The NRA has blocked gun violence research for 20 years

It's no more difficult to smuggle in guns than it is to smuggle in drugs, or even people. If our government is unable to stop these illegal crossings what on earth makes you think they can stop something much smaller from getting across our borders?

Just say for a moment there were no more guns in America overnight, with no more to ever be made in America ever again, how long do you think it would take the criminal element in America to acquire firearms through the very same means they acquire smuggled drugs and/or people currently? I give it two days before Chicago is knee deep in armed criminals again, only this time all of the good guys are unarmed.

How is that a good thing?

 

The fact that you are unaware that there are several organizations that defend the 2nd Amendment, is HiLARIOUS.

And here you are talking like you know your stuff, lol.

 

I've put the idea on my list. It should be an interesting debate. I'll make sure you're in on it.

 

I hope your laughter isn't keeping up your neighbors. If it is ask them to name one other organization besides the NRA that defends gun rights. Most Americans couldn't answer that question. I know there's other organizations because my dad (army infantry) is a big gun enthusiasts. The problem is those other organizations are largely unknown by the general public and so all the public hears is the mindless rants of the radical NRA.

 

@ Sinnik

And the phrase that you quoted in bold from me, doesn't say there's no other gun organizations. Read it as it's written, not as what you want it to say.

 

What is wrong with an organization that defends one of our rights? How is the NRA radical? I know a bunch of people who are members. ???

 

The NRA teaches gun safety. Not sure that I get where you are coming from with all of this NRA hatred. The NRA protects our second amendment right from creepy politicians and those who want to infringe upon that right. I think the NRA is a good organization and a powerful organization, and it's good to have a powerful organization on your side.

- - - Updated - - -

We've seen this play out before many times.

- - - Updated - - -

The NRA has fought against several studies being released, because those studies were bogus bunch of BS.

 

One thing I've noticed that sticks out amongst gun banners or those who want to restrict our right, is that they all say they own guns!

 

If you look crazy, it's only because of your own actions.

 

Maybe this would help you to understand the NRA a little better, instead of listening to the propaganda machine . . .

http://www.pulpless.com/jneil/indefnra.html

Excerpt: Most of what you hear about guns on TV and radio, and most of what you read about guns in prominent magazines and newspapers, is distorted to the point of lying, by writers who have a prejudice against private ownership of guns by the American public.

Most journalists today write as if the NRA--usually lumped in with the Tobacco Institute--represents only the commercial interests of "merchants of death" who don't care how many lives are lost--particularly the lives of our young people--just so long as they get to keep selling their product.

So let's get that myth out of the way right now.

The National Rifle Association of America is a 124-year-old organization almost entirely financed by the dues and small contributions of its 3.2 million members, not by money from the gun manufacturers. In addition to the NRA's other programs, the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action lobbies for the right to keep and bear arms not only of 70 million current American gun owners, but of anyone who might want to exercise that right in the future.

This media hostility to the NRA permeates the entire debate about guns and violence in this country, and allows lie to be piled upon lie. When NRA held a news conference to tell the media that a new Luntz-Weber poll showed that most Americans don't think gun control will reduce crime or violence, the room was empty. When Handgun Control, Inc., called a news conference around the same time to discuss the results of a Louis Harris poll, the room was jammed with reporters and TV cameras, and the media reported Handgun Control's interpretation of the poll results as if it were a papal encyclical.

At some point, you just have to ask yourself the following question: who knows more about guns--the millions of NRA members who own them, handle them on a regular basis, and have taken its safety courses ... or journalists who talk and write about guns for television networks and national magazines, but are often afraid even to be in the same room with one?

As a comparison, would you believe a writer who spent his life railing about how dangerous automobiles were, but who had never sat behind the steering wheel of a car? Why on earth would you believe a critic who spent his life telling you how to improve automotive safety but who had never bothered to get an engineering degree--and who dismissed the opinions of real automotive experts who pointed out the critic's incompetence and bias, sneering that the experts were "just mouthpieces for the automobile manufacturers' lobby"?

The press accuses the NRA of being the most powerful lobby in America. God only knows that with our rights to maintain the means to defend ourselves hanging by a thread, I pray this were true.

Part of the reason for the media's hostility to civilian firearms may be ideological disagreement with our philosophical premises. But part of it is without doubt the realities of how news collection and reporting works day-to-day.

 

So what? We have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms. The government shouldn't fund useless studies. You wouldn't like the results anyway, they aren't a politically correct reflection of our multicultural success.

 

You really mean to say is that the NRA blocked anti-gun propaganda, that clearly showed bias against gun owners and the second amendment.

- - - Updated - - -

And we hardly ever know what those guns are or if they really use them.

 

You apparently don't remember how it was used by liberals for political purposes. No need for government to provide funding for a liberal agenda. People also seem to think the only way a study can be created is with taxpayer dollars. I guess the libs want government to do everything including wiping their butts.

 

Haaa! You really didn't have a good reply did you? Let me try: Al Franken is a real gunsmith!

 

The gun banners were not around when the 2nd amendment was written. The NRA has been around since 1871 and the gun banners started their concerted political effort during Bill Clinton. Until the NRA stepped up to defend the 2nd, most people had never heard much from them. Since the gun banners appear to be associated with the left and democrats and their efforts have stepped up over the years, the NRA has fought harder and attracted the right and republicans including some outspoken critics of the left and democrats, thus; the effort to label the NRA as 'extreme' which has worked in some quarters.

You are not able to defend your gun rights unless you think you can singlehandedly fight a liberal democrat Congress. One of the reasons I have been happy with the sound defeat of democrats nationwide and now the possibility of keeping SCOTUS less activist, I don't have to worry as much as before but make no mistake, the effort has moved onto the individual States and there is a lot of big money behind it.

If the gun banners quit their efforts, the NRA could get back out of politics.

 

OK you are a gun banner. and there aren't any reasonable restrictions that keep guns out of the hand of dangerous people without disarming lots of good people other than the laws that ban felons, drug addicts fugitives etc from owning guns

Your argument proves completely that you are anti gun

 

What reasonable restrictions are you ok with? I think we should enforce the laws on the books already?

- - - Updated - - -

How so?

 

I was asked that earlier and I mentioned that I'd start a specific OP about it later. About how many pro 2nd amendment people (like myself) wish the NRA would disappear.
I want to start the conversation in a fresh OP so I can better list all my points and also to bring others into the debate.

 

Why are you against an organization that did not become political until left wing politics started attacking the 2nd amendment? Surely someone has to defend it.

 

I once considered joining the NRA but decided against it. It's not the left's propaganda machine keeping me away from them. I know better than to listen to the left anti gun media because I'm aware of their agenda. It's the NRAs own over zealous actions keeping me away from them, actions in which I'll discuss later in a new OP.

And I agree.

There are millions of gun owners who know about guns who aren't in the NRA. And we don't all find the NRA to be an honest organization.

 

The "scientists" the CDC wants to use are politically biased and warped.

This is not like studying the AIDs or Bird Flu viruses, that are simple organisms with no political agendas.

It is best to look at the demographics of high crime areas in the US, and compare them to similar areas around the world in Mexico, Brazil, South Africa---and then see the failure of gun control.

Focus on the bad people who harm others, and not the tools they use.

 

Unfortunately the gun banners won't quit.

I have friends and colleagues who are anti-gun (it comes with the territory of the liberal field I work in) and so I hear their opinions. The way they respond to the NRAs talking points and to the NRAs actions is with fear. They see the NRA as a scary and radical organization and since the NRA has become synonymous with all gun owners they then see gun owners like me as scary and radical.

When a cause uses fear to get its point across it just radicalizes the other side. I made a similar argument about the global warming cause in my largely ignored OP a few days ago in the "Political Opinion" section.

I suspect my anti-NRA but pro-2nd amendment OP won't be so ignored. And after seeing the lineup of articulate members who will go against me I'm making sure I have my facts straight, my eyes dotted, my tees crossed, and my panties washed and un-bunched before I post that OP.

 

And what exactly are these so called "over zealous actions" or are they just liberal talking points that are really meaningless?

 

What are the NRA talking points your colleagues fear and that you disagree with?

 

This ignores the fear mongering of the anti-gunners and their political abuses. For instance the Clinton era Assault Weapons Ban (assault weapon being a political invention for fear mongering purpose) was a feel good exercise that actually did not ban assault weapons but banned cosmetic features of said weapons and was based on CDC data and which ended up not having any effect. It was after that when CDC funding was limited.

Unfortunately for liberal gun owners usually associated with the Democratic Party, they are tied to the gun banning taken up by democrat politicians. Many of them wish the Democratic Party would drop the assault on the 2nd. Many of them are also against the NRA because it is now associated with the Republican Party but that association has been forced due to political ideology and naturally attracts the most vociferous defenders on the right which liberals cannot identify with.