The NRA’s Gun Control Schizophrenia

J

jstep

New member
Interesting Articles I found in a Google Search. Some main points quoted from the first article:

"Who would have thought, for instance, that they would live to see the day when the NRA would be lining up shoulder to shoulder with its nemesis, Handgun Control, Inc., to applaud the biggest-ever expansion of the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF)? Yet that is what we saw earlier this year, when President Clinton proposed to double the ranks of ATF inspectors and increase the number of ATF gun agents by 23 percent. What’s more, the Clinton package called for a vast new army of federal, state, and local prosecutors to "fight gun crimes."

"President Clinton plans to announce today an initiative that the White House is calling the biggest gun enforcement push in history, a $280 million plan to hire 500 new firearms-law enforcers and 1,100 gun-crime prosecutors." The story went on to report that "representatives of Handgun Control Inc. and the National Rifle Association both applauded the idea."

May 27, 1999 testimony before the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Crime, NRA Executive Director Wayne R. LaPierre:

• "We think it’s reasonable to provide mandatory instant criminal background checks for every sale at every gun show. No loopholes anywhere for anyone."

• "We think it’s reasonable to prevent all juveniles convicted of violent felonies from owning guns, for life."

• "We think it’s reasonable to provide full funding for the National Instant Check System so it operates efficiently and instantly."

• "We think it’s reasonable to support the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act."

• "We think it’s reasonable to expect full enforcement of federal firearms laws by the federal government."

Each of the NRA’s "reasonable" endorsements constitutes support for federal usurpation of power and an expansion of the federal police state. Let’s just look at its endorsement of "full enforcement of federal firearms laws by the federal government." That stance puts the NRA in the position of accepting the false claims of the gun control lobby that Congress may constitutionally infringe on gun rights. It also lends credence to the notion that the anti-gun laws Congress already has passed, if fully enforced, could curb firearm-related criminal activity without eviscerating the Second Amendment. Ergo, if enforcement of existing federal legislation helps reduce crime, why not enact more to further reduce, or eliminate, crime?

Full Article Here: http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2000/06-05-2000/vo16no12_nra.htm

Another case, in Texas during the 2006 Elections, the NRA gave a higher rating to a candidate that was for gun control (Democrat Shane Sklar). They gave Rep Ron Paul who has the best voting record for the 2nd amendment a "B" rating. Shane Sklar says: “I support the gun rights of sportsman and hunters”, says Mr. Sklar. Ron Paul would say, “the Second Amendment is not about hunting or your right to shoot skeet”.
Article: http://www.infowars.com/articles/us/paul_ron_nra_endorses_gun_control_democrat.htm

And during Hurricane Katrina, the NRA initially came out in SUPPORT of Gun Confiscations, then changed their stance: http://www.infowars.com/articles/new_orleans/gun_grab_nra_comments.htm
 
I believe that all of the issues you noted need to be reviewed, case by case.

With regard to the government adding additional agents and inspectors, to enforce the law, this is a good thing. Law breakers give good citizens a bad name.

If NRA Executive Director Wayne R. LaPierre's testimony is being reported acurately in your post (your five bullet points), he speaks for me. These are all very reasonable, moderate views.

Have your reviewed the NRA's political scoring system for elected officials? If after some study, you believe that some criteria should be given more or less weight, communicate your opinion to the NRA.

And, if you are not a members of the NRA, join. It takes money and volunteer support for the NRA to help us keep our second amendment rights.
 
I don't know where to start picking apart the fallacies in the original post. The report from thenewamerican picks and chooses what to quote and then you pick parts of what they say to make points, all out of context.

I suppose Mr. LaPierre could have refused to give testimony or refused to offer alternatives, but what good would a boycott have been when Congress is preparing to vote?

"While rightly and forcefully condemning the draconian, full-speed-ahead gun control proposals tendered by the notoriously anti-gun Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), LaPierre offered as an alternative a reduced-speed package headed in the same direction."

Reduced speed sounds good. Slow 'em up until you can stop them. Hardly standing shoulder-to-shoulder with HCI I'd say.

I personally don't have anything against locking up lawbreaders, but I understand that some folks believe that there shouldn't be any gun laws at all.

John
 
• "We think it’s reasonable to provide mandatory instant criminal background checks for every sale at every gun show. No loopholes anywhere for anyone."

:rolleyes:


I hope the daylight savings time change totally crashes NICS forever. The NRA folds too often to "reasonable" measures. I'm a member but that doesn't stop me from thinking (and telling them) that they concede way too much.
 
Allenomics..

Freedom is not moderate. Freedom is wild and dangerous. When it comes to freedom, moderation is no virtue.
 
So without the background checks you folks dont mind criminals and those with a history of violence being able to get a firearm at a gun show or pawn/gun shop?

It has never prevented me from owning a firearm. Here if you have a CHL no NICS check is required. I think criminals and folks who have committed crimes of violence need to be kept away from firearms. The longest I have waited is maybe 4 minutes once the call connects. Its a small price to pay imo.

I think we need more prosecuters and enforcment officials taking the criminals and sellers who violate firearm laws off the street.

As far as the rest of the list nothing suprising...much ado about nothing.
 
Ehgad, No..I agree with you that violent criminals shouldn't be allowed to own guns. However MY belief is that violent criminals should be in prison not roaming the streets.

However the prisons are so clogged with non-violent offenders that there is no room or money to keep the people in prison who truly belong there.

But we stray from the subject.
 
So without the background checks you folks dont mind criminals and those with a history of violence being able to get a firearm at a gun show or pawn/gun shop?
Click to expand...

If they're so dangerous and cannot be trusted, why are they out on the streets in the first place?

Surely no one believes that any gun control measure in place thus far keeps even a half-assed determined criminal from obtaining a firearm for unlawful purposes?

Here's an account of what researcher Ed Davis, criminal investigative instructor with the FBI's Behavioral Science Unit has to say about that:
(source)

Researcher Davis, in a presentation and discussion for the International Assn. of Chiefs of Police, noted that none of the attackers interviewed was "hindered by any law--federal, state or local--that has ever been established to prevent gun ownership. They just laughed at gun laws."
Click to expand...

Aren't you even the least bit tired of bandaid and feel-good legislation?
 
There is no significant similarity between speed limit law & gun control law with regard to application or effectiveness.

Gun control legislation, sold under the guise of “stopping crime,” has an apparent zero % effective rate according to researcher Ed Davis.

If speed limit laws were implemented with the same assertion – that they will reduce crime – and these laws failed to do so unequivocally, then yes speed limit law would be useless as well.
 
"There is no significant similarity between speed limit law & gun control law with regard to application or effectiveness."

Oh, I don't know. I figured we'd veered off topic when the following was posted, "If they're so dangerous and cannot be trusted, why are they out on the streets in the first place?"

Therefore, I thought I'd jump in with a mention of another often ignored law - speed limits. Actually, you lost me with: "Surely no one believes that any gun control measure in place thus far keeps even a half-assed determined criminal from obtaining a firearm for unlawful purposes?" I'm sure the current laws have slowed down quite a few and even prevented some from getting a gun. I've read the stories right here and heard the same things elsewhere. I'm speaking of individual cases, not statistical summaries and analyses.

But back to my point - What do the probation and parole regs have to do with the original topic: the NRA?

John
 
Did you author the majority of your post, Jstep, or did you simply cut and paste the exact words from the article by the New American (whatever that is)?

The terrible NRA. They secretly (or maybe not so secretly) want congress to pass anti-gun legislation. The NRA wants your guns to be taken away. Well, according to the "New American", anyway.

Enforce existing gun laws instead of passing more restrictive gun control legislation? How dare the NRA! :rolleyes: But don't let me interrupt. Bash away.
 
But back to my point - What do the probation and parole regs have to do with the original topic: the NRA?
Click to expand...

Note that the original topic/post includes discussion (bolded bullet points no less) regarding convicted felons and firearms, which I think relates to probation and parole regs, no?

Furthermore, I think you'll find that I'm not the one who introduced the current tangent. I simply offered a rebuttal to a silly red herring or two.
 
If they're so dangerous and cannot be trusted, why are they out on the streets in the first place?
Click to expand...

Ehgad, No..I agree with you that violent criminals shouldn't be allowed to own guns. However MY belief is that violent criminals should be in prison not roaming the streets.
Click to expand...

I dont understand how that is straying from the subject? People in hell would like some ice water also. There was a news report yesterday about some state whose prison system was designed for 100,000 but houses 170,000. The courts have ordered them to find room for them. The judge also ordered them not to send the inmates out of state after they sent some to other states. :confused: I want some of the meds that judge is on...lol. The ones that were sent out of state beds were backfilled as soon as they left. What are the chances some of them who have committed assaults and some form of violence will be released back on the streets. Pretty damn good I'm thinking.

the above is the reality....why you have criminals released to the streets.

I'm glad that they have to have an instant background check to buy a gun at a gun store.
 
If a violent person wants to hurt someone, they certianly don't need a gun, clubs and knifes have injured and killed more people outside of war than guns.

And if a person is serious about getting a gun and has the money, they can go to any city and buy one within hrs.
 
the big question is does the NRA service fit the Bill?
or is SAF,JPFO and other orgs that seem to take a hardline no compromise stance better.

who's stepping up to the plate and hitting the ball and who is stepping into the limelight for what results and whos hard work.
 
jstep stepped on in deep water in biting the hand that is and has always been trying to rescue him, the NRA. A whole bunch of you as well as I are the NRA, GOA and the others are reaching for that gun owner's hand in saving him from the anti-gun baddies we have to put up with in the US, United Nations and the World in General.

How many Russians can go down and buy a pistol or rifle with little bother than the cost? Yet that Government has for years armed every tenth rate
nation, wacko armies, and folks like the late Saddam, and are still pouring it out to them. They and France and Germany to some degree will sell to the moslem terriorists anything they can pay for.

Yet I have never heard of a Russian NRA and doubt that I ever will.

Long live the NRA, GOA and all the rest of Pro-Gun folks !!!!!
 
0.1%

That's how many guns used in crimes are obtained at gun shows.

0.1%

Remember that number the next time someone tells you about criminals getting guns at gun shows.

0.1%

That's all. A tiny fraction of a miniscule portion of guns used in crimes are purchased at gun shows.

As for the "loophole," the same rules apply at a gun show as apply anywhere else in your state. If your state outlaws private party sales of firearms, those sales are illegal at gun shows. If your state allows individuals to sell guns to other individuals face-to-face, those sales might be legal at gun shows -- if no one has hoodwinked the voters into believing there's a mythical "gun show loophole" which somehow erases all other state and federal firearms laws in the general area of a gun show.

It has nothing to do with "criminals and those with a history of violence being able to get a firearm." Nothing at all. (0.1%, remember?)

What it's all about is killing the gun culture and making gun shows unprofitable so they go out of business.

Oh, and incidentally making sure that there's no such thing as a private sale, anywhere in the country ... so that all firearms and all firearms sales will eventually be recorded in a government database. No real harm in that ... is there?

As for the NRA, they're the 800 pound gorilla in gun politics in America. I'm a member, I support 'em, and I hate it when they do something stupid like support "reasonable" compromises that aren't reasonable at all. But I've got a better chance of influencing them as a member, and the antis think that gun owners who aren't NRA members are actually in favor of MORE gun control than the NRA will allow. That's reason enough to give them my name & my dollar, even though I don't think they go far enough.

pax
 
As a long time LIFE MEMBER of NRA, since 1973, I sometimes wonder concerning whether its possible that the NRA never really recovered from a terrible blunder, that being it's stated desire to be "gentlamenly and reasonable" with the anti gunners. That and another odd but of wisdom, to the effect that when one lies down with dogs, one will get fleas.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top