1
   

Why I joined the N.R.A.

 
 
Fedral
 
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2004 09:57 am
Why I joined the N.R.A.[/u]
Mike S. Adams
April 5, 2004

It was just after midnight in January of 1993 when John and Tiffany left a party at the Sigma Chi house in Starkville, Mississippi. The band was winding down as the couple walked to their car in the parking lot close to where Highway 12 runs into Scott Field on the campus of Mississippi State University.

When they came upon a man who was trying to break into a car parked near their own, all hell broke loose. Before they knew it, they had been abducted at gunpoint. Words cannot describe the horror that John witnessed before Tiffany's life was taken. Shortly thereafter, he too was murdered execution-style by the side of Highway 45. Many tears were shed on Monday night when our fraternity met to mourn the deaths of the two young students.

After the murders, I had to endure driving by the murder site every Thursday night at about six o'clock on my way to Tupelo, Mississippi. My band played once a week at a bar in Tupelo called Jefferson Place. That meant that I had to drive by the murder site again on my way home at about two in the morning. The images got to me after a couple of weeks, so I called my friend David and asked whether he was still selling his .357 magnum. It was a model 19 by Smith and Wesson. I bought the gun thinking that it would be better to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have it.

After I moved to Wilmington, North Carolina, I sold that .357 magnum. At the time, my friend Barry Whitehead told me that selling a gun was always a big mistake. Three years later, when I bought my first house in downtown Wilmington, I learned that Barry was right. Despite rampant crack sales, it took almost nine months to get the police to take an interest in the drug trafficking in my neighborhood. Later, I bought my second .357 magnum and a concealed carry permit to go along with it.

In the three years that I lived in that neighborhood, I rarely "used" my permit by carrying a concealed weapon. Nonetheless, it came in handy late one evening when I was walking in my neighborhood and accidentally stumbled upon a crack deal. When the dealer asked what I as doing there, I simply told him that it was my neighborhood. He smiled and told me his name. I suppose that he knew I was carrying a gun because of my confidence. Two months later, eighteen people were arrested smoking crack in his house. I should know because I arranged the drug bust. I told him it was my neighborhood. He should have listened.

For those who don't know, the concealed carry laws that have been enacted across the land have had a clear effect on serious crime that most social scientists refuse to recognize. Serious scholars such as John Lott have shown that lives are saved as a result of these laws. Nonetheless, Lott has been shunned by academics more interested in showing their classes "Bowling for Columbine" than in actually saving people's lives.

Less murder, less rape, and less robbery would be nice unless, of course, it interferes with the liberal desire to take another shot at Marxism. No pun intended, of course.

As an out-of-the-closet gun owner, N.R.A. member, and hunter you can imagine the comments that I hear from disapproving faculty members here at my place of employment. When one colleague learned I was in the N.R.A., he asked why "we" think that everyone should own an "assault rifle." That discussion ended when I asked him to tell me what an "assault rifle" was. He didn't know. He just knew he hated them because Dan Rather said they were bad. Oh, the intellectual curiosity.

Of course, giving up my concealed-carry permit and quitting the N.R.A. would never be sufficient to redeem me in the eyes of the anti-gun fanatics here in the ivory tower. My status as a hunter is alone sufficient to condemn me in their eyes. Many of my colleagues who fail to muster compassion for unborn humans are staunch defenders of the local deer population. The fact that the overpopulation of deer causes numerous highway fatalities is of little concerned to them. And most would rather see a deer wrapped around the grill of a Ford Expedition and dragged down the highway than to have it experience a clean, quick death with the help of my Browning A-Bolt.

I know that my membership in the N.R.A. helps to neutralize these extremists, some of whom would outlaw hunting scopes because they are "unfair" to the deer. If you think I am kidding, think again. I have actually heard it suggested in the faculty lunchroom.

Of course, I really don't mind when the academic anti-gun nuts use the First Amendment to express their opposition to the Second Amendment. Every time they do, I just head down to the local sporting goods store and buy another gun that I don't really need.

When I joined the N.R.A., I became part of an organized effort to neutralize the wacky ideas of the anti-gun lobby in America. I also believe that the N.R.A. won the last Presidential election for George W. Bush. Even Bill Clinton says so and we all know that guy never lies. He isn't in the N.R.A.

Some people say that a conservative is a liberal who's been mugged. Maybe an N.R.A. member is a liberal whose unarmed friends were killed by the side of the highway on a cold night in January.

Link
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 4,278 • Replies: 98
No top replies

 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2004 10:56 am
I own many guns and I hate what the NRA stands for.
As an organization, the NRA couldnt give 2 squats on a peehole about my Constitutional Rights to arm Bears. They are first, and foremost, a Goddam lobby out to sell more guns . PERIOD.
Theyd sell bazookas and chain guns if there was some moronic arguments about out "Rights being Infringed" , and, there would be an equally stupid bunch of gun owners who dont get it , that would do the NRAs bidding.

I approve of gun ownership ,up to a point. Things like
teflon coated bullets, full auto weapons , intrinsically deadly weapons like sawed off shotguns, shouldnt be hawked by these clowns.

Thats my point and Im stickin with it.
0 Replies
 
Fedral
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2004 12:18 pm
The problem, as always, Farmerman is the 'slippery slope' issue.

If I came up to you and your friends and said, I am introducing a bill that will only allow the First Amendment to apply to specific accredited and acceptable news/media people that meet certain governmental guidelines, you and your buddies would hit the roof and probably storm Washington D.C. with torches like a bad Frankenstein movie.

If I said that the only way you would be able to write and submit news, print books or make broadcasts is to apply for a special 'right to publish' permit that the government could take years to process and could revoke at their whim, you would hit the roof and say we are living in some sort of Fascist state and the government has no right to restrict the 1st Amendment like that. Yet the news media has so vilified guns that people meekly aquiesce to ever stronger restrictions on our Second Amendment RIGHTS.

You may not like guns, but you have no right to restrict my access to them, yet the government does more and more every year.

If I don't like the content of your published work, I am told that the First Amendment GUARANTEES you the right to speak your mind as you see fit.

I agree with everything in the First Amendment and believe that it should be left unhindered and unfettered, just as I believe that the same exact rules apply to the Second.

Remember, if they interpreted the Second Amendment as broadly as the First;

You would be allowed to shoot someone without being able to be prosecuted or held liable for the death as long as you did it 'With absence of malice'


Just my two cents (pre tax)
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2004 12:20 pm
Guns to protect from guns only makes sense in a gun culture.

In America, gun control would indeed initially make the good guys unarmed and the bad guys armed. But when gun control is part of a nation's culture it ultimately disarms the bad guys as well.

Note: arm/disarm is preceeded by "to a satisfactory degree" in all instances.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2004 12:31 pm
fedral, I dont need some manufacturers lobby group hawking weapons . I said Im a gun owner (read entire post please). I just dont trust NRA anymore than I trust the "disarm America at all costs" gang. both extremes are unacceptable to this ole boy.


Craven, never works. Unarmed is just as bad as Superamed. If people cant handle a gun, Id rather they not try, theyll only get hurt.
0 Replies
 
Tarantulas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2004 12:31 pm
I carry a concealed weapon whenever I can. There are some places where it's not allowed, but in most places it is. In fact, here in Arizona you can walk down the street with a gun on your belt if you want to. I've never seen anyone doing it, but it's legal.

I joined the NRA a couple of years ago as kind of a "solidarity" move. I immediately started getting a few sporting goods and surplus catalogs in the mail, so I wasn't too happy.

I read a story somewhere about a woman who said she would rather be raped than carry a gun for self defense. Sounds like some of the faculty in that guy's story.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2004 12:35 pm
Theres a vast (maybe half vast) difference between gun owning and being an unchecked advocate for all the gun industry stands for. Would you carry a submachine gun just cause you can?
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2004 12:37 pm
here in Colorado this past week was a "call to arms" on the campus of the Univ of Colorado, the primary speaker (a young lady) spoke that she needed to defend herself on campus, she also acknowledeged that it is a violation of Univ rules of conduct to carry arms and that she did not "carry" of campus because she was too young according to state law to get a permit. there might be some logic behind this but I fail to follow it. (I am a gun owner)
0 Replies
 
Fedral
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2004 12:37 pm
Craven de Kere wrote:
Guns to protect from guns only makes sense in a gun culture.

In America, gun control would indeed initially make the good guys unarmed and the bad guys armed. But when gun control is part of a nation's culture it ultimately disarms the bad guys as well.

Note: arm/disarm is preceeded by "to a satisfactory degree" in all instances.


The problem is twofold Craven:

1) Even if you totally disarm every law abiding citizen in America, do you really think that is going to keep the guns out?
For God's sake, we cant keep drugs and illegal immigrants from leaking across our borders, what makes you think we will be able to stop illegal guns?

2) YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO TAKE AWAY ONE OF MY CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED RIGHTS. Once they set a precedent of taking one Right away, it opens the door to allowing them to take them all away. And you will have no way to stop them because all you and your disarmed fellows will be able to do is complain as armed troops lock the doors of the N.Y. Times and CBS for violating their new laws.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2004 12:40 pm
farmerman wrote:

Craven, never works.


That's not true farmerman. You will not be able to substantiate this claim.

Quote:
Unarmed is just as bad as Superamed.


This only makes sense in a gun culture.
0 Replies
 
Tarantulas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2004 12:45 pm
A swubmachine gun? Laughing

An SMG fires pistol ammunition, so it doesn't really have much range. I bought a Ruger Mini-14 for use with the Sheriff's Posse. A side benefit is that the Mini-14's .223 round won't easily shoot through regular drywall, where a standard 9mm pistol round will. Also it has a much longer range and is better at knocking over the bad guys.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2004 12:47 pm
Fedral wrote:

1) Even if you totally disarm every law abiding citizen in America, do you really think that is going to keep the guns out?
For God's sake, we cant keep drugs and illegal immigrants from leaking across our borders, what makes you think we will be able to stop illegal guns?


America has a gun culture. I like guns and would resist the effort.

But at the same time, nations with gun control as part of their culture do, indeed, keep the guns out. And there are countless examples of this and I have lived in several of them.

Quote:
2) YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO TAKE AWAY ONE OF MY CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED RIGHTS.


I never said I did, and I do not expect America to ever give up its love affair with guns, nor do I even attempt to advocate it.

I will however always point out that the gun advocate's arguments in favor of guns always uses a gun culture as the basis for the arguments.

Quote:
Once they set a precedent of taking one Right away, it opens the door to allowing them to take them all away.


Unless you further elaborate you've created a fallacious slippery slope.

Comparable examples:

Once they start making laws then anything can become a law and we will all be in jail.

Once they start making rights then anything will be a right and killing each other will become our right.

When contructing a slippery slope argument you must illustrate and argue why it will probably become a reality. Not why it might become a reality.

Everything is possible, you need to show that it is probable.

In other words, to avoid the slippery slope fallacy, you need to differentiate this. Almost anything can be argued to become a slippery slope ("start letting people dance and the next thing they'll be having sex!!!").

To avoid the fallacy you need to substantiate its probability.

Quote:
And you will have no way to stop them because all you and your disarmed fellows will be able to do is complain as armed troops lock the doors of the N.Y. Times and CBS for violating their new laws.


This is laughable. As it stands, our military can subject the armed population easily.

And furthermore this alleged slippery slope certainly does not play out in this apocalyptic way in some nations where there is very rigorous gun control.
0 Replies
 
Fedral
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2004 01:00 pm
farmerman wrote:
Theres a vast (maybe half vast) difference between gun owning and being an unchecked advocate for all the gun industry standes for. Would you carry a swubmachine gun just cause you can?


Carry, no...

Own, sure ...

I own numerous military class weapons. (My father was an avid gun collector and was trying to collect one of each of the primary U.S. military firearms from the beginning) Firing weapons is great fun to someone and as long as you haven't proven irresponsibility in firearms handling, who is to say what is 'permitted' or not.

I own a '03 Springfield rifle from WW One, it has a 'star bore' (one of the first barrels off a new rifling die) and is accurate enough that I have gotten bullseye hits at 600 yards. Does this make me a potential sniper? No, I just enjoy the challenge of hitting something at that range.

I have a concealed weapons carry permit here in Florida. I carry my weapon on and off, depending on my mood and always have something in my vehicle.

Am I looking to hurt anyone? Nope... as a matter of fact, I catch a lot of crap from people at the gun range where I practice because I won't shoot silhouette targets, only target bullseyes. (I feel shooting at something resembling a person bruises your Karma a bit with every round.)

I just like shooting, am not a criminal, have never hurt anyone with or been negligent with my firearms (Like 99% of all gun owners) and yet I am viewed as some sort of 'gun nut' or potential clocktower sniper because I choose to exercise my right to Keep and Bear Arms.

P.S.: (Farmer, I did read your whole post, but my original response was to the 'you' in general that don't seem to mind some restrictions on gun ownership. I feel that you and your fellows are trying to drag all of we responsible gun owners over the edge of the slope in the name of 'reasonable restrictions')
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2004 01:16 pm
Fedral wrote:
I just like shooting, am not a criminal, have never hurt anyone with or been negligent with my firearms (Like 99% of all gun owners)


If you're not a criminal, have never hurt anyone or never been negligent with firearms, why would you oppose, for example, the ID checks people are asking for when people buy weapons at gun shows? How else are you going to prevent that 1% of potential gun owners who has been criminal or negligent with arms from acquiring what in their hands will be dangerous weapons?

If the argument is, well, we need to arm ourselves because the bad guys can get arms freely, too, wouldnt step one to tackle that problem then, at least by ways of complementary measure, be to limit the unparallelled freedom the bad guys now have to even legally buy guns, at gun shows where no ID check is required for example?

On a more general note I'd like to echo Craven's point about gun culture-countries vs non-gun culture-countries. In countries like Holland, gun ownership is practically forbidden, its that strictly limited. Of course, the really heavy crooks are still able to get theirs through their connections, anyway. Nevertheless, however, gun violence, the # of its victims, etc, is incomparably lower here than in the US, with all its "self-protected" citizens. Same in many countries around the continent here.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2004 01:22 pm
A Quarter of English are Victims of Crime

Quote:
After Australia and England and Wales, the highest prevalence of crime was in Holland (25 per cent), Sweden (25 per cent) and Canada (24 per cent). The United States, despite its high murder rate, was among the middle ranking countries with a 21 per cent victimisation rate.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2004 01:24 pm
McGentrix,

Proximity, cars, wealth. In that order.

The stats on violent crime are more telling when it comes to guns.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2004 01:50 pm
Craven, Joyce Malcolm, a history researcher from Bentley has made some claims that appear to be based upon statistics and dispassionate data.
! Gun Control zealots make highly selective international comparisons of gun ownership and murder.
One example is England. Murder in NYC was historically 5 times greater than Londons (in the last 200 years when both countries allowed gun ownership)

In 1911 NY state began strict gun control while England didnt begin gun control for another decade or so. In that ten year period, The murder rate in NYC was still about 5X that of London, but there was complete gun ownership in England and gun control was in effect in NY.
bUT
starting about 1921 , post WWI England began gun control as a SUperactivist state, since then the gun related crimes actually have continuously risen, to the extent that London robbery rates are higher than in NYC (statistically aligned for population sizes).Not my stats, hers.

Gun control laws in England didnt seem to affect any major positive social change.

Im sure I can go search others , but this is the only one I know as a fact based upon forensic data.




fEDRAL, youre confusing me with Craven. Im not posting for distinctions and gun control. Im merely against the NRA, to me, this organization is nothing but a bunch of shills for gun manufacturers. You can be a gun hobbyist all you wish. I never questioned your motives or intent. These kinds of posts always have the potential to degrade into name calling rather quickly. Sometimes when we post something thats a bit controversial, we must expect differences of opinion, and Craven loves to pick up rocks and hand them out, so you mustnt be teased.

ONCE AGAIN ___ON TOPIC, the author of your clip was explaining why he joined the NRA and bought into their mantra. NRA, like a 12 -step program demands that the "member" buy into a great host of philosophical stuff., I can agree with some, ignore some, and disagree with a bunch. I am not an advocate for "anything goes" gun choices". SOme weapons have no business in the hands of citizens. My refernce to auto weapons (as Tarantula seems to enjoy) has to do with the fact that many kids, old folks, passersby, and residents in a neighborhood, get sprayed and hurt and (no matter what the penetrating power) KILLED by auto weapons each year. These are not target or sport guns.As are semi/full auto assault weapons (as gun owners I think we can agree that the journalists arent as familiar with the difference between a full auto "Klash" with one that is semi-auto.) I only consider the full auto AK as an "assault" weapon (Thats my own definition, no one elses).
I also dont like sawed off shotguns, RPGs, tow-missiles , and cop killer bullets. If the NRA doesnt practice some restraint to reign in its institutional "all'' things that go boom are fine", ill continue to oppose them.
NRA didnt start out as a powerful political movement, they were originally a benign group of sportsmen involved in their sport and fellowship. That day is past


nRA is philosophically against the limitations of purchase numbers for weapons. Like in VA , one could buy almost as many weapons one could haul in their trunk each month. These arent gun dealers . Why is someone stocking up on 50 guns a month ? I dont think I like that advocacy position of NRA. Why does the NRA not seem to be in favor of making large amounts of guns unavailable to anyone? if they are in favor of responsibility in ownership, they damn sure arent doing anything about it.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2004 01:53 pm
farmerman,

In no way shape or form did you substantiate your "never works" claim. All you did is ramble about unrelated statistics and say something about rocks.

Incidentally, I agree about the commercialized NRA, just one reason I cancelled my membership as a teenager.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2004 01:55 pm
Ehmmm, McGentrix ...

McGentrix wrote:
After Australia and England and Wales, the highest prevalence of crime was in Holland (25 per cent), [..] The United States, despite its high murder rate, was among the middle ranking countries with a 21 per cent victimisation rate.


You might note, perhaps, again, that what I wrote was:

"Nevertheless, however, gun violence, the # of its victims, etc, is incomparably lower here than in the US"

Total sum crime rates are meaningless comparative materials. Our crime rate is greatly boosted, for example, by an unparallelled occurrence of bycicle theft. (I should know, I stopped buying them, they get stolen straight away anyway).

I was talking of violent crime. Your own source already indicates America's "high murder rate". And that rate does make it seem like the more guns people buy to protect themselves from gun violence, the more gun violence there is.

Exception (lemme do your work for you): Switzerland. Muchos guns, little violence. Not many full auto weapons tho. Dunno about ID checks, but in a country like Switzerland, I should expect them to be very precise.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2004 01:59 pm
If you guys can find a good source comparing violent crime rates, by all means post it as my initial search was fruitless.

If you were packing heat, maybe people wouldn't steal you bike as often...
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Why I joined the N.R.A.
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 11/05/2024 at 05:34:59