What is the NRA about?

[zzyzxroad]

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 the do nothing but limit rights.

Agreed. I have lived in California most of life and used to support strict gun regulation but changed my stance. I think the right would have more success promotimg their cause if they were more tactful. Unlike many stances of the right this one seems to be all facts and no religion☺. screaming from my cold dead hand while is a great line it dont change mimds.

 

[J.Wilkins]

Their "dream" for the 2A was that citizens could fight an oppressive government as they did, if it came to it.

If that is REALLY the true intention then what would be the purpose of carrying it around? Wouldn't it make more sense to have your guns safely stored at all times so they can't be stolen given that you're going to need them when the revolution comes?

Unless of course the armed forces just takes care of it which is what usually happens and having a hand gun isn't going to help you fight them if they are not on your side while your handgun isn't going to be needed if they are.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Agreed. I have lived in California most of life and used to support strict gun regulation but changed my stance. I think the right would have more success promotimg their cause if they were more tactful. Unlike many stances of the right this one seems to be all facts and no religion☺. screaming from my cold dead hand while is a great line it dont change mimds.

I am with you 100%. I tend to take moderate to more left leaning stances on many issues, but if there is one area the conservatives / right are absolutely correct compared to the left, I think it is regarding the 2A. And yes, we all know how over the top they can be on the right... They could do a better job of spreading their message.

 

[SlowSpyder]

If that is REALLY the true intention then what would be the purpose of carrying it around? Wouldn't it make more sense to have your guns safely stored at all times so they can't be stolen given that you're going to need them when the revolution comes?

Unless of course the armed forces just takes care of it which is what usually happens and having a hand gun isn't going to help you fight them if they are not on your side while your handgun isn't going to be needed if they are.

I think that was the ultimate purpose of the 2A. The right to defend yourself was probably assumed, as I imagine carrying was fairly common. The issue here is that if you outlaw carrying guns legally, the murderers don't care about that law, they're still going to carry. Such restriction only limits law-abiding citizens. It should go without saying that you can carry a gun in a country where the right to bear arms is protected by the constitution. The people that are concerned with carry laws aren't the people you generally need to worry about.

 

[J.Wilkins]

I think that was the ultimate purpose of the 2A. The right to defend yourself was probably assumed, as I imagine carrying was fairly common. The issue here is that if you outlaw carrying guns legally, the murderers don't care about that law, they're still going to carry. Such restriction only limits law-abiding citizens. It should go without saying that you can carry a gun in a country where the right to bear arms is protected by the constitution. The people that are concerned with carry laws aren't the people you generally need to worry about.

And amnesties like in Australia or Germany wouldn't work at all like they did very successfully there?

Here's the deal with "illegal guns", pretty much each and every one of them were purchased legally at some point.

You are the one who brought up the intention of the 2A, I merely pointed out that if that is the intention then it is completely useless today as you wouldn't stand up to the US armed forces with a handgun (not even in very great numbers) and if you had the US armed forces on your side then your handgun isn't going to help anything.

I think that what you stated as the intention cannot be an argument for the 2A any more since it makes absolutely no sense with regards to handguns. You'd have to allow all forms of weaponry if the population is going to have any use for it in a revolution where the armed forces has picked a side.

That's all.

 

[SlowSpyder]

And amnesties like in Australia or Germany wouldn't work at all like they did very successfully there?

Here's the deal with "illegal guns", pretty much each and every one of them were purchased legally at some point.

You are the one who brought up the intention of the 2A, I merely pointed out that if that is the intention then it is completely useless today as you wouldn't stand up to the US armed forces with a handgun (not even in very great numbers) and if you had the US armed forces on your side then your handgun isn't going to help anything.

I think that what you stated as the intention cannot be an argument for the 2A any more since it makes absolutely no sense with regards to handguns. You'd have to allow all forms of weaponry if the population is going to have any use for it in a revolution where the armed forces has picked a side.

That's all.

Anti-gun laws work well where guns are essentially banned and hard to get. In America where they are sold in retail stores and there are literally hundreds of millions of them, those kinds of bans don't work so well. But that's why I'm for universal background checks, I think that'll help in the long run keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

The rest of your post I don't agree with. I think the intent of the 2A was exactly as I said. I think an armed citizen has a much better fighting chance with a firearm than without one. Ask a tyrannical leader which populace he'd rather rule with an iron fist, the ones with access to millions of guns or the disarmed population.

 

[Jhhnn]

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.

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.

Either my assertion is correct or the Founders were clairvoyant & able to see the future. The latter seems unlikely. There are a lot of things in our world that were beyond their comprehension. I'll grant that they were men of Vision but that doesn't mean they could read the future. They lived at the dawn of a completely new era for humanity.

It's merely diversion, anyway. It's obvious that the *Government of the People* has the right to regulate firearms in a variety of ways so long as a wide variety of firearms & ammo are readily available. It's the reason they sell AR's instead of M4's.

It's also perfectly obvious that extreme enthusiasts want military grade weapons mostly to satisfy revolutionary warrior fantasies, kinda like the Bundyites. There really is little to no use for such features in modern civilian firearms other than that.

 

[SlowSpyder]

What is a "military grade" weapon? A gun that can be mass produced, is reliable, and built by the lowest bidder? "Military" and "assault" are just color words.

I see nothing in your post that proves they couldn't have envisioned more advanced guns in the future when they wrote the 2A. Do you honestly think they thought they had reached the pinnacle of what a firearm could be in 1790? They couldn't possibly envision guns getting more effective in what they do? That's just silly, they saw it happening during their lifetimes, and still wrote the 2A.

I have a right to buy an AR style gun, guaranteed by the 2A. There is zero reason I shouldn't be able to do so. I know I sound like a broken record, but again, trying to put such a silly limitation on the 2A is exactly why we have the NRA we have today.

Why are anti-gunners so laser focused on guns and ignoring everything else? Why so worried about AR style guns that make up a very, very small percentage of gun violence? Why are you trying to limit my rights in a way that will make no tangible difference in gun violence?

 

[J.Wilkins]

Anti-gun laws work well where guns are essentially banned and hard to get. In America where they are sold in retail stores and there are literally hundreds of millions of them, those kinds of bans don't work so well. But that's why I'm for universal background checks, I think that'll help in the long run keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

The rest of your post I don't agree with. I think the intent of the 2A was exactly as I said. I think an armed citizen has a much better fighting chance with a firearm than without one. Ask a tyrannical leader which populace he'd rather rule with an iron fist, the ones with access to millions of guns or the disarmed population.

So your argument is basically "since we won't make guns hard to get they aren't hard to get"? If you made them hard to get they would be hard to get, that is the point.

Look, I really don't care if you do or don't make guns harder to get but you need to fix your arguments so they make sense. The "revolution" argument is dead and buried as long as everyone cannot own a tank, anti air systems and everything the military has and the argument that you can't limit the access to guns is also ridiculous since it's been done before with many countries.

Just say "I like my guns and don't want to give them up" because in the end that is really what this is all about. I own several guns myself and have three separate licenses so I do get it.

 

[Azuma Hazuki]

I also have to call BS on the whole "yeah, you're gonna take on the army with a .44, good luck" angle. "The army" got its ass handed to it by people in the middle east over and over and over again armed with not much more than AKs and other small arms. The only way "the army" is going to win urban warfare against "we the people" is bombing campaigns and/or {radio/bio}logical attack, and as soon as they try that the entire civilized world will be on them like a cheap suit in a thunderstorm.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I also have to call BS on the whole "yeah, you're gonna take on the army with a .44, good luck" angle. "The army" got its ass handed to it by people in the middle east over and over and over again armed with not much more than AKs and other small arms. The only way "the army" is going to win urban warfare against "we the people" is bombing campaigns and/or {radio/bio}logical attack, and as soon as they try that the entire civilized world will be on them like a cheap suit in a thunderstorm.

This is true, military campaigns against civilian populations generally end up in guerrilla warfare, which are notoriously difficult for armor (beyond holding a given location) and air (beyond blowing the shit out of entire cities). In these scenarios, an armed population is a dangerous one, as you'd have theoretically have a 300-million-odd strong enemy force covering some 3.8m sq miles. You thought the ME was bad? Good luck with that.

And that's completely disregarding the fact that most military personnel aren't going to turn on the populace in general (making this entire argument pretty moot). To me the whole 2A thing is far more useful for the protection of the US as a whole. I'm fairly certain it's at least one reason why Japan wasn't jumping all over the chance to initiate a land war on our west coast in WW2.

 

[SlowSpyder]

So your argument is basically "since we won't make guns hard to get they aren't hard to get"? If you made them hard to get they would be hard to get, that is the point.

Look, I really don't care if you do or don't make guns harder to get but you need to fix your arguments so they make sense. The "revolution" argument is dead and buried as long as everyone cannot own a tank, anti air systems and everything the military has and the argument that you can't limit the access to guns is also ridiculous since it's been done before with many countries.

Just say "I like my guns and don't want to give them up" because in the end that is really what this is all about. I own several guns myself and have three separate licenses so I do get it.

No, my argument is silly limitations make zero difference in a country where guns are everywhere. It is the law abiding citizens that are worried about carrying legally that are affected by such restrictions, not the murderer that doesn't care what the law says.

So we must have wiped out the terrorists in the mid east almost completely since they only have relatively small arms compared to us. They can't possibly stand up to the combined power of several westernized nations with such advanced technology. Think about what you are saying vs. the reality of the world we live in today.

 

[J.Wilkins]

I also have to call BS on the whole "yeah, you're gonna take on the army with a .44, good luck" angle. "The army" got its ass handed to it by people in the middle east over and over and over again armed with not much more than AKs and other small arms. The only way "the army" is going to win urban warfare against "we the people" is bombing campaigns and/or {radio/bio}logical attack, and as soon as they try that the entire civilized world will be on them like a cheap suit in a thunderstorm.

You do realize that the armed forces would fight an insurgency like an invasion war and not limit casualties in any shape or form until the war was over, right?

If the US armed forces cannot win a war in the US against very poorly armed people with no training, no chain of command, no experience and who are not prepared at all then you can just scrap it completely since it is of no use what so ever when it comes to protect the nation.

 

[agent00f]

I also have to call BS on the whole "yeah, you're gonna take on the army with a .44, good luck" angle. "The army" got its ass handed to it by people in the middle east over and over and over again armed with not much more than AKs and other small arms. The only way "the army" is going to win urban warfare against "we the people" is bombing campaigns and/or {radio/bio}logical attack, and as soon as they try that the entire civilized world will be on them like a cheap suit in a thunderstorm.

If we're talking body counts, US army administered a beatdown on the arabs and afghans despite incredibly disadvantageous logistics. Of course they still weren't able to "win" where winning is defined as zero locals willing to fight back, because many of these people have nothing to lose by dying.

No, my argument is silly limitations make zero difference in a country where guns are everywhere. It is the law abiding citizens that are worried about carrying legally that are affected by such restrictions, not the murderer that doesn't care what the law says.

So we must have wiped out the terrorists in the mid east almost completely since they only have relatively small arms compared to us. They can't possibly stand up to the combined power of several westernized nations with such advanced technology. Think about what you are saying vs. the reality of the world we live in today.

Relatively wealthy suburban commandos do have something to lose.

 

[Jhhnn]

I have a right to buy an AR style gun, guaranteed by the 2A.

Incorrect. I'm sure the same thing was said about the BAR in 1934.

 

[Sunburn74]

All amendments have reasonable limitations. Amendments are not blanket checks for rights.

 

[SlowSpyder]

You do realize that the armed forces would fight an insurgency like an invasion war and not limit casualties in any shape or form until the war was over, right?

If the US armed forces cannot win a war in the US against very poorly armed people with no training, no chain of command, no experience and who are not prepared at all then you can just scrap it completely since it is of no use what so ever when it comes to protect the nation.

Regarding your first paragraph, how do you know this? We've seen in the past that hasn't been the case. You really think Americans will indiscriminately bomb other American neighborhoods? I don't.

The US could easily win and control the land if we didn't care about the loss of innocent civilian life. But reality is what it is, and it supports my point of view, not yours. Just look at the world today to see this.

 

[SlowSpyder]

All amendments have reasonable limitations. Amendments are not blanket checks for rights.

There have always been reasonable limits. You can't use your free speech to incite a riot, as an example. You can't buy an atomic bomb on the shelf next to ammo, either.

So, is it fair to say the limit needs to be further pushed back on the 2A? As I've pointed out, when you look at gun violence compared to other things that kill us in far greater numbers and that are less restricted, it is a hard case to make that this particular freedom needs ever more restriction.

Incorrect. I'm sure the same thing was said about the BAR in 1934.

The BAR is still perfectly legal to own, you just need to pay for a special tax stamp and jump through some other hoops to own it.

 

[Roflmouth]

All amendments have reasonable limitations. Amendments are not blanket checks for rights.

True, they aren't "blanket checks" (whatever those are) for rights. The rights already exist, and the amendments simply state that they do in writing. HTH

 

[Jhhnn]

There have always been reasonable limits. You can't use your free speech to incite a riot, as an example. You can't buy an atomic bomb on the shelf next to ammo, either.

So, is it fair to say the limit needs to be further pushed back on the 2A? As I've pointed out, when you look at gun violence compared to other things that kill us in far greater numbers and that are less restricted, it is a hard case to make that this particular freedom needs ever more restriction.




The BAR is still perfectly legal to own, you just need to pay for a special tax stamp and jump through some other hoops to own it.

Which means that the govt of the people can treat AR's the same way should we choose to do so.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Which means that the govt of the people can treat AR's the same way should we choose to do so.

Yes, exactly why we have the NRA we have today. Because people like you want to limit gun owners' rights over relatively little. You have a laser focus on something that is highly regulated and harms society far less than much less regulated things. Like I said, people like you are on an evangelical crusade, you aren't interested in logical thinking about this.

 

[Jhhnn]

Yes, exactly why we have the NRA we have today. Because people like you want to limit gun owners' rights over relatively little. You have a laser focus on something that is highly regulated and harms society far less than much less regulated things. Like I said, people like you are on an evangelical crusade, you aren't interested in logical thinking about this.

The NRA was taken over by paranoid fear mongering military weapons fetishists some while back.

 

[shortylickens]

If that is REALLY the true intention then what would be the purpose of carrying it around? Wouldn't it make more sense to have your guns safely stored at all times so they can't be stolen given that you're going to need them when the revolution comes?

Unless of course the armed forces just takes care of it which is what usually happens and having a hand gun isn't going to help you fight them if they are not on your side while your handgun isn't going to be needed if they are.

The high-powered rifles, yes.
But small handguns would make more sense on the person.

 

[agent00f]

Regarding your first paragraph, how do you know this? We've seen in the past that hasn't been the case. You really think Americans will indiscriminately bomb other American neighborhoods? I don't.

The US could easily win and control the land if we didn't care about the loss of innocent civilian life. But reality is what it is, and it supports my point of view, not yours. Just look at the world today to see this.

We had a war that proves we're willing to do what it takes to destroy amoral traitorous pieces of shit.

 

[Muse]

NRA is just a shill for the GOP.

Can't disagree. I despise the NRA. I find the domination of the legislative and executive branch of the federal government by the GOP incredible and it has me thinking that there are many places in this country I wouldn't want to live. I never used to feel that way.