NRA ranks soar.

[blankslate]

This is an interesting site: http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

Here's a few more interesting sites.

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Bogus2.htm

link to .pdf file for text in above link
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1465114

The name of the author of the paper may be a hint of an elaborate ruse but hey maybe it's coincidence. It would take a review of his citations which I may be able to get around to within a week.


Then one more.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/the-secret-history-of-guns/308608/2/

The Fourteenth Amendment illustrates a common dynamic in America’s gun culture: extremism stirs a strong reaction. The aggressive Southern effort to disarm the freedmen prompted a constitutional amendment to better protect their rights.

A hundred years later, the Black Panthers’ brazen insistence on the right to bear arms led whites, including conservative Republicans, to support new gun control. Then the pendulum swung back. The gun-control laws of the late 1960s, designed to restrict the use of guns by urban black leftist radicals, fueled the rise of the present-day gun-rights movement—one that, in an ironic reversal, is predominantly white, rural, and politically conservative.

Considering that mentally ill people have obtained weapons that they no business being around... What is wrong with closing the gunshow loophole as it exists in some states?

And perhaps requiring additional steps beyond asking an insane person to self-disqualify themselves from a dealer purchase. Insane people aren't necessarily dumb.

 

[Pens1566]

The NRA doesn't represent their members, it represents the gun manufacturers. If this weren't true, they wouldn't be fighting what a majority of their members are actually in favor of.

 

[zsdersw]

Oh, you mean the folks who follow the DNC and RNC talking points to the letter? Gotcha.

... and the NRA's.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

You mean the law that was passed by the House of Representatives, passed by the Senate and signed by the president? That Tiahrt Amendment?

Changing the subject doesnt change the facts, which I guess means you are granting me my point.

As to your attempt at changing the subject, I think you know that amendments get attached to spending bills all the time, so its a very weak one at best.

 

[monovillage]

Changing the subject doesnt change the facts, which I guess means you are granting me my point.

As to your attempt at changing the subject, I think you know that amendments get attached to spending bills all the time, so its a very weak one at best.

You made the claim that the NRA mysteriously hides data. I refuted your claim. I did not change the subject. You are directly blaming the NRA for the legal actions of the House/Senate/President and sorry, but that doesn't fly.

 

[irishScott]

The NRA doesn't represent their members, it represents the gun manufacturers. If this weren't true, they wouldn't be fighting what a majority of their members are actually in favor of.

And every NRA member I've ever met, including myself, knows this quite well. However, the process of representing the gun industry has the nice side effect of preserving our gun rights. And they have kickass magazines, life insurance, yearly contests where the grand prize is 21 guns and a safe to store them in, etc. So we give them money. They're simply the most effective political advocate gun owners have.

 

[irishScott]

You made the claim that the NRA mysteriously hides data. I refuted your claim. I did not change the subject. You are directly blaming the NRA for the legal actions of the House/Senate/President and sorry, but that doesn't fly.

Haven't you been reading every mainstream media source that isn't Fox News? The NRA is the great Satan of gun politics and the assault rifle is his pitchfork. Obviously any pro-gun decision made by the US government is entirely due to the NRA's corrupting influence; because the other side is offering such "sensible" solutions!

 

[blankslate]

And every NRA member I've ever met, including myself, knows this quite well. However, the process of representing the gun industry has the nice side effect of preserving our gun rights.

Then why would the NRA be against even tightening loopholes in background checks?

Wouldn't a majority of gun owners support this?

I think the NRA listens too much to the industry and not as much the rank and file members these days.

At least entertain the possibility.

 

[jpeyton]

Then why would the NRA be against even tightening loopholes in background checks?

Their job, like any responsible gun owner's job, is to resist EVERYTHING.

It's a tug of war. You only give up ground if you can't hold onto it, because every inch you give your opponent gives them momentum to get that next inch.

If background checks is the first inch, I don't want to know what the next inch is.

Well actually, if you listen to Bloomberg and Feinstein, you already know what their ultimate goal is.

 

[blankslate]

Their job, like any responsible gun owner's job, is to resist EVERYTHING.

I vehemently disagree.

Better ways of identifying and preventing metally ill people who would be a threat with firearms from buying such weapons is pretty imperative in my opinion

So giving an inch on that is suddenly going to end up with confiscation of firearms?

So dude do you have any bridge on sale for cheap this week?

 

[monovillage]

Then why would the NRA be against even tightening loopholes in background checks?

Wouldn't a majority of gun owners support this?

I think the NRA listens too much to the industry and not as much the rank and file members these days.

At least entertain the possibility.

If a father gives his son a firearm, perhaps passed down from a grandfather, I don't think there should have to be a background check, paperwork and a FFL (Federal Firearm License) holder involved. If you give your sister a handgun when she moves out of your parents house I don't think she should have to undergo a background check, pay fees and have a FFL holder keep the gun for 15 days. Private sales or private gifts of a firearm in some cases shouldn't have to jump through the hoops that commercial sales have to follow. Some states allow private sales when the seller knows the buyer isn't part of a restricted class (felon, crazy or a druggie) I personally support that law.

 

[irishScott]

Then why would the NRA be against even tightening loopholes in background checks?

Wouldn't a majority of gun owners support this?

I think the NRA listens too much to the industry and not as much the rank and file members these days.

At least entertain the possibility.

Of course they do. Member donations are significant, but the majority of the NRA's wealth comes from the gun manufacturers/importers/retailers. The NRA is first-and-foremost a private interest group, and they seem to be doing a very good job of representing the most significant private interests. *shrug*

I think there actually are polls showing a majority of NRA members would be fine closing the gun show loop hole, but IMO we don't really press the NRA to do so because, given the nature of our opponents, any compromise seems dangerous. Right now the leaders of the gun control movement are demonstrably ignorant of guns, use bad terminology left and right, and more than a few have stated a desire to wipe guns out of our culture given the chance. A compromise would be like making a deal with the mob. Sooner or later it comes back to bite you in the ass; at least that's the sentiment. I don't fully buy into the "no compromise under any circumstances", but I definitely support the guiding principle. If there's to be compromise, it should be a two-way street. At is stands the only "compromises" on the table involve gun owners giving up "less" freedom. Nuh-uh. If you want some sort of ban or registry, we should at least get national concealed carry reciprocity; or something.

Rational reasons aside, there's a great feeling of witch-hunt persecution among many gun owners I know. We're sick of being on the defensive every time some psycho goes ape-shit with a gun. There's a reason AR-15s were flying off the shelves before it was even announced that the killer had used one. We knew what was coming, as it's come over and over and over again. Do we ever even try better enforcement of current regulations? Or improved mental health? Even a token attempt? Nope, the gun grabbers take over the media and press their agenda of "ban everything we've seen the military use in movies". Then it gets even worse when people who don't know any better listen to the tripe coming out of the media, and start joining them in vilifying gun owners/the NRA. Before you know it, people like me and my shooting buddies, who have done no wrong with our guns, are paying for some psycho's crime; and the worst part is we're paying in a way that we and anyone who's educated about guns knows will do next to nothing to stop the next massacre.

So that's the mentality/sentiment of your average NRA member as I've seen and heard it. Suffice it to say it's not one that lends itself to compromise in the current climate, and so long as the opposition consists of a combination of nutjobs and goofy, ignorant proposals, that's likely how it's going to remain. We're not about to give up a chunk of our freedom for no good reason, and the NRA's stance is acceptable given that premise.

 

[zsdersw]

Of course they do. Member donations are significant, but the majority of the NRA's wealth comes from the gun manufacturers/importers/retailers. The NRA is first-and-foremost a private interest group, and they seem to be doing a very good job of representing the most significant private interests. *shrug*

I think there actually are polls showing a majority of NRA members would be fine closing the gun show loop hole, but IMO we don't really press the NRA to do so because, given the nature of our opponents, any compromise seems dangerous. Right now the leaders of the gun control movement are demonstrably ignorant of guns, use bad terminology left and right, and more than a few have stated a desire to wipe guns out of our culture given the chance. A compromise would be like making a deal with the mob. Sooner or later it comes back to bite you in the ass; at least that's the sentiment. I don't fully buy into the "no compromise under any circumstances", but I definitely support the guiding principle. If there's to be compromise, it should be a two-way street. At is stands the only "compromises" on the table involve gun owners giving up "less" freedom. Nuh-uh. If you want some sort of ban or registry, we should at least get national concealed carry reciprocity; or something.

Rational reasons aside, there's a great feeling of witch-hunt persecution among many gun owners I know. We're sick of being on the defensive every time some psycho goes ape-shit with a gun. There's a reason AR-15s were flying off the shelves before it was even announced that the killer had used one. We knew what was coming, as it's come over and over and over again. Do we ever even try better enforcement of current regulations? Or improved mental health? Even a token attempt? Nope, the gun grabbers take over the media and press their agenda of "ban everything we've seen the military use in movies". Then it gets even worse when people who don't know any better listen to the tripe coming out of the media, and start joining them in vilifying gun owners/the NRA. Before you know it, people like me and my shooting buddies, who have done no wrong with our guns, are paying for some psycho's crime; and the worst part is we're paying in a way that we and anyone who's educated about guns knows will do next to nothing to stop the next massacre.

So that's the mentality/sentiment of your average NRA member as I've seen and heard it. Suffice it to say it's not one that lends itself to compromise in the current climate, and so long as the opposition consists of a combination of nutjobs and goofy, ignorant proposals, that's likely how it's going to remain. We're not about to give up a chunk of our freedom for no good reason, and the NRA's stance is acceptable given that premise.

I find the bolded phrase amusing. Rationality is far too easily cast aside in the gun debate, by both sides.

 

[irishScott]

I find the bolded phrase amusing. Rationality is far too easily cast aside in the gun debate, by both sides.

True enough. The NRA and basically every pro-gun group in America is organizing a nationwide protest on the 19th at all state capitals. I won't be attending because I'm out-of-state and can't, but even if I could I'm worried it'll be a bunch of "don't tread on me" "from my cold, dead, hands", and other such bullshit that will hurt our image. I sincerely hope it isn't, and every gun channel on youtube has been saying "keep it civil", but I'm not holding my breath.

I go along with the NRA because I think it's a mild, necessary evil, but there are plenty who have completely drunk the kool-aid and are all too happy to scream stupid one liners at beckoning, bias cameras.

 

[jpeyton]

So giving an inch on that is suddenly going to end up with confiscation of firearms?

No, but making Democrats fight hard for that "victory" might take enough wind out of them to prevent further legislation.

Their "hard fought" victory will feel like an accomplishment. No need to give them handouts.

You would be terrible at politics. Which probably means you're a good person overall, just a poor strategist.

 

[xj0hnx]

Then why would the NRA be against even tightening loopholes in background checks?

Wouldn't a majority of gun owners support this?

I think the NRA listens too much to the industry and not as much the rank and file members these days.

At least entertain the possibility.

For one, there are PLENTY of regulations already on the books, that aren't enforced, or aren't efficiently enforced, so the way a lot of us see it is ..no more hoops just for the sake of more hoops to appease the anti-gun crowd. Also, most of these "bans", and laws do absolutely NOHING to deter gun violence, all they do is make it harder, and more expensive for legitimate gun owners, and we're pretty fucking tired of it. Second, you blame things like the gun show loophole on the NRA doing the manufacturers bidding, but the manufacturers are not the one's benefitting at all from that loophole. Manufacturers make their money selling to military, LE, and gun shops, not some guy that has a bunch of guns that he sells at a gun show.

 

[xj0hnx]

So giving an inch on that is suddenly going to end up with confiscation of firearms?

We've already given PLENTY of inches, feet as a matter of fact. I know I for one am sick of it, every time some douchebag looses his mind and shoots someone, I've got to pay more, and jump through more hoops to enjoy one of my hobbies.

You guys want a registry, and ridiculous background and mental checks? Then we want cross country CHL reciprocity, and the NFA, and '86 import/manufacture ban repealed.

 

[spidey07]

Just so we're clear.

Nobody can show what this "gun show loophole" is. There is no "gun show loophole". If you move weapons as more than a hobby, you are a dealer and are required BY FEDERAL LAW to be a dealer and are required BY FEDERAL LAW to conduct NICS background check.

It is also ILLEGAL to sell to somebody who can't legally possess a firearm, which as shown, INCLUDES MENTALLY DEFICIENT.

It is ILLEGAL to purchase a firearm if you are mentally deficient, it is a FELONY.

 

[xj0hnx]

Just so we're clear.

Nobody can show what this "gun show loophole" is. There is no "gun show loophole". If you move weapons as more than a hobby, you are a dealer and are required BY FEDERAL LAW to be a dealer and are required BY FEDERAL LAW to conduct NICS background check.

It is also ILLEGAL to sell to somebody who can't legally possess a firearm, which as shown, INCLUDES MENTALLY DEFICIENT.

It is ILLEGAL to purchase a firearm if you are mentally deficient, it is a FELONY.

OH ...My ...God. Stop being fucking stupid. The gunshow loophole has been explained several times in this thread, and it is real. What the fuck is wrong with you?

YOU DO NOT HAVE TO BE A DEALER OR HAVE A FFL TO SELL AT A GUN SHOW, AND IF YOU AREN"T A DEALER, AND DO NOT HAVE A FFL, AND ARE SELLING AT A GUN SHOW, YOU DO NOT HAVE TO RUN A NICS, OR FILL OUT A 4473. THAT IS THE GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE MORON.

 

[werepossum]

I vehemently disagree.

Better ways of identifying and preventing metally ill people who would be a threat with firearms from buying such weapons is pretty imperative in my opinion

So giving an inch on that is suddenly going to end up with confiscation of firearms?

So dude do you have any bridge on sale for cheap this week?

I agree with xj0hnx about the history of compromise in gun control, but I also think making mental health records part of a background check is a pretty sensible thing in that it is probably a strong indicator of gun violence. The devil will be in the details, of course; one can easily imagine an anti-gun zealot reporting everyone he sees in marriage counselling or trauma/grief counselling or whatever as unsuitable to ever own a weapon simply because he feels no one should have that right.

If a father gives his son a firearm, perhaps passed down from a grandfather, I don't think there should have to be a background check, paperwork and a FFL (Federal Firearm License) holder involved. If you give your sister a handgun when she moves out of your parents house I don't think she should have to undergo a background check, pay fees and have a FFL holder keep the gun for 15 days. Private sales or private gifts of a firearm in some cases shouldn't have to jump through the hoops that commercial sales have to follow. Some states allow private sales when the seller knows the buyer isn't part of a restricted class (felon, crazy or a druggie) I personally support that law.

Well said.

 

[shadow9d9]

The obsession with killing machines is one of the greatest problems in america right now, and a great example of it is highlighted throughout this thread.

 

[xj0hnx]

The obsession with killing machines is one of the greatest problems in america right now, and a great example of it is highlighted throughout this thread.

The obsession with being able to freely post your opinion on the internet is one of the greatest problems in America right now, and a great example of it is highlighted throughout your post.

I like my "killing machines" and it makes me happy you hate and fear them so much. HAHAHAHA back under your bridge troll.

 

[Incorruptible]

Just look at the long gun registry they had in Canada and it was an utter failure and cost over $2billion and was filled with corruption. It was caused by a bunch of moron feminists who used the deaths of innocent women for political purposes

 

[Cerb]

The obsession with killing machines is one of the greatest problems in america right now, and a great example of it is highlighted throughout this thread.

Agreed. Stop focusing on them, and instead of people that kill using them, and I think we would all be better off for it.

 

[shadow9d9]

The obsession with being able to freely post your opinion on the internet is one of the greatest problems in America right now, and a great example of it is highlighted throughout your post.

I like my "killing machines" and it makes me happy you hate and fear them so much. HAHAHAHA back under your bridge troll.

We know you love your killing machine... you are quite obsessed with it. Pretty pathetic. I like making you squeal in terror for all to see. Keep making a spectacle out of yourself.