Gun Laws in the USA

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

I recall when the NRA was a"gun safety while hunting and marksmanship training" club that everyone was proud to be a member

It became a political movement when?

I do remember those times. I also recall nothing more than a driver's license was adequate to purchase anything other than full automatic weapons. Heck, I remember the backs of every outdoorsy magazine being filled with firearms available through mail order. Mostly war surplus stuff, with no restrictions on size, magazine capacity, pistol grips or anything else. If memory serves, you had to check a box certifying to your age. As the regulatory environment changed, it wasn't surprising to see shooting organizations change along with it.

When? Probably somewhere around the Gun Control Act of 1968 would be my guess.

1 Reply

@roger,

Quote:

When? Probably somewhere around the Gun Control Act of 1968 would be my guess.

Yes, if you go back and look at the NRA ads I think you find that they turned political in 1971.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

And if you think that I am at high risk of being shot, you really have no idea what America is like.

No doubt Congresswoman Gifford felt similarly, speaking in public as she did.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Right after a mass shooting, polls generally start favoring more gun control, then NRA starts their lobbying and campaigning to start the debate and more time passes and the polls go back down to before the mass shooting until the next shooting. Congress is yoked to the NRA and by extension we are too. Oddly enough, members of the NRA want the same sensible gun control laws as most other sensible people. It is really a frustrating situation.

The following is an older article but the information is relevant to the issues. It was after Sandy Hook which of course went nowhere.

Gun Control Opinion Poll

1 Reply

@revelette2,

revelette2 wrote:

Oddly enough, members of the NRA want the same sensible gun control laws as most other sensible people.

That is incorrect. Members of the NRA do not favor your relentless attempts to violate the Constitutional rights of free Americans.

revelette2 wrote:

It is really a frustrating situation.

When the enemies of freedom are frustrated, America wins.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

background checks need major beefing up. Im still torn between all these tragedies and a rabid support of unfettered carry.(its kind of a baloney issue that you make about folks wanting gun control as being anti freedom--You should try to work toward something that can actually help limit at least some of these shootings, like the Newtown and and the Lafayette theater shootings)
Background checks now require someone to be "involuntarily hospitalized" for mental problems in order to fail a background check. I think stronger strictures via the mental clauses need to be safety is that they dont have anything of value to add (solution wise) except for that stupid Lapierre mantra.

Responsible gun owners who hunt AND carry, need to be involved to understand that they, by being intractable, are really pushing their "hobby" to a multigenerational precipice in which guns will ultimately be defined as a "privilege" and not a right.

A non involved Supreme Court can define our rights right out of eistence because we werent forward thinking a few generations back.
As Americans we look at long term strategies as something to think about week to week.

The concept of a well armed public will be able to stop armed bad beefed up significantly.

The problem with the NRA that makes IT the enemy of freedom and guys, so far , hasnt worked at all. Lapierre is not helping. He needs spme new bumper stickers for his membership.

I used to be an NRA member when it promoted gun SAFETY for hunting etc. Now its almost a paramilitary bullshit organization that s as scary as the klan

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Be careful on the so called background checks and expanding "mental health" claims. Some might think just wanting to own a gun is cause for mental health concern. You can not penalize the 99.9% of honest folks because of the actions of a few. Harsher penalties for illegal sales/possession? Absolutely. More thorough background checks? Absolutely.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

background checks need major beefing up.

That can not be allowed.

The Obama Administration is using background checks to bar gun purchases by all sorts of people who have the right to have guns.

It is necessary that free Americans continue to have the ability to purchase guns without any background check.

farmerman wrote:

Background checks now require someone to be "involuntarily hospitalized" for mental problems in order to fail a background check.

Not anymore. The Obama Administration has corrupted the system to such a degree that soon people will be failing the background check merely for having the wrong hair color.

This is why the NRA does not allow the government to make background checks universal for all purchases.

farmerman wrote:

Responsible gun owners who hunt AND carry, need to be involved to understand that they, by being intractable, are really pushing their "hobby" to a multigenerational precipice in which guns will ultimately be defined as a "privilege" and not a right.

That is incorrect. Our defense of our civil rights is not going to result in the loss of those rights.

Rather, by defending our rights we help to guarantee them.

farmerman wrote:

A non involved Supreme Court can define our rights right out of eistence because we werent forward thinking a few generations back.

The Supreme Court will not be a problem for much longer.

Note the current ages of the following Left-wing justices:
Stephen Breyer: 76
Ruth Bader Ginsburg: 82
Anthony Kennedy: 79

Come 2016 none of them will be any younger.

Eight years of Republican appointees will have people referring to Antonin Scalia as "one of the old moderates".

farmerman wrote:

The problem with the NRA that makes IT the enemy of freedom and guys, so far , hasnt worked at all. Lapierre is not helping. He needs spme new bumper stickers for his membership.

The NRA is doing just fine. They have absolute power over whether the feds pass any new gun law.

farmerman wrote:

I used to be an NRA member when it promoted gun SAFETY for hunting etc. Now its almost a paramilitary bullshit organization that s as scary as the klan

When the Obama Administration adds you to the list of people who are barred from buying a gun, you'll realize which side is really your enemy.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

That can not be allowed

aun owner wh seeks some sanity in the status quo, I rest .
You are a "SUPER ONE TRICK PONY"

You apparently are stuck in a "we cant do anything but arm everyone" groove.

We are on such different planets of reality
that all I can say is that my vote cancels yours.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

When the Obama Administration adds you to the list of people who are barred from buying a gun, you'll realize which side is really your enemy

wanna make any bets on your predictions?

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Why do you think Oralboy is so frightened of any suitability test? Could it be because he's not fit to carry a spoon?

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

You apparently are stuck in a "we cant do anything but arm everyone" groove.

I'm stuck in a "don't violate civil rights" groove.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

wanna make any bets on your predictions?

I don't bet money.

What would we be betting on? How you will react when the Democrats get around to adding you to the list of people barred from owning guns?

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

I'm stuck in a "don't violate civil rights" groove.

No, you aren't stuck in that groove at all. You worship your guns above all other rights. If you were really concerned about violations of civil rights, you would be decrying attempts to make it harder to vote. Voting is mentioned more in the Constitution as a right than guns are.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

If you were really concerned about violations of civil rights, you would be decrying attempts to make it harder to vote.

I do not regard measures that prevent Democrats from cheating in elections to be a violation of voting rights. Democrats will still be able to cast their single legal vote.

As far as actual disenfranchisement of voters goes, the only party that has done that in recent times is the Democratic Party. They disenfranchised the entire state of Michigan in the 2008 presidential primary. (And with one single exception, I've been voting a straight Republican ticket ever since.)

1 Reply

@oralloy,

So, you are not a defender of civil rights. You are just a loony toon that demands that you have more rights than anyone else.

The entire state of Michigan was not disenfranchised in 2008. Michigan voted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Democratic_primary,_2008
The problem is that Michigan violated rules so they were only given half their delegate votes at the convention. That did not disenfranchise the entire state of Michigan.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

The entire state of Michigan was not disenfranchised in 2008.

Yes it was. I was there.

parados wrote:

The problem is that Michigan violated rules so they were only given half their delegate votes at the convention.

No such thing happened. They gave Michigan all of our delegate votes, but they apportioned the delegates in a manner entirely inconsistent with the results of the election.

And the claim that Michigan violated the rules is pretty Orwellian considering the context of the events.

parados wrote:

That did not disenfranchise the entire state of Michigan.

Yes they did.

And I'm going to keep on voting a straight Republican ticket in future elections. The only way I will vote for a Democrat in a general election from now on is if that specific Democrat gives me an extremely good reason to vote for him or her.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

No it wasn't.

Political parties are not the US government. They can set up their method of choosing their nominee however they want. You do not have a right to vote for the party nominee. It is not listed anywhere in the US Constitution. The rules were set. You weren't disenfranchised.

You do however have a right to vote in the actual election held by the government. Preventing people from voting in a government election is a violation of their civil rights. You clearly don't give a damn about civil rights. You only care about your guns.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

Political parties are not the US government. They can set up their method of choosing their nominee however they want. You do not have a right to vote for the party nominee. It is not listed anywhere in the US Constitution.

I do however have the right to vote a straight Republican ticket in every single election for the rest of my life.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Sure you do. But it just goes to point out you don't really give a damn about civil rights. You only care about loving some guns.

1 Reply

Gun Laws in the USA

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know