It’s not? Who decided that the NRA is inherently opposed to gun control legislation? It wasn’t opposed in the 1930’s, the NRA supported gun control in the 30’s and felt the 1968 law was just fine and dandy. It wasn’t until the '80s and the Brady Bill that they decided to oppose literally every possible gun control law.
Yeah, but they don’t want to die before they fire the first shot.
I’m not saying that gun free zones are promoting or causing these mass shootings but these guys are crazy, not stupid. I’m not saying this means we should get rid of gunfree zones but I do think that most gun control measures would be about as effective as getting rid of gun free zones in preventing mass shootings. Mass shootings seem to me to be a symptom of mental illness rather than insufficient controls over access to guns.
I don’t. That’s not why I support the private ownership of guns. I don’t think that guns will be useful in EVERY situation. Its not a panacea to violence but it is useful in some situations.
The voting members of the NRA decided the direction the organization would take by who they elected to the board of directors. Voting members are those who have a life membership.
Not enough. Its like buying a helicopter in California so you can escape when the state falls into the Pacific ocean and then never learning how to fly the helicopter. it just kind of makes you feel warm and fuzzy but doesn’t really give you what you think you have.
Licensing and registration are pretty clearly constitutional. I don’t think there is a serious second amendment lawyer out there that thinks that licensing and registration violates the second amendment.
I will poo-poo this idea. Registration might make confiscation more feasible but we have had registration of machine guns for almost a century and we have never tried to confiscate them. If we ever get to the point where confiscation becomes politically feasible, we will be unrecognizable as a country to people today and will probably have the political will to repeal the second amendment anyway.
States are allowed to maintain registries.
It was by the 1980s and the Brady Bill that it became obvious that phasing out the private ownership of guns was the end game for a lot of gun control advocates.
I didn’t have to undergo any training to buy a first aid kit. Are you saying that we shouldn’t let people buy first aid kits unless they undergo training?
I don’t know what this means. Are you suggesting the good guys with guns would fire on a potential shooter before he fired his gun? This would require incredible good judgment, verging on mind-reading, to pick out the bad guys before they shoot. In open carry states, how would you tell a psychopath from a law abiding gun owner out for a walk with his rifle?
Good post.
There are many democratic countries that are stricter about drugs than the US. Asian nations first come to my mind. Japan and Taiwan, for sure. Not to mention South Korea. Then there’s the minimum of four years for pot possession in Indonesia, despite having an incarceration rate about an eleventh of that of the United States.
The US world’s-highest incarceration rate exists despite our having a general policy of only jailing dealers, not ordinary users.
All sorts of shit can happen in California on gun control just like all sorts of shit can happen in Kansas on abortion. But these things cannot happen at a national level. Having federal pre-emption of gun control can only improve the situation for you in California, even if that means licensing and registration.
Yes. Didn’t they support the Gun Control Act of 1968 because the alternative was licensing and registration? In fact, wasn’t the 1968 law the impetus for the Cincinnati revolution of 1977?
Don’t repeat the mistakes of history. Some things are simply not politically possible in any version of America that we might see over the remainder of our lifetimes. One thing that has been fleetingly possible from time to time is licensing and registration. I could have happened after the assassination of MLK/RFK, it could have happened after Sandy Hook. But in both those cases, good effective gun control was derailed by overreaching politicians who wanted to ban guns. I don’t know if LBJ could have passed licensing but the efforts of his own party almost seemed designed to ensure that licensing and registration couldn’t be passed. I don’t know if Obama could have passed licensing and registration but the march towards an assault weapons ban and the farce that it produced derailed any chance for any meaningful legislation. just saying.
You can also become a voting member by having annual membership for 5 years in a row. They elect the board but only a tiny percentage of NRA members bother voting and only the most involved members vote, the system is pretty rigged. The incumbents changed the rules to make sure that there can never be another Cincinnati revolution.
It is incredibly short sighted to discount what happens in CA as not possible to happen at a national level. Even if this was the case, that what happens in CA is not possible to be applied nation wide, CA is the most populous state in the union. It’s fine and dandy to say CA can go pound sand but this is what happens when gun control advocates are able to segment populations. CA vs. non-CA. Hunters vs. non-hunters. Gun rights advocates are strongest when they act together. Poor laws have already been passed in WA, CO, NY, CN, etc.
Hillary and Obama have already advocated for confiscation. Brady has said they will not negotiate because the NRA are terrorists. There is absolutely no reason to give any ground whatsoever.
We don’t need your cooperation. Most Americans want more more comprehensive background checks. However, you might want to have some input, because change is coming. No whining when it turns out worse than you imagined because you refused to negotiate.
What’s your idea of negotiation? What is being offered in exchange for what? I think you’re using that word incorrectly, but please, show me I’m wrong.
Refuse to negotiate? It’s all one sided. Like I said before, if you want new restrictions, then provide something in return, like constitutional carry in all states and cities.
You get less onerous regulations. That is all.
Negotiations. Huh.
Your idea of negotiating is “less onerous regulations”? Do I understand you correctly?
Yes. I told you we don’t need your cooperation.