One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
NRA is advised to give a little, so as not to lose a lot.
Page <prev 2 of 2
Mar 25, 2018 14:32:36   #
woodguru
 
Chocura750 wrote:
Would the NRA's life come to an end if long guns could only be purchased by people over 21 years of age? I don't think so. There are other reasonable restrictions which the NRA should give on and accept. It would be a long and difficult process, but I'm sure there are many who would favor the complete abolition of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment allows reasonable restrictions on the use and ownership of guns and I would advise the NRA not to approach each one proposed as the end of the world. There's wisdom in the practice of giving a little to keep a lot.
Would the NRA's life come to an end if long guns c... (show quote)


Our past is full of modifications to what guns the public should have access to, it was fairly well accepted that fully automatic military arms, and larger caliber artillery is not acceptable. I had a Barrett .50, with armor piercing rounds an oil refinery could be severely destroyed by someone who knows the mechanics of how they work. Huge propane tanks could be trashed with an armor piercing followed by a tracer, how about liquid natural gas cooling jackets, breach those and the explosion is profound. That .50 was bad to the bone, but does that need to be available to the public? I don't think so, and some states agree and have banned them.

Things like defining assault rifles...? I'd rather be able to get a semi automatic AR even if there is a magazine size restriction. Try to defend that and A
R's in their entirety will be gone. Keep dicking around and it won't just be no new AR's, we'll be turning the ones we have in.

Background checks make sense, guys with restraining orders who have been convicted of violent crimes shouldn't be able to buy guns. People who buy a gun for or even give access to someone who can't have one should be looking at time when they made a gun available to someone who kills someone. The key issue here is making guns unavailable, harder to get for unstable people who have exhibited violent tendencies.

That message to NRA, give a little or lose a lot is good advice.

Reply
Mar 25, 2018 14:36:02   #
boatbob2
 
OK,stop spouting that drivel,tell me WHAT you consider sensible gun laws,AFTER you ban cars, cars kill more each year,than guns ever did !

Reply
Mar 25, 2018 14:37:05   #
archie bunker Loc: Texas
 
woodguru wrote:
Now there's some good advice, I've been saying that if the right doesn't start giving on things like background checks, wait periods, mental health links to background checks, bump stocks, magazine size, there is a whole lot more to be lost.

California has been reviled by the right as commie land, the laws we have here did alter crime rates. I just want the rest of the country brought to the standard we've been living with so that is doesn't go a whole lot deeper than this state deals with. If society gets really pissed off that the right and NRA has prevented anything to be done at all, it will not go well.

I have a ton of friends who I competed in pistol and benchrest competitions with from back in the 70's. They like me own dozens of guns, some hundreds. They have all abandoned the NRA and support sensible gun laws. Moderates who have no problem with the sensible side feel like we are watching a train wreck, because when the left and middle gets fed up it's over in a different way.
Now there's some good advice, I've been saying tha... (show quote)


Awww geez!! WE HAVE BACKGROUND CHECKS!! I have NEVER purchased a firearm without one.
And you want the rest of the country to be like California? What if we don't want that? What are you gonna do? Invade us with dildos, and bongs? Your threats make folks want to fight back that much harder!

Reply
 
 
Mar 25, 2018 14:46:20   #
Michael Rich Loc: Lapine Oregon
 
woodguru wrote:
Our past is full of modifications to what guns the public should have access to, it was fairly well accepted that fully automatic military arms, and larger caliber artillery is not acceptable. I had a Barrett .50, with armor piercing rounds an oil refinery could be severely destroyed by someone who knows the mechanics of how they work. Huge propane tanks could be trashed with an armor piercing followed by a tracer, how about liquid natural gas cooling jackets, breach those and the explosion is profound. That .50 was bad to the bone, but does that need to be available to the public? I don't think so, and some states agree and have banned them.

Things like defining assault rifles...? I'd rather be able to get a semi automatic AR even if there is a magazine size restriction. Try to defend that and A
R's in their entirety will be gone. Keep dicking around and it won't just be no new AR's, we'll be turning the ones we have in.

Background checks make sense, guys with restraining orders who have been convicted of violent crimes shouldn't be able to buy guns. People who buy a gun for or even give access to someone who can't have one should be looking at time when they made a gun available to someone who kills someone. The key issue here is making guns unavailable, harder to get for unstable people who have exhibited violent tendencies.

That message to NRA, give a little or lose a lot is good advice.
Our past is full of modifications to what guns the... (show quote)


So,..did you turn in your 50 caliber, because it was tempting you, to do bad things with it?

Reply
Mar 25, 2018 20:50:39   #
Gatsby
 
The Barrett .50 has been around for quite a while, provide just one instance of a Barrett .50 being used to commit a crime of violence.

Since you question the need for the Barrett .50 to be available to the public, what did you do with yours, turn it in for destruction,

or put it back into that dreaded public circulation, by selling it?
woodguru wrote:
Our past is full of modifications to what guns the public should have access to, it was fairly well accepted that fully automatic military arms, and larger caliber artillery is not acceptable. I had a Barrett .50, with armor piercing rounds an oil refinery could be severely destroyed by someone who knows the mechanics of how they work. Huge propane tanks could be trashed with an armor piercing followed by a tracer, how about liquid natural gas cooling jackets, breach those and the explosion is profound. That .50 was bad to the bone, but does that need to be available to the public? I don't think so, and some states agree and have banned them.

Things like defining assault rifles...? I'd rather be able to get a semi automatic AR even if there is a magazine size restriction. Try to defend that and A
R's in their entirety will be gone. Keep dicking around and it won't just be no new AR's, we'll be turning the ones we have in.

Background checks make sense, guys with restraining orders who have been convicted of violent crimes shouldn't be able to buy guns. People who buy a gun for or even give access to someone who can't have one should be looking at time when they made a gun available to someone who kills someone. The key issue here is making guns unavailable, harder to get for unstable people who have exhibited violent tendencies.

That message to NRA, give a little or lose a lot is good advice.
Our past is full of modifications to what guns the... (show quote)

Reply
Mar 26, 2018 05:38:45   #
Loki Loc: Georgia
 
byronglimish wrote:
Absolutely, how could we be recruiting young men and women of eighteen for military service and not allowed them to possess a personal gun at home..
Raising the age of military service to 21 seems like a good idea in itself..
Without denying their right to buy a gun until 21..
All of the families who hunt together would be deprived of that tradition of presenting guns to young hunter's..along with proper safety guide lines..

I would like to know how many 'mass shooters' have a hunting license or how many are NRA members
Absolutely, how could we be recruiting young men a... (show quote)


The answer to your last question is none.

Reply
Mar 26, 2018 05:39:34   #
Loki Loc: Georgia
 
archie bunker wrote:
Awww geez!! WE HAVE BACKGROUND CHECKS!! I have NEVER purchased a firearm without one.
And you want the rest of the country to be like California? What if we don't want that? What are you gonna do? Invade us with dildos, and bongs? Your threats make folks want to fight back that much harder!



No, it will be biological warfare. Unicorn fart stink bombs.

Reply
 
 
Mar 26, 2018 10:13:42   #
SGM B Loc: TEXAS but live in Alabama now
 
archie bunker wrote:
I'm good with that as long as they raise the age for military service to 21.

Your mention of abolishing the 2nd Amendment almost sounds like a threat to me. Give you what you want, or else!

Well then, get after it! Go ahead and see if you can get er done! I dare you!


Don't forget returning the voting age to 21 Arch...or maybe 31.

Reply
Mar 26, 2018 10:15:32   #
SGM B Loc: TEXAS but live in Alabama now
 
Chocura750 wrote:
I personally don't want to abolish the Second Amendment, since I like Ralphie in "The Christmas Story" want to be able to pick off the righties when they come over the back wall. The slippery slope argument doesn't persuade me. By opposing everything the NRA will solidify its image as a bunch radicals as nuts as it's president.


You will "just shoot your eye out".

Reply
Mar 26, 2018 17:35:47   #
maryjane
 
Chocura750 wrote:
Would the NRA's life come to an end if long guns could only be purchased by people over 21 years of age? I don't think so. There are other reasonable restrictions which the NRA should give on and accept. It would be a long and difficult process, but I'm sure there are many who would favor the complete abolition of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment allows reasonable restrictions on the use and ownership of guns and I would advise the NRA not to approach each one proposed as the end of the world. There's wisdom in the practice of giving a little to keep a lot.
Would the NRA's life come to an end if long guns c... (show quote)


I do not own a gun, but support all parts of our constitution including the right to bear arms. I agree with your advice to the NRA. I support women having the abortion choice, at least for certain situations, but am appalled at the pro abortion group's unwillingness to have ANY limits on abortions, even pushing for abortions right up to birth. This is a big turn off for me. I believe in the right to bear arms responsibly and have always disliked the stance of the NRA of being against ANY AND ALL limits to gun ownership. Both the NRA and the pro-abortion people have taken things too far, unwilling to use any commonsense. Just like our congressional democrats unwilling to agree to anything EXCEPT exactly what they want, not willing to give an inch no matter what.

Reply
Mar 26, 2018 17:41:22   #
maryjane
 
boatbob2 wrote:
The problem,of allowing our government,to raise the age to buy rifles to 21 is,IF,you give in to this,without a fight,WHAT,do they want to do next?Maybe take guns from everyone over 65 yrears of age? what the libs,demoncrats and gun haters fail to realize is,MORE people were killed by Doctors,and OPIODS (46,000) dead in 2016,...cars,knifes,cell phones (used while driving) skateboards,base ball bats,fists,motorcycles,bicycles ALL killed a number of people,lets ban ALL of those things,THEN,WE can talk about guns.....
The problem,of allowing our government,to raise th... (show quote)


I know this is the argument always used by the NRA, but are you absolutely sure you are correct? Suppose, everyone agrees to the issue of no guns until age 21 and later, the anti gun people try something else, couldn't you fight then? Please don't get mad at me, I'm just asking, because life shows us that seldom does anyone get ALL they want.

Reply
 
 
Mar 26, 2018 23:21:21   #
Larry the Legend Loc: Not hiding in Milton
 
maryjane wrote:
I do not own a gun, but support all parts of our constitution including the right to bear arms. I agree with your advice to the NRA. I support women having the abortion choice, at least for certain situations, but am appalled at the pro abortion group's unwillingness to have ANY limits on abortions, even pushing for abortions right up to birth. This is a big turn off for me. I believe in the right to bear arms responsibly and have always disliked the stance of the NRA of being against ANY AND ALL limits to gun ownership. Both the NRA and the pro-abortion people have taken things too far, unwilling to use any commonsense. Just like our congressional democrats unwilling to agree to anything EXCEPT exactly what they want, not willing to give an inch no matter what.
I do not own a gun, but support all parts of our c... (show quote)


Hi Maryjane. Loki got a week in the cooler for calling someone a bad name so he asked me to post this for him to you:

"You are apparently misinformed about the NRA's opposition to any gun control. They were the main proponents of the current instant background check that is responsible for catching literally thousands of prohibited buyers. They pushed hard for an updated computerized base of criminals and prohibited people.
The NRA supports very stiff penalties for crimes committed with firearms, which has been proven repeatedly to be an effective deterrent.
The NRA opposes useless and redundant laws that are nearly impossible to implement and enforce properly. For instance, there IS no "gun show loophole. Only about 2% of guns sold at these shows are bought from a private individual. I have yet to see the first report of one of these guns being used in a crime by the purchaser.
You cannot regulate private firearms sales effectively.
How 3 ten round magazines are less dangerous than one 30 is an interesting question, particularly when the 10 rounders are more reliable.
This is the tip of the iceberg. The NRA supports many common sense, workable solutions to gun violence. They just limit their support to those proposals that are doable and workable.."

If you reply he'll be able to see it but will probably need me to post if he wants to continue the conversation.

Reply
Mar 27, 2018 08:53:06   #
Gatsby
 
A bit of fact on high capacity magazines, 3 shot limit, in the U.K., home to some of strictest gun control anywhere!

Taxi driver Derrick Bird killed 12 people and ingured 11 others before turning the gun on himself.

Bird had a shotgun certificate and a firearms licence for weapons for pest control and to go clay pigeon shooting for 20 years.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/knife-gun-crime-stats-latest-england-wales-rise-increase-a8177161.html

http://www.bbc.com/news/10220974

http://www.newsweek.com/britains-gun-laws-who-can-own-firearm-471473





Larry the Legend wrote:
Hi Maryjane. Loki got a week in the cooler for calling someone a bad name so he asked me to post this for him to you:

"You are apparently misinformed about the NRA's opposition to any gun control. They were the main proponents of the current instant background check that is responsible for catching literally thousands of prohibited buyers. They pushed hard for an updated computerized base of criminals and prohibited people.
The NRA supports very stiff penalties for crimes committed with firearms, which has been proven repeatedly to be an effective deterrent.
The NRA opposes useless and redundant laws that are nearly impossible to implement and enforce properly. For instance, there IS no "gun show loophole. Only about 2% of guns sold at these shows are bought from a private individual. I have yet to see the first report of one of these guns being used in a crime by the purchaser.
You cannot regulate private firearms sales effectively.
How 3 ten round magazines are less dangerous than one 30 is an interesting question, particularly when the 10 rounders are more reliable.
This is the tip of the iceberg. The NRA supports many common sense, workable solutions to gun violence. They just limit their support to those proposals that are doable and workable.."

If you reply he'll be able to see it but will probably need me to post if he wants to continue the conversation.
Hi Maryjane. Loki got a week in the cooler for ca... (show quote)

Reply
Mar 27, 2018 19:10:57   #
maryjane
 
Larry the Legend wrote:
Hi Maryjane. Loki got a week in the cooler for calling someone a bad name so he asked me to post this for him to you:

"You are apparently misinformed about the NRA's opposition to any gun control. They were the main proponents of the current instant background check that is responsible for catching literally thousands of prohibited buyers. They pushed hard for an updated computerized base of criminals and prohibited people.
The NRA supports very stiff penalties for crimes committed with firearms, which has been proven repeatedly to be an effective deterrent.
The NRA opposes useless and redundant laws that are nearly impossible to implement and enforce properly. For instance, there IS no "gun show loophole. Only about 2% of guns sold at these shows are bought from a private individual. I have yet to see the first report of one of these guns being used in a crime by the purchaser.
You cannot regulate private firearms sales effectively.
How 3 ten round magazines are less dangerous than one 30 is an interesting question, particularly when the 10 rounders are more reliable.
This is the tip of the iceberg. The NRA supports many common sense, workable solutions to gun violence. They just limit their support to those proposals that are doable and workable.."

If you reply he'll be able to see it but will probably need me to post if he wants to continue the conversation.
Hi Maryjane. Loki got a week in the cooler for ca... (show quote)


Thank you for answering my question with facts. That was exactly what I asked for. Since I have never owned guns nor grew up in a family that hunted, etc, I am lacking in true information about the NRA. But that doesn't prevent me from being against any changing of our constitutional rights, including gun ownership.

Reply
Page <prev 2 of 2
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.