The NRA has blocked gun violence research for 20 years

Some people in this discussion are coming off as very close minded even when the person they're debating with is mostly on their side of the issue.

Really now? I can't be a gun lover unless I worship the NRA like a God and accept all their teachings as the gospel? Some of you are starting to sound like the nuns back in my Catholic school.

 

In case this was missed, I think it's worthy of a repost.

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.

 

You're long on allegations and very very short on specifics.

 

Yea, that's it. You win.

Here's your pony.

K+(oooo)-/

Seriously now. Many of you guys are basically emphasizing my point. You're behaving just like the anti-gun zealots. You think there's no room for other opinions even when those opinions are only one shade of grey different from yours.

 

Thanks. As I said earlier it's something I'll have to prepare well. I see it'll be a real debate with some people who really know their stuff being up against me.

And there are no liberal talking points that are both pro-2nd amendment and anti-NRA. Which means my material will be all my own.

 

I don't want to. Hippies annoy me. Even the ones with guns.

- - - Updated - - -

I skimmed it. I'll read it fully when I start preparing my OP on the subject. Thanks for the link.

 

if you think that the best way to deal with criminals using guns is to support restrictions that only impact lawful gun owners, then you aren't pro gun

Right now its a felony for felons, fugitives, drug addicts, those under indictment to even handle a firearm.

it doesn't matter if the firearm is a semi auto, a machine gun, a single shot rifle or a gun that can hold 5, 10, 15, 20, or 100 rounds.

so, a law that bans honest people from owning

1) "semi auto rifles"
2) machine guns made after a certain date
3) magazines that hold more 5, 10, 15, 20 rounds
4) semi auto pistols

ONLY impact people who currently can own them. criminals already are banned

and laws that

1) require registration of firearms currently owned
2) waiting periods
3) limits on how many firearms you can buy in a given time period
4) limitations on how much ammo you can buy or own
5) or requiring people to contact the government when they sell a gun to another private citizen

ONLY impact that actions of people who can legally own guns. The supreme court has held that making a criminal admit he owns a gun violates his fifth amendment rights

so tell us which one of those laws do you support and why the NRA is extreme for opposing laws that only harass honest gun owners

 

Well, I for one am glad we have the NRA. I know they have lawyers that fight the government when they want to put silly restrictions on our right, and that is VERY important if you are a person who wants to continue to practice your 2A right.

 

Except that's not true.

Firearms represent 0.4% of all fatal accidents in 2014. (total of over 134k accidental deaths, with 576 of them due to firearms).



On the other hand, you have an 83% probability of being a victim of violent crime at least once in your life.

http://www.nytimes.com/1987/03/09/us/83-to-be-victims-of-crime-violence.html

I'll take my chances with the guns.

 

There's a big difference between worshipping the NRA and calling them radical.

 

#######

I want to clear this up. I'm not trying to avoid the debate on this issue. On the contrary debating is why I'm on this forum. When I made my anti-NRA comment I wasn't expecting the amount of questioning that occurred because of my simple statement.

Now I can off the top of my head list most of my reasons for thinking the NRA is harmful to the gun rights cause. However to do so here and now means having to defend each reason in a point by point argument against many people who are experienced at defending the NRA. I'm not actually ready (nor am I in the mood) to defend all my points at this time. Not when I see what I'm up against. So I'm going to fully prepare my argument and present it when I'm ready. When I'm able to counter the counter arguments that come my way. It'll take a few days because I actually do work for a living.

Also my points of debate will be my own. I'm not going to find many anti-NRA talking points which come from pro-2nd amendment sources.

Just be patient. You'll all get your chance to rake me over the coals. I I look forward to the debate.

 

Private ownership of firearms should be effectively banned. It doesn't take a study of their effects. Regardless, anything the government studies is little more than an effort to subsidize trial lawyers so the money would have been wasted either way.

 

Then what?

 

TurtleDude will buy the world a Coke and keep it company.

 

And you would have accomplished this just how?

 

I'm just curious what you expect to change once the president signs the law and SCOTUS upholds it.

 

You would need to be more specific as to what "this" is

- - - Updated - - -

The law to be enforced, beginning with the banning of ammunition in stores, which will stop most of the firearms murders inside a generation.

 

Who is going to enforce that law?

How much ammo would have been purchased between the first reading of the bill and SCOTUS approval?

We can't buy heroin or meth in stores, and that has pretty much killed the illegal manufacture, sales and use of those banned substances.

 

Won't happen, the SCOTUS has already determined this.

 

We already know it can't happen. The interesting part is what he thinks will happen after the miracle.

 

Law enforcement

Laws do not need the approval of the Supreme Court before they go into effect. They go into effect the day the President signs them or the Congress overrides his veto.

Then we agree.

The SCOTUS already determined that Separate but Equal was A-OK too, and then it changed its mind.

 

a civil war that made the one in 1861 look like a minor skirmish.

- - - Updated - - -

what do you think the time in office would be for anyone who signs such a law.

 

And what if LE's do not enforce the law, the same way they don't in CA, CT or NY? You're living in a fantasy.

 

They're under no obligation to enforce unconstitutional laws. In the red states, you can count on state and local LEOs ignoring it completely.

Are you accounting for the time it's going to take to turn enough red states blue to get an amendment passed? How many years will that take. Meanwhile, stockpiles are growing.

You should get your sarcasm meter calibrated. Those contraband items are sold unabated in every state.
[/QUOTE]

 

not only that, lots of police unions won't want their members getting wasted trying to do that. then the BM politicians will have to declare martial law and violate the posse comittatus act and that would mean all out civil war and I suspect the politicians who created a military state would be seen as the enemy by most Americans-at least those not sucking on the public teats