Time to join the NRA....

[kingofthedemo]

Originally Posted by TMNT

I don't trust the NRA and I'm a proud gun owner.

I think they're more of a voice for the gun manufacturers, suppliers, ect. but hide under the guise of the voice for the American gun rights advocate. I think their drop in lobbying power/membership over the years paints that picture.

Sure they've done some good, but they've also gone silent and disappear when major violent crimes happen in this country. The Sandy Hook shooting comes to mind. I can't support any group that tries to weaken background checks already in the books. I think most Americans would agree that background checks are a good thing.

Beggars can't be choosers, the bottom line is the fact that they are advocates who fight for personal gun rights, they are a large and powerful organization that has accomplished a great deal for gun owners and they continue to. Look at what was mentioned earlier in this thread, for example, they put enough pressure on Chicago, and Illinois, and now they have CCW permits for the first time!

[MisterSkiMask]

Originally Posted by TMNT

I don't trust the NRA and I'm a proud gun owner.

I think they're more of a voice for the gun manufacturers, suppliers, ect. but hide under the guise of the voice for the American gun rights advocate. I think their drop in lobbying power/membership over the years paints that picture.

Sure they've done some good, but they've also gone silent and disappear when major violent crimes happen in this country. The Sandy Hook shooting comes to mind. I can't support any group that tries to weaken background checks already in the books. I think most Americans would agree that background checks are a good thing.

I agree to a point, but without them we have no voice. It is unfortunate that we have to come up with ways to buy votes, but that is the system that we have.

[TMNT]

Yea, I understand and agree. They're more like a double-edged sword to me.

Now if they can change California's CCW laws (plan to move there) I don't like the fact that you have to "justify" why you should have one and the sheriff/police can deny you without cause, then I might have a reason to support them

[carve]

I agree as well, which is why I didn't bother joining until this week when Obama implied he was going to implement new gun control measures.

[MisterSkiMask]

Originally Posted by TMNT

Yea, I understand and agree. They're more like a double-edged sword to me.

Now if they can change California's CCW laws (plan to move there) I don't like the fact that you have to "justify" why you should have one and the sheriff/police can deny you without cause, then I might have a reason to support them

what county are you moving to?

[MteK]

Originally Posted by carve

I agree as well, which is why I didn't bother joining until this week when Obama implied he was going to implement new gun control measures.

And what's wrong with sensible gun control measures? I'm former military and gun owner and can't see a justification for high capacity magazines.

As long as the NRA fights all forms of gun control then I'll have no business with them.

[TMNT]

Originally Posted by MisterSkiMask

what county are you moving to?

San Diego, got any tips?

[MisterSkiMask]

Originally Posted by TMNT

San Diego, got any tips?

join calguns

I don't know about SD, I suspect they won't issue many permits, most Bay Area counties don't issue.

[carve]

Originally Posted by MteK

And what's wrong with sensible gun control measures? I'm former military and gun owner and can't see a justification for high capacity magazines.

You swore an oath to protect and defend the constitution of the United States. The constitution says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The primary reason given is so civilians can take part in armed combat should it ever be necessary, so a 30-round mag is a pretty normal capacity magazine for that kind of use.

If you want gun control, do it the right way and amend the constitution. It'll be the 2nd time it's been amended to take away rights.

[MteK]

Originally Posted by carve

You swore an oath to protect and defend the constitution of the United States. The constitution says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The primary reason given is so civilians can take part in armed combat should it ever be necessary, so a 30-round mag is a pretty normal capacity magazine for that kind of use.

If you want gun control, do it the right way and amend the constitution. It'll be the 2nd time it's been amended to take away rights.

That's pretty weak reasoning and in no way does the second amendment say anything about what type of gun you can have. It also dosent say anything about detachable magazines or their capacity, or didn't you learn that from the last Assault Weapons ban?

You can remain entrenched in your view, as weakly constructed as it is, and watch as more sensible people put plan to action and deal with the issues in ways you may not like.

[sjk9671]

Originally Posted by MteK

That's pretty weak reasoning and in no way does the second amendment say anything about what type of gun you can have. It also dosent say anything about detachable magazines or their capacity, or didn't you learn that from the last Assault Weapons ban?

You can remain entrenched in your view, as weakly constructed as it is, and watch as more sensible people put plan to action and deal with the issues in ways you may not like.

So you know the reason for the second amendment is so that we as citizens have a means to overthrow our own government in case of tyranny right?

That's why 30 rounders should not be restricted.

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason

Thomas Paine, of Pennsylvania:

"[A]rms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. . . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them." -- Thoughts On Defensive War, 1775

Noah Webster, of Pennsylvania:

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power." -- An Examination of The Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia, 1787

[fatgrandma]

Originally Posted by sjk9671

So you know the reason for the second amendment is so that we as citizens have a means to overthrow our own government in case of tyranny right?

Just out of curiosity (because living in europe I don't really care if you have the right to have a gun in the US or not)... don't you think that:

a) tyranny wouldn't give a shit about the rights stated in your constitution?
b) even if the right wasn't given you by constitution, wouldn't you folks just fight the tyranny - now matter if it would be illegal? Or would you be like "We should mess up this whole tyranny shit, let's get some guns" "Oh, no, wait - it's not stated in the constitution so we better don't do it... let's hit "like" on facebook instead, this will probably do too"?

I really have no problem with you having guns. Wear so many of them as you can carry, no problem for me.

[carve]

Originally Posted by MteK

That's pretty weak reasoning and in no way does the second amendment say anything about what type of gun you can have. It also dosent say anything about detachable magazines or their capacity, or didn't you learn that from the last Assault Weapons ban?

You can remain entrenched in your view, as weakly constructed as it is, and watch as more sensible people put plan to action and deal with the issues in ways you may not like.

How is that weak? Militias engaged in combat against army regulars, so they clearly had in mind something suitable for that task. Of course they didn't mention what kind of guns you can have. That's INTENTIONAL. The colonists used dramatically superior guns to the British army regulars and they didn't want to limit us to the technology of their day. They didn't even want to limit it to guns if something more suitable came along, which is why they said "arms". Just because it has a detachable magazine does not mean it's no longer an arm suitable for militia duty if needed. Quite the contrary- a 30 round detachable mag makes it MORE suitable for that task in modern times.

If you don't like the wording, petition to have it changed, but don't just ignore it.

And, not that it matters in the slightest, but I'm an officer in the reserves, so don't think you have some kind of special perspective just because you used to be in the military. The only difference it makes is that you're ignoring your oath.

[carve]

Originally Posted by fatgrandma

a) tyranny wouldn't give a shit about the rights stated in your constitution?

No- which is why this is such a big issue when the government ignores our rights as stated in the constitution.

b) even if the right wasn't given you by constitution, wouldn't you folks just fight the tyranny - now matter if it would be illegal? Or would you be like "We should mess up this whole tyranny shit, let's get some guns" "Oh, no, wait - it's not stated in the constitution so we better don't do it... let's hit "like" on facebook instead, this will probably do too"?

Where do we get the guns? Even if you can find them, it brings enormous new risks. Without a powerful alley willing to supply & help us stand up to the tyrant, we, and by extension the rest of the world, would be fcuked. Furthermore, just remaining well armed when things are going smoothly (and despite our problems, things are going relatively smoothly now) is a deterrent to the government overstepping its bounds.

[/quote]

[fatgrandma]

Originally Posted by carve

No- which is why this is such a big issue



Where do we get the guns? Even if you can find them, it brings enormous new risks. Without a powerful alley willing to supply & help us stand up to the tyrant, we, and by extension the rest of the world, would be fcuked. Furthermore, just remaining well armed when things are going smoothly (and despite our problems, things are going relatively smoothly now) is a deterrent to the government overstepping its bounds.

This makes sense to me --> to avoid tyranny. Should you happen to be ruled by a tyranny somehow the constitution isn't much of a help I think.

[ZJP]

Show your support here.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pet...nical/GwD0ZZB9

[STi_traitor]

Originally Posted by ZJP

Show your support here.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pet...nical/GwD0ZZB9

Signed!

[solefald]

I very much respect NRA's legislative efforts, but I just can't align myself with most of their political views.
However, I'm on a waiting list for the local Fish&Game association, which requires NRA membership.... I guess I'm in

[kingofthedemo]

Originally Posted by ZJP

Show your support here.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pet...nical/GwD0ZZB9

Signed everyone get on this!

[KyLu II]

Originally Posted by ZJP

Show your support here.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pet...nical/GwD0ZZB9

Signed

[Fresh Face]

Originally Posted by carve

How is that weak? Militias engaged in combat against army regulars, so they clearly had in mind something suitable for that task. Of course they didn't mention what kind of guns you can have. That's INTENTIONAL. The colonists used dramatically superior guns to the British army regulars and they didn't want to limit us to the technology of their day. They didn't even want to limit it to guns if something more suitable came along, which is why they said "arms". Just because it has a detachable magazine does not mean it's no longer an arm suitable for militia duty if needed. Quite the contrary- a 30 round detachable mag makes it MORE suitable for that task in modern times.

If you don't like the wording, petition to have it changed, but don't just ignore it.

And, not that it matters in the slightest, but I'm an officer in the reserves, so don't think you have some kind of special perspective just because you used to be in the military. The only difference it makes is that you're ignoring your oath.

This. Also, when the constitution was drafted, the arms kept by civilians/militias were the exact same arms used by formal military. I actually bought an AK just yesterday in anticipation of some BS gun laws that might be laid down by The Big O.

[Red Bread]

That should come in pretty handy. Let us know when you buy an F16 or a Tomahawk.