Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Just because he has a bad website (and I agree) doesn't mean that he is not legit or that his point of view is less legitimate than yours. BTW, their Facebook page seems to indicate a pretty thriving training business, if nothing else.
I don't know what he's talking about with regard to self-control but I think the NRA has taken reasonable concerns about 2A infringements and inflated them to an absurdity. I support all they do for training and promoting safe gun handling but their political side is an embarassment even thought I agree with much of it. If we already have background checks for dealers (and internet sales), and laws that prevent any sort of federal gun registration (which I think the NRA supported), what is wrong with extending that to all sales of guns. In fact, it's amazingly stupid, in my view, that they enacted the current law but left so many gaping holes in the first place. Exempt family gifts, tighten down the straw purchases, make the database better , figure out a way to include those with mental health issues on the list, and enforce the laws! The FFL infrastructure already exists and it can grow. I see no infringement in this and it makes sense. Not one gun owner I know wants to sell a firearm to a person who shouldn't legally have one. The only way to assure that is to run them through a FFL.
I don't see why we can't agree that making the current law better is the right thing to do...not because it would stop mass killings but because it sense. Saying no to common sense just because you fear what might come next (again, a reasonable concern) just makes you/us look unreasonable in all regards. Deal with each issue separately and individually. Doing so might even get the left wing nuts to cool their jets and stop going for the gold every single time.
We have laws now, and they are not enforced in any way shape or form. What good is making more laws going to do?
Adding mental illness people to the list is not as simple as just adding them. First off, patient doctor confidentiality, is compromised. Secondly, do you add every person being treated for a mental disorder, or do you pick and choose? Do you add anybody that is taking an antidepressant med? As I recall, people that are declared mentally incompetent, by a COURT OF LAW, are already on the list, but I could be mistaken. You can't simply draw a line and say, "Everybody on that side will be added to the list, and everybody on this side won't." I have a friend that is on disability due to PTSD. He is on medications. Should he be added???? I might add, he is suffering from PTSD due to spider bites that he was highly allergic to. Enough to draw disability from the VA. Do you think he can still handle a gun safely????
It's not a simple "Common Sense" law that you want to add. We can't enforce the current laws due to not enough LEO's. So let's add more laws that can't be enforced.
How about, I realize this sounds stupid, we first try to enforce what is on the books? If they made one single stab at that, they would have an argument that the laws work.
all i know is i'm tired of all the rights given a criminal or suspect, at times seemingly more then the victims.
"3 strikes"?? Why give them that many chances. If they didn't learn after one stay in a cell, they arent gonna learn.
"out on bond"? (which at least here in SC seems to be when many perps commit more offenses). Drop bond for any violent offense. Especially where strong evidence is available.
"we need more tax revenue to pay for LEO and prisons". Fine by me, but maybe let me check the boxes where i want my donations (taxes) to go to lol.
" white collar criminals doing harder time then violent ones". Where the hell did that ever make sense in a judicial system??
i've often said here i'm new to gun ownership, have opinions that may not be shared by others, but also dont follow extreme views on either side of the fence. Just feel that as a citizen in this country, i should have more right to a safe life, then any criminal may have to do what they do. And if that means we really crack down on offenders instead of adding new laws or revising existing ones to please one party or the other? That sort of seems a no-brainer.
I'll add that i'm not ignorant of situations that can "turn" some to a life of crime, but to me those are excuses to be bad and should be reasons to instead be good. I've had family members spend time behind bars, I grew up in a violent home, and I lost a close family member to his own self inflicted wound after he couldnt take things anymore. So i've seen those sides of the fence, and have seen gun violence first hand. BUT that doesnt make me want to ban anything nor allow everything, just makes me want to live my life clean and safe, doing whatever is needed to reach that point.
I consider myself pro-gun but too many gun owners are becoming fanatics... and yes, that's bad.
The recent story of the 5 year old getting a .22 for his birthday and killing his sister with it is a good example of good gun owners arguing badly about gun control.
Who here would argue that it's a good idea to get a 5 year old his own chainsaw and let him have fun with it?Of course it would be inviting disaster... a young child just doesn't have what it takes to wield a chainsaw safely or effectively... both physically AND mentally.
So why is it suddenly OK if you swap the chainsaw for a rifle?!
One might argue that it's important to train kids how to use a gun from a young age, but I have yet to see real proof that an adult who started shooting at 5 is a better shooter than someone who started shooting at 14, 16 or 18 even. What counts is the amount of practice and quality of training... not when it began. Bottom line, a young child just doesn't have what it takes to become a skilled, responsible and safe marksman.
I think most gun owners realize this but they twist and bend to argue because there is a strong natural *need* to fight the anti-gun people at all costs... even when in the end it's just bait to make pro-gun people look stupid.
Somegun control is good! I am very much OK with violent criminals and truly mentally ill people being prohibited from owning guns. While I would really like to own a fully automatic assault rifle, it's probably for the best that everyone doesn't have one in their closet. It's OK to have some limits...
...but so many gun owners just refuse to say it out loud. It's true we don't need any more limits, but it's fine to say the limits we've got are OK too.
We have laws now, and they are not enforced in any way shape or form. What good is making more laws going to do?
Adding mental illness people to the list is not as simple as just adding them. First off, patient doctor confidentiality, is compromised. Secondly, do you add every person being treated for a mental disorder, or do you pick and choose? Do you add anybody that is taking an antidepressant med? As I recall, people that are declared mentally incompetent, by a COURT OF LAW, are already on the list, but I could be mistaken. You can't simply draw a line and say, "Everybody on that side will be added to the list, and everybody on this side won't." I have a friend that is on disability due to PTSD. He is on medications. Should he be added???? I might add, he is suffering from PTSD due to spider bites that he was highly allergic to. Enough to draw disability from the VA. Do you think he can still handle a gun safely????
It's not a simple "Common Sense" law that you want to add. We can't enforce the current laws due to not enough LEO's. So let's add more laws that can't be enforced.
How about, I realize this sounds stupid, we first try to enforce what is on the books? If they made one single stab at that, they would have an argument that the laws work.
I think you wrote in an earlier post that the person to whom you were responding didn't carefully read what you wrote. I will say the same to you. I said: 1) enforce the law, 2) figure out a way to deal with the mental health issue, and 3) fix the gaping loopholes in the current law that have the effect of making much of the law a joke. Thats not creating more laws. It's making the existing law more effective. You seem to be saying that we should do nothing more because it is either too complicated or too difficult to enforce. I'm saying that neither is true and it's about time that we get the morons out of the room so that the knowledgeable adults can start dealing honestly and responsibly with this subject. Nothing ever got solved by starting with "it can't be done" or the ever popular liberal approach "it's my way or nothing".
I was one who thought at first that maybe we as gun owners could work with the left to see what could be done to limit this from happening. They started with all the right talk, that they did not want to ban guns, they believed in the 2nd Amendment, but all too soon it broke down into, we need to ban assault weapons, magazines ect. It was like putting a pedophile in a room of children after he said he would not do it again and then he lunges at the first kid he sees.
So this guy comes in and says the same crap that the left has been saying and at the same time denounces the NRA. And I am supposed to say this guy because he owns a gun shop is spot on? Not a snow balls chance. If he does not like the NRA he does not need to have certification on behalf of the NRA to teach. Do not bite the very hand that feeds you.
I was one who thought at first that maybe we as gun owners could work with the left to see what could be done to limit this from happening. They started with all the right talk, that they did not want to ban guns, they believed in the 2nd Amendment, but all too soon it broke down into, we need to ban assault weapons, magazines ect. It was like putting a pedophile in a room of children after he said he would not do it again and then he lunges at the first kid he sees.
So this guy comes in and says the same crap that the left has been saying and at the same time denounces the NRA. And I am supposed to say this guy because he owns a gun shop is spot on? Not a snow balls chance. If he does not like the NRA he does not need to have certification on behalf of the NRA to teach. Do not bite the very hand that feeds you.
No...the left consists of uninformed know-it-alls who, when they see problems, go directly to the least useful, most simplistic "solution" they can conceive of (which inevitably requires a disproportionately complex and expensive implementation) and then they react sanctimoniously when they are exposed for being the fools they are. Working with those people is a waste of time for exactly the reasons you mentioned. This does not mean that the NRA's absolute position is either right or representative of its entire membership. In fact, some polls seems to suggest that most members support better background checks the way I do. THIS is not the same position as the left and I didn't see anything that this guy said that resembles the left's position. As I see it, he seems to be saying that the NRA (i.e. the association) does not consist of some monolithic point-of-view and the NRA's refusal to deal with this subject on an issue by issue basis, each on its own merits, only serves to fuel the left's agenda.
And, just as an aside, using the "Nutnfancy" moniker and posting on gun discussion topics when you know there is a guy who uses the same name and who has a popular gun-related channel on youtube is a little...well...wrong, IMHO. YMMV
Sorry I couldn't make it to the annual meeting. I'm a Life Member and I try to get there every year. But this year is different. If I showed up you'd tried to get me to help you fight a "culture war." But if there is a war going on, you represent the wrong side.
I just watched your speech. I think it's time you dropped this nonsense about protecting our "rights." Be honest and tell it like it is. The reason you're opposed to background checks has absolutely nothing to do with the Second Amendment. It's about making it as easy as possible for everyone to own a gun. More guns means more profits for the gun companies, and that's who you really represent.
In 2011, Ruger's stock was trading at $21 a share, now it's at $51. Smith & Wesson's stock was three bucks a share, today it's almost nine. I remember after the 2010 elections when it looked like the Obama administration was going to be toast, gun dealers like myself couldn't give away the inventory. Now we can't keep anything on the shelves. You keep referring to the president as an enemy of the gun industry. The truth is that Barack Obama is the best salesman the industry ever had.
And the reason he's such a good salesman, Wayne, is because you and your allies have spent the last 20 years making every gun owner believe that the only reason we have any gun laws at all is because the Washington "elites" want to take away all our guns. So when a tragedy like Sandy Hook occurs and well-meaning people react to such senseless violence by looking for ways to make it harder for guns to get into the wrong hands, you and the other "protectors" of the Second Amendment get right to work convincing responsible gun owners that such laws are aimed at them. You are protecting illegal and "irresponsible" gun owners, and lumping them in with the majority of legal gun owners who are careful with their weapons. That's because an irresponsible gun owners' money is just as good for gun companies as a responsible gun owner, and you want to protect your market share, even at the expense of innocent lives.
It's easy to cloak yourself in a holier-than-thou mantle of God-given rights to avoid looking at the facts. And the facts are that private-citizen vigilantism doesn't protect anyone from gun violence; it actually results in more violence and deaths. It's easy to disparage the 90 percent of Americans who are in favor of expanding background checks by telling your audience that some unnamed Congressman from some unnamed state hasn't gotten any calls. But maybe the time has finally come when most Americans are more worried about ending the 100,000+ firearm deaths and injuries than whether you and your NRA cult of followers can Stand and Fight.
For all your talk about defending liberty Wayne, I'll give you something more important to defend: the young children whose lives always seem to take a back seat to how many guns you can get Americans to buy. I'm talking about children at Sandy Hook, a 4-year-old in New York, a 2-year-old in Kentucky. There's something immoral about denying any connection between the deaths of children and the explosion in gun sales that you claim show how much we love our freedom. I'd rather have those kids alive, even if it costs me more than a few bucks in gun sales. I joined Evolve so I could be part of an organization that wants gun owners and non-gun owners to lead with solutions that can talk about saving human lives and preserving our Second Amendment rights. That's patriotic and that is a future worth fighting for.
While I think that gun rights people can sometimes hurt their cause by being to cavalier with gun safety, this letter is wrong on several levels:
you and the other "protectors" of the Second Amendment get right to work convincing responsible gun owners that such laws are aimed at them.
Who else would they be targeting? Since the definition of a criminal is someone who breaks the law, the laws only affect lawful gun owners since the criminals will choose to ignore them.
And the facts are that private-citizen vigilantism doesn't protect anyone from gun violence; it actually results in more violence and deaths.
The data on gun violence doesn't support this hypothesis. In reality, gun violence has been decreasing as carry laws has become more commonplace. Gun crime has plunged, but Americans think it's up, says study - latimes.com Oops. Unless this guy is upset about the criminals that were killed during their crimes, but that is a whole other issue.
There's something immoral about denying any connection between the deaths of children and the explosion in gun sales that you claim show how much we love our freedom.
Again, this is demonstrably false since gun crime is actually plunging. What is increasing is the sensationalizing of gun violence. What I find immoral is that the multitude of gun laws we already have are not enforced. I say it is immoral because I believe these laws are not being enforced because of a political agenda. If existing laws are enforced and gun deaths and injuries drop, then the gun control issue dries up as a political issue.
It's in the gun-grabbers' interest for their to be as much gun violence as possible. Without it, they can't advance their agenda. It's no different than the idea that it is not in the interest of political parties that claim to be the benefactors of the poor to solve the poverty problem. Get rid of poverty and the campaign issue goes away. Enforce current gun laws and reduce gun violence, and the campaign issue and political will to advance their ideological cause, go away.
I think you wrote in an earlier post that the person to whom you were responding didn't carefully read what you wrote. I will say the same to you. I said: 1) enforce the law, 2) figure out a way to deal with the mental health issue, and 3) fix the gaping loopholes in the current law that have the effect of making much of the law a joke. Thats not creating more laws. It's making the existing law more effective. You seem to be saying that we should do nothing more because it is either too complicated or too difficult to enforce. I'm saying that neither is true and it's about time that we get the morons out of the room so that the knowledgeable adults can start dealing honestly and responsibly with this subject. Nothing ever got solved by starting with "it can't be done" or the ever popular liberal approach "it's my way or nothing".
No, not difficult or complicated at all. But, if they don't, or won't enforce current laws with current number of LEO's, what makes you think they will enforce more laws? The current back ground check is not being used to prosecute, it is only being used to stop people at the face of a dealer and then it is poorly put together. They have the opportunity to arrest and convict some 80,000 people a year and they don't now. Adding more laws is not going to make them enforce them either.
I think I posted the wrong link. He did an interview on MSNBC. Here is the link that his interview starts about 4.38 mins. in. He does disparage the NRA.
That makes a lot more sense with what you were saying.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Mike Weisser gun shop owner wants gun control.
