NRA viewpoint

[Golfingnut]

I am a gun owner that wants stricter and enforced regulations on ownership. While thinking about the point of the NRA it reminded me of the quest of folks in support of the Snail Darter that was clearly a bad decision for mankind. None the less, the Snail Darter survived and Mankind lost in the battle by the TVA to improve the life style of the majority. Following this logic, the NRA will most likely win this one. This fight has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment in my opinion, it has to do with the individual deciding what is in his/her best interest rather that be in agreement with the majority or NOT. Look at some cases of eminent Domain filed and won by the government. Most of the time when you call it eminent domain, the government wins for the majority. I just don't know the right course to take in the gun debate, but I very strongly believe we must visit and discuss Gun Control without using the B word that ends in N.
Can we all agree that there are some Americans that have the second amendment rights that should not own a gun of any kind? Lets start there.

[graciegirl]

I think we all approach this topic from our own life experiences and have very diverse views on it.

I know that this thread is bound for extinction because people are very passionate about this topic.

We all have to think and act according to our own concience and respect others views similarly.

Please let's not fight. It will not change anyone's view. Before we post try to decide if it will change anyone's mind or just make them mad.

We just cannot change many people's minds about this issue, one way or another, I believe THAT in my heart and I believe that both sides think that they are morally right.

[Taltarzac725]

Can we all agree that there are some Americans that have the second amendment rights that should not own a gun of any kind? Lets start there.

That's true that there are people who should never own a gun. Access to them though for them is a much more trickier proposition considering how many people in the US already own guns of some kind. Education about gun storage and the like might be a great benefit from this debate. With respect to the Sandy Hook shootigs, for instance, Adam Lanza should never had any kind of access to his mother's guns considering how volatile he sounds to have been.

[JoeC1947]

I think we all approach this topic from our own life experiences and have very diverse views on it.

I know that this thread is bound for extinction because people are very passionate about this topic.

We all have to think and act according to our own concience and respect others views similarly.

Please let's not fight. It will not change anyone's view. Before we post try to decide if it will change anyone's mind or just make them mad.

We just cannot change many people's minds about this issue, one way or another, I believe THAT in my heart and I believe that both sides think that they are morally right.

Gracie is right again. Agree to disagree. GG, you are wise beyond your years!

[Golfingnut]

That's true that there are people who should never own a gun. Access to them though for them is a much more trickier proposition considering how many people in the US already own guns of some kind. Education about gun storage and the like might be a great benefit from this debate. With respect to the Sandy Hook shootigs, for instance, Adam Lanza should never had any kind of access to his mother's guns considering how volatile he sounds to have been.

Great point, if she would have had the forethought to lock em up, he MAY not have ----------------. Education on gun safety would make a big difference. Too often we find ourselves saying WELL I NEVER WOULD HAVE THOUGHT THAT WOULD HAPPEN. Education would for sure help with that.

[Golfingnut]

I think we all approach this topic from our own life experiences and have very diverse views on it.

I know that this thread is bound for extinction because people are very passionate about this topic.

We all have to think and act according to our own concience and respect others views similarly.

Please let's not fight. It will not change anyone's view. Before we post try to decide if it will change anyone's mind or just make them mad.

We just cannot change many people's minds about this issue, one way or another, I believe THAT in my heart and I believe that both sides think that they are morally right.

Your very right Gracie, but I feel I must at least try to do something. Banning guns will not stop the violence. I would like to see the ones that look like m-16 that I used to kill in Viet Nam go away, but again, that would not stop the violence, just take a little macho out of the look. Maybe if we made all guns PINK in color, they would still kill, but may help with the idiot Rambo actions we continue to have. I just don't have a good answer.

[Monkei]

Let's close the thread down now because I, as a responsible gun owner and a licensed carry permit owner will never understand why there are fellow gun owners who can't see a need for sensible controls on weapons of war in the hands of the citizenry.

[billethkid]

many years ago I dropped out of the NRA because of their position on automatic rifles (military like capability).

I understand their position that a foot in the door with ANY control is a beginning of more to come. I believed then and I believe now the NRA has more to gain by facing the reality on "select" issues.

When all gets said and done again we will see that none of the so called history making moves by the president will have any affect on the violence that is not resident in the guns being used. The people who have other than adhering to the laws of the land are not going to be affected one bit by the political and emotional jousting on this subject.

Trying to make sure the wrong person does not get to buy a gun does not mean they will not get a gun.

Trying to make sure a wrong type person does not get a gun will be no more effective than to make sure a person who should not get a driver's license does not get one.

Just wait until the list of those exempted from the new requirements starts to form. You know the list of those who might be offended by being refused....even though the refusal is legitimate per the new regs.

Speeches and arm waving do not resolve problems.

As a related subject it is note worthy to watch and listen as everybody tip toes around how to make sure the nut jobs don't get a gun.

As far as any regularions to "control" ammunition or the guns some of us already have in our possession all I can say is......GOOD LUCK on that pipe dream!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now just like the oil industry, gun and ammunition manufacturers and retailers are enjoying notorious profotability by simply gouging a panicking segment of Americans.

btk

[ijusluvit]

As hopeless as it seems for there to be agreement about gun control in America, I think there are some RIGHTS and some WRONGS which are are embedded here.

1) It is RIGHT that we can bear arms, but that RIGHT is clarified and applied to our lives by the RIGHT of majority rule. The vast majority is satisfied with government prohibition of private possession of chemical weapons, some high explosives, missiles etc. By that same logic, it is RIGHT for the majority to decide about the further limitations on weapons. Congress has the obligation to vote on weapons limit legislation according to the will of the majority of their constituents.

2) It is WRONG for Congressional voting to be decided as a result of bribery or any other form of personal pressure by lobbyists; or on the basis of publicity campaigns which falsely claim to represent the majority of citizens.

3) Numerous and continual incidents of gun violence have focused our nation's attention on taking some actions. There has been an undeniable shift in the majority view toward actions like those proposed by the President. As high as an 85% of citizens now endorse those actions.

I think that what is RIGHT and what is WRONG should determine how we act.

[OldDave]

I thought this thread would go away because it would quickly become loud and hate filled. Surprisingly it has done neither. I appreciate the very thoughtful comments that have been made. I especially like the comments about lobbyists deciding things and congress making deals that have nothing to do with the subject matter. I also liked Billy's Mark Twain quote. I have not heard that before. (Although Billy I have trouble every time you sign off btk. Having grown up in Wichita and lived 4 blocks away from one of the victims of the infamous btk killer, it makes me kind of shiver every time I see that. BUT, I see no reason for you to change. Just an unpleasant memory)

So, I'd like to toss in my 2 cents into this sane and meaningful discussion.

I'm not a gun person, never have been. Hunting doesn't appeal to me, I've never had the urge to shoot anything. As to home defense, I'd be one of those people who would shoot myself by accident of shoot the dog because I thought it was a burglar. Having said this, I don't mind that you want to have guns.

Shotguns and rifles for hunting if you like that sort of thing; handguns for your own self defense if you believe you need it, I don't think it's up to me to say you shouldn't have them. But we certainly need to be able to agree that assualt weapons are something we just don't need.

The NRA has used the "foot in the door" argument to stir people up for decades. I just don't think it's true, and I don't think they believe it either. The more excited people get the better for their fundraising and lobbying. They are first and foremost a lobbying group.

The people that have commented here are gun owners and supporters yet you've all said you think reason has a place in trying to reign in people who like to be able to kill dozens of people at once.

This thread gives me lots of hope. The fact that will need to be decided by a disfunctional congress that only cares about winning the next election and crushing the other party, doesn't so much.

[justjim]

Let's close the thread down now because I, as a responsible gun owner and a licensed carry permit owner will never understand why there are fellow gun owners who can't see a need for sensible controls on weapons of war in the hands of the citizenry.

:coolsmiley: I think there are more gun owners than you think Monkel---who believe and think like us! It's time for a little "common sense" in our Country not only on this issue but also on others.

[Suzi]

This whole Obama thing yesterday really bugs me. Its not that I agree or disagree with his plan but, again, its a band-aid on a larger, much larger, problem. I personally think he paid lip-service to the roots of the problem. We are going to STUDY whether violent videos, movies, etc CAN be an issue? Are you kidding? Who doesn't know that children should not be routinely exposed to such terrible violence that it becomes common place to them. Who doesn't know that mental illness, drug use, lack of decent parenting leads to apathy in our youth? Sure, take away assault weapons and everything will be dandy.

Back to band-aids on the real problems.

[ijusluvit]

This whole Obama thing yesterday really bugs me. Its not that I agree or disagree with his plan but, again, its a band-aid on a larger, much larger, problem. I personally think he paid lip-service to the roots of the problem. We are going to STUDY whether violent videos, movies, etc CAN be an issue? Are you kidding? Who doesn't know that children should not be routinely exposed to such terrible violence that it becomes common place to them. Who doesn't know that mental illness, drug use, lack of decent parenting leads to apathy in our youth? Sure, take away assault weapons and everything will be dandy.

Back to band-aids on the real problems.

I'm sorry you are so upset, but my question is: if you are the Congressman from your district, do you vote for something, (call it a band-aid if you wish), that is supported by between 55-85% of your constituents?

[Monkei]

:coolsmiley: I think there are more gun owners than you think Monkel---who believe and think like us! It's time for a little "common sense" in our Country not only on this issue but also on others.

We shall see. It's going to be awfully hard to quantitate the results of the policies the president is proposing.

However, I would hate to be a senator or congressman who voted against such controls the next time one of these tragedies happen.

The trick is going to be getting our elected officials on record with a recorded in session vote. There is too much of this not bringing bills to the floor to be voted on and the cowards in Washington hide instead behind filibusters and non votes.

[janmcn]

We shall see. It's going to be awfully hard to quantitate the results of the policies the president is proposing.

However, I would hate to be a senator or congressman who voted against such controls the next time one of these tragedies happen.

The trick is going to be getting our elected officials on record with a recorded in session vote. There is too much of this not bringing bills to the floor to be voted on and the cowards in Washington hide instead behind filibusters and non votes.

You are absolutely correct that it's going to take courage to get anything meaningful accomplished by congress, something noticeably missing in Washington.

I contact my senator daily to find out where he stands on universal background checks for all gun buyers, but have yet to hear back except for an automated response. As the father of four young children, he should not want the blood of future dead children on his hands, but until he commits to take a stand on gun control, that's exactly what will happen.

As the president said (I'm paraphrasing here) if just one life is saved, the fight is worth it...especially to that one person whose life was saved.

[HMLRHT1]

I just wanted to add that I am totally in shock that the discussion has been handled so smoothly. I agree with everyone and hopefully we (USA) might be finally headed in the right direction regarding gun control. Yes, I too own a weapon.

[Golfingnut]

I just wanted to add that I am totally in shock that the discussion has been handled so smoothly. I agree with everyone and hopefully we (USA) might be finally headed in the right direction regarding gun control. Yes, I too own a weapon.

This is the way it will work. We can't all think the same way, but with civil discussion, we may just come up with a solution. Thanks to everyone in this Thread for being so thoughtful to other ideas and suggestions even when they may not be your own.

[rubicon]

First-- I have come to ignore polls because the very people proposing them created the results to be self-serving.

Second-- as to the 2nd Amendment...it does not grant the right to bear arms as that right preceeded the 2nd Amendment. What the
2nd Amendment does is to forbid the government from ursurping/preventing that right.

Third--Washington DC gun ban in 1976prohibited anyone from owning a gun except law enforcement and thosepreviously owing guns had to disassemble them and place a lock on the trigger. It backfired because criminals recognized there were a whole lot of unprotectd victims. violent crime increased and continued >It was not until the gun ban was lifted did violent crime subside. There is more convincing data regarding Washington DC experiment but I don't want to make this post too burdensome.
A Gun Ban That Misfired Jeffrey Shapiro Criminal Prosecutor DC.

Like Mr. Shapiro I do not own guns and never had an inclination to buy one but I do view the 2nd Amendment as sacrosant. and now that the government is making us this noise I am beginning to wonder if making such a purchase might be a wise thing to do.

Fourth--In the most advertised events by the media the perpetrator had a mental illness. The fact is that a lower % of that group are violent vis a vis the general population.

So with Sandy Hook, aurora, Virginai Tech, etc we have gun + mental illness = a tragic event . Conclusion by Obama/Biden?Pelosi/Bloomberg/Cuomo ban guns. what happened to be humane treatment by getting help to people who cannot help themselves. This is faulty leadership and not forward thinking We need to pour more financial resources and medical expertise in getting assistance to these very vunerable and most overlooked people.

[Bavarian]

I won't say if or not I have a gun, keep the bad guys guessing. In England with gun control, house break-ins much higher than US. Burglers scared. I read that the only reason Japan did not invade US Mainland was fear of all the people with guns. So, Second Amendment is a good thing. And as for the mother of the Sandy Hook shooting being blamed for not locking up her guns, let's not speaqk of the dead, remember she was his first victim. More laws won't help, enforce the ones on the books already.

[billethkid]

and please remember for consideration that the president did not address the other factors in the gun violence equation.....weeding out the wackos.....Hollywood ( not a single word about the violence they peddle) and the game industery (ditto hollywood).

Even the proposals made by the president as I stated in an eralier post will be ineffective. They are not really controls....improvements maybe.

Will congress have the courage to enact anything meaningful? Why would they start now with this subject?

The way Washington does business just will not allow any meaningful legislation to be put forth on anything controversial that would lend risk to their re-election.
The track record of lack of accomplishment and lack of responsibility bear out my premise.....unfortunately.

btk

[blueash]

I am a strong believer in vigorous gun control within the bounds of the second amendment. Until recently that had never been interpreted by the Supreme Court to mean an individual had any right to bear arms. Repeat, until recently the second amendment did not allow any US citizen the right to bear arms. It had always been interpreted as meaning the well regulated militia (state and federal national guards for instance) had a right to arms. The Heller decision by a single vote gave the right to arms to the individual and within the Heller decision the Court did say that it would support limits on that right but it was not specific as to what regulations it would accept. No American claims the right to possess fully automatic guns. Of course if it had been legal to do so the NRA would fight against it being made illegal. No American claims the right to chemical weapons, surface to air missles, nuclear warheads etc. So clearly the "right to bear arms" is limited. No one believes the American citizen has a right to out gun the government so the argument that someone needs arms to keep the government away is moot. The US Army will have more and better arms than you can have. We are now as a nation going to have to decide where we want/need to draw that line. What limitations as a society are we going to impose on the "right to bear arms."
I disagree with a comment above saying that the right to bear arms is subject to the right of majority rule. It is not. The genius of the Constitution in part is its limitation of the ability of the majority to impose its will on the minority. That is why certain rights are guaranteed so that the majority can not usurp them. So any new legislation must respect the framework of the second amendment. As to whether the polls are meaningful, yes they are. However a bigger question is whether a legislator should respect a national sample or just the sample within his/her election district. With gerrymandering our congressional districts are no longer representative of the larger population.
Little steps like allowing the CDC to analyze gun data, like having the agencies of government communicate and share data, perhaps actually have a person in charge of the agency (ATF) that is supposed to be regulating and enforcing the gun laws already on the books, and closing the gun show loopholes are at least something.

[ijusluvit]

I am a strong believer in vigorous gun control within the bounds of the second amendment. Until recently that had never been interpreted by the Supreme Court to mean an individual had any right to bear arms. Repeat, until recently the second amendment did not allow any US citizen the right to bear arms. It had always been interpreted as meaning the well regulated militia (state and federal national guards for instance) had a right to arms. The Heller decision by a single vote gave the right to arms to the individual and within the Heller decision the Court did say that it would support limits on that right but it was not specific as to what regulations it would accept. No American claims the right to possess fully automatic guns. Of course if it had been legal to do so the NRA would fight against it being made illegal. No American claims the right to chemical weapons, surface to air missles, nuclear warheads etc. So clearly the "right to bear arms" is limited. No one believes the American citizen has a right to out gun the government so the argument that someone needs arms to keep the government away is moot. The US Army will have more and better arms than you can have. We are now as a nation going to have to decide where we want/need to draw that line. What limitations as a society are we going to impose on the "right to bear arms."
I disagree with a comment above saying that the right to bear arms is subject to the right of majority rule. It is not. The genius of the Constitution in part is its limitation of the ability of the majority to impose its will on the minority. That is why certain rights are guaranteed so that the majority can not usurp them. So any new legislation must respect the framework of the second amendment. As to whether the polls are meaningful, yes they are. However a bigger question is whether a legislator should respect a national sample or just the sample within his/her election district. With gerrymandering our congressional districts are no longer representative of the larger population.
Little steps like allowing the CDC to analyze gun data, like having the agencies of government communicate and share data, perhaps actually have a person in charge of the agency (ATF) that is supposed to be regulating and enforcing the gun laws already on the books, and closing the gun show loopholes are at least something.

Amazing what people think they read!
I made no suggestion that the simple will of the majority could alter fundamental constitutional rights. I said the majority has the right to modify the practical limits within those rights, such as, in this case, banning possession of chemical weapons, etc.

[janmcn]

and please remember for consideration that the president did not address the other factors in the gun violence equation.....weeding out the wackos.....Hollywood ( not a single word about the violence they peddle) and the game industery (ditto hollywood).

Even the proposals made by the president as I stated in an eralier post will be ineffective. They are not really controls....improvements maybe.

Will congress have the courage to enact anything meaningful? Why would they start now with this subject?

The way Washington does business just will not allow any meaningful legislation to be put forth on anything controversial that would lend risk to their re-election.
The track record of lack of accomplishment and lack of responsibility bear out my premise.....unfortunately.

btk

And we just stand idly by and watch our children being slaughtered, that's your prediction? I will call my representatives in congress everyday until some meaningful legislation is put forth. Then, we will see who has the courage to vote on it.

[ugotme]

As I have stated on MANY other posts - there is NO EASY ANSWER!

I have been a Life Member of the NRA for about 30 years or so. Do I support them without question - NO! In NY many years ago there was a "discussion" about armor piercing bullets. My theory was this is not needed by hunters and/or target shooters. I firmly believe that if the NRA came out against this they would have gained a lot of support from some anti-gunners and people on the fence. But, as stated, their belief is that if you take one thing away it will lead to another. THEY ARE NOT TOTALLY WRONG!

Personally I have no problem with the background checks of people wanting to buy a gun. Again, referring to NY many years ago (don't know if it is changed) in order to get a permit to have a pistol permit (not carry) you had to join a gun club, be taught safety by a certified instructor (which I was one) for a certain number of hours. Once completed, the instructor attested to your meeting the safety instruction. You then went to Police Headquarters, applied for the permit, got fingerprinted and a background check was completed. If all was good - several months later you would receive your okay for the permit.

Banning guns will accomplish nothing - zero, zip, nada. Proper training and checks is an important first step to responsible gun ownership.

Sorry for rambling - I will stop now - could go on forever !

[OldDave]

I continue to appreciate the civil tone among people who disagree to various degrees.

Two other things I'd like to mention. I really believe the "if we lose one type of gun or ammo 'they' will take the rest" argument is truly fraudulent. The original assault gun ban, which was pretty weak, passed decades ago, and nothing has followed. The NRA has continued to say this President would "take away our guns" even though until this mass murder the President hasn't campaigned on guns or even said anything about them. It clearly hasn't been a big issue for him.

You just cannot justify keeping something that all the reasonable gun owners here seem to think we don't have any legitimate need for (assault weapons) just because you think somewhere in the future "they" will take all our guns.

Honestly, I'm not sure this debate even would address disenfranchised young men who are thrilled with bigger and badder weapons. You know that sort of thing really hasn't been a part of our American gun culture, but is rather something fairly new that seems to go along with the separatist, survivialist thing that has blossomed in recent years. I honest don't understand it. I do note that combat veterans here and other places don't seem to be interested in these weapons, having seen what they do.

Secondly, as to whether any gun control would help reduce crime. That is very, very difficult. We have a two hundred year-old culture in this country that has a great deal of history in guns. It won the west, for good or bad, is mostly true. Any changes we make are going to take decades to make a difference. And politically it may have to come one small step at a time. But those steps will have to come if the culture will ever change.

And both sides will have to be reasonable, as I tried to say earlier. And I truly see that in this discussion, at least in this forum. We've had one gun supporter after another state that there should be reasonable controls in place. I've seen no one suggest that we "take away all your guns." I stated I don't have a use for guns, but I respect your need. I think many people feel that way. Reasonable people can compromise, IF they ever have a forum to do it, free of elected officials only interested in re-election, and lobbying groups pretenting to represent the public, rather than their own financial interests.

As others have mentioned we seem to be living with extremes in the politics of our country. As a journalist I can also say the sensationalism of today's media doesn't help. We mostly hear from right wing extremists who don't want a single gun or bullet taken from anyone for any reason, and extreme liberals who don't want anyone in the country to own any kind of firearm. I don't believe either of these positions represents any large part of the population.

I wish I knew how we make a change on this or any other subject that truly needs compromise. I honor those of you who have said you regularly contact your congressman, but I think all of you have said you don't get answers. I know my senator well enough to get him on the phone, but I dont' believe for a minute I could sway his vote on anything, and I think he's a pretty good guy. But being a republican his hands are tied to support the party. I don't believe if he were a democrat it would be any different.

So again, I appreciate civil discourse more than I can say. I only started posting here again a couple of months ago, and I've seen a real decrease in rude, aburpt postings. This is a great group and it's nice to discuss hard issues with intelligent, caring people.

Thanks,

Dave

[Bucco]

And we just stand idly by and watch our children being slaughtered, that's your prediction? I will call my representatives in congress everyday until some meaningful legislation is put forth. Then, we will see who has the courage to vote on it.

Ask your rep and your senator and ALL of them on both sides of the aisle to begin to do what they say. From the POTUS to the Senate to the House they have been preaching how they will not pass (or sign) anything with pork (Has anyone read all the pork in the Sandy legislation..it is sickening)....and in this case of gun laws, how about our leaders from the WH to and through all sides of the aisle facing up to the lobbying problem which did not start with, is not exclusive to, the NRA. Please check on the lobby involvment on every major legislation including but not exclusive to the new health care act.

All this talk solves nothing. We will ignore pork and lobbying if we agree with what it being "porked" or "lobbied",,,,,we will yell and scream if it involves something we dont like. In both cases, it also goes to what party we support.

Lobbying was not invented by the NRA....the NEA, the Unions, the Banking industry, etc are equally as strong.

Sorry for the words but this is an excercise in frustration, I happen to support the proposals put forth by the POTUS, but discussing these lobbies is an real excercise that will accomplish nothing.

Am I negative...you better believe it. With all the nice words we have heard over the years about "reaching across the aisle" to solve problems, NOBODY and I mean NOBODY in Washington actually even considers that option. Hidden in bills is pork....the strong lobbies with the money will get what they want.

This gun thing will go away, despite the tragedy. It will disappear as soon as we have another issue that someone can make political points on.

It is a shame but it is our fault. We care only about what our party tells us for the most part of the party we think we should be supporting.

Someone said that we get the leaders we deserve, and this is a great example of that.

If this is political, then report it, or the admin can delete it. Just my frustrations on discussing any powerful lobby and thinking it will be changed.

[Captainjack40]

Let' see: we made alcohol illegal and how did that work out? We outlawed drugs and how did that work out? We made prostitution illegal and how did that work out? We made most gambling illegal and how did that work out? Each of these are now controlled by criminals! Do we really need to create a new business for criminals related to selling guns none of which will go through background checks? Does anyone believe criminal won't get guns? it was only a year or so ago that a "mob" went on a rampage in England and looted and burned down about 10 city blocks. Since guns were outlawed a number of years ago the property owners could not protect their property. Since guns were outlawed in England gun related crime has increased 300 percent which is exactly what happened in Australia! Let's devote our resources to keeping guns away from the mentally impaired and get rid of all the crime shows on TV and on video games. Also, lets increase the penalties for gun related crime - how about 25 years in jail without any possibility of parole. I would support the same penalty for anyone with a gun that did not go through a background check!