# New NRA Proposal: One Step Beyond? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 26, 2014, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-nra-proposal-one-step-beyond/694098 "2014-07-26T15:25:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2014, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-nra-proposal-one-step-beyond/694098/41 "2014-07-28T14:49:35Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > So what laws and regulations do we pass that restricts or limits our third amendment rights? Besides all around petty knee-jerkiness, can you think of a reason to pass any such law? Are you in favor of passing laws out of sheer vindictiveness? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2014, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-nra-proposal-one-step-beyond/694098/42 "2014-07-28T15:10:15Z")
> [@Icarus](#): > > While I agree that the NRA, as it currently functions, is fundamentally only interested in selling more guns, all day every day sell sell sell - and all of their actions are in support of that mission - I am willing to take a moment and walk down this path with them, hypothetically. Well, the disclaimer at the beginning of the video says its the opinion of one commentator, not NRA policy or anything. > [@](#): > > But, like any political discussion, there has to be a quid pro quo of some sort. > > So: > mandatory gun carry zones > > - OK, and mandatory gun free zones Don’t we already have that (assuming you aren’t counting police and security). Federal buildings, prisons, courthouses, school zones and any private property where the owner doesn’t want guns. > [@](#): > > some sort of rewards for people that carry > > - (That’s just silly, sigh!) Since the goal is to sell guns, why not just have a rebate on purchase? I would prefer that it be needs based. > [@](#): > > School children not be allowed to progress unless they take a gun course that would not just encompass what to do if they encountered a gun, but would require them to learn how to shoot. > > - OK, then in exchange real sex education classes. And licensing upon completion of the gun classes, must be over 16, and can’t use or own a gun until licensed (just like driving a car, yah?) That sounds like a good idea. On the flip side, you can’t deny gun ownership to anyone with a gun license (you take away gun licenses from felons, etc) so a licensee can own a gun in Massachusetts just as easily as they can own one in Wyoming. Just eliminate all local gun laws. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2014, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-nra-proposal-one-step-beyond/694098/43 "2014-07-28T15:11:24Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > How about real sex education courses, where the kids don’t graduate until they demonstrate that they are proficient in a minimum of 20 different positions? In what way does knowing several positions enhance safety or health? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2014, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-nra-proposal-one-step-beyond/694098/44 "2014-07-28T15:12:24Z")
> [@DingoelGringo](#): > > Yep, a 12 year old who comes home from gun class ain’t gonna take no shit if mama says he has to eat his broccoli. Are we giving him a gun to take home with him? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2014, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-nra-proposal-one-step-beyond/694098/45 "2014-07-28T15:14:56Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > It’s implicit in having the power. If you say the federal government has the power, for example, to establish post offices then it also necessarily has the power to not establish post offices. If it didn’t have the power to not establish post offices, then we’d all be buried under a pile of post offices. But the federal government decided to establish 31,000 post offices and not establish any more than that. By having the power to establish post offices, the federal government has the power to decide where it stops exercising that power. Thats not how rights work. We have a first amendment right to free speech and and lets say we decided that in order to even out speech we gave every voter as much money to spend on political speech as the Koch brothers spend on political speech. If we later decided to eliminate that speech subsidy, we would not be able to take the extra step to eliminate political speech. Right? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2014, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-nra-proposal-one-step-beyond/694098/46 "2014-07-28T15:17:31Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Besides all around petty knee-jerkiness, can you think of a reason to pass any such law? Are you in favor of passing laws out of sheer vindictiveness? Well, I certainly don’t see the need for PSAs trying to protect our third amendment rights when noone is trying to limit them in any way shape or form. Maybe I wasn’t clear what I was getting at. ---
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2014, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-nra-proposal-one-step-beyond/694098/47 "2014-07-28T15:27:49Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > So what laws and regulations do we pass that restricts or limits our third amendment rights? None that I know of, but that doesn’t mean the government is providing incentives, either. I was responding to **Bricker** ’s statement: > [@Bricker](#): > > Instead, he points out that our existing “gun policy” is unique: all other rights, freedoms and valuable social aspects are associated with policies that incentivize their use, by subsidy or by education about their availability. Guns, he says, are only right enshrined in the Constitution that our implementing policy seeks to limit as opposed to protect. I don’t see all these other rights getting getting the sort of government incentives he suggests. I don’t see any sort of government education program telling me I can’t be subject to excessive bail, or subsides to those who petition the government for redress of grievances. The government should promote guns because it promotes all other basic rights? Um, no, it doesn’t. To be fair, I think Bricker is overstating the argument of the video; I don’t see that NRA commentator making such a sweeping statement about promoting all other rights and freedoms, mostly just particular policies such as education. He does mention parks, though, and asks what it would be like if the government limited access. Well, it does. If you don’t believe me, just stop by the Grand Canyon someday and try to get a spot in one of the campgrounds for that night. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2014, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-nra-proposal-one-step-beyond/694098/48 "2014-07-28T15:34:48Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Well, the disclaimer at the beginning of the video says its the opinion of one commentator, not NRA policy or anything. “The following video contains the opinion of an NRA News commentator and does not necessarily reflect the views of other individuals or organizations” It sounds to me like they approve of his message. ---
**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:** [July 28, 2014, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-nra-proposal-one-step-beyond/694098/49 "2014-07-28T16:41:27Z")
Sounds to me like they are intentionally vague about who endorses this message, other than that one guy. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2014, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-nra-proposal-one-step-beyond/694098/50 "2014-07-28T20:20:00Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > [Time was the NRA was \*\*pro-\*\*gun-control.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association#Contemporary_history) Well, not quite. See they figured that if they watered down those bills so that they didn’t effect Sportsmen, hunters or target shooters\*, everyone would be happy with the compromise. Turns out they were wrong. And it didn’t help that the Pro-gun control groups jumped on the DCA of 1968 as “a start”. It doesn’t help today that nutty anti-gunners come up with laws that would seriously limit ordinary sporting guns, such as a $1 per bullet tax, or a ban on all guns that can penetrate a bullet proof vest. etc. - they though these were their main member base. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2014, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-nra-proposal-one-step-beyond/694098/51 "2014-07-28T22:16:09Z")
> [@Robot\_Arm](#): > > None that I know of, but that doesn’t mean the government is providing incentives, either. I was responding to **Bricker** ’s statement: > > I don’t see all these other rights getting getting the sort of government incentives he suggests. I don’t see any sort of government education program telling me I can’t be subject to excessive bail, or subsides to those who petition the government for redress of grievances. The government should promote guns because it promotes all other basic rights? Um, no, it doesn’t. > > To be fair, I think Bricker is overstating the argument of the video; I don’t see that NRA commentator making such a sweeping statement about promoting all other rights and freedoms, mostly just particular policies such as education. He does mention parks, though, and asks what it would be like if the government limited access. Well, it does. If you don’t believe me, just stop by the Grand Canyon someday and try to get a spot in one of the campgrounds for that night. OK, so Bricker’s first sentence is an overstatement. It seems like his second sentence was his conclusion. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2014, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-nra-proposal-one-step-beyond/694098/52 "2014-07-29T00:57:16Z")
Mandatory would be pushing it too far; there are too many hoplophobes out there who want nothing to do with guns. Even back in the 18th century, early drafts of the Second Amendment included protection for conscientious objectors against serving in a federalized militia. I would certainly like to see firearms instruction as an elective high school course, and shooting teams as a common varsity sport. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2014, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-nra-proposal-one-step-beyond/694098/53 "2014-07-29T01:54:23Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Thats not how rights work. We have a first amendment right to free speech and and lets say we decided that in order to even out speech we gave every voter as much money to spend on political speech as the Koch brothers spend on political speech. If we later decided to eliminate that speech subsidy, we would not be able to take the extra step to eliminate political speech. Right? I disagree. That is how rights work. You have freedom of speech because you can choose to say nothing if you want. If you are required to speak then what you have isn’t freedom. If church attendance is mandatory then you have religion but you don’t have freedom of religion. If attending a public rally is mandatory then you have assembly but you don’t have freedom of assembly. You only have freedom of something when you can say yes or no to it. If the government prohibits you from owning a firearm then you don’t have freedom of firearm ownership. And if the government requires you to own a firearm then you also don’t have freedom of firearm ownership. In both cases, it’s the government deciding who owns firearms not the individual so it’s the government that has that freedom. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2014, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-nra-proposal-one-step-beyond/694098/54 "2014-07-29T01:56:23Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > Mandatory would be pushing it too far; there are too many hoplophobes out there What does a fear of kangaroos have to do with it? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2014, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-nra-proposal-one-step-beyond/694098/55 "2014-07-29T02:02:57Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > What does a fear of kangaroos have to do with it? No-it’s a fear of beer with too high an IBU rating. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2014, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-nra-proposal-one-step-beyond/694098/56 "2014-07-29T02:59:57Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I disagree. That is how rights work. > > You have freedom of speech because you can choose to say nothing if you want. If you are required to speak then what you have isn’t freedom. If church attendance is mandatory then you have religion but you don’t have freedom of religion. If attending a public rally is mandatory then you have assembly but you don’t have freedom of assembly. You only have freedom of something when you can say yes or no to it. you said: “If the government has the power to make you own a gun then it also has the power to make you not own a gun.” The government in fact does have the power to make you speak. That doesn’t mean they have the power to keep you from speaking (subject to normal constitutional exceptions). Your other analogies are bad. I think you may be taking the first amendment analogy a bit too far into first amendment specific ideas. I don’t think that the power to force you to own a gun translates into a violation of the 2nd amdmt any more than forcing you to own an email account translates into a violation of the first amendment. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2014, 12:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-nra-proposal-one-step-beyond/694098/57 "2014-07-29T12:30:36Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I don’t think that the power to force you to own a gun translates into a violation of the 2nd amdmt any more than forcing you to own an email account translates into a violation of the first amendment. I don’t think that point has been brought up before. Would forcing everyone to bear arms hold up constitutionally? ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2014, 12:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-nra-proposal-one-step-beyond/694098/58 "2014-07-29T12:36:39Z")
As an aside, we went on a class trip to a government gun range in 12th grade. We sat through a gun safety lecture, then shot at some targets with 0.22" bolt-action Mausers. It was fun. It was about as mandatory as any other school outing - a note from our parents would have been enough to keep us home. I don’t remember many kids skipping it, though. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2014, 12:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-nra-proposal-one-step-beyond/694098/59 "2014-07-29T12:52:17Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > As an aside, we went on a class trip to a government gun range in 12th grade. We sat through a gun safety lecture, then shot at some targets with 0.22" bolt-action Mausers. It was fun. > > It was about as mandatory as any other school outing - a note from our parents would have been enough to keep us home. I don’t remember many kids skipping it, though. I’m assuming you are posting from prison now, right? 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2014, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-nra-proposal-one-step-beyond/694098/60 "2014-07-29T14:03:19Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > I don’t think that point has been brought up before. Would forcing everyone to bear arms hold up constitutionally? I thought the requirement in the video was that everyone own, not bear. And it is clear we can constitutionally force people to bear arms (or at least contribute to the war effort) [Selective Service System - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_Service) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-nra-proposal-one-step-beyond/694098.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-nra-proposal-one-step-beyond/694098.md?page=4)