NRA Takes a Hit
December 1st, 2006
I have long been a critic of guns. I hate them. They scare the hell out of me, and their widespread acceptance is a disgrace to our nation. The gun control issue may be the first thing that got me politically motivated.
The attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan in 1981 left Press Secretary James Brady nearly dead and permanently disabled. For the next decade Sarah Brady championed gun control legislation, and with much fanfare President Clinton signed the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (The Brady Bill) into law on November 30, 1993. Over the course of those 10 years, I was exposed to a lot of information on gun control and gun violence. As an inquisitive lad, I read what I could find on the topic (pre-Internet). The more I learned, the more I grew disgusted with guns.
Throwing all firearms to the bottom of the sea would be ideal, but a more reasonable goal would be an outlawing of all handguns and automatic weapons. If you want to go out and shoot some deer, quail, turkey, or whatever defenseless animal of your choice with your rifle and call it a sport, then knock your socks off. But there is no need for Joe Citizen to own a handgun or automatic weapon - or some semi-automatic knock off of some military assault rifle. WTF??
I can already hear calls of Second Ammendment garbage. Drop it already. It was written to keep the King out of your living room when his soldiers all had muskets, and maybe you had to worry about a couple dozen of them showing up on your farm. The Founding Fathers never imagined the advanced weaponry that we have today. If the FBI wants to come into your living room, they’re coming in.
Boo hoo - what about home protection?? Get an alarm - or a rottweiler. Or get both, and keep a shotgun in the closet. What the hell are you anticipating that you need that Bushmaster A3?? Hey Rambo, that’s what the National Guard is for. Go get your rocks off there one weekend a month, and keep your big toys on base. Believe it or not, you’re not making your neighborhood any safer with all that firepower.
Fortunately for America, the Brady Campaign didn’t end with the Brady Bill. For over two decades, the Bradys have been combatting gun violence and the country is a safer place for it. The latest November elections are proof positive that their vigilance and determination have paid off. According to their latest report: 95% of all Brady endorsed candidates won their races; 80% of Brady endorsed candidates beat NRA-backed candidates in head-to-head match-ups; and, 18 out of 26 Senate candidates backed by the NRA lost their race.
That’s a good start - now let’s follow it up with some responsible legislation.
December 4th, 2006 at 8:24 pm
For someone who claims to be so well read on firearms you don’t know much! Must be all that enlightenment.
December 4th, 2006 at 8:30 pm
You say “I can already hear calls of Second Ammendment garbage. Drop it already. It was written to keep the King out of your living room when his soldiers all had muskets, and maybe you had to worry about a couple dozen of them showing up on your farm. The Founding Fathers never imagined the advanced weaponry that we have today.”
If the Second Amendment only refers to muskets, then the First Amendment must only refer to hand set type and manual presses.
Therefore, YOU should have no right to use the advanced communications medium of today (the Internet) to spew your ignorant drivel.
Now, hold on a second… I say “ignorant” not just as a pathetic stab at your opinion, but rather because what you want is worthless.
Sarah Brady’s personal crusade to blame me and 80+ million other gunowners for one criminal’s actions have been annoying, but only annoying like a mosquito is annoying.
Any gun control “law” or “ban” that you would like to see enacted would ONLY be obeyed by law abiding citizens.
Criminals would ignore the law and carry on as always.
If the law penalizes good people and has no effect on criminals, then what exactly IS your goal?
I own guns because they are fun, not because I think I’m some Rambo that’s going to save the world.
But, if the shit ever DOES hit the fan, don’t come knocking on my door, expecting me to protect you from the looters with MY guns.
You, sir, will be left with exactly what you wanted - naked, disarmed vulnerability.
Sleep tight.
Roger
December 4th, 2006 at 8:32 pm
jdkchem, what is it that I’m missing? Perhaps you can fill me in. Is something factually incorrect here, or is it my general animosity towards firearms that you dislike?
December 4th, 2006 at 10:16 pm
Roger, why do you need a handgun or automatic weapon to guard your home from all those looters (maybe you should think about relocating)? I’m not calling for a complete ban on weapons - just handguns and automatic weapons.
If a ban were put in place, domestic manufacturing would fade away, and the amount of handguns in circulation would invariably diminish.
And I’m not getting into 2nd Ammendment arguments here - they are completely pathetic, but…
“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
I don’t see anything in there about your right to own guns because they’re fun.
December 4th, 2006 at 11:48 pm
Guns don’t kill people! I kill people!
Seriously though, without debating the merits of handgun ownership, I would agree that automatic weapons really shouldn’t be in the hands of most people — especially the camoflage wearin’, squirrel eatin’, beer guzzlin’, pickup truck drivin’ (complete with missing taillight) , get-er-done rednecks you find here in Texas.
I mean, if you want to change the channel, use the remote, not your gun:
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cartridge_Family)
LOL
# Homer: See you in hell, dinnerplate.
# Marge: Homer, I told you this morning, no guns at the dinner table!
Homer: You said the breakfast table.
Marge: It’s the same table!
# Homer: A gun is not a weapon, Marge! It’s a tool. Like a butcher’s knife or a harpoon or…uh, a…an alligator.
# Krusty: Guns aren’t toys! They’re for family protection, hunting dangerous or delicious animals, and keeping the King of England out of your face!
December 5th, 2006 at 12:54 pm
Greg,
As I said, I don’t own guns out of fear of “looters” or delusions of Rambo. I own them primarily for fun (that is, target shooting).
Many people think that gun owners and CHL (concealed handgun license) holders are just itching for a chance to “cap someone” and use “self defense” as an excuse.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
I pray that I never have to use any weapon for any reason other than for fun.
I own handguns, rifles (yes, even AR-15 and AK-47 types), and shotguns. But, I don’t even hunt.
I have never shot an animal, I have never shot a person. I only shoot paper targets, sporting clays and watermelons (ok I admit it… I shot a can of tomato soup once).
Concerning the Second Amendment, if you read it you will find that it does not guarantee anyone anything.
Rather, it is a LEGAL PROHIBITION preventing anyone (i.e. the government) from “infringing” on the God given, inherent right to keep and bear arms.
Just like a mother bear has the God given right to maul to death any animal (including humans) who threaten her cubs, so too do we humans have the God given right to keep and bear arms.
We have the right and indeed the DUTY to protect ourselves, our families and even our fellow citizens and our Country from danger.
Each individual person may choose whether or not they WANT to keep and bear arms, but the Second Amendment prohibits ANYONE from telling ME that I cannot keep and bear arms if I choose to.
Imagine for a moment that the First Amendment and the Second were interchanged. Imagine that you and I and everyone else required a “free speech permit” to speak in public.
Imagine this scene: We are discussing current affairs over a cup of coffee and one of us says “I don’t like the way Bush is handling the situation in Iraq”.
Next thing a police officer walks over and demands to see our “Free Speech Permits”.
But, we don’t have one so we get arrested, tried and convicted of “Felony Speech” and sentenced to ten years each in federal prison.
Sound insane? Well that’s exactly how it is with guns and gun owners.
We really do have to put up with such extreme and unconscionable violations of our inherent right to keep and bear arms.
And, as good little law abiding citizens, we do it with a smile. We take the tests. We put up with the background checks. We pay the fees and taxes. We obey all the penny-ante laws. But, the anti-gun people are still not satisfied.
Why do we need “gun laws”? Concerning the Brady family and the tragic thing that happened to James Brady, correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t it ALREADY AGAINST THE LAW (not to mention immoral) to:
* Assault with the intent to kill?
* Attempt to assasinate the President?
* Recklessly endanger people with a weapon?
Note that the “Brady Law”, if applied to John Hinckley himself, WOULD NOT have prevented him from receiving the pistol he used! He didn’t have any prior record.
Isn’t that the epitome of irony?
Lastly, let me correct your terminology if I may.
An “automatic weapon” is a machine gun (i.e. a firearm that fires continuously while the trigger is pulled).
Machineguns are highly regulated. It is quite a tedious process to privately own a machinegun, and many states don’t allow it at all.
You may be interested to know that (to the best of my knowledge), ONLY ONE crime was ever committed with a registered machinegun… and it was a cop who did it!
I know I said “lastly” above… but one more thing: May I suggest that sometime you find a gun owner and ask him/her if they could take you shooting.
Most gun owners would be pleased to do so. Give it a try - see what it’s really like.
I don’t mean kill Bambi or shoot some person… I mean just try target shooting. Put up a paper target and try to punch some holes in the center.
You may end up liking it.
Roger
December 7th, 2006 at 1:11 pm
I’d liketo keep things respectful - however, your casual disregard for the letter of the Constitution seems out of place. Do you mean to suggest that because the second amendment is no longer needed we should merely disregard it? IOW’s the rights contained within the Constitution are only to be followed when they meet the political needs of the moment? Followng that logic why not shred the Constitution altogether and merely let the bodies that best reflect the political winds structure all of our rights - the various state legislatures? Guess what happens then - no gun control (save CA or NY) no abortion on demand (again save CA or NY) and no gay marriage (save Venus).
It’s dangerous to us all to suggest that the rights contained w/in the Constitution are are only necessary when they meet our current political needs. Lastly, the NRA didn’t take a hit at all - this last election was about the closes thing to a national referendum by the electorate as you can get and serious gun crontrol wasn’t part of the DNC’s national platform. Yes, the Dems are know for their anti-NRA stance but gun control in the Clintenesque sense is politically DOA for the foreseeable future. Let’s see how many presidential candidates make gun control one one thier main talking point issues and then let’s see how many of them lose.
December 31st, 2006 at 9:59 pm
He dropped out of school because “he was afraid to grow up”. LOL Nothing to see…move along.