammyman, i respect whatever you say because you have the right to do so.

My friend.... I think you mispoke. You respect WHAT someone says because they have to right to do so?

Or were you saying that you acknowledge his right to say it?

The difference is subtle, but the meaning is paramount.






-- John

 

[ZombieKiller]

My friend.... I think you mispoke. You respect WHAT someone says because they have to right to do so?

Or were you saying that you acknowledge his right to say it?

The difference is subtle, but the meaning is paramount

I'm saying that I acknowledge his right to say whatever he wants to. The point I was really trying to make though, was that if he says hes gonna leave, he should do it.

 

[shiftyer1]

I voted no anti 2a. BUT I support the laws on full auto because of stupid kids with way to much machismo. And because I would starve to death trying to feed a full auto weapon after falling in love.

 

[12131]

by MikePGS:
Originally posted by zammyman
Quote:
I've obviously started quite a ruffle here, which wasn't my intention, but the path of some threads has become quite childish. Everybody is welcome to their own opinion, it seems people cannot express their opinion here without fighting that of others openly at the same time. For that reason I bid this forum goodbye.
__________________

So predictable, wasn't it, Mike? Drama queen posts like that of zammyman was seen from miles away.

 

[stevelyn]

The NRA has "compromised" with the Brady/VPC pukes too often.

 

[Ridgerunner665]

I didn't vote in the poll...but I thought I should say this.

If there is "an influx of anti's" here on THR, we should at least argue our point like adults.

The NRA is the only voice we have (most influential at least)...Every American should support them.

 

[rfurtkamp]

server hang

 

[rfurtkamp]

Server hang #2

 

[rfurtkamp]

BUT I support the laws on full auto because of stupid kids with way to much machismo.

The restrictions on FA are clearly 'for the children', just like other 'sensible' gun laws.

 

[moooose102]

while i do agree that we need to get, keep, and prevent violent criminals from getting firearms, i do not see how ANY LAW is ever going to stop it. they are CRIMINALS, they DO NOT OBEY THE LAW! the way to reduce gun related crime is to make the penelty so bad no one will do it. something like being torn apart (drawn and quartered by horses), eaten alive by a lion, dropped into a tank of acid and being disolved. something like that. HORRIFIC deaths. not send them to jail, give them cable tv, 3 meals a day, access to every book under the sun so they can be way smarter next time around and figure out how to do their crimes without being caught. our prison system simply teaches them to be better criminals while inflating their rage. our prison system DOES NOT rehabilitate our prisoners, it turns them into animals. our prisons are simply a place for us to dump these people and forget them so we can "feel" safer.

 

[Titan6]

I am with John way back in post #3. Certainly the answer is no but the reason in my mind is not because all gun laws are anti 2A. The reason is because they can only do so much. They are only lobby organization not a branch of the government.

 

[Deanimator]

What's with the recent influx of gun toting liberal newbies to THR? Dis I miss sumpin.

I'm a "gun toting liberal" and I think this sudden influx of AHSA influenced stuff is a load of garbage.

No compromise!

No compromise with Obama!

No compromise with Brady!

No compromise with VPC!

No compromise with the Quislings of AHSA!

No compromise on gun control, EVER!

 

[pmeisel]

I agree with the NRA's legal views on RKBA. I think they unfortunately spend too much time personalizing the issue related to parties and specific politicians they disagree with. Drawing horns and a tail on Ted Kennedy or Dianne Feinstein is fine for political satirists who make fun of everybody, but when it gets into the written word it cheapens the messenger into a mudslinger.

 

[subknave]

WOW That article is nothing but a direct line of Stop Handgun Violence propaganda. The real reason for not requiring background checks etc. is it is just not workable and totally unenforceable. Where did they get the 50% of handgun sales are private and that BS about well if Osama Bin Laden was on the terror watchlist and wanted to buy a gun. The problem with the terror watch lists is there is no due process for determining who goes on or getting your name off. How would the Liberals feel if anyone on the FBI watch lists in the 60s wouldn't have been allowed to fly on a plane, buy guns or have due process (think domestic terrorist). That is the same as the current terrorist watch list.

 

[71Commander]

zammyman. What's your DU name?

I see this ploy used at the DUmp all the time.

 

[Sato Ord]

I support the the second amendment just like I support the first.

Everyone has a right to free speech, even those who disagree with you. The funny thing is, aside from the personal attacks, which I don't agree with either, the others make valid points, but the original poster, at least the way I read his carpings, thinks that we should all be fluff bunnies and not openly disagree because we have to respect his views. Sorry I live the real world, I disagree, that's my opinion, and I have a right to it. If you want to debate facts, let's do that. however, let's all drop the personal attacks against the OP, including the fact that he pulled the "I'm taking my football and going home" nonsense in another thread. The Op and his supporters need to stop the "All arguments to my opinion are an infringement on my first amendment rights" whining also.

If we are going to discuss this, let's discuss it.

I'll start it off: Less than 1% of firearms used to commit a crime can be traced back as being legally sold. You can pretty much gauge how dangerous a city is by how strict it's gun control laws are; the stricter the laws the worse the violent crime rate. So show me one instance where gun control has actually reduced crime, especially violent crime.

The NRA isn't perfect, but it's the best lobby we firearms enthusiasts have. I support them for the most part, but occasionally I disagree with them. That's the way it is as I see it, therefore, I didn't vote on this biased poll.

 

[wuchak]

I voted no anti 2a. BUT I support the laws on full auto because of stupid kids with way to much machismo. And because I would starve to death trying to feed a full auto weapon after falling in love.

Perfect example of how our rights get eroded.

I support the banning of ..(insert product here)..because..(insert group here)..might misuse it. After all, you know how "they" are.

Often the group is defined by their ethnicity, religion, sex, or skin color. You chose age which is hardly any better. If 18 year olds can have the guns in the Army why not in civilian life? If there is a concern about their maturity to handle it then my proposition is that it is not a problem that can be solved by banning a particular technology, it is a more fundamental problem that we as a society are doing such a poor job raising our children.