No matter how many guns I own, I will be against the NRA for these kinds of reasons:
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=7211
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=7211
Why I am against the NRA
- Thread starter sanjuro
- Start date
I will always be for the NRA, stance on gheys, legal to own guns, drugs, legal to own guns, bars, legal to own guns.
Their stance is only about freedom to have legal gun ownership, not to expand and tell you how to live the rest of your life, no other group stays that focused.
Their stance is only about freedom to have legal gun ownership, not to expand and tell you how to live the rest of your life, no other group stays that focused.
The NRA has long taken a "results justify the means" approach... Anything that might dampen the public's acceptance of guns is to be criticized.
Git sum!!!
I am a gun owner, but my weapons are all tactical weapons, of a sort that I am required to use in my line of work. I trained and proficient with all of them, and emphasize safety in anything I do with them. I do not allow my kids to play with toy guns, however, I do not hide guns and other weapons from them. I emphasize that weapons are tools, not toys, and when they are old enough and mature enough to handle them I will teach them everything I know about their use, ,if they are so inclined to learn. I do not, and cannot, understand why Joe American citizen needs a .50 cal sniper rifle, or a fully auto anything. Hunting and self defense weapons, sure. But the ability to reach out and touch someone over a mile away, or to defeat a Cops body armor is not something the average citizen needs, IMHO...
I do not, and cannot, understand why Joe American citizen needs a .50 cal sniper rifle, or a fully auto anything....
While I agree, JohnE, I have to play the devils advocate, and wonder about extending this qualification to other aspects of life. Perhaps, unless you are giving Atherton, or Gwin, or Peat a run for their money---maybe there is no real reason or justification for you to have a downhill bike.
While I agree, JohnE, I have to play the devils advocate, and wonder about extending this qualification to other aspects of life. Perhaps, unless you are giving Atherton, or Gwin, or Peat a run for their money---maybe there is no real reason or justification for you to have a downhill bike.
How insightful.
How many dh bikes have been used to kill someone, even accidentally?
Hey John E: You should just do like manimal and take pics of your sub 10 year old kids holding your AR replica just to go neener neener on the internet. Because it's funny!
My point is that people want things, not because of the things 'potential'-- but because they CAN have them.
We can all agree that a car has killed (on purpose or accident)--
would a better analogy be that unless we are all Sebastian Vettels, maybe there is no reason to have a car that has, say... over 100 HP, or is bigger than a given measurement/ weight.
I feel confident that a good segment of Porsche owners don't spend any days at the track, and how many SUV's ever see any kind of dirt? This segment of 'owners' are not using the car to the fullest potential, similarly a guy who owns a fully auto any-kind-of-gun as a collector's piece is obviously not using the gun to it's fullest potential (with the possible exception of a monetary potential).
A blanketed "I do not, and can not understand why Joe American has....." is a statement that is nothing more than wasted air. Further, the statement was followed up with 'sure I could see a gun as SELF DEFENSE or hunting....' I say if you are going to 'self defense'-- you may as well do it in style....
We can all agree that a car has killed (on purpose or accident)--
would a better analogy be that unless we are all Sebastian Vettels, maybe there is no reason to have a car that has, say... over 100 HP, or is bigger than a given measurement/ weight.
I feel confident that a good segment of Porsche owners don't spend any days at the track, and how many SUV's ever see any kind of dirt? This segment of 'owners' are not using the car to the fullest potential, similarly a guy who owns a fully auto any-kind-of-gun as a collector's piece is obviously not using the gun to it's fullest potential (with the possible exception of a monetary potential).
A blanketed "I do not, and can not understand why Joe American has....." is a statement that is nothing more than wasted air. Further, the statement was followed up with 'sure I could see a gun as SELF DEFENSE or hunting....' I say if you are going to 'self defense'-- you may as well do it in style....
You can't buy and drive a big rig just because you want one, you need a CDL and there are various vehicles which are not road legal period so just like there are valid reasons for banning or restricting certain vehicles or vehicle configurations from the public, there are valid reasons to bar certain guns and other weapons from the public. Restrictive laws make sense on guns just as they do with cars, airplanes, and other regulated hazardous products.
Cars serve the purpose of transportation. The fact that people have died using them doesn't change their design purpose.
Guns are made for shooting. Nothing else. (queue mooshoo with some stupid 'but thissy here gun is made fer dekerashun!')
I will grant you that cars are made for transport, and guns are made for shooting, but I have to wonder-- is there a distinction among targets? I can see hunting as a (decent) 'reason' to have a gun, but not many other 'reasons' seem viable to me.
So, I wonder-- they are made for shooting-- shooting what exactly? And be careful, if you say people-- the BS argument 'if you outlaw guns, blah blah blah.....' actually holds some water-- in this case-- Guns ought to be outlawed-- after all their only reason for existence is killing other people.
If your answer is something other than people (since that is where the debate stems from-- people dying at the use of guns...) then your argument about the designed use of a given thing is invalid and bunk. You can't grant the automobile impunity because of it's intended use-- if shooting people is not the intended use of a gun-- Because, obviously, people die at the use of guns. To take a quote out of your book: 'The fact that people have died using them doesn't change their design purpose'-- guns should be granted the same 'grace' understanding that 'accidents happen'.
So, where does this leave us? (I am getting a little confused and not even sure what we are debating about-- I don't have a real clear destination-- as I don't give guns / gun control much thought-- to me they are just BS talking points for either side-- The NRA is a joke-- and Obama hasn't done a single thing to 'threaten' the 'legality' of legal gun ownership.--- the dance goes round and round, but nothing ever changes .)
//EDIT// Syadasti: Knee Jerkingly, I agree with your post-- but I get all bugged out trying to define the parameters for myself-- Realistically, it is just as easy to kill someone with a single shot pistol than it is easy to kill with an automatic uzzi kill everything in sight with 5000 rounds per second kind of gun. Sure the single shot will do less damage to other people and the surroundings-- but where are our mores and ethics if we concede our laws are good if only 1 person is killed, but bad if 5 or 6 or 100 are killed?
So, I wonder-- they are made for shooting-- shooting what exactly? And be careful, if you say people-- the BS argument 'if you outlaw guns, blah blah blah.....' actually holds some water-- in this case-- Guns ought to be outlawed-- after all their only reason for existence is killing other people.
If your answer is something other than people (since that is where the debate stems from-- people dying at the use of guns...) then your argument about the designed use of a given thing is invalid and bunk. You can't grant the automobile impunity because of it's intended use-- if shooting people is not the intended use of a gun-- Because, obviously, people die at the use of guns. To take a quote out of your book: 'The fact that people have died using them doesn't change their design purpose'-- guns should be granted the same 'grace' understanding that 'accidents happen'.
So, where does this leave us? (I am getting a little confused and not even sure what we are debating about-- I don't have a real clear destination-- as I don't give guns / gun control much thought-- to me they are just BS talking points for either side-- The NRA is a joke-- and Obama hasn't done a single thing to 'threaten' the 'legality' of legal gun ownership.--- the dance goes round and round, but nothing ever changes .)
//EDIT// Syadasti: Knee Jerkingly, I agree with your post-- but I get all bugged out trying to define the parameters for myself-- Realistically, it is just as easy to kill someone with a single shot pistol than it is easy to kill with an automatic uzzi kill everything in sight with 5000 rounds per second kind of gun. Sure the single shot will do less damage to other people and the surroundings-- but where are our mores and ethics if we concede our laws are good if only 1 person is killed, but bad if 5 or 6 or 100 are killed?
Last edited:
There's no need for an 'argument', you seem to keep yourself plenty entertained with your own babbling
Not very concise am I?
Not that time 
C'mon now. How many DH bikes have been used to kill a police officer, a high school student, another human being?
Now the 50 caliber rifle is a funny gun to ban, considering so far there has never been a single crime associated with those rifles. But there have been plenty of full auto murders.
This is a good question. Should cars be limited to 55mph? The answer is no, I think we can trust the populace not to slaughter when they go over the limit.
But you are proving my point why I am against the NRA.
I'm not against guns.
I'm not against gun ownership.
I am for moderate gun control. For example, I am strongly for background checks for private purchasers and better regulations at the gun shop. I was telling a friend about the DC Beltway shooters who actually stole their Bushmaster from a Tacoma gun shop.
But if it was up to the NRA, you could buy guns at the corner store. You are trying to drum up some fake debate about gun control.
Do you think felons should own guns? How about teenagers purchasing guns on their own? Armor piercing bullets?
Last edited:
What makes a bullet armor piercing?
I see the NRA stance on guns as being good, only in the fact that once a part of something gets banned it gains momentum and then the product as a whole will finally get banned.
The comments are
gold.
I dont have an AR 15 clone...or a downhill bike. So I cant take pictures or kill anyone with either one. I do have an M4 assigned to me, but thats another story. I echo Sanjuro. Moderate gun control policies that are enforced are good. I see no reason why a law abiding citizen would fear a background check...and having things simply to have them smacks of American consumerism at its finest...
What would be even funnier is that as part of a permit granting process, you have to take a video of yourself firing it while standing up and put it on youtube.
But they've done the exact opposite of that.....to the degree that their stance is that of frothing retards screaming 'all gunz, all the time, always!!!!'
They've lowered the level of debate into absolute idiocy and helped guarantee that people who literally should not have weapons have easy access to them.
One of the people shot in this mess is a good friend of a coworker
http://www.rgj.com/article/20111005/NEWS01/111005001/Carson-City-IHOP-shooter-fired-about-60-rounds-from-fully-automatic-rifle
There's no reason that assault rifles and their offspring need to be available to these assholes. But because of the NRA, they are and by golly they're gonna keep it that way.
"but I'm meerikkan I WANT it!!"
Please.
Grow up.
You're not defending yourself from the fvcking redcoats with that crap.
Last edited:
We need HK or RenegeadeRick to chime in on this..."FEMA has camps man...concentration camps...they will come for you man..."
Gots to defend maserlf!!! Theyz commin!!! Pew pew pew!!!
Well, considering the only ammo I bought is basic FMJ or JHP's, from my research on wiki, it looks like there are several rifle variants for armor piercing rounds.
Well, both you and the NRA are wrong about the "slippery slope", considering laws like the National Firearms Act of 1938 did not result in another major federal gun law until 30 years later, and even the Assault Weapons Ban was repealed.
Agreed and Agreed. But to the tin foil crowd, A simple background check is analog to rights being taken away... The whack jobs propose that if we allow any 'control' even in the slightest form, it is just the beginning of the slippery slope. Soon it will be all out denial of ANY rights.....
Re: the american consumerism comment-- that is why I quoted you as saying 'I don't and can not see why average joe american needs'...... (Insert any number of things here-- a giant SUV, A McDonalds on every corner, 32 and 40 and 60 Oz. Sodas from the local quick shop, etc, etc, etc...) is a complete waste of breath and air-- there is no rhyme or reason why my 'fellow countrymen' do what many of them do.... Hey I ain't perfect, but I do at least try to be cognizant of my impact on the local economy, the environment, my health, etc....
HK got banned... rick has been MIA for a few years.
Can anyone buy an RPG? Is it classified as something other than a gun?
Fully automatic guns should be banned, imho. I don't think it would help anything though. Criminals use a lot of illegally purchased or stolen weapons and I don't think you could reasonably confiscate the guns currently in circulation.
Fully automatic guns should be banned, imho. I don't think it would help anything though. Criminals use a lot of illegally purchased or stolen weapons and I don't think you could reasonably confiscate the guns currently in circulation.
Supply and demand still functions as normal. When they stop circulating a car, coin, bike, stamp, book, gun, etc the supply declines with time as they become non-functional for whatever reason. If there is a demand the price will go up according to scarcity, supply won't.
They use a lot of legally purchased guns too.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/27/us/more-concealed-guns-and-some-are-in-the-wrong-hands.html?_r=1
All true, and guns need a supply of ammo, which could be halted.
I could get you an RPG...
(Just kidding, if Big Brother is watching!)
Fully auto weapons, IMHO, should be limited to military use only. Laying down a heavy base of fire for troops to manuever under, taking down low and slow aircraft, area denial and defense against light armored vehicels...their true purpose. If I was a bad guy, I want look for a mortar or other indirect fire weapons...
The NY Times article brings up intersting points, all very valid. But to me, what it comes down (Like many situations...) is properly enforcing the laws we have at this time. The events mentioned are all thoguht provoking, and were preventable had prior brushes with the law been allowed to influence the issuance of the concealed permits.
(Just kidding, if Big Brother is watching!)
Fully auto weapons, IMHO, should be limited to military use only. Laying down a heavy base of fire for troops to manuever under, taking down low and slow aircraft, area denial and defense against light armored vehicels...their true purpose. If I was a bad guy, I want look for a mortar or other indirect fire weapons...
The NY Times article brings up intersting points, all very valid. But to me, what it comes down (Like many situations...) is properly enforcing the laws we have at this time. The events mentioned are all thoguht provoking, and were preventable had prior brushes with the law been allowed to influence the issuance of the concealed permits.
Last edited:
BTW, did you know the general murder rate of NC is higher than the rate of CCW holders in the state?
And?
All those law abiding gun carrying upstanding citizens couldn't keep the streets safe?
Well, there was a ccw holder outside the Carson City IHOP, but he was afraid to pull his piece against a crazy man wielding an AK-47.And?
All those law abiding gun carrying upstanding citizens couldn't keep the streets safe?
On the other hand, I bet the National Guardsmen would have fired back if they were carrying.
Yeah a lot of good that did.
Just like at the Gabby Giffords shooting.
I only put that link up because it shows that even drunk assholes can easily get their freedom palms stocked. And the NRA will defend their right to do so till they're blue in the face. (part of your argument in the op.....yes) The idea that all legally purchased guns are owned by upstanding, cool headed, responsible individuals is bullshlt. The first story in that article had some asshole SHOOTING AT THE HEAD of some guy just because he didn't like where he rode his bike. That's retarded. The penis supplements known as 'legally purchased firearms' give assholes an easy reason to be even bigger assholes.
What is Armor?
Body armor? Armor plate used in cars?
Slippery slope, well it is a tired argument just like this whole thread, but the U.K. doesn't have guns but still has crime, so how do you make gun control really work?
