I’m mostly just trying to think of a list of things dumber than “breaking into the house of the president of the NRA while he’s home.” So far, I’ve come up with “trying to mug the president of the NRA on the street” and “trying to shoot the president of the NRA at an NRA meeting” but not much else. 
I guess like many parents, you think the misinterpretation of the 2nd amendment is more important then your child’s life. Another gun nut speaks out.
Some people consider the loss of a child a life changing experience. Of course, if all the kids were packing heat….
You guys bore me.
Why would it change anything?
A close family member of mine, was murdered by being hit over the head with an iron frying pan, and to this day, I have no animosity toward frying pans, nor do I belong to any “frying pan control” organizations, nor do I want to see frying pans outlawed, nor licensed. The tool that a murderer uses, is not the issue, nor the point.
It is totally idiodic and moronic for anyone to blame the “tool” of a murderer.
I didnt stop using knives after the Manson murders either.
If an NRA president was murdered by a gun, or knive, or frying pan, the NRA would still be against murder, and against murderers, not whatever tool was used.
Didn’t the NRA fight the ban on Teflon coated bullets? You are right, out of the other side of their face they decry this irresponsible use of fire arms. Guns don’t kill people, violent video games do…
Not all of the members are drunken rednecks. Some of them found AA. Yee haa. Giddie up boys!
Teflon coated bullets, TEC 9’s, Street Sweepers, were also supported by the myopic, not budge one inch, NRA. Please name one area where the NRA ever compromised?
I agree. Those kids probably would still be dead after the Trench Coat Mifia kicked them to death.
Guns don’t kill people, RAP music does…
Whoops, meant the Columbine kids. Of course, if you prefer, pick any of the other school massacres.
I agree with you, but there are some people who seem to have some trouble reading, comprehending, and they think that the Bill of Rights really says:
1." Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the “states” peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
- "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the “states” to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
3.“The right of the “states” to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
9."The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the “states”.
10."The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the “states”.
The right of the States, and thus the people through their elected state representatives, to have a Well Regulated Militia can not be infringed by the Federal Government.
Clever, but I don’t believe the argument holds water. No other Amendments have the express qualification built in the first sentence that its purpose is to establish the right of a well regulated militia to maintain the security of a Free State, thus the interpretation of “the people” is logically different from the other amendments.
Would it make you feel any better if he were pushed outta window?
Him?.. Let me think about it
-Yessir, they did. Because the legislation, as written, would have banned- not just controlled, banned- almost all ammunition whether it was for a rifle, a pistol, an old flintlock, grandpappy’s quail gun, what have you.
In any case, the entire media circus of “teflon-coated” bullets was a wholly fabricated antigun campaign: The “teflon” bullets in question were in fact designed by three law-enforcement people, as a specialized-use anti-barricade round. It was never available to non-law-enforcement personel, and the sales of the ammo were strictly controlled by the manufacturer long before the media exposure.
It was a non-event.
Worse, the public exposure of the round as something that could “go through bulletproof vests” brought public exposure to the then-not-widely-known fact that many police officers were in fact wearing body armor.
No officer has ever been shot or killed with a so-called “teflon coated cop killer” bullet, but due to the publicity of the vests, several officers have been killed when perps shot them in the head or groin rather than the protected chest.
-Please give a cite for the NRA claiming that video games are to blame for any act of violence.
-Ah yes, and all liberals are communist sympathizers who love and support Saddam Hussein. Do you have any actual facts to contribute or would you prefer to remain there, wallowing in your own deliberate ignorance?
Not that its important, but are you from Texas?
Nothing on the video games, it is hard to cite sarcasm. Did dig up some body count numbers for you (not that these people didn’t have it coming to them!)
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4845a1.htm
This link is better, dead kids…
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00046149.htm
here’s a quote:
"Overall, the data provided by the 26 countries included a total of 2872 deaths among children aged less than 15 years for a period of 1 year. Homicides accounted for 1995 deaths, including 1177 (59%) in boys and 818 (41%) in girls. Of the homicides, 1464 (73%) occurred among U.S. children. The homicide rate for children in the United States was five times higher than that for children in the other 25 countries combined (2.57 per 100,000 compared with 0.51) "
Of course, 2.57 dead kids per 100k is no big deal. There is lots more where they came from.
Well, if the NRA president was shot, my irony meter would hit 11! And we’d never get Dennis Miller off the air.
On the other hand, I hear rumors that Charlton Heston is coming down with Alzheimer’s Disease, so maybe the person would be doing him a favor.
I’m not a member of the NRA, but (as I understand it), one of their goals is to ensure that anyone who comes into contact with a firearm knows what to do with it. This is a laudable goal. I was taught during my version of “Basic” that the most dangerous thing you’ll ever encounter was an amateur with a gun. (Well, actually the most dangerous thing is a junior officer with a map…).
-You really don’t know any actual facts, do you?
See the previous post on “teflon coated” bullets: the NRA opposed the legislation because as it was written, far more than just the so-called “cop killers” would have been banned.
Tec-9s, the same: The legislation was often- oh yes, many laws were tried to ban these so-called evil guns over the years- written so that it would ban more than just Tec 9s. The Tec-9 is a 9mm clip fed, semiautomatic handgun. As are the Berettas, Glocks and Smith & Wessons carried by almost every state trooper and city police officer in the US, and by millions of law-abiding civilians who have no interest whatsoever in shooting up a high school cafeteria.
However, the 1994 “crime control” bill finally did ban the sale of the Tec-9. So the black gun that shoots 9mm rounds semiautomatically but happens to look ugly is banned, while all the other black guns that shoot 9mms semiautomatically, and are usually smaller and easier to conceal were not banned.
Street Sweepers: Ugly black shotguns that shoot semiautomatically are apparently somehow more evil and terrible than ugly black shotguns that shoot semiautomatically without a drum. Yes, makes perfect sense. And yes, the NRA fought that legislation too, not in favor of the “street sweeper”, but in favor of all the other otherwise legal shotguns that the wording would have encompassed.
As for compromising, where do I begin? The Gun Control Act of 1932 enacted strict controls on fully-automatic weapons and short-barreled shotguns and rifles. The Gun Control Act of 1968 banned the import of a wide range of firearms unless they had certain “sporting” features, and banned the US production of certain firearms with for some reason undesirable features.
The '84 Ban stopped all US production and sales of Class 3 firearms for civilian purchase, further limited imports, increased taxes and FFL fees and started regulating cosmetic features on military-lookalike firearms.
The '89 Ban all but stopped the import of semiautomatic rifles. The '94 ban created a long list of firearms banned by name, and gave us a short list of cosmetic features that were no longer allowed on production firearms in certain combinations, plus banned over-ten-round-capacity clips and magazines.
That’s just on a Federal level. Various States have enacted local bans of any firearm (Washington DC as of 1975) limited the purchase of firearms to one a month, have attempted to put crushing taxes (in excess of 200%) on ammo and have gone so far as to confiscate registered weapons (California as of '95, I think.)
Nope. Not a one of those was any sort of compromise.
-Nope. But I’m not surprised you’re in Philadelphia.
-I assume from the context of this thread that you assume the NRA is responsible for each one of those?
That it’s firearms and only firearms, and not any sort of sociological or perhaps drug-related reason? That if all the firearms disappeared tomorrow, all homicides and accidental deaths would disappear as well?
Do yourself a favor: Google on “NRA Hunter Safety” and “Eddie Eagle”. The NRA does far more every year to educate both children and adults to, if not handle, then to at least be around firearms safely. For example, the Eddie Eagle ‘philosophy’ is, if the child finds a gun, to Stop, Don’t Touch, Leave the Area, Tell an Adult.
A proven method to help reduce firearms accidents with children, and yet individuals like you simply see “NRA” and “teaching children” through the slots in your blinders and assume the NRA is teaching kids how to load and fire machine guns so they can better mow down the bullies on the playground. Or something.
Also look around and see if you can find a hard number on how much the Brady Campaign to Control Gun Violence (Nee` Handgun Control Inc) spent in any given year on firearms safety courses like Eddie Eagle (which do NOT teach anyone how to work or operate the gun- EE teaches them to leave it be and go tell an authority about it.) Then go and check to see how much the NRA spent on similar courses.
One might think that if the Brady Campaign were serious about “gun safety” they’d welcome such a proven program.
You might think that anyway…
Pardon me if I clear up a few errors here.
The NFA became law in 1934 and also regulated destructive devices which includes grenades, explosive rounds and weapons bigger than .50 caliber aside from sporting shotguns. **
You may be thinking of the so-called “gun owner’s protection act” which came about in 1986. It prohibited adding new machine guns to the national registry but did not otherwise restrict previously registered machine guns or other items regulated by the 1934 NFA.
Also FWIW there is no such thing as a “class 3 firearm.” but this confusion is understandable. Someone who is authorized to sell machine guns is a class III dealer and may also sell such items as sound suppressors, short barreled rifles, AOWs, etc. These are correctly referred to as title II or NFA weapons. **
Not entirely true. The '89 ban only resulted in cosmetic changes to conform to the law. AK-47s gained a thumbhole stock and were legally impoted as MAK-90s and othe variants. With the replacement of a specific number of parts with those of US manufacture they are no longer considered imported weapons and may legally be configured with a pistol grip stock.
The '94 ban was filled with a lot of smoke and mirrors. The specific list of guns prohibited and the huge list of exempted weapons are rendered meaningless by the definition portion of the law.
It would be entirely moot to ban the manufacture of “Colt AR-15” rifles since Colt didn’t make a rifle called that anyway. The Colt sporter rifles only required one minor change, elminating the threaded barrel muzzle and flash suppressor/muzzle brake, to be transformed from a prohibited “semiautomatic assault weapon” to a perfectly legal semi-auto sporting rifle.
Exactly right on all counts. I rushed it since I had an appointment- my fault. Thanks for the clarification.
The point, of course, was that firearms ownership has become ever more and more restricted, controlled and regulated, and yet we’re told the NRA never “compromises” on any of them.
I wonder if Philly Style thinks that this Onion article is an accurate reflection of the NRA’s official stance on the use of firearms by minors.
As far as the NRA being a “no compromises” organization goes – an acquaintance of mine quit the NRA a few years ago because he was disgusted at how many compromises the NRA was making! If you’re interested at pointing fingers at gun nuts who are unwilling to compromise, point your fingers at Gun Owners of America (GOA), not the NRA.