NRA RIP

Many obsess over that "left" that festers in their noggins, but it is disgruntled members of the NRA who have been hornswoggled by the paranoia-peddling scam you may wish to keep an eye on.

"Hell! You can't have LaP mincing around a 9-toilet French chateau
in his chichi Beverly Hill boutique threads
with is wife looking like a slattern!"​

 

I thought you would actually address the content of my post, but fortunately you deflected in the knick of time. I also see you removed the ad homonym attack that was in the original post where you called me a 'dupe', but, no matter.

Yes, the scandals exist but that still doesn't take away from the fact that the organization is simply doing what it's members want it to do in the way of influencing gun policy.

If what you want (probably, I'm not you so I don't know for sure) happens, and the NRA ceases to exist, then the SAF or some other organization will rise to take it's place.

 

I referred to disgruntled NRA members suing the scam who are claiming that they were duped.

See: https://www.mediapost.com/publicati...for-using-fraudulent-marketing-practices.html

No doubt. Whether another operation will also peddle paranoia for fun and profit remains to be seen, and I strongly suspect the duped members will now be more vigilant.

In any event, the current enfeeblement of LaP's hustle increases the chances of the democratic will finally prevailing to some extent.

 

Sure, some of their activities fueled paranoia and can accurately be described as scare tactics, the UN gun treaty comes to mind there. However, the statements made recently by anti gun politicians stand for themselves and will drive people to the various pro gun organizations.

 

Without knowing what statements by what politicians you reference, I am unable to comment.

I do not divide people between "pro-gun" and "anti-gun" but recognize the need for sensible regulation.

 

Yes, the NRA is well practiced in the art of duping people in to believing "they're a comin' fur your guns boys!!!!!" They pretend to be defenders of the 2nd Amendment but in truth they are the gun industry's #1 lobbying firm.
If you think the NRA is doing quite well you aren't paying attention.

 

What duping? Every once in a while it is brought up that with no guns there would be no killing with a gun. Australia is frequently shown as an example.

 

Almost every Dem candidate wants an AWB which is more than enough for me to join an organization.

 

In 1994, former presidents Ford and Reagan wrote to the U.S. House of Representatives in support of banning "semi-automatic assault guns". They cited a 1993 CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll that found 77% of Americans supported the ban on the manufacture, sale, and possession of such weapons. The bill was passed in 1994, and was in force for ten years. I'm unaware of what hardship it inflicted upon gun fanciers during the ban.

The most recent poll that I've seen:

I expect that some regulations, such as a ban on automatic weapons, will only come with demographic changes (Rasmussen reports that "Voters Want More Gun Control" - the Gen Z and millennial respondents registered the highest level of support for stricter laws at 68%. Those ages 40-64 weren’t far behind at 64%, and 55% of voters 65 years and older agreed with the younger generations.)

 

There is already a ban on automatic weapons.

 

Sorry. I meant "assault weapons." Under federal law, fully automatic weapons are technically legal only if made before 1986, when Congress passed the Firearm Owners’ Protection Act.

My expectation of progress, albeit painfully slow, is based upon the sensibility of younger Americans:

“[Gen Z and younger millennials] want bans on bump stocks, raising the minimum age for [purchasing] assault weapons, requiring more background checks during gun sales, and required training courses. And they’re looking to the government to make this happen,” she said. “They’re looking to their political officials to say: ‘These are things we stand for, and we’re going to vote the people in to make these changes for us.’”

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/08/15/poll_gen_z_spurs_shift_in_voter_support_for_gun_control__141014.html​

 

Oh. Assault weapon? You mean a weapon that kinda looks like a military weapons but lacks the capabilities which the military requires? You mean those weapons?

 

Definitions vary. In general, semi-automatic firearms with a detachable magazine and a pistol grip. Some like to quibble, but the precise characteristics must be defined in the particular legislation.

 

There are probably hundreds of weapon designs out there which have detachable magazines which have the same characteristics as assault weapons but do not look like military weapons and which were legal during the assault weapon ban. They just simply do not look like military weapons.

I never owned an AR-15 type weapon or one that was similar. Not because they are any more lethal than any other semi-automatic, but because I have little need tor a long gun at this time in my life.

Assault weapon is a made up term because they look like military weapons. I have handled some and have fired the M-16 while in the Air Force. AR-15 style weapons are good hunting weapons because they are light, compact and accurate. Ideal for hunting. A few people have abused them just like people tend to abuse just about everything. I detest the good guys being penalized because of a few bad guys.

 

A poll that is twenty six years out of date, and presented at a time when the public of the united states had no idea just what firearms were being referred to. In that twenty six years, the public has become far more knowledgeable on the subject, and the AR-15 has since become possibly the most widely owned rifle in the entire united states

Which ultimately means nothing. The united states is not a democracy, but rather a constitutional republic, where the majority cannot steamroll the minority by mere virtue of being the majority. Having the most supporters does not make one correct or right in their position.

 

Yes, as I noted the precise characteristics must be defined in the particular legislation.

I understand the need to identify who can and cannot be trusted with firearms as well as to define the types of firearms .

As previously noted, I do not kvetch about being expected to establish my competence before being licensed to own and drive a motor vehicle, a potential lethal weapon, in the interests of public safety.

The majority of Americans who are demanding that the gun permissiveness be addressed are rightly concerned about the obscene level of firearm fatalities in the US.

 

My point being that their are numerous gun designs not characterized as being assault weapons which are just as lethal. The viewpoint being that assault weapons look like military weapons therefore they must be more lethal. The solution lies in the people, not in the gun.

 

Each era has had its problems. During the '30's we had bank robbers, killers, and the rise of the Mafia caused by prohibition. In the 40's we had WWII, the worst war in man's history, and the rise of the communist threat. During the '50's, '60's, '70's, and '80's we had the Cold War, and I can still remember the fear of the atomic bomb. In the late '60's early '70's we had Vietnam and volatile protests. Through it all we have had racial strife. In the 2000's we had an extremely unpopular war and increased involvement in the volatile Middle East. Thousand of Americans were killed and wounded. We also had the Great Recession.

Then we elected a black President and mass shootings increased exponentially followed by a President who inspires violence with his inflammatory rhetoric. The same President whose followers are members of a cult. They don't know why they support Trump. They just do.

It doesn't seem like it, but we will get through this. We always do.

I think. .

 

The exceptional firearm fatality rate in the US reflects the exceptional number of firearms in the US. All advanced nations have people. All have deranged people. All have alienated young men. All have video games. The US had exceptionally permissive firearm regulation.

Common sense and the democratic will shall eventually prevail.

 

You forgot one. We also have a lot more firearms. We have a Second Amendment. .Which takes me back to my point. There are a number of semi-automatics which do not look like military weapons which can be modified to be just as lethal as the so called assault weapon.

 

I noted that "The exceptional firearm fatality rate in the US reflects the exceptional number of firearms in the US."

We have Twenty-Seven Amendments, none of which is absolute, all of which are subject to regulation. Those regulations, as demanded by the People, must be carefully worded, and responsible individuals such as the NRA member quoted above calling for a ban on "assault weapons" must be involved in crafting such legislation.

 

In the Heller ruling, the united state supreme court stated, in absolute terms, they reject the notion of subjecting the scope of the second amendment to a test of judicial interest balancing, where it would be weighed against poorly defined terms such as "public safety" whatever that may amount to, as doing such would authorize some future judge to determine the second amendment and its protections simply do not apply at all.

 

Except banning assault weapons will do little, if nothing at all.

 

Pretending that permissiveness is enshrined in the Second Amendment does not serve to justify impotence in confronting the obscene level of firearm fatalities in the US.

As conservative jurists have repeatedly averred, public safety is of paramount importance.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019...check-law-would-not-violate-second-amendment/

 

I would not have high hopes of it, alone, making a serious impact.