# 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:** 7
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2009, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-nra/520881/121 "2009-12-15T02:57:03Z")
We are persons of the highest caliber. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2009, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-nra/520881/122 "2009-12-15T03:11:57Z")
I’m having trouble figuring out why anyone could be bothered to Pit the **N** ational **R** ecovery **A** dministration. Heck, the Supreme Court put the kibosh on it almost 75 years ago. ---
**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 15, 2009, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-nra/520881/123 "2009-12-15T03:15:41Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > I don’t think you’re lying, you’re just experiencing the typical author’s inability to understand how anybody could have interpreted your words differently from the way you meant them to be interpreted. No, I think I know how they were misinterpreted - there was a greater rush to get me in what seemed to be a “HAHA GOTCHA!” that doing that became more important than trying to actually understand what I said. After that, after I clearly explained myself, there could be no doubt, and yet people are saying NO BUT YOU SAID THIS HAHA GOTCHA ANYWAY. It is disingenuous. > [@](#): > > Honey, I understand that you may not have **meant** to say it that way, but the fact is that you **did** say it that way. You said “They were created to endorse Obama for president”, not “They were created to endorse Democratic politicians, so naturally they automatically endorsed Obama when he became a presidential candidate”. I did say that, but just in reverse order. The next line is: “It’s a shill organization that lives up to the standard democrat divide and conquer bullshit “don’t worry, these gun bans aren’t after your duck guns!”. It was created so that democrats could say “the hunters and shooters association supports me!” It has no legitimate standing among anyone I know.” But wait! If I only meant Obama, then when I said that they said “supports me” then I must be talking about Obama. But I also said “democrats”, which means I think Obama is multiple people. I MUST THINK HE’S SOME SORT OF DEMON OR ALIEN!!! The reason I said it in reverse order like that I already explained - it was to answer the phrase with similar phrasing. In retrospect, I could’ve chosen better phrasing - but I would’ve had to have thought ahead of time that you guys would disingenuously interpret me and then hold me to a specific out of context literal interpretation of my words. I didn’t do that because quite frankly I usually think better of you all, and it doesn’t occur to me to check my phrasing for what can end up being used out of context. > [@](#): > > An appropriate response on your part to the birther quip would have an eyeroll and a statement along the lines of “Oh ha ha, very funny: to spell it out for you, what I meant is that the organization was created to shill for Democratic politicians, so the fact that it endorsed Obama means absolutely zilch.” Which is exactly what I said with the rest of the paragraph of the statement in question. That was the entire point of what I had to say. > [@](#): > > Instead of just accepting that you didn’t originally state your meaning entirely clearly and going back to clarify it, you’re twisting yourself into foaming knots to try to argue that anyone who says your meaning was unclear must be a disingenuous dickhole. Let it go. But it was such an obvious attempt to read a statement for “let’s see where I can find a gotcha! in here instead of reading for comprehension” that it actually pissed me off. It lowers the level of discourse on the board. We’re supposed to be thinking, rational people - not sleazy news organziations that take things out of context deliberately. > [@DanBlather](#): > > All this bickering, good thing you can’t pack heat in the SDMB. I’ve noticed a trend that the people who are against gun rights and specifically carrying tend to be far more violent in their desires and inclinations than the people I know who actually carry guns. When they say “they’ll be shootouts in the streets!” or in this case “good thing we can’t have guns on this message board!” it says a lot about them. And I realize it’s sort of a joke, but I think the sentiment is fundamentally true - it’s often the case that the people who fear stuff like concealed carry are worried that they would not have the self control to keep themselves from shooting others over minor quibbles, and they assume other people are like them. The people who I know who actually are licensed and do carry tend to be the most level headed people I know, and the ones who are screaming that concealed carry would result in shootouts over parking lots tend to be ill-tempered. ---
**Author:** ![yoyodyne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/a9a28c/32.png) [@yoyodyne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yoyodyne)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2009, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-nra/520881/124 "2009-12-15T03:31:12Z")
Don’t sweat it **SenorBeef** , I understood your point. Remember these are the same people that are unable to parse the Second Amendment. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2009, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-nra/520881/125 "2009-12-15T03:44:54Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > But wait! If I only meant Obama, then when I said that they said “supports me” then I must be talking about Obama. But I also said “democrats”, which means I think Obama is multiple people. I MUST THINK HE’S SOME SORT OF DEMON OR ALIEN!!! No, that part is pretty clear - you’re placing the responsibility for the creation of the organization at the feet of the democratic party, and not just one person in the party. The problem is, by opening with, “They were created to endorse Obama for president,” you’ve established a specific time line for the creation of the creation of this organization tied to the decision of Barrack Obama to run for president. There’s really nothing in your post to contradict that interpretation. And although I suspect saying it won’t make an impression on you, I’m not a big gun control guy. I don’t really care about guns one way or the other: ban 'em all, or give 'em out free in boxes of Cheerios, it doesn’t make a difference to me. I am, honest to God, only posting this because literary interpretation is more interesting to me than gun control, and on _that_ subject, you’re taking an untenable position: the plain text meaning of your post indicates that you believe that organization was specifically created to help Barrack Obama get elected president. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2009, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-nra/520881/126 "2009-12-15T03:49:22Z")
Well, now, the most level-headed people I know agree with me on these issues, and not with you, so you are demonstrably wrong on that point. But I’m not much concerned with the level-headed mature guy utterly in command of his temper and worst instncts. I’m more concerned about the guy who _thinks_ he is. ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2009, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-nra/520881/127 "2009-12-15T04:13:52Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > I’ve noticed a trend that the people who are against gun rights and specifically carrying tend to be far more violent in their desires and inclinations than the people I know who actually carry guns. When they say “they’ll be shootouts in the streets!” or in this case “good thing we can’t have guns on this message board!” it says a lot about them. And I realize it’s sort of a joke, but I think the sentiment is fundamentally true - it’s often the case that the people who fear stuff like concealed carry are worried that they would not have the self control to keep themselves from shooting others over minor quibbles, and they assume other people are like them. The people who I know who actually are licensed and do carry tend to be the most level headed people I know, and the ones who are screaming that concealed carry would result in shootouts over parking lots tend to be ill-tempered. Yeah, it’s always the people without guns that end up shooting people. > [@](#): > > A Violence Policy Center project has mined news reports to find that more than 100 people have been killed by holders of handgun-carry permits since 2007, including nine law enforcement officers. The project originally intended to list all gun crimes by permit holders, but there were too many to keep track of, Rand said. > “They shoot each other over parking spaces, at football games and at family events,” Rand said. “The idea that you’re making any place safer by injecting more guns is just completely contradicted by the facts.” From [here](http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091211/ap_on_bi_ge/us_looser_gun_laws). ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2009, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-nra/520881/128 "2009-12-15T04:24:51Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > Excellent idea! That will cut the murder rate down! > > Should each spouse carry the loaded handgun in the dresser drawer, or should they carry at all times, just so the other one doesn’t get the draw on them? > > eta: “That’s a lovely negligee with attached holster dear” I’m more of the opinion of “that asshole has beat me for the last time, I’m getting his gun and meeting him with a .45 at the door when he gets home from work before he finally snaps and shoots me.” I’d acquit on that jury–but then again, I’m all in favor of putting down rabid subhumans, which category felony abuse puts you in automatically for me. In all seriousness, I look at it this way–with a gun, the battered wife has a shot against a husband who’s statistically bigger, stronger, and more apt to use physical violence. “No guns” is NOT going to stop her getting stabbed, beaten, choked, strangled, or hammered. Entered and accepted that a woman prone to be a victim of abuse is not likely to have the self-preservation instinct necessary (for a number of valid psychological reasons if it’s ongoing) to pull the trigger. My mother in law and my wife were victims of domestic abuse by mom’s successful vice police officer ex-husband (so the local idiot judiciary wouldn’t touch him since no cop that brought in that many heroin/meth busts at great personal risk could be an abuser). He brandished an unloaded gun at both of them multiple times, most notably when he was stripped of custody and parental rights immediately when my wife hit her teens and got a change of venue and told the judge she’d kill herself if she had to spend ANY time with him. Hell yes I think that asshole deserved to be shot. My wife is adamantly pro-gun and wishes she would have had the knowledge to pop him herself as a kid. (my mother in law, by contrast, doesn’t even think cops should have guns) Instead, I get to go around the block with the local PD in his city where they ignore utterly the reports from the telephone company about the steady stream of harassment calls from his current wife and him. Working with the State Police takes time. Hopefully this little story puts into perspective–and I have nothing but the utmost respect for good cops, I have a lot of cop buddies–why I get really pissed off at the idea that I should abdicate my personal safety to the guardians of society. > [@DanBlather](#): > > “Having a gun in the home makes it three times more likely that you or someone you care about will be murdered by a family member or intimate partner.” I was going to formulate an actual response… > [@DanBlather](#): > > All this bickering, good thing you can’t pack heat in the SDMB. …but damn it, you’re just not worth it. Thanks for implying, over and over, that I’m a barely-controlled murder-suicide waiting to happen. I’m sure it’ll help a lot with your quest to do whatever the fuck it is you think you’re accomplishing. Oh noes, I’d better not let my blood pressure up, I might open two separate keyed locks, get my ammo from the other storage closet, load my shotgun, and shoot my monitor! I’m a gun owner, I’m equally dangerous regardless of circumstances! ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2009, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-nra/520881/129 "2009-12-15T04:29:54Z")
> [@DanBlather](#): > > Yeah, it’s always the people without guns that end up shooting people. > > From [here](http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091211/ap_on_bi_ge/us_looser_gun_laws). I’m not going to bother to search it, but the last time this came up I researched the data on states that correlate crimes with concealed-carry permits and found that the gun felony rate among concealed-carry permit holders was equal or lower to the overall gun felony rate in the general population. That is, concealed-carry permits are more likely a predictor of LESS gun violence, based on the raw statistics from Florida and one other state I can’t remember. There aren’t any comprehensive surveys of state data, probably because VPC are a bunch of ignorant fucks who prefer riding the sensationalism wagon and because the NRA thinks it’s so self-evident combined with the fact it’s against their little wussy sensibilities to even pay the slightest amount of lip service to anything involving government records of firearm owners. ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2009, 5:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-nra/520881/130 "2009-12-15T05:19:04Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > I’m not going to bother to search it, but the last time this came up I researched the data on states that correlate crimes with concealed-carry permits and found that the gun felony rate among concealed-carry permit holders was equal or lower to the overall gun felony rate in the general population. That is, concealed-carry permits are more likely a predictor of LESS gun violence, based on the raw statistics from Florida and one other state I can’t remember. I’m not sure I get your point. It seems like you are saying that gun control works. I agree. ---
**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 15, 2009, 6:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-nra/520881/131 "2009-12-15T06:25:35Z")
> [@DanBlather](#): > > I’m not sure I get your point. It seems like you are saying that gun control works. I agree. Totally! And we should use this as evidence, of course, that concealed carry permits should be banned! Just like with the machine gun ban of '86 - sure, legally registered machine guns were never used in a crime for 50 years, you could argue that gun control worked there - and that resulted in a ban anyway too! Actually you’ll have to explain that one too me too. Gun control advocates fought against the adoption of CHL permits every single time they came up for debate in a state. States passing these laws is clearly a victory for the gun rights lobby. Yet, having them pass and then having them largely be successful (does anyone have any data besides the VPC? “There were too many incidents that we stopped counting!” my ass - they jerked themself off into a frenzy anytime there was one). Anyway, you’re claiming this as a success for gun control, and probably at the same time advocating that concealed carry licenses be banned, right? ---
**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 15, 2009, 6:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-nra/520881/132 "2009-12-15T06:35:24Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > No, that part is pretty clear - you’re placing the responsibility for the creation of the organization at the feet of the democratic party, and not just one person in the party. … There’s really nothing in your post to contradict that interpretation. I said “It was created so that democrats could say “the hunters and shooters association supports me!”” In this case, “democrats” clearly refers to multiple candidates using the organization to give lend credibility to itself. Multiple people are claiming that the organization supports them. It’s not saying that multiple democrats created the organization to support Obama, since “democrats … supports me” cannot refer to Obama alone. But… ths whole thing is silly and I’m done with it unless someone has a specific point to refute about it. ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2009, 7:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-nra/520881/133 "2009-12-15T07:32:11Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > Totally! And we should use this as evidence, of course, that concealed carry permits should be banned! Actually we should use it as proof that licensing guns, requiring training, and screening for criminal history and/or mental illness works and that we should expand that approach. I really have no issue with hunters and target shooters. My issue is with those who think that having a gun readily accessible for self defense makes them and their family more safe rather than less safe, or that society would be better off if more people carried guns. Statistics show otherwise. I face restrictions all the time on what kind of food I can buy, what equipment is required on my car, what sort of ID I need to board a plane, or what kind of glaze is on my ceramics. I don’t see a rabid car lobby that is trying to make sure that anyone can drive any kind of vehicle at any time without training, insurance, or license. I’d be happy if we treated guns like cars. License them, track their sales, require training and a license, make sure they meet certain safety requirements, and make sure they are locked when not in use. Maybe that makes me a gun-grabber in your eyes, but since you aren’t out advocating for automobile anarchy that would make you a car-grabber. ---
**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 15, 2009, 8:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-nra/520881/134 "2009-12-15T08:12:56Z")
> [@DanBlather](#): > > Actually we should use it as proof that licensing guns, requiring training, and screening for criminal history and/or mental illness works and that we should expand that approach. Fair enough. To expand upon this view - and you could go either way here - how do you feel about the machine gun registry being closed to new weapons as part of the 1986 FOPA, resulting in a practical ban? The possession by civilians of machine guns became heavily regulated in 1934, requiring background checks, local law enforcement signoff, taxes, etc. Between 1934 and 1986, despite tens of thousands of registered weapons and hundreds of thousands of owners, none was ever used to commit a crime. (People will point to 2 incidents in which police using their department issue weapons commited a crime - it’s irrelevant, that wasn’t regulated under the 1934 NFA nor the 1986 ban). And by your logic, that’s a perfect example of gun control in action, right? We regulated them and put tight requierments on their ownership, and the people who went through the hoops to do it have a perfect safety record for 50+ years behind them. And yet they were banned anyway. Do you support that? The gun control lobby as a whole (and I’m not painting every single indvidual with that) is not interested in results. Even a “perfect record” and in their eyes, evidence that the gun control worked perfectly, still ended up resulting in a ban. > [@](#): > > I really have no issue with hunters and target shooters. I don’t care. The “I have no problem with sportsmen!” bullshit line actually makes me think less of anyone who uses it. Gun rights advocates don’t advocate a specific limited set of sporting rights, and those that do are assholes. > [@](#): > > My issue is with those who think that having a gun readily accessible for self defense makes them and their family more safe rather than less safe, or that society would be better off if more people carried guns. Statistics show otherwise. I’m loathe to ask “what statistics” knowing that we’re just turning this thread into generic gun debate #81582185, which I don’t even want to be a part of since I’ve done it a hundred times before. Suffice to say that I don’t think that the statistics are as clear cut as you think. > [@](#): > > I face restrictions all the time on what kind of food I can buy, what equipment is required on my car, what sort of ID I need to board a plane, or what kind of glaze is on my ceramics. I don’t see a rabid car lobby that is trying to make sure that anyone can drive any kind of vehicle at any time without training, insurance, or license. Because there isn’t a politically powerful, well funded lobby that’s dedicated to the banning of all cars (or maybe just restricting them to a few race car drivers for sporting purposes!), whose methodology has admittedly been death by a thousand cuts - infringe in any way possible in the hopes that it will build a stepping stone to further infringement. You don’t need a lobby to defend something that isn’t under attack, whose existance is not threatened. > [@](#): > > I’d be happy if we treated guns like cars. License them, track their sales, require training and a license, make sure they meet certain safety requirements, and make sure they are locked when not in use. Maybe that makes me a gun-grabber in your eyes, but since you aren’t out advocating for automobile anarchy that would make you a car-grabber. No, you wouldn’t be happy with that. There very little legal regulation of who can own cars or even drive them on their own property. It’s the act of driving on public roads that’s licensed. If we treated guns like cars, ownership and use on private property would be pretty much unrestricted with concealed carry in public places being licensed. ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2009, 9:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-nra/520881/135 "2009-12-15T09:05:40Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > There very little legal regulation of who can own cars or even drive them on their own property. It’s the act of driving on public roads that’s licensed. Simply not true. All sales of vehicles need to have the title transferred. That means the DMV has the VIN and a description of the vehicle. There is a federal database of all VINs and the police can use it to recover stolen vehicles and track vehicles used in a crime. As for machine guns? I could not care less. A fully operational machine gun sounds like a public nuisance. I don’t see why the fun of a few jackasses who want to put lots of holes in things really quickly out weighs the safety of the general public. On the other hand if licensed, and registered, and sales are tracked, and criminal records and mental health screens are done then I don’t see any great harm. Again, it looked like the existing gun control regulations did their job. I grew up with people who had guns for hunting and I shot rifles in Boy Scouts. None of those people saw the need to carry a hand gun to keep them safe, nor did they stockpile guns to fight the black helicopters. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2009, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-nra/520881/136 "2009-12-15T14:10:55Z")
Dangit, **Dan**. ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2009, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-nra/520881/137 "2009-12-15T15:05:37Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > Has there ever been a democratic presidential c andidate that was more pro-gun-rights than his republican opponent? That seems to be a requirement here. Otherwise should the NRA endorse a democrat that has a harsher gun control stance every once in a while just to make it seem balanced between the parties? Perhaps not, but there have been many elections where the major party candidates had virtually identical stances on gun rights, and gun rights weren’t a major consideration for either party. Then again, honestly, I don’t know how “pro-gun” George W. Bush was, for instance. He’s never been a congressman, so it’s not like he had a voting record on the subject. ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2009, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-nra/520881/138 "2009-12-15T15:14:11Z")
> [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](#): > > [url=“[Robert Bork - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bork#Supreme_Court_nomination)”] > > It’s terribly unfortunate that people have to resort to lies and exaggerations in the furtherance of their cause, isn’t it? And you know, if they’d stopped at a slippery slope, and explained in factual terms what was going on, then pointed down that slope and said ‘this is where we think this will head’, I might’ve been less incensed. But that would’ve drawn a clear distinction between fact and opinion. Saying “Do you want third-world dictators and Hillary Clinton to take away your right to own a gun?” is horribly loaded and conflates fact and opinion and even fiction. Even if all the things you outlined happen - the treaty is passed in the UN, the US ratifies it, and it starts influencing American law - **no treaty or law can change the US Constitution**. It couldn’t take away our right to bear arms. Ignoring that gaping plothole, **it wouldn’t have anything to do with Hillary Clinton or ‘third world dictators’.** Congress passes laws and ratifies treaties. But the actually defensible question “Do you want the United Nations to influence Congress to pass stricter anti-gun legislation?” isn’t nearly as inflammatory. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2009, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-nra/520881/139 "2009-12-15T15:19:05Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > Saying “Do you want third-world dictators and Hillary Clinton to take away your right to own a gun?” is horribly loaded and conflates fact and opinion and even fiction. Even if all the things you outlined happen - the treaty is passed in the UN, the US ratifies it, and it starts influencing American law - **no treaty or law can change the US Constitution**. [Quite so.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_v._Covert) ---
**Author:** ![Kearsen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/82dd89/32.png) [@Kearsen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2009, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-nra/520881/140 "2009-12-15T17:04:54Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > Your first point seems quite reasonable. I have seen opinions of others that manadatory gun usage classes are just a slippery slope to registration, and they want nothing to do with it. I don’t know what the official NRA policy is on this though. > > For your last point - so you’d be OK if John Q Public could walk into a shop with no ID and purchase a handgun with cash and no paperwork required? And then be able to carry this loaded handgun either concealed or open carry in any location he desired? > > I’m seriously not trying to yank anyone’s chain here, I just want to know where exactly people think the limits to gun ownership and use are. Maybe I didn’t convey the meaning in the last point. Once the gun is registered (background checks etc…) there shouldn’t be any restrictions placed upon those that fall into the “safe” category as far as gun ownership. You have culpability and that is all that should be required. My last point had to do with legislation targeted at ‘bans’ for specific types of guns (handguns being primary) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-nra/520881.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-nra/520881.md?page=8)