I'm Dissappointed in the NRA

Criminals are going to have firearms no matter what we do. Background checks for law abiding citizens are stupid. If a person is so dangerous that you think that they might go buy a gun and kill someone, what the hell is that person doing walking our streets in the first place? It has been shown time and time again that criminals get guns illegally for most of there crimes. So a background check is not an obstacle to them. So how does a background check keep weapons out of there hands??? So to go along with what you are saying, since how people use vehicles in far more deadly encounters than firearms (i.e. drunk driving, wreckless driving) should each person going to buy a vehicle be subjected to a background check, along with a medical records examination?? Guilty before the trial. NICE!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -Wolverine-

=
"Well, we can't stop child porn. Might as well make it legal."
"Well, we can't stop murder, might as well make it legal."

---

What you are suggesting is that since how a very small percentage of people buy computers and camera's for the making and viewing of child porn, that the government should regulate it with background checks?

Guns = murder? I think not. Dirt Balls/low-lifes = murder. A gun is only a tool. Instead of spending all that money with very little if any real return. (Background checks), why not spend a whole lot more on education, prevention, rehabilitation and keeping those real dirtbags behind bars?

Firearms are heavily regulated, including background checks. You can wish they weren't, but they are.

I would suggest that there is an illegal market for criminals because they can't get them from a dealer due to the background check requirement. Would you prefer that criminals have unrestricted access to firearms?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by banks74

What you are suggesting is that since how a very small percentage of people buy computers and camera's for the making and viewing of child porn, that the government should regulate it with background checks?

Guns = murder? I think not. Dirt Balls/low-lifes = murder. A gun is only a tool. Instead of spending all that money with very little if any real return. (Background checks), why not spend a whole lot more on education, prevention, rehabilitation and keeping those real dirtbags behind bars?

---

Question, how many NICS checks have stopped someone who was barred from purchasing a firearm from purchasing it?

Why not do both, spent many on education and preventing murderers from legally purchasing a gun?

What other rights has zero restrictions on who can exercise them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gman

Firearms are heavily regulated, including background checks. You can wish they weren't, but they are.

I would suggest that there is an illegal market for criminals because they can't get them from a dealer due to the background check requirement. Would you prefer that criminals have unrestricted access to firearms?

---

Yes I realize firearms are heavily regulated. The folks up on the hill think mass gunfights on the streets would ensue if they were not. Isn't that what they also said about CCW's? It's not a matter of wishing, it is my opinion on the matter.

Criminals through the illegal market do have unlimited access to firearms already. I am not saying dangerous criminal's should have firearms, I am saying background checks do little to circumvent this. Like I said earlier if a person is a known violent criminal, someone we should be wary of if they were to have possession of a firearm, why are they not in prison somewhere?

"Question, how many NICS checks have stopped someone who was barred from purchasing a firearm from purchasing it?"

I have no idea, other than one store owner I have talked to about it. I would be very interested to see the official statistic from a non biased agency.


"Why not do both, spent many on education and preventing murderers from legally purchasing a gun?"

I respect your opinion that you think background checks help stop crime. I just completely disagree with you. It is my opinion that is doesn't. Criminals even if guns are outlawed will still be able to get their hands on guns. (Just like that old bumper sticker says) I think background checks are just a starting point for enacting more restrictive legislation that "protects" the community. I mean now they are after 50 bmg's because, "you could take down an airplane with one of those things etc." So whats to stop them from saying we want to keep these out of the criminal hands so we are going to confiscate all of the 50's out there? I just don't see an end in sight to these, "it's for the greater good of the community" legislation. Also if we really are trying to keep them out of criminals hands how come, it isn't done like class III stuff. Fingerprints, photo id pics, cleo signoff etc. (If you go the personal CLEO route). I mean I have to do all that for a piece of tubing that protects my hearing.


"What other rights has zero restrictions on who can exercise them?"

How about freedom of speech? It has 0 limitations on who can exercise them. Everybody has that right. It is only when words (a tool) are used incorrectly that you lose that right. (Threatening someone, the whole fire in a theater example etc.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by banks74

Criminals through the illegal market do have unlimited access to firearms already.

---

Really? They can just order whatever they want from the factory whenever they want it?

They are limited to whatever is in the underground illegal market. That market is limited.

You can vent about what you want the situation to be, but what are you going to do about it? The more you argue that criminals have unfettered access to firearms, the more some poitician is going to want to restrict private person-to-person transactions. Laws only apply to those that abide by them. We know that won't do anything to solve the problem, but you can't expect logic and reason from politicians.

If illegal drugs were no longer illegal, do you think that access to them would not change?

Lot of talk about background checks.

The way i look at it is this:

It's an inconvenience for the law abiding, and probably doesn't do a whole lot to prevent criminal activity. However, the benefit i do see in them is statistics. When the gun grabbers go to take away our guns (which they undoubtedly will try) we can show them statistics showing that of X number of guns obtained legally, .00001% (or whatever low %) was actually used in a crime by the legal purchaser. Same goes for CCW's. The application process is a PITA, it costs money, but again it shows the anti's numbers they can't ignore. When X number of people have permits, and an insanely small amount of them use, or have a permit revoked, it makes our cause look better.

It's a fine line however. I'm 110% against gun registration as i believe it's the first step towards confiscation. However, you flood the market with legally obtained firearms by ANYONE, it gives the anti's irrefutable evidence of crimes committed as it compares to the number of legally purchased firearms. It's a slippery slope, you appease the law abiding, or you appease the criminals just to take away ultimately what is an inconvenience. Lot of tin foil hat wearing folks out there, no one wants the .gov to know they own guns, and i respect that position, i don't either. But if a background check appeases a gun grabber to the point where i can keep my guns, i'll take it. We have to pick our battles, and i don't think removing background checks is one we can even dream to remove here in 2008.

And those that say criminals can get guns through the illegal market, you are correct. Now imagine if they antis could write into their legislation that all guns can be obtained legally. Imagine the emotions that would stir up with the liberals in this country. It would only be a step forward en route to two steps back.

I should add. I would gladly remove background checks, and welcome it, ONLY IF it would not cause a negative effect on us. I just don't see that happening which is why i don't view them as the devil like some.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by banks74

+1 Dudley is on the ball!

RMGO, GOA, JPFO is the way to go...

---

another +1, and don't forget the Second Amendment Foundation too!

Sometimes I wish I had joined RMGO as a life member instead of NRA...sigh...at least I eventually learned.

I both regret and yet do not "regret" joining the NRA as a Life Member. I even asked if I could resign and have them send me a refund because I was so po'd by their support of some legislation...So, have I taken issue with NRA - hill yeah, and I let them know it too. But on balance, they still do a lot (NRA ILA, Friends of the NRA, Eddie Eagle, etc).

Let me also say this: There is a constructive purpose in having a more "moderate" gun rights lobby group. It can be a gateway for those who would be "scared" off with harder, no compromise groups. And, the others by comparison make the NRA look moderate, which can also be useful for our rights; for NRA has proven they are willing to say, "hey, you want to keep pushing this hardline, then you will have take us all on" and perhaps then we would not get compromise, maybe one day only a total illegal loss of all our rights...

Do I like that. Hill no! But the world ain't perfect. If you got issue with the NRA then do us all a favor and join GOA, RMGO, SAF, JPFO! Then pick up your pen and start writing you representatives too. I hope you're not just sitting there bitching or feeling smug 'cause your a member of this or that XYZ "guns right group. I am a force of one because I write letters to my reps. I am also part of a team working hard to preserve our rights. Are you?

It's sad to admit that I went for years (actually decade or more) with out renewing my NRA membership because I though they were too extreme. Now, I don't think they're extreme enough...go figure....

My point is that by rejoining the NRA, but that time as a LIFE member (in part for repentance), it turned out to be a gateway to me eventually working through my own philosophy and taking my own personal stand - which now is a very hard line!

If there wasn't the NRA alternative, then I doubt I would have gone straight to GOA, RMGO, etc....and to be honest, the first time I contacted Dudely at RMGO I was a bit turned off by their reaction when I told them I was also a Life NRA member....so I hesitated joining them at first...but now the rest is history.

Now my sig line says it all. And knowing this inside scope, you too know it is also a testament to my own journey in working through and owning this issue for myself.

You have to love this country. Here I also have the right to change my mind as well as make my mind up for myself (by doing my own research, etc.). So I exercised that right too.

Oh, and Pickenup made some excellent points as well, one page back.

'nuff said?

So....the NRA is a gateway 2nd Amendment org. That's a different perspective.;)