Would the NRA accept a licensing requirement requiring high levels of gun expertise?

[Argent_Towers]

@MsRobyn

No, he’s talking about a barrel shroud, like on this TEC-9. Holes in the barrel? I can see where someone who knows nothing about guns might say so, but there are no holes in the barrel, just in the shroud. There are compensated barrels, but those are lateral cuts on the top, not the sides, and in any event are not generally what one thinks of when they think of “holes in the barrel”.

It was a joke, in reference to the guess by moron Carolyn McCarthy that a barrel shroud was “a shoulder thing that goes up.”

[Airman_Doors_USAF]

The above post was me, by the way. I’m using Robin’s laptop and I forgot to log in. Apologies.

It was a joke, in reference to the guess by moron Carolyn McCarthy that a barrel shroud was “a shoulder thing that goes up.”

I missed that bit of idiocy, it blended in with the rest of her nonsense.

[Argent_Towers]

From Wikipedia:

On the April 18, 2007 showing of MSNBC’s program, Tucker, the conservative pundit Tucker Carlson interviewed McCarthy concerning the Virginia Tech massacre and her proposed reauthorization of the Assault Weapons Ban. He asked her to explain the need to regulate barrel shrouds, one of the many provisions of the Act. She responded that more importantly the legislation would ban large capacity “clips” used in the Virginia Tech massacre and that the class of guns chosen were those used by gangs and police killers. After admitting that she did not know what a barrel shroud was, she ventured a guess, “I believe it is a shoulder thing that goes up.”

I think this specific incident is a great summary of the entire gun control movement.

[mswas]

@Gary T

Mainly, though, I think the great majority of U.S. citizens would agree that the real problems with guns aren’t from idiots who clown around, or those who are ignorant or clumsy when it comes to guns, but from people (mostly criminals) who are usually quite proficient with their firearms.

ETA: Expertise isn’t the problem or the solution. Attitude is.

Actually statistically, criminals are notoriously nonproficient with their firearms. Most criminality committed with a firearm is done so by some punk with a gun.

[enipla]

@Argent Towers

You must be talking about the shoulder thing that goes up, right?

No doubt about it. Even teaching gun safety is a bad thing to those people. Anything to do with guns is a bad thing for them. Maybe by that same logic they should also stop teaching Driver’s Ed. because far more people are killed in car accidents than by guns in America every year.

Never caught the ‘shoulder thing that goes up comment’.

On the April 18, 2007 showing of MSNBC’s program, Tucker, the conservative pundit Tucker Carlson interviewed McCarthy concerning the Virginia Tech massacre and her proposed reauthorization of the Assault Weapons Ban. He asked her to explain the need to regulate barrel shrouds, one of the many provisions of the Act.

Barrel shrouds where never a part of the ‘Assault Weapon Ban’. And an ‘Assault Weapon’ was not used in the Virginia Tech shooting. What is up with these people? Really. If they want to ban certain types of guns, please, please just do a tiny little bit of homework.

As far as limiting magazine capacity, I don’t think those wanting more gun control understand how quickly a magazine (‘clip’) can be changed out. 3 seconds at most. What was the limit for the Assault Weapon ban, 10 rounds? How many ‘Assault Weapons’ have been used in crimes?

It’s quite clear that many in favor of more gun control no nothing of what they talk about, and just want to lower the bar any way they can.

I think there are reasonable people on the side of gun control. Perhaps it is the gun control folks are the ones that should be given a course on gun safety. They are the ones that know nothing about it.

[E-Sabbath]

That’s why people who have guns tend to be very upset by gun control legislation. It’s like an Amish person proposing a national 25 mph speed limit to save the children. And being taken seriously.

Not always, but quite often. Sometimes, it’s like requiring a person to walk ahead of the car with a flag, though. And sometimes it’s like requiring the car to have its propeller visible at all times.

These laws, they don’t do what they’re intended to do, and sometimes they make no sense at all.

[enipla]

It’s odd isn’t it.

I’ve been a shooter since I was 9 yo.

My Wife is not. I have taught here the basics of firearms, and taken her target shooting on the 40 acres we own.

She dosn’t like it. That’s OK. I enjoy target shooting. She doesn’t. :shrug:

And both my Wife and I understand that the ability to protect oneself where we live is not a bad idea. It’s a bonus of owning some firearms.

I’ll guess that around here firearm ownership is around 90%. And interestingly, burglaries are pretty much 0%. We are not in a ‘town’, and are far from police ‘protection’ but there are about 80 family’s in this valley. And a number of vacant vacation homes.

I’ll ask the OP astro this. I own eight guns. Though I have never purchased a gun. I’ve been shooting for nearly 40 years. Should I be required to take a specific test for each firearm I own? I might, someday buy another gun. Should I just be required to take a test for that firearm? I know I will be buying another vehicle. Should I have to take a driving test for that?