NRA, Guns, and How To Make it Better

Blue Tortoise · Mar 28, 2018

I'm a conservative leaning, gun owning American. I used to post things on boards and social media about my thoughts and views on things, was a collegiate republican even. But the current climate with politics has caused me to just totally withdraw. I'm surprising myself by posting this now, but I've tried to maintain hope that there is a way back to the land of compromise from all the venom people on both sides of things are spewing at each other every. single. day. And this issue to me is one of the better example, these are kids who went through something horrific. Pointing fingers at them and taking shots at them is not a good look for anyone. No one thinks these kids should be this terrified to do something as simple as going to school.

I just don't know what to think, or do anymore. Everything is one extreme or the other, it seems no one is willing to even consider meeting in the middle or at least having these conversations anymore. I know I'm an NRA member that isn't opposed to doing something. Universal background checks would not be the death of liberty, and a sport shooter I can tell you I wouldn't miss bump stocks, they make it darn near impossible to actually aim at something. On the flip side, clear backpacks are not a terrible idea either. Sadly though politicians and the media have put themselves in the position that they won't ever be able to start bridging this partisan gap, they just played too big a role in creating it. If the healing is ever gonna happen, its gonna have to start among the friends and family members that are cussing each other out on social media.

I dont know if this will even make any sense, or if I'll be ostracized for it lol but I'm personally tired of seeing good people who I care about and respect tearing each other apart because their politicians and media outlets are taking such hard lines all the time. That, and I wanted you to hopefully see that not all the NRA are crazy enough to wave rifles at children =)

cbenoi1 · Mar 28, 2018

Blue Tortoise said:
I'm a conservative leaning, gun owning American. {...} I wanted you to hopefully see that not all the NRA are crazy enough to wave rifles at children =)

What happens if you just quit the NRA?

-cb

Larry M · Mar 28, 2018

cbenoi1 said:
What happens if you just quit the NRA?

-cb

Or... what if the members like Blue Tortoise speak out against the NRA leadership and work for change from within.

Roxxsmom · Mar 28, 2018

Actually, most gun control advocates are talking about compromises. Very few of us are proposing a ban on all guns, or even most of them. We're talking about banning or restricting access to certain kinds of guns--those high capacity, military-style rifles that only exist for killing--and about banning modifications that allow guns to hold and rapidly fire more than ten rounds, possibly restricting certain kinds of ammo, and for expanding and tightening background checks.

We're not opposed to better mental health care either, but I can't help noticing that conservatives tend to be the ones that want to limit public funding for health care of all kinds.

I'd be interested in seeing more laws requiring trigger locks and fingerprint ID systems on guns too, and imposing more liability on gun owners who don't store them safely. Most of the focus is on mass shootings right now, but most gun deaths in the US are due to accidental shootings, and even suicide. Sometimes criminals steal guns as well. If it were harder to use stolen weapons, and harder for kids to accidentally shoot themselves (or for people to kill themselves with relatives or friends' guns), many lives could be saved without banning most guns. I realize that there are objections to many of these measures, and I'd be interested in hearing what they are and how the problems could be overcome.

The person I learned about trigger locks from was a friend who was a gun owner and in favor of gun rights. He felt that mandated trigger locks was an appropriate compromise that could save lives without preventing the safe and responsible use of guns for home defense or sport.

MaeZe · Mar 28, 2018

Blue Tortoise said:
I'm a conservative leaning, gun owning American. I used to post things on boards and social media about my thoughts and views on things, was a collegiate republican even. But the current climate with politics has caused me to just totally withdraw. I'm surprising myself by posting this now, but I've tried to maintain hope that there is a way back to the land of compromise from all the venom people on both sides of things are spewing at each other every. single. day. And this issue to me is one of the better example, these are kids who went through something horrific. Pointing fingers at them and taking shots at them is not a good look for anyone. No one thinks these kids should be this terrified to do something as simple as going to school.

I just don't know what to think, or do anymore. Everything is one extreme or the other, it seems no one is willing to even consider meeting in the middle or at least having these conversations anymore. I know I'm an NRA member that isn't opposed to doing something. Universal background checks would not be the death of liberty, and a sport shooter I can tell you I wouldn't miss bump stocks, they make it darn near impossible to actually aim at something. On the flip side, clear backpacks are not a terrible idea either. Sadly though politicians and the media have put themselves in the position that they won't ever be able to start bridging this partisan gap, they just played too big a role in creating it. If the healing is ever gonna happen, its gonna have to start among the friends and family members that are cussing each other out on social media.

I dont know if this will even make any sense, or if I'll be ostracized for it lol but I'm personally tired of seeing good people who I care about and respect tearing each other apart because their politicians and media outlets are taking such hard lines all the time. That, and I wanted you to hopefully see that not all the NRA are crazy enough to wave rifles at children =)

I appreciate your effort. In another forum I post on someone asked the gun supporters what regulations would they be OK with? What regulations would you be OK with?

As for "clear backpacks are not a terrible idea either," yes they are. Who's going to pay for those millions of backpacks and isn't it obvious one can just wrap a sweater around a gun inside the bag?

About the NRA, it began with a good idea and probably mostly good people. But now it functions as a well-funded mouthpiece for the gun manufacturers. They've opposed any and all gun safety regulation using the bogus slippery slope and the government wants your guns fear mongering.

They stopped one of the most promising gun safety mechanisms which prevented all but the gun's owner from firing the gun by intimidating the gun shops that wanted to carry guns with the device. The argument of the thugs was that the state law would require everyone buy guns with the device if it were successful.

Wiki: Smart gun

The potential effects of New Jersey's smart gun law has also influenced opposition to the technology in the United States; two attempts to sell the Armatix iP1 smart gun in California and Maryland were met with opposition from gun rights groups, who argued that allowing the gun to be sold in the United States would trigger the law.[18] In December 2014, the Attorney General of New Jersey determined that the Armatix iP1 would not meet the legal criteria sufficient to trigger the mandate.[27]...

Click to expand...

Threats against Maryland gun dealer raise doubts about future of smart guns

Wayne LaPierre is an extremist who pushes the fear-mongering at all costs. No doubt he's the darling of the gun lobby.

I wish more NRA members pushed their organization toward reasonableness but I fear too many members have been fed the fear mongering for too long.

I welcome your's and anyone's opinions who are opposed to gun regulations in this thread. It makes no sense not to talk to each other.

Kaiser-Kun · Mar 28, 2018

MaeZe said:
As for "clear backpacks are not a terrible idea either," yes they are. Who's going to pay for those millions of backpacks and isn't it obvious one can just wrap a sweater around a gun inside the bag?

Transparent sweaters, duh! Why can't you people see the OBVIOUS solutions!

ElaineA · Mar 28, 2018

Kaiser-Kun said:
Transparent sweaters, duh! Why can't you people see the OBVIOUS solutions!

*notes for future erotic romance*

Thank you Kaiser-Kun. :heart:

Chris P · Mar 28, 2018

I think a lot of people who don't subscribe to the fringiness of the NRA's stance maintain their memberships because who else is that powerful and being so vocal about gun rights? Ducks Unlimited? That's the only one I can think of, and I grew up in a hunting family and hunted myself throughout my young adulthood. I'm not trying to speak for you, Blue Tortoise, but I think a lot of centrist or even left-leaning gun owners see the NRA as a powerful voice for their cause, and there is no other option. If the NRA isn't defending the Second, who is? People in general are amazingly willing to put up with a lot of crackpots on their side as long as they are useful crackpots. If there was a more reasonable yet equally powerful voice the NRA would implode from folks rushing out the door. Personally, I'd like to see this happen as the NRA's comeuppance for being such dinguses defending the Second against people exercising the First.

Putputt · Mar 28, 2018

Blue Tortoise said:
I'm a conservative leaning, gun owning American. I used to post things on boards and social media about my thoughts and views on things, was a collegiate republican even. But the current climate with politics has caused me to just totally withdraw. I'm surprising myself by posting this now, but I've tried to maintain hope that there is a way back to the land of compromise from all the venom people on both sides of things are spewing at each other every. single. day. And this issue to me is one of the better example, these are kids who went through something horrific. Pointing fingers at them and taking shots at them is not a good look for anyone. No one thinks these kids should be this terrified to do something as simple as going to school.

I just don't know what to think, or do anymore. Everything is one extreme or the other, it seems no one is willing to even consider meeting in the middle or at least having these conversations anymore. I know I'm an NRA member that isn't opposed to doing something. Universal background checks would not be the death of liberty, and a sport shooter I can tell you I wouldn't miss bump stocks, they make it darn near impossible to actually aim at something. On the flip side, clear backpacks are not a terrible idea either. Sadly though politicians and the media have put themselves in the position that they won't ever be able to start bridging this partisan gap, they just played too big a role in creating it. If the healing is ever gonna happen, its gonna have to start among the friends and family members that are cussing each other out on social media.

I dont know if this will even make any sense, or if I'll be ostracized for it lol but I'm personally tired of seeing good people who I care about and respect tearing each other apart because their politicians and media outlets are taking such hard lines all the time. That, and I wanted you to hopefully see that not all the NRA are crazy enough to wave rifles at children =)

You're not alone. I saw a video about gun owners and hunters who took part in the march (and not like, AGAINST the march). They were waving signs saying "Hunters for gun control" etc. I think there's a Facebook group for gun owners who support gun control, and probably more out there if you look. You could join and add your voice to them.

But personally, I can't understand anyone who remains a member of the NRA. Not after the stance the association has taken. I don't see how anyone who's for gun control can financially support such a ghoulish association...?

As for transparent backpacks, I don't think that's a good idea, heh. Just off the top of my head:

1. Someone said you could easily wrap a gun in a sweater and then put it in your transparent backpack and voila! Hidden gun! Yep, I agree with this. Still way too easy to hide weapons.

2. Violates kids' privacy. I remember the embarrassing shit I had in my backpack when I was going to school. Pads, extra undies in case of leaks, bra...and so on and so forth. You could argue that girls could put all these things into an opaque bag before putting them in their transparent backpack, but then...well, what's to stop anyone from putting a gun in an opaque bag and then putting that into a transparent backpack?

3. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but these shooters aren't like, coming in to school and sitting in class and then shooting up their classmates at the end of the school day, right? I'm under the impression they're just coming in to school and shooting immediately? So I don't see how transparent backpacks is going to stop this? By the time someone notices: "Hey you seem to have a gun in your bag--" it's already too late?

cornflake · Mar 28, 2018

Occasionally shooters do walk in, mingle and shoot up the cafeteria at lunch or what have you.

I don't think those kids tend to put their guns in with their history homework and clunk it down on the floor though. There are kind of endless places to hide guns on your person, from waistband and ankle holster to back holster for a long gun. Clear backpacks are the 'show your ID as you enter a building' of useless show security (hint: if there's no list of people only allowed in the building, with photos, to check the IDs against, looking at random IDs is not any kind of security measure).

BenPanced · Mar 29, 2018

If they're going for transparent backpacks, they might as well go full TSA and install metal detectors and X-ray scanners with bomb-sniffing K-9 units. Give them the full experience. And tell me where the money's coming from.

ElaineA · Mar 29, 2018

BenPanced said:
If they're going for transparent backpacks, they might as well go full TSA and install metal detectors and X-ray scanners with bomb-sniffing K-9 units. Give them the full experience. And tell me where the money's coming from.

Unfortunately some schools already do this, a situation I find abhorrent. Imagine growing up in a difficult, poverty-ridden urban neighborhood and having to go through a metal detector to get into SCHOOL. Talk about the school to prison pipeline. "Here kids. Let's just get you used to this right away since, you know..."

This country's priorities are so messed up.

Lyv · Mar 29, 2018

Putputt said:
As for transparent backpacks, I don't think that's a good idea, heh. Just off the top of my head:

1. Someone said you could easily wrap a gun in a sweater and then put it in your transparent backpack and voila! Hidden gun! Yep, I agree with this. Still way too easy to hide weapons.

2. Violates kids' privacy. I remember the embarrassing shit I had in my backpack when I was going to school. Pads, extra undies in case of leaks, bra...and so on and so forth. You could argue that girls could put all these things into an opaque bag before putting them in their transparent backpack, but then...well, what's to stop anyone from putting a gun in an opaque bag and then putting that into a transparent backpack?

3. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but these shooters aren't like, coming in to school and sitting in class and then shooting up their classmates at the end of the school day, right? I'm under the impression they're just coming in to school and shooting immediately? So I don't see how transparent backpacks is going to stop this? By the time someone notices: "Hey you seem to have a gun in your bag--" it's already too late?

Yeah, I had cancer in high school and it was important to me to be as normal as possible. Would have been harder to do that with some of the stuff I had to carry with me, like my meds, supplies for my nausea and vomiting, hair loss, even dressing supplies, since I still had sutures when I went back. What about kids who have colostomies who don't want anyone to know? This actually makes me angry. It would make life harder for many kids.

Speaking of making life harder for kids, harassment of the Parkland survivors continues. One from today: Fox News Host Laura Ingraham is mocking David Hogg for getting rejected from four colleges. David Hogg responded by calling on people to boycott her show's advisers. I love these kids.

ShaunHorton · Mar 29, 2018

One thing I saw years ago that I still remember. A cop walked into a classroom of officer trainees and asked them how many concealed weapons he had on his person.

Most guessed three or four.

He then disarmed himself, laying everything out on the table. He was carrying over 40(!) different weapons, most of which were handguns of varying calibers, but it also included brass knuckles, knives, a machete, and even a shotgun! All hidden on his person in such a way that his clothes didn't make them obvious even to LEO trainees. I don't clearly remember what all he was wearing, but I don't think he was layered up with sweat pants or a hoodie either.

Emilander · Apr 3, 2018

I am curious as to what people think, and please note that I'm not trying to be an asshole, about those who say that the gun control movement's ultimate goal is the repealing of the second amendment and a total ban on all guns and that this is just a small step down the slippery slope towards complete disarmament? Granted, no one in the media or any politicians right now are saying that, but there were plenty of people at the marches who were demanding a ban on all guns. Furthermore, what policy measures does anyone think could be enacted that would prevent mass shootings from occurring again?

To me, the second amendment is clearly a means to defend against government tyranny. At what point does one begin to realize that the government has become tyrannical? Since the Parkland shooting is an obscene example of government failure at every possible level, why is the answer more government?

Justobuddies · Apr 3, 2018

Emilander said:
To me, the second amendment is clearly a means to defend against government tyranny.

And what sort of armaments would you need to defend yourself against a government in possession of predator drones, F-16s, and Nuclear weapons? Face it man, the 2nd amendment is nothing more than a security blanket, because if the government really wanted a complete disarmament could you really stop them?

Enlightened · Apr 3, 2018

Emilander said:
I am curious as to what people think, and please note that I'm not trying to be an asshole, about those who say that the gun control movement's ultimate goal is the repealing of the second amendment and a total ban on all guns and that this is just a small step down the slippery slope towards complete disarmament? Granted, no one in the media or any politicians right now are saying that, but there were plenty of people at the marches who were demanding a ban on all guns. Furthermore, what policy measures does anyone think could be enacted that would prevent mass shootings from occurring again?

To me, the second amendment is clearly a means to defend against government tyranny. At what point does one begin to realize that the government has become tyrannical? Since the Parkland shooting is an obscene example of government failure at every possible level, why is the answer more government?

Policy measures are band-aids. They cannot prevent mass shootings. A militia of people could each carry hand guns and do a mass shooting. There are bigger issues to consider, such as government funded mental health facilities. I believe it was President Reagan who closed down the majority of Federal aid programs to mental institutions. This is one issue for consideration. There are other forces at work.

The tripartite system of American government is designed to stave off tyranny; a system of checks and balances. I am not sure what you base your conclusion that government has become tyrannical.

cornflake · Apr 3, 2018

Emilander said:
I am curious as to what people think, and please note that I'm not trying to be an asshole, about those who say that the gun control movement's ultimate goal is the repealing of the second amendment and a total ban on all guns and that this is just a small step down the slippery slope towards complete disarmament? Granted, no one in the media or any politicians right now are saying that, but there were plenty of people at the marches who were demanding a ban on all guns. Furthermore, what policy measures does anyone think could be enacted that would prevent mass shootings from occurring again?

To me, the second amendment is clearly a means to defend against government tyranny. At what point does one begin to realize that the government has become tyrannical? Since the Parkland shooting is an obscene example of government failure at every possible level, why is the answer more government?

We could start with reading the Second Amendment and realizing, once again, that it's an entire sentence.

A means to defend against government tyranny?

Billy Bob and his pals out in Texas with their gun safes are going to repel the U.S. military, should it decide to I don't even know what, with its tanks, multitude of aircraft, armed drones, endless armories worth of weapons and ammo, and people in body armour and armed vehicles and at remote locations to deliver it all? Really?

The ability of the citizenry to overthrow the military with weapons timed out about 250 years ago. Even if you had a nuke in your shed, they've got silos full, and reinforced mountain bunkers from which to fire them, so forget it.

Policy measures to prevent mass shootings... let's see... if people didn't have access to those weapons....

Emilander · Apr 3, 2018

Justobuddies said:
And what sort of armaments would you need to defend yourself against a government in possession of predator drones, F-16s, and Nuclear weapons? Face it man, the 2nd amendment is nothing more than a security blanket, because if the government really wanted a complete disarmament could you really stop them?

If you truly believe the US government would unleash the full might of the military on its own people and land then we really are under a tyrannical government. Even a cursory review of history will show several examples of people with similar arms standing up to the US military and that's without the additional issues of killing our own people and destroying our own resources.

Enlightened said:
The tripartite system of American government is designed to stave off tyranny; a system of checks and balances. I am not sure what you base your conclusion that government has become tyrannical.

I never said that the government is tyrannical, but I would say that there's plenty of examples of the state being tyrannical. For example: Japanese internment camps, Jim Crow laws, the patriot act, wars without congressional authorization.

I guess my question is why are people who are so distrustful of the police and government (as shown by several threads on this board) want want the police and government to be the only ones with guns?

cornflake said:
We could start with reading the Second Amendment and realizing, once again, that it's an entire sentence.

Meaning?

Policy measures to prevent mass shootings... let's see... if people didn't have access to those weapons....

Okay. What weapons exactly? Are you suggesting a ban on only specific types of weapons or a ban on all weapons? Also, can you give me an example where prohibition has ever worked? And lastly, why is right to self defense the only right people are perfectly willing to take away from other people who have done nothing wrong?

ElaineA · Apr 3, 2018

Enlightened said:
The tripartite system of American government is designed to stave off tyranny; a system of checks and balances. I am not sure what you base your conclusion that government has become tyrannical.

I don't mean to speak for Emilander, but I interpreted that as not that it has become but that it might, and "we can't know until it's too late." The point remains, though, that it's an antiquated amendment written because, at the time, there was a huge fight among the framers about whether to have a standing army. Many of those forming the government were vigorously opposed to a standing army because it was seen as such an easy way to become a force for tyranny, so the idea of a ready militia was important. Well-regulated, meaning having a weapon at home, yes, but also in government stores, accessible by the citizenry in the case of a need for defense.

When the US formed a standing army, the second amendment should have been repealed. It's purpose became obsolete. Now, 300 years later, the NRA has perverted its purpose and reading so far beyond all intent even Justice Scalia recognized the limits had been breached.

I don't think the significant majority of Americans want a total ban on guns, mostly because it would be impossible to enact, enforce, and maintain. It would be a waste of resources and dollars. We've all been immersed in this "guns as a right" dogma. That isn't going to change. I say that as someone who would happily live in a gun-less society, but who recognizes the futility of arguing for that in ours. Anyone fomenting the "they're coming for your guns" fear is just trying to sell more guns. Period.

Enlightened · Apr 3, 2018

Emilander said:
I never said that the government is tyrannical, but I would say there are plenty of examples of the state being tyrannical. For example: Japanese internment, Jim Crow, patriot act, warrantless surveillance, no-knock raids, wars without congressional authorization.

I guess my question is why are people who are so distrustful of the police (based on a lot of threads on this board) want the police and government to be the only ones with guns?

In hindsight it is easy to say something is tyrannical or not.

After an incident in Australia (1996), firearm deaths declined greatly, including suicides. I can live to be 200, and I doubt Americans will ever undergo such national change. Guns have legitimate purposes (sporting and games, such as biathlon, hunting, and so forth). I guess it really matters what guns you refer to. Does any American need a collection of Thompson submachine guns for any reason?

Justobuddies · Apr 3, 2018

Emilander said:
If you truly believe the US government would unleash the full might of the military on its own people and land then we really are under a tyrannical government. Even a cursory review of history will show several examples of people with similar arms standing up to the US military and that's without the additional issues of killing our own people and destroying our own resources.

Not sure how my statement tells you I believe that it would. I simply pointed out that if the government did turn on us, then armed citizens with AR-15s aren't going to bring down a predator drone, or stop an M1A1, and would be very little help against the technical superiority of an ever growing US military. An AR15 serves 1 purpose, and that is to destroy as much human flesh and bone in a short amount of time as possible. There's no practical purpose for them in private citizens' hands.

Larry M · Apr 3, 2018

ElaineA said:
...When the US formed a standing army, the second amendment should have been repealed. It's purpose became obsolete. Now, 300 years later, the NRA has perverted its purpose and reading so far beyond all intent even Justice Scalia recognized the limits had been breached...

Agreed. I have had many recent conversations with gun proponents who spend their time screaming, "shall not be infringed," yet they refuse to understand that the first words in 2A are, "A well-regulated militia..."

Quoting Cornflake, "Billy Bob and his pals...," are nothing close to "A well-regulated militia."

cornflake · Apr 3, 2018

Emilander said:
If you truly believe the US government would unleash the full might of the military on its own people and land then we really are under a tyrannical government. Even a cursory review of history will show several examples of people with similar arms standing up to the US military and that's without the additional issues of killing our own people and destroying our own resources.

If you don't think it'd happen, then what is the point of guns to defend against the government?

I never said that the government is tyrannical, but I would say that there's plenty of examples of the state being tyrannical. For example: Japanese internment camps, Jim Crow laws, the patriot act, wars without congressional authorization.

Are you suggesting people should take up arms to defend against, say, something like internment camps, but you think that somehow wouldn't end with the military taking up arms against those people and putting down the revolt? How does that work? The Japanese would've pointed some guns and said 'we're not going,' and the soldiers rounding them up would've said, 'ok, cool,' and the whole thing would've been forgotten?

I guess my question is why are people who are so distrustful of the police and government (as shown by several threads on this board) want want the police and government to be the only ones with guns?

Part of the reason the cops are so prone to shooting people is because they they fear everyone has a gun.

Meaning?

Meaning it does not say Bob has a right to guns.

Okay. What weapons exactly? Are you suggesting a ban on only specific types of weapons or a ban on all weapons? Also, can you give me an example where prohibition has ever worked? And lastly, why is right to self defense the only right people are perfectly willing to take away from other people who have done nothing wrong?

Who said anything about a right to self defense? Of course people have a right to self defense. The hell does that have to do with guns?

Where has prohibition worked? In relation to guns? Let's see...

Australia.

New York...

ElaineA · Apr 3, 2018

Emilander said:
And lastly, why is right to self defense the only right people are perfectly willing to take away from other people who have done nothing wrong?

Oh, dang. I thought...well never mind.

Let's see...how about when "people who have done nothing wrong" carelessly allow their firearms to get into the hands of people who shouldn't have them, like toddlers, and teens with mental issues who have expressed a desire to slaughter others. Or burglers, because "those who have done nothing wrong" left their guns easily accessible when the thief broke in? How about the cop in my neck of the woods who left his loaded pistol in the glove box for his 4 year old to find and shoot her 2 year-old brother with? While they were left unattended in the car. By a cop. Who had, we presume, done "nothing wrong." He was just monumentally stupid.

How about people who leave their loaded guns on tables, in drawers, under the bed, in closets for kids to find and shoot their friends with. "Accidentally."

When your right to have a boom-boom stick impinges on the safety of my family, that's when we have to think about the bigger picture.

NRA, Guns, and How To Make it Better

Beastly Fido

!

All about that action, boss.

Likes metaphors mixed, not stirred

permanently suctioned to Buz's leg

practical experience, FTW

THE BLUEBERRY QUEEN OF HADES (he/him)

All about that action, boss.

I meant to do that.

AW's resident Velociraptor

Iä! Iä! Cthulhu fhtagn!

Always Learning

practical experience, FTW

All about that action, boss.

Always Learning

Iä! Iä! Cthulhu fhtagn!

practical experience, FTW

All about that action, boss.