S.649: Reid's Base Gun Control Bill

To continue my thought, we'd need a corporate lawyer to come in here and dazzle us with brilliance, or baffle us with BS on the finer points of a 501c and all that jazz. If you want to research on your own, a google search of NRA and 501c should get you started.

For us laymen, and I'm open to being corrected by one of you guys with the alphabet soup after your name, the NRA itself is more akin to the United States Power Squadron that teaches seamanship to maritime hobbyists, and could theoretically be involved in PSA's for lifejacket wearing after a rash of drowning accidents. Whereas the NRA-ILA would be more similar to the Brady Campaign, and probably the Violence Policy Center and Mayors against Illegal Guns.

In fact that search leads to here where the second post does what I assume to be a very concise job of explaining both the concept, and the various sub-organizations under the NRA name umbrella.
 
With regard to Boston being used against gun rights, I think that could backfire, and will probably be a non-starter. 9-11 had a lot more Americans develop an interest in personal protection. If anything, I suspect this sort of incident (foreign terrorists) will work for, and not against, support by the public for self-defense rights.
During a local talk show today, a caller pointed out that those in Boston "barricaded" at home during the manhunt would feel more comfortable with a gun than without. The talk show host, a non-gun owner, agreed.
 
One can criticize the NRA but here's a piece analyzing how their strategy was successful and probably will be for some time.
Here's one outlining the rhetorical fallacies the gun-control lobby used.

Their greatest failure was hubris. They really bought into that 90% myth, and they thought they were inevitable and invulnerable. In the process, they fell back to the 1994 playbook and the associated arrogance. Look at Biden's "black helicopter" comments and all the political cartoons portraying us as knuckle-dragging hillbillies.

They didn't realize what a vast swath of the American populace they were insulting. After all, 90% of us support their agenda, right?
 
None of these proposals is new. Feinstein's been trying to get the Assault Weapons Ban renewed every year since 2004, and we've had Lautenberg and Schumer trying to close the so-called gunshow loophole for at least 8 years.

This legislation will continue to be proposed in the House and Senate. The only difference is that they had Sandy Hook as a catalyst this time.

Tom you are 100% right.

I have been thinking however more along the lines of what caused the problem we face now. When I was growing up we were taught about guns. We were taught how to use them properly, and safely. We learned the value of guns as tools, and we learned to respect them and to shoulder the responsibility that comes with using a gun. We learned to use them and not to fear them. The current crop of people who grew up hating and fearing guns are usually people who have no real idea of what they are, or what they can do. They get all of their information from tv or hollywood, from anti gun propaganda, or from unrealistic games and similar sources, so they fear them. Plus they get hammered relentlessly by the media as to the evil of guns, and never, ever see a positive side to owning one.

What I propose is education. What about pro gun legislation that offers gun safety and other courses starting in middle school? You teach them. Knowledge is power. People start to see from a young age that guns are simply tools that can at times be misused for evil intent, but that by themselves are just a tool to be used safely and responsibly, just like a hammer, knife, chainsaw, or getting behind the wheel of a car.

So many moved to cities and a way of life devoid of the need to hunt for food or to protect themselves, and because of that, grew up without the most basic education about guns. (I find it odd now that those same cities are the worst places to be without a gun, but that is another thread for another time.)

When they learn about guns, real honest information, the fear goes away, and so does the left's ability to spread lies about guns. Not to mention you introduce people to the "fun" factor of shooting sports, along with teaching them safety and responsibility. I find that some of the most avid anti gun folks, or some of the most fearful do to the lies or preconceived notions that they grew up with, have some of the biggest smiles you ever saw when introduced properly to just how fun it is to plink around with a .22 long rifle on a warm day.

We teach kids about cars before we alloow them to drive, because we know what cars can do in the hands of the unlearned. Do the same with guns. We propose classes in safety and such in schools, completely optional. We overcome the fear with knowledge. We offer classes and instruction to anyone of legal age who wants to learn.

As a piece of legislation, we could draft a bill providing for the classes to be mandatorily offered in all public schools, but optional to take. That way kids whose parents want them to participate would be assured of the availability at no extra cost, but those that didn't like it could exclude thier children with no penalty to the child. In exchange for these classes being made law as part of public school curriculum, we offer the anti-gunners some nugget to make them feel warm and fuzzy. (I have no idea as to what)

Present it as they do. What person would want their children to understand how to behave around, and handle a gun safely, in case they ever find themselves faced with needing or wanting to handle one? We cut down on ignorance, and thereby cut down on accidents caused by irresponsible or negligent use.

I am not forming my thoughts as well as I like tonight, but I hope you get the general idea. Maybe someone else could expand on the idea, or make it better? Present it as "for the children". Education is so important, and who would deny a child a chance to be properly educated?

There are many other pros to this line of thinking, and I suppose maybe some cons, but they allude me at the moment....
 
The anti's are horrified to see a child being trained with a gun. Remember the incident in Texas (I think) where the picture of the child holding his birthday present (an AR) was posted on facebook and the next thing you know, child protective services are knocking on their door.

I could just imagine what would happen if some school tried to have classes in gun education with live fire exercises.

Mac
 
There used to be shooting clubs in public schools that competed against other schools. I think they may still exist in some states, so I think if we used the right language, they would be hard pressed to deny children the right to education and safety regarding firearms.
 
Iowa has Scholastic Trap teams. Scholastic Clay Target Program

Yes but many of them have been totally cut off from school support. If it was not for the Scholastic Clay Target program, the unbelievably generous support of Larry and Brenda Potterfield, owners of Midway USA, and club fundraising they could not survive at all.

I can not say enough good things about the Potterfields. They donate millions every year to shooting sports programs and the NRA.
 
Thank you Jim, much appreciated.

What do you think about a proposition to make it mandatory that those types of programs (safety, ect) be offered in public schools, but not made mandatory to participate in? It seems that firearms and especially safety and awareness training and familiarity would go a long, long way towards the goal of reducing crimes committed with firearms by ensuring a safe and responsible citizenry.
(look at the Swiss as an example)
 
You can have all the training in the world and still be irresponsible, but I'm open to the idea of at least having it as an option for those who have the desire to learn.
 
Agreed but from my own personal experience those who grow up from a young age learning firearms safety and responsible handling also develop a healthy respect for what they can do.

The biggest advantage to an informed, educated populace is that they cannot be lied to concerning guns, because they know better first hand, and they are less likely to allow themselves to be disarmed or have their rights trampled for a known lie.

With a vast percentage of the current populace having either no experience at all with guns of any kind, or worse getting their only "experience" from anti-gun propaganda, video games, tv or hollywood, they are easily frightened into giving up something that they care nothing about or see no use for in the first place.

Education to counter the lies and show the positive side to guns instead of nothing but the negative is a major key to keeping our 2A freedoms alive.
 
I was just offering proof the shooting clubs Derius_T referenced still existed since he was unsure.

Was not trying to say you are wrong. Just pointing out that many of the clubs exist in spite of the schools. The ones I am familiar with receive nothing but push back from the school they are "associated" with and would not exist at all if not for the continued work of adult volunteers and the support I mentioned before.

The schools want to say they have the programs on one hand and at the same time have the ability to deny that they give any support to them with the other.

This is particularly noticeable at the college level of the scholastic programs. The college wants the club to exist, as a selling point, but at the same time hinders the club fundraising and activities as much as they can.
 
The college wants the club to exist, as a selling point, but at the same time hinders the club fundraising and activities as much as they can.

Do you have first hand knowledge of this stuff, being a coach/adult leader/current club officer type of person?

If so, how does that jibe with the girl getting Youtube fame for claiming she's got scholarship offers already for her shooting?
 
JimDandy, not sure what girl you mean, but are you sure her scholarships were offered by the school she would attend?

Many scholarships are offered by alumni groups, foundations, or sport associations, and not directly from schools.
 
Back
Top