In some form or fashion guns will be disallowed from criminals, terrorists, and the mentally ill. With the Brady bill they should be able to take care of this. That's what it was sold on and fully endorsed by Reagan and many other Republicans. Why doesn't the NRA mention this when they get a face in front of a microphone?
The term "Modern Sporting Rifle"
- Thread starter IdahoG36
- Start date
In some form or fashion guns will be disallowed from criminals, terrorists, and the mentally ill. With the Brady bill they should be able to take care of this. That's what it was sold on and fully endorsed by Reagan and many other Republicans. Why doesn't the NRA mention this when they get a face in front of a microphone?
kcub said:
Why would they?
Reagan's support came after he left office and well after he had been diminished by age and injury.
There is a reason the act passed in 1993 when WJC enjoyed a legislative majority. The push to get the bill passed didn't come from RWR or congressional repubs. Prior to the ACA, there are very few issues that live or die on strict party line votes, but many issues will find support primarily amongst congressmen of one party or the other.
How would the NRA complaining about RWR out of office and in his decline, or a minority of congressional repubs accomplish that?
On the contrary, the fact that some people whose records contain ambiguous support of a right supported the Brady Bill would be seen by most disinterested observers as an argument in support of its provisions.
You're talking about the "Brady Bill", the national waiting period bill (background check time/cooling off period) named for James Brady, who was crippled in the Reagan assassination attempt?
The one the NRA endorsed (after the deal was made so the waiting period would go away when the instant phone check came online)?
That Brady bill??
No, it did not do what was promised. No gun control law ever does, or CAN!
I see no point in the NRA, today, getting in anyone's face over a decades old law that failed to live up to its promoter's claims at the time.
Even if they did, the stock answer the anti's have, for every time a gun control law fails to deliver on their foolish promises, is the same. They will say it failed because it didn't go far enough. And they will imply, if not outright claim that the "gun violence" that their pet law of the week didn't stop is OUR FAULT, because we didn't let them go "far enough".
MSR, as pointed out very early in this thread, is inaccurate and useless.
"Semi-auto rifle" is better and all-encompassing.
B/c honestly, the anti-gun crowd wants to squab over semi-auto rifles, so we might as well just draw the line "here"--at semi-auto.
Now every hunter who still uses a semi-auto 30-06 or SKS and everyone who plinks at cans with a Ruger and anyone who wants to defend their home with a semi-auto with a "thingee that goes up at the shoulder" can realize that they have a vested interest in the same topic.
"Semi-auto rifle" is better and all-encompassing.
B/c honestly, the anti-gun crowd wants to squab over semi-auto rifles, so we might as well just draw the line "here"--at semi-auto.
Now every hunter who still uses a semi-auto 30-06 or SKS and everyone who plinks at cans with a Ruger and anyone who wants to defend their home with a semi-auto with a "thingee that goes up at the shoulder" can realize that they have a vested interest in the same topic.
I do. If we do not learn from our failures, we are destined to repeat them. The NRA ought to put there thinkers together on things like how:
NFA made Chicago safer.....REALLY?
GCA68 made it so criminals can't buy guns and banned the guns criminals buy. No, it made Glocks have plastic sights and thumb rests.
GOPA sunset machine gun ownership....no, it actually just improved welding skills of gun smiths and made machine guns expensive so rich people could have all they want.
The GOPA guarantees gun travelers safe passage through all states without fear of being arrested not knowing some specific local law.....I think not...thanks NRA.
Brady Bill tied all of the data together so we could really check out who was buying guns and if they were legal. Actually, tieing databases together was expensive and never funded, but what they do check has enough errors that a guy named Jason Smith will always have a hard time buying a gun! The waiting period ended suicides in America...or NOT.
Then they could just say....if you think any of these mad you safer, here's your sign...(YOU ARE NOW LEAVING THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.)
If you think they made you less free, less safe or less American, write your rep and join the NRA.
The point is that all of the promises were failed on, so the laws should be repealed. America traded freedom for safety and lost.
Nathan said:
As a political matter, you assume that arguing for a less pernicious version of control efforts in the 1990s was a failure. There are decent arguments on both sides of that issue. How does one prevail when his cause is outvoted?
I doubt that many who read this board would differ with you on any of the specific issues you list. However, as a matter of political reality, repealing the 68 GCA wasn't on the menu of possibilities. Arguing against the Act can make sense, but taking the NRA to task for working with existing laws two decades ago doesn't.
We would all consider the passage of the 94 AWB a setback. Following passage, one line of criticism aimed at the NRA was that it had failed to engage on the provisions of that bill, specifically the 10 round magazine limit. That line of criticism held that the NRA should not have simply opposed the entire concept of the bill, but should have negotiated with its supporters for a 20 round ban.
Last edited:
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Please stay on topic, other horrors of PC aren't under discussion. Deleted some irrelevant posts.
stagpanther
New member
In reality--they are mojo voodoo spell-sticks. They make people do crazy things.
The democratic debate brought this to light. The speaker said "no self respecting hunter would use an AR15 to hunt"
So their legitimate use for firearm ownership is sporting and hunting, and they've said that in numerous occasions that the AR15 and similar have no place in hunting.
So their legitimate use for firearm ownership is sporting and hunting, and they've said that in numerous occasions that the AR15 and similar have no place in hunting.
stagpanther
New member
I already said on another thread that many hunters (usually bolt-gun) that are used to the "one-shot--one kill" frame of mind bolster this argument.
Father Time
New member
For the record the is nothing wrong with the "one shot one kill" mentality. We should all be going for humane shots/kills when hunting.
Take this shot for example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hY0w1c-gf18
That was a really good shot and clean kill. But You can hear the wind. At that range a very minor error can make a huge difference in where the Elk is hit.
The real problem with the argument is that is assumes that there is only one target and that every hunt happens perfectly. Animals turn as the last moment when you break the shot, gusty wind etc...