The Truth About The NRA
The truth about the National Rifle Association is that there isn't any gun legislation or gun control action that they will approve.
President Trump has agreed to what is basically the least he could do and still claim he is acting on guns, he plans to issue an executive order banning bumpstocks, the accessory/device that is attached to semi-automatic rifles to enable them to shoot even faster. The shooter at Las Vegas used a bumpstock device to fire rapidly enough into a crowd of strangers to kill 58 people who were watching a country music festival. The NRA opposes forcibly removing this device from the nation's private arsenals.
“This blanket ban violates the fundamental rights of thousands of responsible, law-abiding Florida citizens and is thus invalid under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments,” an NRA lawsuit opposing the action states.
Why do NRA members or any gun owners need a bumpstock? Of course they don't, but they perceive having them as their "right". Let's just say that to the NRA, their rights are more important than innocent people's lives. Were that not the case, they would gladly agree to ban something that makes killing people easier and faster. Gun rights advocates, the extremists among them , do not want ANY legal restrictions put on the ownership of guns.
If they did they wouldn't go to the mat for the 'right' to shoot more bullets per second.
============================================
related
On Saturday the Trump administration took the first steps to ban ‘bump stocks’ by formally submitting legislation to ban the modification, which gives high-capacity rifles the ability to shoot as machine guns.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) submitted a notice of regulation which, it said , will “clarify that the definition of “machinegun” in the National Firearms Act and Gun Control Act includes bump stock type devices, and that federal law accordingly prohibits the possession, sale, or manufacture of such devices.”
Saturday’s move comes just two weeks after President Donald Trump said that he had directed the DOJ to propose the rule change.
“President Trump is absolutely committed to ensuring the safety and security of every American and he has directed us to propose a regulation addressing bump stocks,” Attorney General Jeff Sessions said.
The February 14 Parkland high school shooting in Florida has reignited the gun control debate in the US. Although the alleged shooter, 19-year-old Nicolas Cruz, did not use a bump stock device, Florida Gov. Rick Scott, signed a bill into law on Friday, banning the modification as well as raising the minimum age for purchasing a firearm in the state from 18 to 21.
However the National Rifle Association (NRA) filed a federal lawsuit seeking to block restrictions introduced by the legislation, claiming that it violates the Second Amendment. “This blanket ban violates the fundamental rights of thousands of responsible, law-abiding Florida citizens and is thus invalid under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments,” the lawsuit states.
A bump stock was used by Las Vegas shooter Stephen Paddock, who went on a killing spree on October 1, 2017. Paddock killed 58 people and injured over 850 during an open-air concert near the Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino.
As long as the NRA refuses to endorse sensible gun laws we must consider the group an enemy of the people.
But this is not a sensible gun law because it will do nothing to prevent future shootings. It amounts to touchy feely "we did something about a non problem and feel so good about ourselves" waste of time. How many shooters have used a bump stock. Determined killers will bring other guns or even a couple of hand guns with high capacity mags to do a lot of human damage. And then there is the inconvenient truth of such devices already owned by law abiding gun owners, and yes...criminals.
We're still waiting for some sensible and workable gun law. Meanwhile, the membership of the NRA soars.
Why do law abiding gun owners need such a device?
According to your 'logic' only known criminals should ever be prevented from obtaining any weapon known to man.
The sad fact is that many mass killers were totally law abiding up to the moment they massacred a number of innocent people.
Law abiding gun owners don't "need" such devices, but some may already have them, but as far as we know, killers don't get guns from law abiding owners unless the steal them. And we all know that criminals and gang bangers have arsenals of weapons, illegal or otherwise.
Saying "I'm not a criminal, therefore I should be able to have any weapon I want" is not logic.
I didn't say that JR.
Mostly because somebody said we shouldn't have them
I've used it once. I was faster with my own finger than that waste of money.
At any rate. Banning or restricting them won't do a damn thing to stop shootings. The fact that there have been school shootings is proof of that. Take a look at how many felons, who by law aren't supposed to have weapons, have them when they are arrested for a second or third time. Hell, look at the gangs. Does anybody thing every one of those guns are registered? The reality is, the gun isn't the problem. But it sounds good. When somebody comes up with a viable solution to take care of the problem of the idiot holding the gun, then and only then can real progress be made.
So... What would you consider a sensible and workable gun law Greg?
Since you have all the answers, you tell me. A sensible gun law would be one that is effective, and enforceable. The problem is, killers and criminals don't obey all those "sensible" laws.
A damn good one. But you won’t hear that from the left. They’re too busy spewing irrational talking points based on partisan nonsense and emotion.
Couldn't agree more. What's the congress doing about it? I guess we'll see. How about closing the gun show loop-hole? Bzzzt! Not likely.
Nikolas Cruz was a "law-abiding Florida citizen" until he wasn't.
Really? You seem to have a distorted perception of "law-abiding". Nikolas Cruz:
The Parkland school district's administrators, Sheriff's Office, and the FBI ignored dozens of reports and known warning signs that caused the deaths of 17 innocent people.
Thus defines the loony logic of the progressive left.
Apparently, that was good enough to buy an assault rifle.
As I said in comment 1.3 -
If the school district and law enforcement including the FBI had done their jobs and followed through on writing complaint reports and filing them in the local, state, and federal databases, Cruz would never had been able to legally purchase guns.
let us know when the anti 2nd amendment crowd offers "sensible" gun control. I've yet to see anything nor a good definition of "sensible" gun control.
It's too late, Americans. You've already gone PAST the point of no return. Due to your Second Amendment and its zealous defenders, the unbelievable proliferation of guns in the hands of ALL citizens (and non-citizens) including criminals, and the power of the NRA and armaments manufacturers, you've missed the boat, so arm yourselves to the teeth and just try to protect yourselves in what is becoming (if not already existing) YOUR choice to live in a dystopian society. Why ANYONE (other than the armed forces) needs guns that fire like machine guns is WAY beyond my understanding.
As I've said elsewhere, where I live as long as a person obeys the laws they have NOTHING to fear from anyone bearing a gun, whereas in America, even if you DO obey the laws, you have EVERYTHING to fear from others bearing guns. Didn't the patrons of the Pulse Club obey the laws, and didn't the students at Park Memorial School obey the law, and didn't the people in Las Vegas watching a music festival obey the law, and I could go on and on.....but it's a total waste of time.
Hmmm....Think about Tienanmen Square Buzz; what did those people do to have the police and military kill them? Oh yeah, they challenged the leadership of the Communist Party (the people who controlled the guns), and demanded a voice in their own government. I really don't see that as a capital offense.
what if they change the law?
And make it illegal to be Jewish. That has been done before, mostly to people who thought that they would be just fine as long as they just obeyed the law. Anytime you start feeling secure in a dictatorship, remember Krystalsnacht. The people in Germany thought they were secure until that event.
Got about a dozen or 15 comments from the gun lovers. Not one of those comments tells us why they logically oppose the banning of bumpstocks.
I will take it that there is no logical reason to oppose banning bumpstocks.
best reason to have a bumpstock is because somebody wants to ban them
If no one wanted you to have a live hand grenade with the pin pulled would you want one?
Your "best" reason for wanting a bumpstock is not a good one.
good enough reason for me to get a bumpstock, even if I don't install it.
Have not heard much about hand grenades lately and the comparison is not there
The comparison is that you say someone telling you shouldn't have something is the "best" reason to want it. That is pure nonsense any way you cut it.
why? is it too good for me or am I not good enough to have it?
just read that little blurb, I think the basis of the NRA suit is the age restriction , the bump stock issue most likely has a factor in the suit but to me is irrelevant since I A: don't own one , B: don't want one because I feel it is a waste of ammunition . C; I can do better without one.
so I have no problem with them being regulated at all , and an outright ban wont affect me in the slightest, just as not having a full auto capable firearm is not a hinderance to me personally, I CAN pass the background checks to get the needed permits and lics to get one if I ever choose to change my mind , and I do have the disposable funds to purchase one that is federally compliant for civilian ownership and following all applicable laws and regulations.
So why don't I already have one? simple , keeping a full auto supplied with ammunition is like trying to keep a teenaged football player fed during football season , they are empty holes forever needing filling.
What I CAN see happening is a separate class of long guns being developed in law and regulation, based on tactical design , being raised to the age of 21 for purchase, all others would remain at 18, if an 18 year old has to register for selective service , can join the military , vote , get married , and do everything else that a supposed adult can do at 21, then they do have a constitutional right , to purchase a firearm.
Now if I am correct and a separate class of long guns is developed , then there will also be the issue of will there be exemptions allowed? such as a 19 year old in military service wishing to purchase something they would otherwise have to be 21 to get. that would also be an issue if the age is raised to 21 even if a separate firearms class isnt made .
Oh and as a reminder, those too young to purchase currently ( those 14-17) usually have a parent or family member make the purchase , and it is gifted to them, usually for legal pursuits such as hunting , and target shooting .