This is why I dislike the NRA.....

[Rapscallion]

Raps in no way did I intend to that one sentence to mean that unarmed people are not persons or unequal to the armed. My premise is that the unarmed are subject to those that control "their" government. Should a populace be unarmed then the basically "their" government is free to do as it will. IMO gathering up in large crowds and protesting is useless unless you have a means to enforce your will, Lord knows governments in this world have never been known to ignore the people's will, and not eliminate those that disagree by the 10s of millions.

The means to enforce your will, as far as the UK is concerned, is that every so often you get to vote out the people you disagree with and vote in the people you will disagree with. The US is pretty much the same, save for fixed four-year terms (ours are variable - up to five years). The armed forces of the countries involved are subject to the legal orders of the government, but theoretically they will not obey illegal orders to keep the government of the time in power. The fact that the governments in both countries have to face re-election every so often helps to keep them in line.

So, with a large percentage of the country able to bear arms - does it stop your government from making shitty decisions from time to time, usually when there is a significant percentage of their term left for the majority of the populace to forget about it before the next poll?

Has the US populace had an armed uprising over a government decision in the last hundred years or so?

As far as being late to post my response I did figure that you had overlooked it until Raps rebuke at CS then I was beginning to wonder. I really had intended to just lurk from now on and I probably will at CS as some are more sensitive that I'm used to. So I hope there's no hard feelings I certainly have none towards you all.

We don't get notification in our mail etc of moderated posts - we have to actively look for a section to see them. This place had a different moderation system to CS, and since we don't get the same number of new members and we only recently brought it in here to prevent spam, we've not got into the habit of checking regularly. Such debates are the meat and drink of this site, so feel free to go for it here.

Rapscallion

[Sportsmom]

I don't have a problem with the NRA in general, what I have a problem with are the people who insist that their right to own guns that could take down a city block of people in under 30 seconds is more important than my right to be safe from some maniac with a gun that can mow down a city block of people in under 30 seconds. I'm not saying that everyone who owns a gun like that is a maniac, but I also know that guns can be stolen, or go through private sales that do not involve a background check, and I do not understand the need to own one.

I'm from Virginia, several years ago the government in that state passed a law stating that unless you were a firearms dealer you were restricted to buying one gun a month. You would have thought that the governor said he was going to personally drive to each and every gun owners' house and remove the guns from their homes. So, can someone please explain to me why you would need to purchase more than one gun in a month? I don't even think the start of hunting season is a good excuse, plan ahead if you need a couple of new rifles or shotguns.

There's another thing. Hunting. I truly believe that regulated hunting in an actual outdoor "wildlife" (as opposed to staged hunt which are nothing short of animal cruelty, but that's another topic)situation is a good thing. It controls populations, helps stem the spread of disease and starvation in remaining populations and helps feed families. I will also say that I believe that hunting should be done for the purpose of food, and not just for a trophy to hang on the wall. You go kill a deer because you are going to keep the venison to feed your family and possibly others, fine. You go kill a bear just because you want to have him mounted, too bad, so sad, you fail at being a compassionate human being.





Wow, I kind of got off on a tangent, but my main point is gun control is not a bad thing, nor is owning guns. It is all about responsibility. If you want to own guns, fine. Just do so responsibly please. You want to have some gun control in place, fine, just be intelligent about it and use some damned common sense.

The NRA is like every other interest group, they can get so caught up in their own wants that they forget that their might just be another side to the story.

[CancelMyService]

Tanasi, are you really going to use Zell Miller as an example of a Democrat? The same Zell who spoke at the GOP convention and is the very epitome of "In Name Only" when it comes to party affiliation?

NRA is no more guilty than NAACP, labor unions, MoveON, professional organizations, etc.

The other groups you mentioned don't pretend to be constitutional rights advocates either. My basic premise is that the NRA is being intellectually dishonest since it's fairly clear to anyone who pays attention that in the last 3 election cycles at least their main focus has been electing Republican politicans.

I still want to know what Cancelmyservice thought NRA lied about.

See above. It's not so much that they lie, it's like with Fox News insisting they are fair and balanced when it's clear they have an agenda. I don't have a problem with agendas, but be upfront about them. Also the sheer volume of FUD they sent out in 2000 tipped more than a few key swing states to Bush, setting up the wonderful BS fiesta that election turned out to be.

NRA hasn't yet endorsed anyone for president and might not but I would say they'll throw in with JM. BHO regardless of what he says now is a known quantity and is unreliable at best and hostile at worst.

Hard to say they haven't endorsed anyone when the very item that prompted my inital post was an article discussing the millions the NRA is investing in attack ads.

[ditchdj]

One thing that I've noticed that nobody seems to have an legit answer for is that how come ALL these mass-murders committed by guns ONLY take place in "Gun-Free-Zones" like malls, university campuses, schools and churches. How come they NEVER happen in places like police stations or gun shows or shooting ranges or hunting areas????? Why not? Afraid someone might...........errrrrrrr..................




shoot back?????

[AFPheonix]

More people in malls and schools, and they'll make more of a splash. Also school campuses that one lives at, malls in one's community, and other familiar places are more accessible than police stations that perhaps someone has never seen the inside of, and gun shows are temporal things.

[Tanasi]

The means to enforce your will, as far as the UK is concerned, is that every so often you get to vote out the people you disagree with and vote in the people you will disagree with. The US is pretty much the same, save for fixed four-year terms (ours are variable - up to five years). The armed forces of the countries involved are subject to the legal orders of the government, but theoretically they will not obey illegal orders to keep the government of the time in power. The fact that the governments in both countries have to face re-election every so often helps to keep them in line.

So, with a large percentage of the country able to bear arms - does it stop your government from making shitty decisions from time to time, usually when there is a significant percentage of their term left for the majority of the populace to forget about it before the next poll?

Has the US populace had an armed uprising over a government decision in the last hundred years or so?



We don't get notification in our mail etc of moderated posts - we have to actively look for a section to see them. This place had a different moderation system to CS, and since we don't get the same number of new members and we only recently brought it in here to prevent spam, we've not got into the habit of checking regularly. Such debates are the meat and drink of this site, so feel free to go for it here.

Rapscallion

Raps, I guess some might think me parinoid because I don't trust the government, any government as all have agendas. History and experience have taught me when dealing with the government you're gonna get screwed. Part of my ancestors have fought the white man for over 500 years just to maintain our existance, another part ran your ancestors out of this country, and yet others fought a loosing war for freedom from damnyankees. I guess I'm a born rebel.
Voting is only enforcable when you have the means of enforcing the vote. How many elected politicians have changed the rules and laws to keep their office and oppress their opposition (Chavez in Venazula comes to mind)?
My family history tells us when someone comes to your door and says "I'm from the government and I'm here to help" it's best to not let that sob return from whence he came. The whole idea behind our Second admendment is to put the fear into our politicans, and you're correct being armed doesn't stop politicians from making bad decisions but if they make a bad enough one it could. I don't believe our armed forces would obey an illegal order to fire upon the populace but then again you never know, in that regards I'd rather be safe than sorry.
In reference to your last question the answer is yes and it happened within 15 miles of my home town and a little over 60 years ago.

[Tanasi]

I don't have a problem with the NRA in general, what I have a problem with are the people who insist that their right to own guns that could take down a city block of people in under 30 seconds is more important than my right to be safe from some maniac with a gun that can mow down a city block of people in under 30 seconds. I'm not saying that everyone who owns a gun like that is a maniac, but I also know that guns can be stolen, or go through private sales that do not involve a background check, and I do not understand the need to own one.

Not be to a smart ass but exactly what firearm that is legal for the general populace to own is capable of taking down a city block of people in under 30 seconds? The reason I ask is that I don't know and you obviously know something that I don't. If such a firearm exists and the person that wants to own said firearm is honest and passes the current background checks then why shouldn't she be allowed to own it? If it's your fear then that's your problem. Is it because it might be stolen then that's a somewhat legitimate fear but the person owning said firearm would most likely store it in a secured area to try to prevent the theft. BTW weapons a lot more dangerous have walked out of secured areas guarded by our military and law enforcement.
Private sales otherwise known as the "Gun Show loophole" that is a bug-a-boo. In my state all I'm required to do is make sure (via an official ID like a DL) the person is old enough to buy the firearm. If I wanted to do more I can't because there's no means of doing the background check and it's illegal for me to use my state's TIC check and there's also no means of me using the FBI's NIC check. If I could conduct such a check using the information from the person's DL then I would and either eat the cost myself or pass it along but as it is?????
The need to own a firearm??? Let me answer that question with this "An armed person is a citizen all else are subjects" and please refer to my previous post to Raps.

I'm from Virginia, several years ago the government in that state passed a law stating that unless you were a firearms dealer you were restricted to buying one gun a month. You would have thought that the governor said he was going to personally drive to each and every gun owners' house and remove the guns from their homes. So, can someone please explain to me why you would need to purchase more than one gun in a month? I don't even think the start of hunting season is a good excuse, plan ahead if you need a couple of new rifles or shotguns.

OK look at it like this what if VA decided that you could only buy one newspaper or magazine a month and you had be be approved for that purchase? A right restricted is a right denied. A few months ago I bought not one but six firearms at once on the same day a mixture of handguns and rifles, why because I found a deal I didn't want to pass up. I've done nothing illegal so why should my rights be restricted? The idea as I understand it behind the VA 1GAM was some folks were buying mutliple handguns and then selling them to folks from NYC. That's called straw purchasing and that's already against the law and was already in place before VA's law was passed. Why not go after the straw purchaser's instead of restricting the honest folks?

There's another thing. Hunting. I truly believe that regulated hunting in an actual outdoor "wildlife" (as opposed to staged hunt which are nothing short of animal cruelty, but that's another topic)situation is a good thing. It controls populations, helps stem the spread of disease and starvation in remaining populations and helps feed families. I will also say that I believe that hunting should be done for the purpose of food, and not just for a trophy to hang on the wall. You go kill a deer because you are going to keep the venison to feed your family and possibly others, fine. You go kill a bear just because you want to have him mounted, too bad, so sad, you fail at being a compassionate human being.

I don't trophy hunt and all the critters I kill are consumed either by myself, my family, my critters or someone I give the game. I don't agree with trophy hunting but I don't condemn it as long as the meat is used other wise according to my state's law that is an unlawful offense. I also think those canned hunts are not at all sporting but currently they're not against my state's law.

Wow, I kind of got off on a tangent, but my main point is gun control is not a bad thing, nor is owning guns. It is all about responsibility. If you want to own guns, fine. Just do so responsibly please. You want to have some gun control in place, fine, just be intelligent about it and use some damned common sense.
The NRA is like every other interest group, they can get so caught up in their own wants that they forget that their might just be another side to the story.

I guess we'll have to disagree on gun control being a bad thing, why is restricting a honest person a good thing? I think felons and the insane shouldn't be allowed to own firearms, I also think foreigner shouldn't be allowed to own until they have been throughly checked out. I agree and NRA agrees that gun ownership is all about responsibility but why punish those that are responsible for the acts of the unresponsible? Remember one person's common sense is anothers nonsense.

[Rapscallion]

I don't see the second amendment as being to put the fear into politicians - I thought it was more to keep the Brits out of the US.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Free state - considering the phrase was written just after the US had won independence, I can't see that it was written with the politicians of the day in mind. I'd have thought they would primarily have been the war heroes being voted in, though my knowledge of the era is limited. I don't see that it was designed to keep the place free from avaricious politicians, though apparently in a very small number of cases that's what it's become (interesting link, by the way).

So, just how bad would a decision have to be for a group of people to take up arms against their goverment? I'm quite happy to have responses for both local, national, and federal levels.

How many politicians have changed the rules to stay in power? Not that many - it's a bugger when it happens, but the military culture in the UK and (I hope) the US says that the military would not go along with it. I'd contend that once a culture gets to a certain level, such things become unnecessary. Corrupt police/army states rarely last more than a few years without being overthrown by similar types intent on their own bit of power. I'm sure anyone could name a few exceptions, but the point is that they are relatively few and far between.

Rapscallion

[Boozy]

The idea as I understand it behind the VA 1GAM was some folks were buying mutliple handguns and then selling them to folks from NYC. That's called straw purchasing and that's already against the law and was already in place before VA's law was passed. Why not go after the straw purchaser's instead of restricting the honest folks?

I don't understand your argument. The "one handgun a month" law is aimed at preventing straw purchasing. Who other than illegal gun dealers do you know who need to purchase more than one handgun a month?

[Tanasi]

Tanasi, are you really going to use Zell Miller as an example of a Democrat? The same Zell who spoke at the GOP convention and is the very epitome of "In Name Only" when it comes to party affiliation?

Yes that same Zell Miller does his disagreement with that particular plank in the Democrats platform make him any less of a Democat? What about Rep. Heath Shular, NC (D)? There are several others that I will have to research in order to name. Like wise there are republicans that are very much for gun control. You failed to mention Algore he was more than willing to take NRA's money until he decided to run for national office at which time he changed his mind, does that also make him a DINO?

The other groups you mentioned don't pretend to be constitutional rights advocates either. My basic premise is that the NRA is being intellectually dishonest since it's fairly clear to anyone who pays attention that in the last 3 election cycles at least their main focus has been electing Republican politicans.

Who is being intellectually dishonest here? NAACP and labor unions are all about consititutional rights specifically civil rights and rights to control their labor. NRA gets behind the canidate that is the most friendly to their cause regardless of party. How many GOP canidates has the NAACP or the Teamsters backed? Neither one supported JC Watts but NRA did. I will do some more research to find other Democrat canidates that NRA supported.
BTW what is wrong with supporting the canidate that supports your cause? Where is the intellectual dishonesty?

See above. It's not so much that they lie, it's like with Fox News insisting they are fair and balanced when it's clear they have an agenda. I don't have a problem with agendas, but be upfront about them. Also the sheer volume of FUD they sent out in 2000 tipped more than a few key swing states to Bush, setting up the wonderful BS fiesta that election turned out to be.

Yes NRA does have an agenda, they do not want more restrictions on firearms for honest citizens. NRA does not want it's right to free speech restricted. Currently those are the only two rights they're activily involved with. NRA is upfront with their agenda I don't know how it could be more clear.
I don't care for Fox News "fair and balanced" line I preferred the "We report you decide" that seemed to be more accurate. While we're pointing fingers what's ABC's, CBS's, NBC's, CNN's, MSNBC's agenda? If you think they don't have one then you're very nieve.
What's wrong with NRA's volumn of what they send out, did they do something illegal or you just didn't like the outcome of that election and are blaming NRA? BTW tipping the scales is the idea behind it all. If Algore had won his home state then those other states would have been a moot point. NRA rightly pointed out that Algore had a pattern of voting that was unfriendly to the guns rights folks.

Hard to say they haven't endorsed anyone when the very item that prompted my inital post was an article discussing the millions the NRA is investing in attack ads.

Again NRA endorses those that agree with their cause (no different that any other organization). As far as I know NRA hasn't endorsed anyone for president. Will they? Most likely. Who? Maybe MacCain maybe no one. Will NAACP endorse anyone for president? I'll let you answer that question.
NRA is disliked because NRA is effective. Politics is unfortuately taking up more and more of NRA's money and I don't like that, but if they're going to try and protect my right to keep and bear then I won't stand it their way and will support them. Until 1968 NRA's sole purpose was to educate folks about firearms, the GCA of 1968 changed that because you can't trust politicans to do what they say and you have to hold their feet to the fire, and that fire is stoked with money.

[Tanasi]

One thing that I've noticed that nobody seems to have an legit answer for is that how come ALL these mass-murders committed by guns ONLY take place in "Gun-Free-Zones" like malls, university campuses, schools and churches. How come they NEVER happen in places like police stations or gun shows or shooting ranges or hunting areas????? Why not? Afraid someone might...........errrrrrrr..................

shoot back?????

More people in malls and schools, and they'll make more of a splash. Also school campuses that one lives at, malls in one's community, and other familiar places are more accessible than police stations that perhaps someone has never seen the inside of, and gun shows are temporal things.

If I was going to shoot up a joint I certainly wouldn't shoot up a place that allowed people to legally carry you could get shot.
For the life of me I don't understand why anti gun folks can't understand that laws only apply to the honest, criminals by definition are not honest.

[AFPheonix]

If I was going to shoot up a joint I certainly wouldn't shoot up a place that allowed people to legally carry you could get shot.
For the life of me I don't understand why anti gun folks can't understand that laws only apply to the honest, criminals by definition are not honest.

Couldn't one say that of any law though? Or that only honest people obey the law. The law is not negated by people who break it.

[Boozy]

The law is not negated by people who break it.

Amen.

I see this argument a lot when it comes to gun control debates. Laws are supposed represent the values of their society. Just because something is difficult to enforce doesn't mean that it's not necessary.

[CancelMyService]

Also, and not to stir up any more hornet's nests, the same logic never seems to apply to drug laws. The more stringent and punative the better it seems.

[Slytovhand]

Oooh - my turn

While a stack of this stuff comes up in the Gun Control debate, I'll still add a couple of things here, cos this is where it's reposted...

An armed person is a citizen all else are subjects

Hmmm - nice bit of emotive propaganda - it's not even remotely close to an intelligent debating point... especially if a person actually chooses to look at the rest of the planet. Sure - in third world countries, and maybe even in second world countries... but today in a 1st world country?? Yes - it's a bit paranoid to think that the government is going to start taking shots at its own citizens and completely override it's normal politica process (by force of arms... not by rigging the election in Fl... oh - sorry ). I mean, seriously - take a look at the rest of the planet - Europe, Australia, North America (incl Canada - remember them??) an armed population does not guarantee the government doesn't overstep it's mark, and damn good cases can be made that say, at least by example, that it's quite the reverse (ie - Aus, UK, Canada, Europe have some pretty liberal laws - the US, on the other hand, has just written up a stack that really restricts a lot of freedoms and walks all over a pile of rights). Living in a country where you are in fear of what your government might do isn't a healthy way to live.

I strongly suspect that a large reason the US has some of the problems it does that stem from government action or inaction, is due to nono-compulsory voting. I believe that less than 1/3 of your eligible voters actually show up?? We have a lot closer to 100%. Sure - we don't get it right still - but at least our politicians know they have to pander to a lot more people - not just one or 2 devoted groups.

As I posted elsewhere - what would you do if a referendum was put in place in which 70% of US citizens all decided to ban access to guns for the general public? (yes - it's a hypothetical - but relevant. Is this about 'my' rights, or the 'will of the people'?? If 70% of the people are scared by what guns do, does that mean they have to tolerate the repercussions?
Ok - everyone has laws that curtail individual 'rights', and also many of your liberties and privacies...why is this one such a problem? Especially given it's potential (and, unfortunately, actual) consequences?

I, too, would like to know exactly how far a person needs to be pushed before that armed militia starts making itself felt (see also the debate on Why Pedersen shouldn't own his own battleship..)


But as for the OP... yeah the NRA has it's own agenda.. so what? As Tanasi said, so does everyone. And I don't have a problem with that either (which is why you'll notice my arguments here aren't against them, but only the stock standard gun control ones...),

I'm not sure where you guys stand (other than non-criminals or the insane), but what really is the problem of stricter gun control, but still purchaseable?? We've got that here, and it doesn't give us headaches (and, as I said elsewhere, we got gold medals in the Olympics in shooting shortly after real strict gun laws came in!!)