"I was the NRA"...an observation on guns and gun ownership.

a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

could the lower numbers be because of Canada repealed long gun registry? i mean how exactly do they count the guns if they are not registered.....(in america or canada) im genuinely curious on this as i have never really seen that answered in any of the gun statistics posts,do they count sold guns? sold guns vs ones destroyed by military and police? any one have an answer for that?

The NRA has killed off the sportsman with their neglect and replaced him with the gun nut who spends more money on more guns, not out of a desire to feed his family, but to stave off a mythical jack-booted government bogeyman coming to take away those guns.

The NRA didn't "kill off" the "sportsman". Obviously, the current NRA isnt the same as it was 50 years ago. Not too long ago, it was basically decided by the NRA members that it is more of a necessity to now appeal to all gun owners, not just hunters, in order to preserve gun rights as a whole.

Those NRA members that decided to change how the NRA appeals, are now the majority, and the hunters are the minority of the organization. During the past 2 years, membership in the NRA grew at a much more rapid pace than it did in most previous years. "Hunters" can still join, make their voice heard, and have their interests defended by the NRA, but it just happens that in this current day and age, the gun culture in this country has shifted to a more recreational culture of shooting instead of hunting being the major part of the gun culture.

As for the NRA elections - Here's how the NRA is guided by its members. Every year, there's an election for the governance of the organization. Those that are allowed to participate in the elections are both those with life membership, and also members with 5 years consecutive membership.

a reply to: Loveaduck

eh a few problems with that
1 the mentally ill are a protected class meaning they can not be discriminated against and passing a law that only applies to one protected class member but not all equally i dont see flying.

to be denied a gun for being mentally ill or otherwise(non mentally ill have mental break downs too) you have to have be forcibly committed to an institution against your will for a 72 hour hold then you get disqualified and then this term applies "adjudicated as a mental defective" that is the term that gets you banned from gun ownership not mental illness on its own few links on it and yes if your labeled mentally unfit to own guns you can get them back if records are expunged and in theory if the atf re grants you these rights if they weren't expunged(they wont) and state laws can differ www.ncsl.org...
www.nytimes.com... old article (2011) on how many states are allowing former mental health convictions to be erased interesting read by i doubt it will comfort you

2. well say you pass the law bam no more guns for the mentally ill,now how do you find them or find out who is mentally ill? stigma is a powerful thing in the mental health community and if you threaten to take away something they may enjoy or that is important to them well congratulations you have driven them underground where they wont seek treatment or even attempt to get help for fear of loosing their rights and thus you miss all the legitimately dangerous vocal nutjobs who for some reason like to leave all kinds of evidence lying around in maifesto's/videos

with the amount of new mental illnesses being added yearly to the list i bet every member here could be qualified mentally ill dsm.psychiatryonline.org... check that link out and the ones below to see if you qualify as mentally ill

www.dsm5.org...

Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Autism Spectrum Disorder Bereavement Exclusion Conduct Disorder Disruptive Mood Dysregulation Disorder Eating Disorders Gender Dysphoria Intellectual Disability Internet Gaming Disorder (Section III) Mild Neurocognitive Disorder Mixed Features Specifier Obsessive Compulsive Disorder Paraphilic Disorders Personality Disorders Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Schizophrenia Sleep-Wake Disorders Social Anxiety Disorder Social (Pragmatic) Communication Disorder Somatic Symptom Disorder Specific Learning Disorder Substance Use Disorder

each one of those has its own pdf explaining the long lists and interesting things that can get you labeled mentally ill in 2014

and with hipaa as it stands now you have honestly no way of knowing who is mentally ill unless they are a threat to some one or themselves then a specific and strict set of laws apply .

3 we already have background checks mandated by law in most states if your buying from a store and not all states allow private party transfers,and no intelligent(read law abiding) gun owner would risk selling a gun to some one they didn't know in a private party transfer

For general reference, these are some of the latest numbers on Canada...


gunpolicy.org

The second number is from an RCMP report and other sections on that page show regs and laws with everything linked back to sources. (what makes that page good, IMO)

originally posted by: smithjustinb
I own a gun because I value my life enough to protect it to the fullest extent possible when confronted with any situation. I also own a gun because I value the lives of those around me enough to protect them.

If you are against protecting yourself and your family, that is a strong, negative statement of the kind of person you are.

There are many ways to defend yourself without the need of a gun. Only weaklings and people who know nothing about self defense think I have to have a gun to protect myself.

originally posted by: macman

 

 

I will rephrase.

This article provided is a

The NRA has actually worked a little more towards what the 2nd Amendment states, and less about some Politicizing Jackhole like Cuomo stating firearms are just for hunting deer.

The NRA was started to help protect the rights of blacks, then to education and safety. The NRA was not started as a "Hunters Protection Group".

It appears that there is a lack of understanding and knowledge as to the NRA is spread throughout the article and several people here.

a reply to: buster2010

Oh the old "Man Card" retort.

Yes yes yes we all know that you and others have the mastery level of Bruce-Karate-Judo-Lee and can deal with 4 people at once with your hands tied behind your back. Others don't.

Or, maybe we just don't posses your skilled level of reasoning with a criminal. Perhaps while they violate you, invite them to join ATS afterwards to talk about why they did what they did?

originally posted by: macman
This article provided is a

And that, too, is simply one person's opinion, albeit in this case, one can readily fall back on a famous Canadian and note that the medium is the message. Works on a number of levels, here.

I didnt join the NRA until they killed off the sportsmen. Or the Fudd.

If you havent been paying attention over the last 40 years or so the Fudd, the people who are the 'reasonable' ones according to the anti's, are the racist OFWG's who lead the charge to disarm minorities and the poor.

Reagan using the bigoted fears of the Panthers as an excuse to enact sweeping gun-control in CA is an example of reasonable Fudd restrictions.

Banning the inexpensive pocket revolver to keep them out of the hands of poor people is a reasonable Fudd restriction.

Banning firearms based on how many black people use them is a reasonable Fudd restriction. It was the Fudd who allowed the 90's AWB to pass which restricted the guns they saw on the news but did nothing to the wooden stock thousand dollar hunting pieces they owned despite having the same features and operating in the same way.

The NRA was founded to train newly freed blacks to fight back against the emboldened Klan.

During latter half of the Civil Rights era the NRA adopted policies of "common sense" which at the time meant appealing to the status-quo or the OFWG's and it began to bleed racist and classist ideals.

It wasnt until the failed attempt to renew the AWB that the NRA finally figured out it was time to dump the Fudds.

There are still plenty of Fudd's on the board and every couple of weeks or so one gets upset that black people have AR-15's and writes an article like the one in the OP but for anyone who has been paying attention good riddance and Die Fudd, Die. We don't need anymore uppity white people controlling one of the largest civil rights organizations in the country. If that's 'extreme' then so be it because to drag out a tired and too used quote extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.

As a side note I think it's hysterical that all these supposed tolerant anti's are using a bunch of old rich white bigots as an example of what the NRA should be. I thought that was one of your key arguments against the NRA?

a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

What opinion???

The author, and many here, have confused what the NRA was created for and what they are.

Seems that several here should join a local hunting group or wildlife fund, as that is for the "hunters rights".

The NRA was created on grounds of the 2nd Amendment.

There is no opinion given. That be the facts.

Sorry you and the author can't seem to understand the differences.

originally posted by: buster2010
There are many ways to defend yourself without the need of a gun. Only weaklings and people who know nothing about self defense think I have to have a gun to protect myself.

That is a truly odd response.

My uncle has been studying martial arts for over 30 years. He is a 3rd degree black belt in Tae Kwon Do and a black belt in Gracie Jiu Jitsu. He was the over 40 world champion at one point and can basically dismantle 99.99% of the population in a fight but he still owns a firearm.

During class he would often have open sessions where we could pose and enact certain scenarios; choke attack from behind, someone grabbing your arms, etc. and he would explain the best ways of countering the attack. He was asked on more than one occasion what to do in case of an armed robbery and it was 'give them your stuff'.

I am not a NRA member and i am a veteran, and a former federal security officer
I support gun control but not in the ways you think.

Gun control is being able to hit your target. and having a gun to be able to hit your target.

I support gun laws like found in the states of TX and AZ.

We have seen how gun control does not work in places like Chicago, Detroit and Calif.

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck
Note the quotation marks. I'm not the NRA, nor have I ever been (nor aspired to be). I found this to be quite an interesting reflection on the American obsession with guns. We have them in Canada too...from what I read, we may have more per capita, but we treat them differently.

I was just interested in the flavour of debate that would come from this well-reasoned (to my foreign mind) essay.

The NRA has killed off the sportsman with their neglect and replaced him with the gun nut who spends more money on more guns, not out of a desire to feed his family, but to stave off a mythical jack-booted government bogeyman coming to take away those guns. I was the NRA

LOL. "Extended clip" "hunters think they need silencers." The entire article was a load of leftist claptrap. First of all, NRA safety classes and instruction are still done, just as he described with men just like he described--in fact, the cop that you call in the US has most likely been taught by an NRA certified instructor or his instructor was taught by one.

He is wrong, neither the NRA nor the Second Amendment was only about sportsmen. Certainly it is part of it, but not the whole story--never was from the beginning. His premise is disingenuous from the beginning. The NRA was founded in 1871 to promote marksmanship as many recruits in the Civil War from northern cities were thought to be lacking in the basic skills and that the founding idea was that to promote marksmanship so that citizens would know how to shoot if there ever was another war like the last. Military rifle competitions at Creedmore and Camp Perry, using military service rifles were some of the first activities created by the NRA. The NRA started with military service and military rifles in mind from the outset, not killing pigeons. And his stilly and maudlin emotional story about his dad stopping to hunt because some idiot nearly shot his dog is so trite. He puts it in just to evoke an emotional response and establish "sportsman" creds.

The author of the piece is a blathering idiot with an agenda that regurgitates anti- freedom claptrap that we've all heard before and only idiots buy into his deceitful piece.

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: smithjustinb
I own a gun because I value my life enough to protect it to the fullest extent possible when confronted with any situation. I also own a gun because I value the lives of those around me enough to protect them.

If you are against protecting yourself and your family, that is a strong, negative statement of the kind of person you are.

There are many ways to defend yourself without the need of a gun. Only weaklings and people who know nothing about self defense think I have to have a gun to protect myself.

LOL. Most people who say that only have "martial arts experience" in world of warcraft and it comes off sounding like an internet tough guy with self esteem issues.

Okay, Chuck Norris, what about grandma and grandpa? Should they be expected to duke it out with a thug? A woman? A guy in a wheelchair? What about more than one criminal? They don't fight fair.

a reply to: NavyDoc

This is what many on the progressive left would think. . .

originally posted by: beezzer
This is what many on the progressive left would think. . .

Jesus H. Christ.

I am just appalled that two people opted to 'favorite' that.

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: NavyDoc

This is what many on the progressive left would think. . .

We don't agree on a lot, but I expected better of you than this.

a reply to: beezzer

That can't be real.....



Tell me that is a prank, photoshpp joke. Right??????

a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

I would also expect better from the MDA then this. You are right. the MDA should be ashamed of themselves.