# Pitting the NRA **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [December 11, 2009, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-nra/520881 "2009-12-11T17:48:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 14
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2009, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-nra/520881/261 "2009-12-20T00:36:15Z")
I think we are just wasting our time (again). I really should learn to just avoid these threads. ---
**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:** [December 20, 2009, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-nra/520881/262 "2009-12-20T00:43:30Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > I asked this earlier in the thread, and you avoided it. But maybe answering this question will make you get it. Because even though you keep saying “stubborn stubborn!!!” it’s actually you who is refusing to even try to understand what it is I’m saying to you, and I’ve done it in detail over and over. Woops, I didn’t paste the link with the quote. [This](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_gun) is what assault gun means. Obviously my point requires it. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2009, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-nra/520881/263 "2009-12-20T00:49:44Z")
> [@Martini\_Enfield](#): > > What’s interesting is that there are select-fire military versions of the Ruger Mini-14, although it’s not often mentioned for some reason. I wasn’t aware such a version existed, but I’m not terribly surprised to know. > [@JXJohns](#): > > Do explain. I cannot see any reason to give the .gov a list of everyone who owns what. You mentioned non harassment or confiscation. So exactly what is the point of recording my guns into a list that could more likely than not end up being public domain? Why else does the .gov need to have a list of who owns guns other than to persecute from it? **DanBlather** ’s snarky but he got the gist–there are those who believe it will reduce gun crime if we keep track of who is licensed and who owns firearms. There is some evidence (the apparently generally lower rate of gun crime among concealed-carry-permit holders where stats are available) that this is so. Plus it’s a small thing that, upthread, Mr. Blather indicated he’d be willing to accept with the concession of allowing more military-type arms available to the general public willing to license them. Basically from my POV, if your name is on a list of gun owners, whether it’s a correlation error or not, you’re apparently less likely by some margin to actually commit a gun crime. This is a GOOD thing for legal gun owners to leverage into trading said registrations for removing some examples of gun law that don’t currrently impact anyone but legal owners. > [@kopek](#): > > How about some laws that say “your car gets stolen and you don’t report it promptly you go to jail”. How about a law that says “No garage to secure your car from thieves? Guess you don’t get to own a car then!” Lend a car or rent a car to someone and have it used in a crime? You are automatically an accessory and there are no excuses accepted. Mind you, we already have excellent means to track vehicles ----- it would be easy. And if someone had to escape on foot they could be much less likely to take a shot at me. > But we don’t want to go there, do we? Car control? Let’s face it, it could be just as big a tool in fighting crime. But its easier to “persecute” the gun than prosecute the car. I wouldn’t be averse to a law that said if you made your car easy to steal (by, say, leaving the keys in it) that you’d be liable for idiots joyriding with it either. I’m a believer in the idea that the cost of ownership of a potentially deadly tool should involve securing that tool against reasonable risks. > [@kopek](#): > > If we’re giving the safes away, you got my donation; say something like the digital television conversion program? Otherwise your idea has that hint of racism (class-ism actually - race has nothing to do with it really) that already taints a lot of the handgun control laws. If you are rich enough, you have options – more working poor/lower class/inner city your only option may be to violate the law. Basically free safes for everyone keeps it fair. If you can think of a budget-neutral way to pay for it, sure. Hell, to a point, I’d be willing to pay higher fees to license myself and register my long rifles for that program. > [@](#): > > Joe Average breaking in isn’t really looking for firearms; we’ve had cases around here lately where basic entry-level burglars have left guns behind in favor of laptops and the like; even to passing up unsecured firearms. … Somewhere in the law will need to be a proviso to the effect of “take the steps we require and you are free from any criminal or civil prosecution”. Absolutely–if it took the criminal longer than 30min to break into the safe, it was absolutely a reasonable attempt to secure the firearm and you’re in the clear legally unless you are a complete tool and fail to report the theft. > [@](#): > > Steal a gun, do 5 years. Per gun. Trade your gun for crack? That sounds like 5 years too maybe (although I’ll like that one better once we reform drug laws). Caught in possession of a stolen firearm? One year per. Buy a stolen firearm and sell it to someone who commits a crime, you get the accessory rap as well as the original owner - in fact accessory raps for everyone that gun passed on its way to the crime. No pleas and no deals - here’s your cell and make yourself at home because you are going to be here a while. Yes, yes and yes. > [@](#): > > I like most of your plan (although I still have my doubts on the title thing. Right now having an unregistered handgun registered carries an automatic amnesty and the cost is I believe under $10) ---------- but in addition I would want actual crime addressed in addition to shenanigans. You’re invited to the board of the imaginary PAC too. Some of the ideas you had above are good thoughts–it’s been hard for me to refine this idea because the loudest voices on both sides are against various provisions of it–pro-gun types likely hate registration/licensing even if they’re pro-training, and anti-gun types likely hate the idea that training and certification should open up the ability to own military arms. ---
**Author:** ![kopek](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kopek/32/337_2.png) [@kopek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kopek)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2009, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-nra/520881/264 "2009-12-20T01:46:13Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > You’re invited to the board of the imaginary PAC too. Some of the ideas you had above are good thoughts–it’s been hard for me to refine this idea because the loudest voices on both sides are against various provisions of it–pro-gun types likely hate registration/licensing even if they’re pro-training, and anti-gun types likely hate the idea that training and certification should open up the ability to own military arms. I’m flattered! And once we have one started, or find one already created, look for my check. ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2009, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-nra/520881/265 "2009-12-20T02:57:28Z")
> [@enipla](#): > > I asked before **Dan** and will ask again. Do you think that revolvers and bolt action rifles are assault weapons? No I don’t. ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2009, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-nra/520881/266 "2009-12-20T03:42:43Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > Again, straw argument. It was clear that I meant that they created a new and arbitrary class of weapons with the AWB. There is no history of the usage of the word “assault weapons” to refer to a particular class of weapons - and your exmaples, in which a huge range of weaponry is referred to … and notably not anything that would actually be considered an assault weapon by the AWB, shows that the term did not have any sort of accepted meaning for them to use. What the hell are you talking about? The claim was that “it’s a bullshit phrase invented to scare people” The term was not invented for the AWB and it was used many years previously to refer to the sorts of weapons in the AWB. I showed you several examples of this, including two specifically referring to the AK47 as an assault weapon and another using the term for an M1. Are you claiming that the AK47 is not a rifle that the AWB covers? So, the question is: do you still think that “assault weapon” is a “bullshit phrase _invented_ to scare people”? ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2009, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-nra/520881/267 "2009-12-20T03:55:47Z")
> [@DanBlather](#): > > What the hell are you talking about? The claim was that “it’s a bullshit phrase invented to scare people” The term was not invented for the AWB and it was used many years previously to refer to the sorts of weapons in the AWB. I showed you several examples of this, including two specifically referring to the AK47 as an assault weapon and another using the term for an M1. Are you claiming that the AK47 is not a rifle that the AWB covers? > > So, the question is: do you still think that “assault weapon” is a “bullshit phrase _invented_ to scare people”? Yes. Rather than conjecture, let’s go to a paper written by Josh Sugarmann, the man credited with creating the term “assault weapon” as it is currently understood today: [_Assault Weapons and Accessories in America_](http://www.vpc.org/studies/awaintro.htm), published 1988 by the Violence Policy Center. From the conclusion, we have the relevant quote: > [@](#): > > Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons. He admits that the term was created to sow confusion. It is by definition a “bullshit phrase”, confirmed by the words of the very man who coined it. ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2009, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-nra/520881/268 "2009-12-20T04:07:56Z")
> [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](#): > > Yes. Rather than conjecture, let’s go to a paper written by Josh Sugarmann, the man credited with creating the term “assault weapon” as it is currently understood today He can’t have created the term, it was in use before that to refer to weapons like the AK47. Now if you want to change the claim to say that the term assault weapon was used by him to refer to things that were not include before, that is fine. It’s similar to how the the word “arms” in “the right to keep and bear arms” has changed to include modern rifles and handguns. ETA: and besides he says “machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons” in that quote, so he clearly is referring to a phrase that was already in use. ---
**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:** [December 20, 2009, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-nra/520881/269 "2009-12-20T04:08:18Z")
> [@DanBlather](#): > > What the hell are you talking about? The claim was that “it’s a bullshit phrase invented to scare people” The term was not invented for the AWB Only if you use a very pedantic version of ‘invented’ which means ‘no one has ever spoken/written those words in succession before’ The term ‘assault weapon’ as it was used by the AWB was not previously used to describe any of the weapons that your examples described - so the overlap is coincidental. ‘Assault’ and ‘weapon’ are common terms > [@](#): > > and it was used many years previously to refer to the sorts of weapons in the AWB. I showed you several examples of this, including two specifically referring to the AK47 as an assault weapon and another using the term for an M1. Are you claiming that the AK47 is not a rifle that the AWB covers? Yes, that is correct. The AK-47, the actual military weapon used by the Vietnamese, being referred to in your link was not banned under the the assault weapons ban. This is a point I’ve mentioned several times, but you are not attempting to actually comprehend what I’m saying. No assault rifle is banned or restricted in any way by the assault weapons ban. The fact that you think it is is proof of their misinformation campaign, and their deliberate attempt to confuse the public to make “assault weapon” sound like “assault rifle”. So again, you are wrong, and you demonstrate why you are wrong at the same time. > [@](#): > > So, the question is: do you still think that “assault weapon” is a “bullshit phrase _invented_ to scare people”? Yes, for any reasonable definition of “invented” that you can come up with for a phrase that puts two common words together. Not your definition of “those words have never been used together before in a phrase by anyone, even if it had a different meaning” ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2009, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-nra/520881/270 "2009-12-20T04:23:24Z")
> [@DanBlather](#): > > He can’t have created the term, it was in use before that to refer to weapons like the AK47. Now if you want to change the claim to say that the term assault weapon was used by him to refer to things that were not include before, that is fine. It’s similar to how the the word “arms” in “the right to keep and bear arms” has changed to include modern rifles and handguns. > > ETA: and besides he says “machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons” in that quote, so he clearly is referring to a phrase that was already in use. No, they were referred to as “assault rifles”. [Assault rifle](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle)- the name was derived from the [MG44 _Sturmgewehr_](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StG44), a World War II German weapon. [Assault weapon](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon)- a political appellation. As usual I’m pissing in the wind by doing this, because you have shown no regard to any of this whatsoever. Maybe someone else who’s reading this might learn the difference, though, and that makes it worth my time. ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2009, 4:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-nra/520881/271 "2009-12-20T04:32:21Z")
> [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](#): > > No, they were referred to as “assault rifles”. _And_ assault weapons as my cites showed. ---
**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:** [December 20, 2009, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-nra/520881/272 "2009-12-20T04:35:13Z")
I’m done with you. You are being deliberately ignorant, and no one, even those who would love to pick apart what I have to say, will agree with you. If you have shown no willingness to understand by now, I certainly can’t make it happen. ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2009, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-nra/520881/273 "2009-12-20T04:40:29Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > Yes, that is correct. The AK-47, the actual military weapon used by the Vietnamese, being referred to in your link was not banned under the the assault weapons ban. This is a point I’ve mentioned several times, but you are not attempting to actually comprehend what I’m saying. No snark at all, and a serious question so I can be informed. Are you saying that the AK47 is not classified as an assault rifle as defined by the AWB? Or are you saying that an AK47 capable of full automatic fire was already banned by previous laws so that the AWB had no effect on it’s status? ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2009, 4:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-nra/520881/274 "2009-12-20T04:49:26Z")
> [@DanBlather](#): > > No snark at all, and a serious question so I can be informed. Are you saying that the AK47 is not classified as an assault rifle as defined by the AWB? Or are you saying that an AK47 capable of full automatic fire was already banned by previous laws so that the AWB had no effect on it’s status? The latter, in point of fact. Fully automatic weapons have been tightly regulated by 1938. Actually, the AWB _specifically_ addresses only semi-automatic weapons. Also, guys, you’re all talking in circles. “Assault weapon” has been a nebulously defined term of art for years (I mean, **Dan** even cited it in place), AND its current more solid/specific definition in the context of “assault weapon ban” is a relatively recent redefinition created primarily for political purposes. I hate to be pedantic, but that seems to be what’s required– **Airman** , your own wikipedia cite for “assault weapon” has a historical usage section that is essentially very close to what **Dan** ’s been saying. ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2009, 4:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-nra/520881/275 "2009-12-20T04:53:15Z")
> [@DanBlather](#): > > No snark at all, and a serious question so I can be informed. Are you saying that the AK47 is not classified as an assault rifle as defined by the AWB? Or are you saying that an AK47 capable of full automatic fire was already banned by previous laws so that the AWB had no effect on it’s status? Assuming you are asking this question in good faith, I will give you a good-faith answer. An AK-47 capable of full-automatic fire has been and continues to be covered by the National Firearms Act of 1934, and later by the Hughes Amendment to the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 which prevented any more from being legally registered (the NFA has always required approval, registration and a tax stamp). The Assault Weapons Ban had no effect on its status. The Assault Weapons Ban did not define Assault Rifles. It defined Assault Weapons. Going back to your cites, that people have used the terms interchangeably over the years does not make the incorrect usage correct. More to the point, there is a legal distinction as evidenced by the Assault Weapons Ban, which codified it. In addition, as I posted before, Josh Sugarmann created the current (and now legal) definition in the hopes that people (like you) would conflate the two categories. They are separate and distinct categories now, and in truth they always were, as evidenced by the fact that Assault Weapons were not covered by the National Firearms Act of 1934. It would be easier for all involved in this debate if you would recognize that and stop conflating the two in the future. ---
**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:** [December 20, 2009, 4:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-nra/520881/276 "2009-12-20T04:59:34Z")
> [@DanBlather](#): > > No snark at all, and a serious question so I can be informed. Are you saying that the AK47 is not classified as an assault rifle as defined by the AWB? Or are you saying that an AK47 capable of full automatic fire was already banned by previous laws so that the AWB had no effect on it’s status? The AK47 is unaffected by the AWB, that’s correct. The AWB has nothing to do with assault rifles. They did, however, want to give the impression that it did - there was a huge misinformation campaign surrounding the AWB. When the media ran a report on the AWB, they’d show some Somalian kid wildly firing from the hip on full auto. Congressmen would say “these weappons belong on foreign battlefields, not on our streets!” and other such bullshit. The AWB only covered certain cosmetic features on weapons that otherwise functioned identically to all sorts of common non-assault weapon guns, but the impression that they were banning assault rifles (barely) gave them enough support to pass it. ---
**Author:** ![JXJohns](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jxjohns/32/469_2.png) [@JXJohns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JXJohns)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2009, 5:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-nra/520881/277 "2009-12-20T05:09:14Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > … **DanBlather** ’s snarky but he got the gist–there are those who believe it will reduce gun crime if we keep track of who is licensed and who owns firearms. There is some evidence (the apparently generally lower rate of gun crime among concealed-carry-permit holders where stats are available) that this is so. Which only makes sense as one has to be a non-criminal PRIOR to obtaining their permit. It is not as though they decide not to be a criminal after passing the background check, and it is a stretch if you are claiming that they stay on the straight and narrow because their name is on a list. They had to be on that path before or else they would never have qualified for their permit. I am not aware of any state that requires permit carriers to register their carry guns either. > [@](#): > > Plus it’s a small thing that, upthread, Mr. Blather indicated he’d be willing to accept with the concession of allowing more military-type arms available to the general public willing to license them. No offense, but I couldn’t give less of a shit what he or anyone else are “willing” to allow. We’ve had many threads concerning “compromise” on the gun issue. It seems that the anti gun participants haven’t quite understood the idea of compromise. Before I’d even consider it, someone better have cites coming out of their ass showing drastic impacts upon crime after the implementation of similar registration and licensing schemes. Without that impact, it is just more feel good/do nothing laws that accomplish nothing. > [@](#): > > Basically from my POV, if your name is on a list of gun owners, whether it’s a correlation error or not, you’re apparently less likely by some margin to actually commit a gun crime. This is a GOOD thing for legal gun owners to leverage into trading said registrations for removing some examples of gun law that don’t currrently impact anyone but legal owners.e against various provisions of it–pro-gun types likely hate registration/licensing even if they’re pro-training, and anti-gun types likely hate the idea that training and certification should open up the ability to own military arms. You see, the problem is that I can own my AR’s and my AK’s NOW without registration, licensing or training. I can keep my FAL, my DR-200, an UZI and a bunch of other shit without being on a list or getting the permission of the state to do so. In addition, so called “assault weapons” are used in such a small minority of crimes that it makes no logical sense to legislate away any current freedoms to appease the fuckwads that love to get in my business and try to tell me what I _need_ or don’t _need_. So I’ll say it again, a solution looking for a problem. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2009, 5:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-nra/520881/278 "2009-12-20T05:21:01Z")
> [@JXJohns](#): > > You see, the problem is that I can own my AR’s and my AK’s NOW without registration, licensing or training. I can keep my FAL, my DR-200, an UZI and a bunch of other shit without being on a list or getting the permission of the state to do so. In addition, so called “assault weapons” are used in such a small minority of crimes that it makes no logical sense to legislate away any current freedoms to appease the fuckwads that love to get in my business and try to tell me what I _need_ or don’t _need_. > > So I’ll say it again, a solution looking for a problem. Er, when I say “military arms” I mean actual military arms, not semi-automatics. That is, someone with the gun views of Mr. Blather is willing to accept that you should be allowed to own a fully automatic or select-fire military rifle with appropriate training and your promise you are going to keep it responsibly (defined as “locked up enough that a burglar isn’t going to make off with it easily”). We’re talking about replacing everything from the National Firearms Act of 1934 on up here–to me, that’s a pretty big concession. I personally don’t understand the fear of registration. I’m on the list of CCW holders, and somehow my ultra-liberal county hasn’t been bashing down my door. I mean, I am 100% in support of firearms ownership being a right and not a privilege–I am, however, aware that there are frankly a lot of stupid fucking people out there with firearms and the idea of mandatory training (or at the very least, mandatory testing for basic competence) for their ownership doesn’t bother me in the slightest. I mean, and I hate to be this guy, but “well-regulated” in the 2nd Amendment _means_ something. It’s there for a reason–and the reason is almost certainly that the Founders intended that unorganized militias conformed to some standards regarding training and practice in the use of their weapons. ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2009, 5:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-nra/520881/279 "2009-12-20T05:36:37Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > I personally don’t understand the fear of registration. I’m on the list of CCW holders, and somehow my ultra-liberal county hasn’t been bashing down my door. I mean, I am 100% in support of firearms ownership being a right and not a privilege–I am, however, aware that there are frankly a lot of stupid fucking people out there with firearms and the idea of mandatory training (or at the very least, mandatory testing for basic competence) for their ownership doesn’t bother me in the slightest. I mean, and I hate to be this guy, but “well-regulated” in the 2nd Amendment _means_ something. It’s there for a reason–and the reason is almost certainly that the Founders intended that unorganized militias conformed to some standards regarding training and practice in the use of their weapons. I think you do understand it. There is no trust between the two parties to the argument. None. When the gun-control advocates say things like [ > [@Dianne Feinstein](#): > > If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren’t here. ]([Dianne Feinstein - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dianne_Feinstein#Gun_politics)) on national television, why shouldn’t we take them at their word? What incentive do we have to make it easier for them in any way, shape or form to do that? I’ve said it before, in response to one of your posts in a [previous thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=11684276#post11684276): > [@](#): > > Oh, and registration cannot be denied except to felons and other people currently ineligible, a public law must be in place that the list will not be used for door-to-door confiscation should that ever happen (as in New Orleans during Katrina), the registration fee must not be intentionally prohibitive (Like it is currently in DC), and the process must not be intentionally onerous (Ditto). > > Meet me halfway. Promise me there will be no abuse of the process and guarantee it in law and we have a deal. See how easy it can be? There is NO WAY that something like that will ever get past Schumer, Feinstein, Lautenberg, _et al_. So since they won’t meet us halfway, we are certainly not keen on unilaterally putting a potentially easily corruptible condition on our Constitutionally-guaranteed rights. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2009, 5:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-nra/520881/280 "2009-12-20T05:49:27Z")
> [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](#): > > There is NO WAY that something like that will ever get past Schumer, Feinstein, Lautenberg, _et al_. So since they won’t meet us halfway, we are certainly not keen on unilaterally putting a potentially easily corruptible condition on our Constitutionally-guaranteed rights. I think personally that our best hope is to shoot for the next generation of voters and politicians, and get the idea in people’s heads that there’s a massive population of safe, sane, and responsible gun owners out there, even folks who own and train with military style arms and people who believe their own self-defense is ultimately in their own hands–and that we’re willing to accept non-ban and non-confiscatory gun regulations that have a valid purpose (like, for example, basic skills testing before firearms ownership or safe storage regulations). I know I’m never going to get Feinstein on my side, but getting **DanBlather** on my side is a good start in my book. As for the rest? Give me a few decades. =P [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-nra/520881.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-nra/520881.md?page=15)