Wednesday, August 04, 2004

Stardate 58590.94 - Why the NRA is Stupid

First, I need to point out that I was raised in rural Virginia, on a small, 11-acre farm with about 10 sheep and 2-3 goats. My Mom owned (and still owns) a .22 rifle, used mainly to shoot groundhogs that constantly invaded the garden. I have personally fired everything from a Walther PPK to both 9mm and 10mm pistols (the 10 is my personal favorite) up through an AR-15. I am not against gun ownership, and after my apartment was broken into during college I even kept a .22 pistol around (unloaded and with a trigger lock on it) for about a year, loaned to me by a good friend who happens to be an NRA member. Hunter safety training was even mandatory in my High School for all 8th graders. I have a great yearbook photo of a row of 30 or so students, prone in the gym, on mats, all holding rifles. So don't call me a pinko-commie; I don't have a problem with people owning guns.

Now for my rant.

In the July 26, 2004 issue of Time magazine, there was a brief article on John Kerry and the NRA. John Kerry is no stranger to guns. At the Gunslick Trap Club he recently used a Beretta 12-gauge shotgun and "coolly dispatched 17 of 25 clay pigeons" (Time). The NRA is anti-Kerry, however, because he "...Hasn't fought for gun owners' rights once in 25 years." (Wayne LaPierre, NRA executive VP).

What extreme views does Kerry have with respect to guns? "He has supported banning assault weapons and armor-piercing bullets, requiring background checks at gun shows and regulating gun sales over the Internet." (Time)

How on earth can the NRA be against background checks? How can any sane person? How can the NRA be against regulating gun sales over the Internet? Again, how can any sane person? I also think civilians with armor-piercing bullets is a bad idea. How can any police officer think that is a good idea? I am personally on the fence when it comes to assault weapons in private hands (lots of definitions of what constitutes an "assault weapon", for example), but at a minimum they should be licensed, registered, and difficult to acquire or re-sell.

Someone once told me that the NRA has to be so extremist because there are people just as hard over on the other side, and with two extreme views we end up with policy somewhere in the middle. But in my mind, the NRA risks becoming an ineffective parody of itself when it is publicly against reasonable controls such as background checks and regulation of Internet sales.

4 comments:

Heston said...

Hey Hero, let me help you out here:

How on earth can the NRA be against background checks?

Show me where the NRA has ever come out against background checks.

(although the consitiution doesn't require them and they are completely ineffective from preventing criminals from obtaining firearms would be my argument)


How can any sane person?

See above.

How can the NRA be against regulating gun sales over the Internet?

See above. Furthermore, what does this mean anyway? Where can I can I legally buy a gun and have it shipped to my house anyway? Answer: you can't.

Again, how can any sane person?

See above.

I also think civilians with armor-piercing bullets is a bad idea. How can any police officer think that is a good idea?

Define the difference between an armor piercing bullet and regular bullet? This what bothers guns owners. If "armor piercing" bullets were outlawed, there would be an instant push from the left to define every projectile fired from a firearm as "armor piercing" A standard hunting rifle will pierce body armor and is MORE powerful than "assault rifles".

I am personally on the fence when it comes to assault weapons in private hands (lots of definitions of what constitutes an "assault weapon", for example), but at a minimum they should be licensed, registered, and difficult to acquire or re-sell.

So they are easy to confiscate and difficult to obtain for everyday Joe, but you can bet criminals who don’t care about breaking the law will have no problem buying them from other criminals.

Intersting tid bit, since the assualt weapons ban has sunset crime with assualt rifles and in general has DECREASED. This law had no impact on crime in the united states.

CAPT_Sawyer said...

Hey Hero, let me help you out here:



>> First, remember that I am not anti-gun, I am anti-idiocy and anti-partisan politics.


How on earth can the NRA be against background checks?

Show me where the NRA has ever come out against background checks.

(although the consitiution doesn't require them and they are completely ineffective from preventing criminals from obtaining firearms would be my argument)



>> One (of many) articles on the NRA web site against background checks at gun shows: http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=49

>> I’m sure if I go back far enough, I can find when background checks started and I’d find it hard to believe the NRA was pro-background check. I just don’t have time this morning to do the research.


How can any sane person?

See above.

How can the NRA be against regulating gun sales over the Internet?

See above. Furthermore, what does this mean anyway? Where can I can I legally buy a gun and have it shipped to my house anyway? Answer: you can't.



>> In most states, including North Carolina, private individuals may sell guns without background checks at gun shows, through newspaper classified ads, over the Internet, or simply from their kitchen tables. Source: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. "Following the Gun: Enforcing Federal Laws Against Firearms Traffickers," 2000.



Again, how can any sane person?

See above.

I also think civilians with armor-piercing bullets is a bad idea. How can any police officer think that is a good idea?

Define the difference between an armor piercing bullet and regular bullet? This what bothers guns owners. If "armor piercing" bullets were outlawed, there would be an instant push from the left to define every projectile fired from a firearm as "armor piercing" A standard hunting rifle will pierce body armor and is MORE powerful than "assault rifles".



>> I do grant that the definitions would have to be very clear (see my point below regarding “assault” weapons). But I don’t think people need armor-piercing bullets to hunt a deer. When did they start wearing body armor? ;-) And why is it that all Republicans see a “vast left-wing conspiracy” when it comes to any type of restriction on weapons? ;-)


I am personally on the fence when it comes to assault weapons in private hands (lots of definitions of what constitutes an "assault weapon", for example), but at a minimum they should be licensed, registered, and difficult to acquire or re-sell.

So they are easy to confiscate and difficult to obtain for everyday Joe, but you can bet criminals who don’t care about breaking the law will have no problem buying them from other criminals.



>>> You cannot seriously believe that the left-wing anti-gun coalition will take over the Presidency, Congress, and all the state governorships and houses of government simultaneously and start confiscating guns? There is no left-wing conspiracy. There is no left-wing conspiracy.



Interesting tid bit, since the assualt weapons ban has sunset crime with assualt rifles and in general has DECREASED. This law had no impact on crime in the united states.



>>> I don’t think that there is a direct and independent causal relationship simply between assault weapon sales and crime figures across the entire country. I just think that if the police are going to serve a warrant on someone, it would be nice to know that person has 20 assault weapons. Forewarned is forearmed.



I am opposed to the extremists on both sides. I reject the far-right groups that think gun ownership without any controls is an absolute right, and the far left that thinks it is an absolute wrong.

---Curt

Anonymous said...

The real issue here with any form or gun control,or let's call it weapons control, is violence. Gun control proponents seem to feel that guns are bad, getting rid of them will make the world a safer place.

Answer this...when hasn't the world been a violent place? Mother nature has provided us with weapons. Fists, sticks, and stones. Are protesters without firearms non-violent? can you say rock throwing, bottle throwing, vehicle trashing protestor?

Technology, weapons technology, is about making something better, orcoming up with something that is better than what currently exists. FM radio is better than AM and sattelite will be better than FM.

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." -- Mahatma Gandhi

"25 States allow anyone to buy a gun, strap it on, and walk down the street with no permit of any kind: some say it's crazy. However, 4 out of 5 US murders are committed in the other half of the country: so who is crazy?" -- Andrew Ford

"A government that intended to protect the liberty of the people would not disarm them. A government planning the opposite most certainly and logically would disarm them. And so it has been in this century. Check out the history of Germany, the Soviet Union, Cuba, China and Cambodia." --Charlie Reese, syndicated columnist

Lt. Lowell Duckett: "Gun control has not worked in D.C. The only people who have guns are criminals. We have the strictest gun laws in the nation and one of the highest murder rates. It's quicker to pull your Smith & Wesson than to dial 911 if you're being robbed." Special Assistant to DC Police Chief; President, Black Police Caucus, The Washington Post, March 22, 1996.

The NRA is stupid because it is protecting our rights from being infringed upon? History repeats itself...the first thing Hitlerdid towards his rise to power was register privately owned guns, then confiscate them from allbut his party members...the rest is history! Ask those 6million Jews how they feel about gun control why don't you.

Thanks,


Mike

F. Martin said...

If American citizens are going to be allowed to carry assault rifles loaded with armour-piercing bullets, I doubt I will be holidaying there in the near-future. A solution (an extreme solution, dragged from the depthes of my imperialist mind) would be to give the police bigger guns. You know, like chainguns and rocket launchers. But why end there: Swap their patrol cars for tanks. That'll stop those AP rounds.