NRA Letter

remember that one of the functions of the Wayne LaPierre and Dana Loesch types within the NRA is to be lightning rods for the left. They say outrageous inflammatory things, we get pissed at them, while never even thinking about the gun manufacturers behind them.

How many gun manufacturers in the U.S. can anyone name?

I hate these people.


We need to focus on getting semi-automatics out of the hands of the public. Australia and other countries have shown when those weapons are removed. Its not rocket science.

We need to disregard the the NRA 2nd Amendment bs, their hot button bs on tyranny and freedom. Forget about them. Simply vote out politicians who are beholden to the NRA.

We must not get diverted by bs solutions such as an armed officer on the school or armed teachers. There are large schools where it would take at least five minutes for the armed officer to to get to the shooter. Many kids will die in that time.

The real issue are the semi-automatics which can mow people down like cutting grass. Its ironically sad that in many states its been made easier for an 18 yr old to buy this weapon of mass destruction than a beer.


I'm pretty sure that every hand gun you can buy today is semi-automatic.  I don't think you can take them all. 



Red_Barchetta
said:

I'm pretty sure that every hand gun you can buy today is semi-automatic.  I don't think you can take them all. 

Yeah, but you have to admit it was a nice bit of rhetoric.

TomR



Red_Barchetta said:

I'm pretty sure that every hand gun you can buy today is semi-automatic.  I don't think you can take them all. 

Not quite.  The solution I would love to see is to ban all semi automatic weapons.  That would leave bolt action rifles for hunters and farmers who need them.  It would leave revolvers, which usually hold 5-6 rounds, for home defense, and shotguns, which are also good for home defense.



BG9 said:

We need to disregard the the NRA 2nd Amendment bs, their hot button bs on tyranny and freedom. Forget about them. Simply vote out politicians who are beholden to the NRA.

There aren't a lot of pro gun Democrats and those  who do hold national office (Manchin, Jones, etc) are unlikely to be replaced by Democrats who oppose the NRA.  As for Republican office holders, if we could have gotten rid of them we already would have.




BG9 said:

We need to focus on getting semi-automatics out of the hands of the public. Australia and other countries have shown when those weapons are removed. Its not rocket science.

We need to disregard the the NRA 2nd Amendment bs, their hot button bs on tyranny and freedom. Forget about them. Simply vote out politicians who are beholden to the NRA.

We must not get diverted by bs solutions such as an armed officer on the school or armed teachers. There are large schools where it would take at least five minutes for the armed officer to to get to the shooter. Many kids will die in that time.

The real issue are the semi-automatics which can mow people down like cutting grass. Its ironically sad that in many states its been made easier for an 18 yr old to buy this weapon of mass destruction than a beer.

Semi automatics are one pull on the trigger, one round exits the weapon. The analogy your using is misleading for the stated type of weapon.


FilmCarp - your solution works great until you’re confronted in a situation by someone who has decided not to turn in their handgun with a capacity of more than 6 rounds. 


Let’s face it, most of you are gun grabbers who have no idea what the original intent of the Constitution was, and are fine taking guns to consolidate power among left leaning thinkers. Oh, and the next time you see a story about someone being murdered in Chicago or Baltimore, or in East New York, ask yourself if the shooter was an NRA member. 


according to the guys on the AR-15 message board, they can empty a 30 round magazine in about 5 seconds.

https://www.ar15.com/forums/general/How_fast_can_a_man_shoot_a_semi_automatic_rifle_/5-964706/



Red_Barchetta said:

I'm pretty sure that every hand gun you can buy today is semi-automatic.  I don't think you can take them all. 

no, but we need to at least start somewhere. 




I've written this before, but I think it bears repeating.  There are several states that have more stringent firearm regulations than the majority of U.S. states.  Those states have far lower rates of firearm deaths than the U.S. average.  In 2016, the states of MA, RI, NY, HI, CT and NJ had firearm death rates one third to one half the U.S. average. It seems to me that the rest of the states could reduce their death rates by adopting the kinds of laws in those six state which would be fully compliant with the 2nd Amendment. Certainly there are likely other reasons why the gun death rate in those states is so much lower.  We can't necessarily expect that we can reduce gun fatality rates to the levels in MA or RI.  But it would be likely that it could be cut pretty significantly, just by reducing firearm accidents and suicides.  And no one's Constitutional rights would be abridged.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm_mortality/firearm.htm



ml1 said:

How fast can a semi-automatic fire?

That’s right, it can fire as fast as you pull the trigger. One shot, one round, but are they hitting anything? Your analogy to mowing someone down would necessitate the shooter hitting the same target in a consistent grouping or at such a rapid rate.



prisoners_dilemma said:



ml1 said:

How fast can a semi-automatic fire?

That’s right, it can fire as fast as you pull the trigger. One shot, one round, but are they hitting anything? Your analogy to mowing someone down would necessitate the shooter hitting the same target in a consistent grouping or at such a rapid rate.

it wasn't my analogy.  It was someone else's.

I'm pretty sure in a crowded indoor space like a school or movie theater, you don't need to be precise to hit a lot of people.



prisoners_dilemma said:

Let’s face it, most of you are gun grabbers who have no idea what the original intent of the Constitution was, and are fine taking guns to consolidate power among left leaning thinkers. 

I do not understand how gun control measures "consolidate power among left leaning thinkers". Not even sure what it means.

But "original intent" argument is one of my pet peeves. Every Amendment to the Constitution was passed by majorities in the Senate and House of Representatives and then ratified by 3/4 of State Legislatures, all of which had two Houses. So even way back at the time of the adoption of the Bill of Rights hundreds of men were involved. They all could not have had exactly the same "intent" or understanding of how they expected Amendments to be interpreted.


no single article should be taken as the final word on anything, but I figure a real Constitutional scholar knows more than the average MOL schmoe, myself included.

In the final analysis, Judge Silberman's claim that the public understanding of "bear arms" included the carrying of private arms for self defense is not supported by the historical record. To base one's analysis of original intent off an idiosyncratic use of language is bad history and misconstrues the intentions of the people of the past. Rather than accept such methodologically unsound analysis, academics and courts alike have a right to demand that originalism meet the highest standards of historical scholarship. While it would be unrealistic to expect every constitutional scholar to retrain as an historian, comprehensive digital archives offer one solution by providing legal scholars access to a far wider range of materials than the modern collections typically consulted for such work. Although the new digital archives are an important resource, interpreting Founding-Era texts still requires an appreciation for context and for the basic tools of historical methodology. Indeed, careful contextualization is crucial to sound originalism and reveals that the individual and collective models do not accurately reflect how Founding Era Americans understood the right to bear arms. If we are going to understand original intent, we must first appreciate the overriding concern for the militia and men's obligation to that institution that dominated the Era. Recognizing that the meaning of "bear arms" does not fit either modern gun rights or the gun control model should hardly come as a surprise. The Founders wrote the Second Amendment to solve their own problems, not ours.

https://www.law.upenn.edu/journals/conlaw/articles/volume10/issue3/Kozuskanich10U.Pa.J.Const.L.413(2008).pdf



drummerboy said:

remember that one of the functions of the Wayne LaPierre and Dana Loesch types within the NRA is to be lightning rods for the left. They say outrageous inflammatory things, we get pissed at them, while never even thinking about the gun manufacturers behind them.


How many gun manufacturers in the U.S. can anyone name?

I hate these people.

A point often overlooked. The NRA is just the ad agency, fueling paranoia and the “need” to protect. They’re awful, but they don’t manufacture AR-15s. This kid had hundreds of bullets in multiple magazines. NJ pension system is looking into its holdings. TIAA should too.



prisoners_dilemma said:


FilmCarp - your solution works great until you’re confronted in a situation by someone who has decided not to turn in their handgun with a capacity of more than 6 rounds. 

In a home defense situation, if you can't hit your opponent with the first 6 rounds you probably aren't going to hit them with the next 9.  Plus, all those misses aren't just evaporating, they are passing through the windows, walls and doors into the next room, into your next of kin and, in all likelihood, into your next door neighbor's house. I mean, if you have emptied your revolver and the intruder has moved through the first 6 rounds of their magazine we are talking about 12+ bullets that are going to be hitting something sooner or later.

I grew up in a place with a lot of drive by shootings.  Generally, I didn't worry too much about being a target but it was the strays that you really had to watch out for.



GL2 said:



drummerboy said:

remember that one of the functions of the Wayne LaPierre and Dana Loesch types within the NRA is to be lightning rods for the left. They say outrageous inflammatory things, we get pissed at them, while never even thinking about the gun manufacturers behind them.


How many gun manufacturers in the U.S. can anyone name?

I hate these people.

A point often overlooked. The NRA is just the ad agency, fueling paranoia and the “need” to protect. They’re awful, but they don’t manufacture AR-15s. This kid had hundreds of bullets in multiple magazines. NJ pension system is looking into its holdings. TIAA should too.

Ive wondered what would happen if someone with really deep pockets (say bloomberg) were to silently acquire a majority stake in a gun company and then just shut it down.  



Klinker said:

I grew up in a place with a lot of drive by shootings.  Generally, I didn't worry too much about being a target but it was the strays that you really had to watch out for.

Ditto. Who gets the front bedroom?



kthnry said:



Klinker said:

I grew up in a place with a lot of drive by shootings.  Generally, I didn't worry too much about being a target but it was the strays that you really had to watch out for.

Ditto. Who gets the front bedroom?

Nothing like a Saturday Night game of "Firearm or Fireworks"? That's one of the things I love about living in MAPSO.  Its always "fireworks".



prisoners_dilemma said:

Let’s face it, most of you are gun grabbers who have no idea what the original intent of the Constitution was, and are fine taking guns to consolidate power among left leaning thinkers. Oh, and the next time you see a story about someone being murdered in Chicago or Baltimore, or in East New York, ask yourself if the shooter was an NRA member. 

So what was "the original intent" of the Second Amendment?  Please don't say, "to be able to overthrow the government", because that's not it.

I'm very partial to the last statement in the quote supplied by Mr. ml1:

ml1 said:


Indeed, careful contextualization is crucial to sound originalism and reveals that the individual and collective models do not accurately reflect how Founding Era Americans understood the right to bear arms. If we are going to understand original intent, we must first appreciate the overriding concern for the militia and men's obligation to that institution that dominated the Era. Recognizing that the meaning of "bear arms" does not fit either modern gun rights or the gun control model should hardly come as a surprise. The Founders wrote the Second Amendment to solve their own problems, not ours.

https://www.law.upenn.edu/journals/conlaw/articles/volume10/issue3/Kozuskanich10U.Pa.J.Const.L.413(2008).pdf



If I may start a second line of discussion...

Yesterday I started thinking about the security office who didn't go into the school and resigned the next day. He has pushed back recently, stating that he was following protocol. From what I can see, he hasn't been given much of a hearing about that.

I think he's exactly right and has become a scapegoat.

Think about this for a minute - would the correct protocol in his situation be to rush into the school (or sneak in, whatever) and hunt down the gunman?

Is that what security officers are trained to do? I doubt it. That's what SWAT teams are for.

Poor guy.

And we've just become completely crazy. Even people who think they're pro gun control have bought into the whole heroic-good-guy-with-a-gun-saving-the-day fantasy. It nuts and shows just how poisoned our society has become because of gun attitudes.



nohero
said:...So what was "the original intent" of the Second Amendment?...

So what was it?

TomR



LOST said:



prisoners_dilemma said:


Let’s face it, most of you are gun grabbers who have no idea what the original intent of the Constitution was, and are fine taking guns to consolidate power among left leaning thinkers. 

I do not understand how gun control measures "consolidate power among left leaning thinkers". Not even sure what it means.

But "original intent" argument is one of my pet peeves. Every Amendment to the Constitution was passed by majorities in the Senate and House of Representatives and then ratified by 3/4 of State Legislatures, all of which had two Houses. So even way back at the time of the adoption of the Bill of Rights hundreds of men were involved. They all could not have had exactly the same "intent" or understanding of how they expected Amendments to be interpreted.

Shall not be infringed means the ability of the people to stand up against the government a la the Bundy Ranch when the militias stood up to the BLS regardless of your opinion on th matter. Or perhaps it makes collective individuals citizens by their ability to resist government overstepping it legal bounds. Isn’t one of the 8 rule for radicals to remove the right of the people to keep me bear arms this paving the way for a police state?


a perfect cartoon of the typical ammosexual. Though more well-spoken than most.

And oh, they weren't written by Alinsky at all, ya putz.

Even as a troll, you suck.

prisoners_dilemma said:



LOST said:



prisoners_dilemma said:



Let’s face it, most of you are gun grabbers who have no idea what the original intent of the Constitution was, and are fine taking guns to consolidate power among left leaning thinkers. 

I do not understand how gun control measures "consolidate power among left leaning thinkers". Not even sure what it means.

But "original intent" argument is one of my pet peeves. Every Amendment to the Constitution was passed by majorities in the Senate and House of Representatives and then ratified by 3/4 of State Legislatures, all of which had two Houses. So even way back at the time of the adoption of the Bill of Rights hundreds of men were involved. They all could not have had exactly the same "intent" or understanding of how they expected Amendments to be interpreted.

Shall not be infringed means the ability of the people to stand up against the government a la the Bundy Ranch when the militias stood up to the BLS regardless of your opinion on th matter. Or perhaps it makes collective individuals citizens by their ability to resist government overstepping it legal bounds. Isn’t one of the 8 rule for radicals to remove the right of the people to keep me bear arms this paving the way for a police state?




Klinker said:



prisoners_dilemma said:


FilmCarp - your solution works great until you’re confronted in a situation by someone who has decided not to turn in their handgun with a capacity of more than 6 rounds. 

In a home defense situation, if you can't hit your opponent with the first 6 rounds you probably aren't going to hit them with the next 9.  Plus, all those misses aren't just evaporating, they are passing through the windows, walls and doors into the next room, into your next of kin and, in all likelihood, into your next door neighbor's house. I mean, if you have emptied your revolver and the intruder has moved through the first 6 rounds of their magazine we are talking about 12+ bullets that are going to be hitting something sooner or later.

I grew up in a place with a lot of drive by shootings.  Generally, I didn't worry too much about being a target but it was the strays that you really had to watch out for.

Then you’re using the wrong kind of ammunition. Try Glaser frangible safety slugs. But your typical gang banger probably isn’t worried about what kind of ammo he’s carrying. 



prisoners_dilemma said:

Then you’re using the wrong kind of ammunition. Try Glaser frangible safety slugs. But your typical gang banger probably isn’t worried about what kind of ammo he’s carrying. 

Right.  Frangible ammo.  The kind where you get two shots before you jam.

Leaving questions of cycling and accuracy aside, what percentage of the handgun ammo sold in the US (outside of frangible only ranges) was frangible?  Was it .1% or .01%?  I can't recall.

In any case, you still haven't explained to me how you are going to hit the bad guy with 17 shots when you can't hit him with six.  It seems to me the solution to your problem isn't more bullets, it is the kind of heavy duty training and scenario work that ought to be required of anyone who wants to get a license to keep a revolver for home defense.


fantastic response by Dicks Sporting Goods today. If the government won’t take the steps, maybe the companies that make & sell guns will.




conandrob240 said:

fantastic response by Dicks Sporting Goods today. If the government won’t take the steps, maybe the companies that make & sell guns will.

I doubt the companies who make the guns will stop making them or ask for limits on buyers. The very many gun shop, the ones that have signage, stating "Guns and Ammo" will not stop selling to anyone they legally can. Same with gun shows.


In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.