What is the NRA about?

[TheVrolok]

The Virginia Tech shooter killed a fuckload of people, with a .22.

And it only holds 10 rounds.

Quit banning guns. Quit banning magazines. It doesnt matter. Its not why people die.
People die because theres a shitload of anger and fear in the world and sometimes one of them cracks like an egg. THATS what you need to deal with.

You realize gun reform and delving into societal problems aren't mutually exclusive?

 

[shortylickens]

You realize gun reform and delving into societal problems aren't mutually exclusive?

You do realize that banning guns has not helped gun violence in America?

 

[TheVrolok]

You do realize that banning guns has not helped gun violence in America?

You don't think that's a bit of an over simplification? Also, since when have guns be banned in the US? I don't see a whole lot of access issues (unless of course it's because the firearm or ammunition is sold out because it's selling like hotcakes).

 

[jackstar7]

Get out your flamethrowers, boys and girls. Time to celebrate independence!

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Are there a lot of people on this forum who think the second amendment should be revoked? I bet we could all agree on a basic national standard and then let each state/city come up with further regulations based on a consensus from that region.

Any other Amendments and rights you want those standards to apply to?

 

[zzyzxroad]

Any other Amendments and rights you want those standards to apply to?

So in your world does every us citizen get access to any gun? With zero regulation?

 

[Commodus]

I don't think anyone wants someone with a real mental illness or with violent histories to buy guns. But I understand why 2A supporters feel that due process needs to be followed before you limit someone one's constitutional rights.

Can you point to any real world practical benefit of magazine capacity limits having a tangible benefit in reducing gun deaths?

Might want to ask about that first point, since the NRA seems really, really keen on avoiding background checks. You'd want to be careful implementing checks, of course, but it's logical that someone who is highly likely to abuse a firearm shouldn't be allowed to have one.

I don't think magazine capacity matters as much as the capabilities of the weapon itself. I'm not one of those types who thinks every vaguely threatening rifle is an assault rifle, but it's definitely easier for someone to go on a rampage with a semi-auto rifle than a bolt-action or revolver.

 

[soundforbjt]

Look at the types of firearms available when the founding fathers wrote the Constitution. If there'd been semi-autos back then I wonder if they'd thought differently.

 

[zinfamous]

Any other Amendments and rights you want those standards to apply to?

Do you actually know any other amendments?

 

[SlowSpyder]

Look at the types of firearms available when the founding fathers wrote the Constitution. If there'd been semi-autos back then I wonder if they'd thought differently.

I don't agree with this or similar arguments, that the forefathers couldn't envision how guns might be today. Many of those guys were well versed in war and saw the trends from before and during their lifetimes with firearms. Below is a link to a multi-shot revolver from 1597. I don't think they had any ill conceptions about exactly what they 2A meant and what it meant going forward.

https://thornews.com/2014/03/27/the-worlds-oldest-existing-revolver-1597/

 

[SlowSpyder]

Might want to ask about that first point, since the NRA seems really, really keen on avoiding background checks. You'd want to be careful implementing checks, of course, but it's logical that someone who is highly likely to abuse a firearm shouldn't be allowed to have one.

I don't think magazine capacity matters as much as the capabilities of the weapon itself. I'm not one of those types who thinks every vaguely threatening rifle is an assault rifle, but it's definitely easier for someone to go on a rampage with a semi-auto rifle than a bolt-action or revolver.

I don't know why the NRA is so against background checks, probably means less money in their minds. I'm for universal background checks. I think that will over time make guns harder to get for those that shouldn't have them and it really doesn't limit my rights as a gun owner.

It is easier to kill with a more advanced gun like a semi-auto vs. a bolt. Agreed. Its easier to die drinking 100 proof liquor than beer too. With freedoms come risks. If we locked down everything then there'd be fewer of those deaths. I'm for common sense gun legislation, there have always been reasonable limits, but the anti-gun crowd has yet to demonstrate things like magazine capacity limits, suppressor bans, "assault weapon" (whatever that means) bans are reasonable and do anything to help the gun violence problem. And just FYI, the deadliest school massacre was carried out with a bolt rifle (and explosives, was planned - Bath School Disaster). Just food for thought.

 

[thraashman]

Look at the types of firearms available when the founding fathers wrote the Constitution. If there'd been semi-autos back then I wonder if they'd thought differently.

They did think differently. That's why they wrote that "well-regulated militia" part into it. It was never intended that Joe Everyman was going to have unlimited access to firearms, regulation and training as part of a militia was the concept

 

[Jhhnn]

I don't agree with this or similar arguments, that the forefathers couldn't envision how guns might be today. Many of those guys were well versed in war and saw the trends from before and during their lifetimes with firearms. Below is a link to a multi-shot revolver from 1597. I don't think they had any ill conceptions about exactly what they 2A meant and what it meant going forward.

https://thornews.com/2014/03/27/the-worlds-oldest-existing-revolver-1597/

Gawd. That doesn't represent a trend in firearms at all. It's utterly impractical, a toy & power symbol for a nobleman. If it were what you claim then they would have been in common usage 180 years later. You can't even show that the Founders even knew it existed.

 

[Jhhnn]

I don't know why the NRA is so against background checks, probably means less money in their minds. I'm for universal background checks. I think that will over time make guns harder to get for those that shouldn't have them and it really doesn't limit my rights as a gun owner.

It is easier to kill with a more advanced gun like a semi-auto vs. a bolt. Agreed. Its easier to die drinking 100 proof liquor than beer too. With freedoms come risks. If we locked down everything then there'd be fewer of those deaths. I'm for common sense gun legislation, there have always been reasonable limits, but the anti-gun crowd has yet to demonstrate things like magazine capacity limits, suppressor bans, "assault weapon" (whatever that means) bans are reasonable and do anything to help the gun violence problem. And just FYI, the deadliest school massacre was carried out with a bolt rifle (and explosives, was planned - Bath School Disaster). Just food for thought.

The rifle was incidental to the massacre, fired once to detonate dynamite as the final act of suicide.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

 

[SlowSpyder]

Gawd. That doesn't represent a trend in firearms at all. It's utterly impractical, a toy & power symbol for a nobleman. If it were what you claim then they would have been in common usage 180 years later. You can't even show that the Founders even knew it existed.

The point is that guns advanced before and during their lifetimes. And repeating arms existed at least some ~200 years before the 2A was put on paper. Matchlocks, flintlocks, to percussion cap, more accurate and powerful guns. You really think they couldn't envision better and more efficient guns going forward? They thought, "This is it, technology has pinnacled..."?

 

[SlowSpyder]

The rifle was incidental to the massacre, fired once to detonate dynamite as the final act of suicide.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

Yup. All those kids dead without a single shot from a high capacity semi-auto rifle, but a bolt action gun and explosives.

The rifle was "incidental" to the massacre the same way box cutters were "incidental" to 9/11.

 

[Fenixgoon]

You don't think that's a bit of an over simplification? Also, since when have guns be banned in the US? I don't see a whole lot of access issues (unless of course it's because the firearm or ammunition is sold out because it's selling like hotcakes).

some states ban specific firearms for no good reason. for example, the california assault weapons ban list. you can't own a colt AR-15, but you can own an ATI AR-15. one is banned and the other is approved despite being almost an identical firearm.

here are other "evil characteristics" that california has banned as a feelgood measure (grenade launcher withstanding....at least that one makes sense):

(1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:
(A) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.
(B) A thumbhole stock.
(C) A folding or telescoping stock.
(D) A grenade launcher or flare launcher.
(E) A flash suppressor.
(F) A forward pistol grip.

(2) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
(3) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches.

 

[SlowSpyder]

some states ban specific firearms for no good reason. for example, the california assault weapons ban list. you can't own a colt AR-15, but you can own an ATI AR-15. one is banned and the other is approved despite being almost an identical firearm.

here are other "evil characteristics" that california has banned as a feelgood measure (grenade launcher withstanding....at least that one makes sense):

Reminds me of this, and people wonder why the NRA is so reactive:

 

[TheVrolok]

some states ban specific firearms for no good reason. for example, the california assault weapons ban list. you can't own a colt AR-15, but you can own an ATI AR-15. one is banned and the other is approved despite being almost an identical firearm.

here are other "evil characteristics" that california has banned as a feelgood measure (grenade launcher withstanding....at least that one makes sense):

"No good reason" is an incredibly subjective argument and depends, in part, on your interpretation of the second amendment among other things. A better argument would be whether or not these limitations have any actual effect on the desired outcome.

Again, though, limitations (which are often skirted) are a far cry from the blanket statement of "[America is] banning guns." The limitations that we do have are geographically isolated to a large degree and hardly affect a significant portion of firearm owners. (significant portion of course being subjective)

 

[Jhhnn]

Yup. All those kids dead without a single shot from a high capacity semi-auto rifle, but a bolt action gun and explosives.

The rifle was "incidental" to the massacre the same way box cutters were "incidental" to 9/11.

It was not a gun massacre at all. Your desperation is showing.

 

[SlowSpyder]

It was not a gun massacre at all. Your desperation is showing.

Desperation? I think you have that backwards. I feel just fine standing by the points I've made. I've pointed out that gun technology progressed before, during, and after the 2A, yet they left it broadly open. Again, do you think they thought gun technology was not going to move any more forward?

I've shown that if people want to kill, they don't need high capacity mags and suppressed AR15's to do that. You've ignored it because that doesn't fit your narrative.

You continually hold guns to a standard you hold nothing else to, even if those other things are far easier to get and far deadlier, much higher body counts of both innocents and self-harm.

The anti-gunners are like evangelical religious nuts. You won't look at logic and evidence, you just hold on to what makes you feel good inside and if any thinking goes against that, you can't or won't process it.

If you were really concerned about saving lives, there is much lower hanging fruit to pick. Much bigger killers that are much less regulated, and also tend to affect minorities and the poor more. The ATF is in charge of regulating alcohol, tobacco, and firearms. Of those, which is the biggest killer? Which kills the least? Which is easiest to get and least restricted? Which is most restricted? But it isn't about saving lives, its about your indoctrinated propaganda-lead anti-gun stance.

 

[Jhhnn]

The point is that guns advanced before and during their lifetimes. And repeating arms existed at least some ~200 years before the 2A was put on paper. Matchlocks, flintlocks, to percussion cap, more accurate and powerful guns. You really think they couldn't envision better and more efficient guns going forward? They thought, "This is it, technology has pinnacled..."?

Had there been significant advances in firearms since the invention of the flintlock 200 years earlier than the Revolution they would have been incorporated into the weapons of the time. None were other than rare rifled barrels & the experimental Ferguson rifle which found no favor with the military minds of the era. The percussion cap wasn't even invented until ~1820 at which point most of the Founders had passed on.

Shee-it, Sherlock- They didn't even understand the basic chemistry behind black powder- it might as well have worked on the magic principle.

The whole point is that current technology exceeds even their wildest dreams. To claim otherwise is bullshit.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Had there been significant advances in firearms since the invention of the flintlock 200 years earlier than the Revolution they would have been incorporated into the weapons of the time. None were other than rare rifled barrels & the experimental Ferguson rifle which found no favor with the military minds of the era. The percussion cap wasn't even invented until ~1820 at which point most of the Founders had passed on.

Shee-it, Sherlock- They didn't even understand the basic chemistry behind black powder- it might as well have worked on the magic principle.

The whole point is that current technology exceeds even their wildest dreams. To claim otherwise is bullshit.

I'd like to see something to back up your assertion. Their "dream" for the 2A was that citizens could fight an oppressive government as they did, if it came to it. My guess is they would want us to have open access to a lot of what the government has. I doubt they envisioned atomic bombs. I don't think repeating firearms were outside their imagination. You yourself gave an example just above of an attempt at making guns faster, potentially more deadly.

I tend to think men that founded a country through war and many of whom were militarily trained would have some idea. Do you realize how much difference rifling the barrel made in making guns more deadly? Do you see the example I showed of a repeating firearm that is some 200 years older than the 2A? The percussion cap came barely 20 years after the 2A, and it was never challenged. And not long after that we had the self-contained cartridge in repeating arms.

You ignore the majority of my posts because what can you say? Like I said, ignoring reality to hold onto your anti-gun evangelical ideals.

 

[zzyzxroad]

The anti-gunners are like evangelical religious nuts. You won't look at logic and evidence, you just hold on to what makes you feel good inside and if any thinking goes against that, you can't or won't process it.

Why do you think they're so opposed? Fear? Maybe the NRA should spend some quality effort behind dispelling irrational fear campaigns like the old MS13 are coming to kill you? You can't scare the crap out of people!e and not expect a reaction right?

 

[SlowSpyder]

Why do you think they're so opposed? Fear? Maybe the NRA should spend some quality effort behind dispelling irrational fear campaigns like the old MS13 are coming to kill you? You can't scare the crap out of people!e and not expect a reaction right?

At least in part, the NRA is made up of the type of people that honestly believed they were going to face death panels due to the ACA. I'm not saying they are blameless, they certainly are responsible too. But look at things like the video clip I posted just above. Some people cherish the 2A more than others, how do you expect them to react against nonsensical limits that seem to be coming up again and again? Of course they're going to be more entrenched in their pro-gun right stance. They feel the left is trying to limit them just to limit them (not save lives, not improve gun violence), and they have so far shown to be right. All these bans and restrictions time and time again show that they do nothing but limit rights.