# By golly, the NRA may be right! **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 17, 2013, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/by-golly-the-nra-may-be-right/650605 "2013-02-17T17:55:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2013, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/by-golly-the-nra-may-be-right/650605/21 "2013-02-17T20:04:12Z")
> [@Mdcastle](#): > > Now it’s all semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines, and not just assault rifles? (2) No person in this state shall possess or have under his or her control at one time both of the following: (a) A semiautomatic or pump-action rifle, semiautomatic pistol, or shotgun capable of accepting a detachable magazine; and (b) Any magazine capable of use with that firearm that contains more than ten rounds of ammunition. > [@NiceGuyJack](#): > > First thing Obama should have done was to overturn the Patriot Act. Agreed. ---
**Author:** ![solosam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@solosam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/solosam)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2013, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/by-golly-the-nra-may-be-right/650605/22 "2013-02-17T20:16:16Z")
> [@Simple\_Linctus](#): > > In the UK anyone with a shotgun or firearms licence (and a lot more of us have guns than you would think) is subject at least in theory to this kind of random check. What’s the problem with it? It’s not a fishing expedition where they trawl through your house for hours, they just check the right number of guns are locked up in the right place. The problem with it is that the number and type of guns I own is none of the government’s business. It’s none of your business either, but the British clearly have a much broader view of what is permissive for government than Americans do. > [@](#): > > But guns, like cars, are private property that, when used in public can be dangerous. So we allow the government to establish certain, reasonable regulations about them. … so when I use my gun in public, THEN it can be the government’s business. Until that time, they can stay out of my house and leave me alone. And there we go with the “reasonable” again. What is reasonable? It sounds “reasonable” to me that the government stays out of my life and lets me do as I please, since I have not committed a crime. It is also “reasonable” to only prosecute the people who actually commit crimes, rather than punishing people who have done nothing wrong. It is “reasonable” (and supported by recent Supreme Court rulings) that a gun intended for defense should be kept ready to be used in an instant rather than secured by lock and key. And it is entirely “reasonable” to expect a government to obey its founding document rather than ignore it when it is inconvenient. ---
**Author:** ![solosam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@solosam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/solosam)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2013, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/by-golly-the-nra-may-be-right/650605/23 "2013-02-17T20:17:16Z")
> [@Johnny\_L.A](#): > > (2) No person in this state shall possess or have under his or her control at one time both of the following: > (a) A semiautomatic or pump-action rifle, semiautomatic pistol, or shotgun capable of accepting a detachable magazine; and > (b) Any magazine capable of use with that firearm that contains more than ten rounds of ammunition. > > Agreed. Is the government going to reimburse me for the magazines that they have just outlawed? Is the government going to accept responsibility if my ten-round magazine proves inadequate? ---
**Author:** ![NiceGuyJack](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/niceguyjack/32/3069_2.png) [@NiceGuyJack](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NiceGuyJack)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2013, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/by-golly-the-nra-may-be-right/650605/24 "2013-02-17T20:20:52Z")
> [@NiceGuyJack](#): > > I find it interesting that this issue and how it relates to the second amendment gets so much attention, when the Patriot Act, signed into law in 2001 by George W. Bush, basically strikes out a number of constitutional rights, and no one seems to care. > First thing Obama should have done was to overturn the Patriot Act. But he seems to not want to lose the power it entitles him to. As an FYI. Following link shows you where the Patriot Act is violating constitutional rights. [http://www.scn.org/ccapa/pa-vs-const.html](http://www.scn.org/ccapa/pa-vs-const.html) ---
**Author:** ![eno801](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c2a13f/32.png) [@eno801](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eno801)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2013, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/by-golly-the-nra-may-be-right/650605/25 "2013-02-17T20:51:37Z")
not just rifles, pistols too. and believe me I think the Patriot Act was one of the biggest mistakes ever. I hate losing any right not just gun rights. I had hoped Obama would do something about Guantanamo like he promised, one of the reasons I voted for him twice. All I can say at this point well at least he wasn’t Romney :(. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2013, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/by-golly-the-nra-may-be-right/650605/26 "2013-02-17T20:52:49Z")
It was impossible for Obama to close Gitmo. No way Congress was going to allow it. Just sayin’. ---
**Author:** ![solosam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@solosam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/solosam)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2013, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/by-golly-the-nra-may-be-right/650605/27 "2013-02-17T20:54:47Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > It was impossible for Obama to close Gitmo. No way Congress was going to allow it. > > Just sayin’. Maybe people shouldn’t make promises that they don’t have the authority to deliver. Just sayin’. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2013, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/by-golly-the-nra-may-be-right/650605/28 "2013-02-17T20:57:00Z")
> [@solosam](#): > > Maybe people shouldn’t make promises that they don’t have the authority to deliver. > > Just sayin’. Yeah, but it’s not like that is unique to Obama. I don’t believe he made more or bigger promises than your typical presidential candidate. I’m not generally one to give the prez a pass on not being able to get things through Congress, but I think it’s fair on this point to do so. It wasn’t just the Republicans. ---
**Author:** ![Simple\_Linctus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Simple\_Linctus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simple_Linctus)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2013, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/by-golly-the-nra-may-be-right/650605/29 "2013-02-17T20:59:12Z")
> [@solosam](#): > > The British clearly have a much broader view of what is permissive for government than Americans do. Clearly, that’s why homosexuality was illegal in large parts of the UK until 2003 and people’s houses are seized because their teenaged grandson sold another kid an eighth of pot. Oh wait that’s not the UK at all, that’s the US. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2013, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/by-golly-the-nra-may-be-right/650605/30 "2013-02-17T21:03:55Z")
> [@](#): > > Quoth **solosam** : > > It is also “reasonable” to only prosecute the people who actually commit crimes, rather than punishing people who have done nothing wrong. A crime is an act that’s against the law, and the law can be changed. If the law changes to prohibit a certain kind of gun, and you keep such a gun after the law is passed, then you will be someone who “actually commits a crime”, namely, the crime of owning said forbidden gun. > [@](#): > > Is the government going to accept responsibility if my ten-round magazine proves inadequate? No, the government bears no responsibility for your feelings of inadequacy. ---
**Author:** ![solosam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@solosam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/solosam)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2013, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/by-golly-the-nra-may-be-right/650605/31 "2013-02-17T21:22:46Z")
> [@](#): > > A crime is an act that’s against the law, and the law can be changed. If the law changes to prohibit a certain kind of gun, and you keep such a gun after the law is passed, then you will be someone who “actually commits a crime”, namely, the crime of owning said forbidden gun. … and this is why such new laws should not be permitted. You are transforming law abiding citizens into criminals, even though they haven’t hurt anyone. > [@](#): > > No, the government bears no responsibility for your feelings of inadequacy. Do we feel like a big boy now? ---
**Author:** ![Apollyon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/apollyon/32/4238_2.png) [@Apollyon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apollyon)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2013, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/by-golly-the-nra-may-be-right/650605/32 "2013-02-17T21:28:18Z")
> [@eno801](#): > > so according to this bill a regular handguns with factory provided standard capacity magazines, say a [Glock 19](http://www.glock.com/english/glock19_tech.htm) would be considered an assault weapon? > Just a regular run of the mill popular handgun is now an assault weapon? (Based purely on US TV) Isn’t the standard LEO weapon also Glock? (17?) Don’t they generally have mags bigger than 10? ---
**Author:** ![solosam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@solosam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/solosam)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2013, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/by-golly-the-nra-may-be-right/650605/33 "2013-02-17T21:29:04Z")
> [@Simple\_Linctus](#): > > Clearly, that’s why homosexuality was illegal in large parts of the UK until 2003 and people’s houses are seized because their teenaged grandson sold another kid an eighth of pot. > > Oh wait that’s not the UK at all, that’s the US. So you acknowledge that those policies were wrong? But it’s okay to take guns away from people who haven’t hurt anyone? ---
**Author:** ![solosam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@solosam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/solosam)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2013, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/by-golly-the-nra-may-be-right/650605/34 "2013-02-17T21:39:44Z")
> [@Apollyon](#): > > (Based purely on US TV) Isn’t the standard LEO weapon also Glock? (17?) Don’t they generally have mags bigger than 10? Each department has their own choice, but the Glocks are quite common. This is part of the reason there is so much criticism for an AWB… You are taking something normal and common and suddenly declaring it to be criminal. Apparently some people see nothing wrong with this. ---
**Author:** ![pkbites](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pkbites/32/204_2.png) [@pkbites](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pkbites)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2013, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/by-golly-the-nra-may-be-right/650605/35 "2013-02-17T22:25:34Z")
> [@chappachula](#): > > And, yes, if you own an assault rifle, you have to have a license , and ,maybe, submit to an inspection. The inspection could consist of you bringing your gun to the local sheriff’s office, in a locked but portable gun safe, with the ammunition locked in a separate compartment. > Or, you could choose to invite the sherriff onto your property,and show him your gun safe to renew your gun license. Uh huh.:rolleyes: And the inner city druggy scumbag felon who obtained his weapon illegally is going to jump through all these hoops to make sure he’s in compliance with the law, right?:dubious: Oh, wait. He doesn’t have to because the courts have ruled that would be a form of self incrimination and thus a violation of the 5th Amendment.:smack: The gun control act of 1934, the gun control act of 1968, the Brady Bill, the 1994 assualt weapons ban, Chicago/Washington DC handgun bans, etc., etc., etc.. All were touted to be panaceas to curbing violent crime. And the criminal elements keep killing and the lawful citizens keep getting the blame. Insanity! ---
**Author:** ![solosam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@solosam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/solosam)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2013, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/by-golly-the-nra-may-be-right/650605/36 "2013-02-17T22:40:10Z")
> [@](#): > > Quote: > Originally Posted by chappachula > And, yes, if you own an assault rifle, you have to have a license , and ,maybe, submit to an inspection. The inspection could consist of you bringing your gun to the local sheriff’s office, in a locked but portable gun safe, with the ammunition locked in a separate compartment. > Or, you could choose to invite the sherriff onto your property,and show him your gun safe to renew your gun license. What is this intended to accomplish? I show him my gun, he says “yup, that’s a gun,” and we both go about our day. What does the inspection actually do? Are there really so many people performing illegal modifications that this is necessary? Or are you just trying to make life harder? Once again, the Antigun groups want to add layers of hassle and bureaucracy but cannot explain what purpose it serves. ---
**Author:** ![pkbites](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pkbites/32/204_2.png) [@pkbites](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pkbites)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2013, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/by-golly-the-nra-may-be-right/650605/37 "2013-02-17T23:02:30Z")
> [@solosam](#): > > Once again, the Antigun groups want to add layers of hassle and bureaucracy but cannot explain what purpose it serves. > [@solosam](#): > > Or are you just trying to make life harder? I’m thinking you answered your own question. The left wants all these gun laws that won’t affect the criminal element one iota while they already don’t properly enforce the zillions of othere laws on the books. For example, here in Wisconsin armed robbery carries a maximum term of 40 years. The average conviction for it receives less than 15% of that. This same standard is applied to other felonies as well (theft, burglary, substantial battery, etc.). Mandatory minimums are also meaningless when judges use it to sentence offenders to probation rather than being locked up. The reality is shopping mall, schoolyard, and movie theater shootings carried out by nut jobs are extremely rare events. The majority of violent crimes are committed by career criminals who go in and out of the system on watered down sentences and never feel the harsh sting of real consequences for their actions. Until they finally kill someone. Then someone is dead, and the liberals scream for more useless gun laws. What a ridiculously vicious circle! The truth that the left refuses to acknowledge is that those who use guns to commit criminal acts tend to get their guns in an already illegal manner. More laws will do nothing to the thug who ignores the laws already on the books. A simple fact is, an armed robber can’t shoot a gas station attendant while he’s still incarcerated for a burglary he committed previously. The tax burden of slapping habitual criminals with real prison time is minute’ when one considers the other costs and human suffering it prevents. But locking up a piece of shit for a good long time does not make your average bleeding heart “feel good” like a useless gun law does. There needs to be a campaign of _“Let’s lockup societies shitbags forever and ever. **DO IT FOR THE CHILDREN**!”._ ---
**Author:** ![Daylate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9dc877/32.png) [@Daylate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Daylate)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2013, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/by-golly-the-nra-may-be-right/650605/38 "2013-02-18T00:39:28Z")
> [@](#): > > But locking up a piece of shit for a good long time does not make your average bleeding heart “feel good” like a useless gun law does. There needs to be a campaign of “Let’s lockup societies shitbags forever and ever. DO IT FOR THE CHILDREN!”. Very well said! That “do it for the children” thing might just work. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2013, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/by-golly-the-nra-may-be-right/650605/39 "2013-02-18T00:53:02Z")
> [@Mdcastle](#): > > Now it’s all semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines, and not just assault rifles? That is silly. I presume it includes the .22 semi auto carbine with a “detachable magazine” that belonged to Mrs. Plant v.3.0’s Grandfather. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2013, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/by-golly-the-nra-may-be-right/650605/40 "2013-02-18T01:04:48Z")
> [@Daylate](#): > > Senate Bill 5735, introduced last week by three Seattle Democrats, would ban the sale of semi-automatic weapons that use detachable ammunition magazines, and that also would also make illegal clips that hold more than ten rounds. Actually, both these provisions, considering what has happened lately, seem rather reasonable to me. You do realize that such a law would ban the majority of guns owned in the US, right? I mean, you’re dismissing it as no big deal, but “semi-automatic weapons capable of accepting a detachable magazine” have been the standard in handguns for over a hundred years, and constitute a large percentage of rifles too. That’s a pretty huge deal that you’re just sort of blowing past - it would be the most restrictive, widespread gun ban/restriction in US history. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/by-golly-the-nra-may-be-right/650605.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/by-golly-the-nra-may-be-right/650605.md?page=3)