politics of the NRA

[Sandy]

This is a circular argument. Someone shoots a bunch of people in a close place, say, a high school or elementary school or theater or nightclub. The questions are raised. How and where did he get the guns? Who is he? A terrorist? A nut case? Why?

Then there's the discussion about how to prevent this. Same arguments. You can't because if you pass a law or a standard, all that will do is drive the shooter to the black market, or he'll steal them and do it anyway, yada, yada, yada. Then on to "Obama and Hillary want to take your guns away from you." Then nothing, until someone else murders people by the dozens with a semi-automatic military style weapon.

Granted, a heavily enforced law with strict background checks and high standards for purchase won't stop every shooting. There will be those who will get their hands on guns anyway. But what is clear is that a significant number of shootings, more than half, could have been prevented by extending delays and expanding denials of sales. And the fact of the matter is that neither President Obama nor Hillary Clinton, no, not even Bernie Sanders, have proposed anything close to what they are accused of. That argument is nothing but subterfuge for those who aren't observant enough to think for themselves. It's as untenable a position as asserting that any kind of gun control at all is a violation of individual second amendment rights.

What will it take? When terrorists realize that it is easier, and much less risky, to buy weapons in the US at gun shows and in states where the threshold for purchase is incredibly low, than it is to risk exposure by stealing them or buying them on the black market in Europe, maybe some change will happen. Oops. Too late.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... ying-guns/

[Stephen Fox]

Evan Osnos. NRA Selling The Politics of Fear in New Yorker to use a Biblical word makes Sandy and David Flick look like a "fool"

Easy google as Ive shared many places on this board.

Amy Butler has the high ground

https://baptistnews.com/article/gun-con ... and-death/

[Stephen Fox]

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/ ... n-business

[Stephen Fox]

At some point in the NRA and gun Lobby terror conversation the question has to be asked about which side is functionally illiterate.

Is it me and Evan Osnos and Amy Butler, or Sandy and David Flick and the apologists for the NRA like David Lankford and Trey Gowdy and NC Thom Thillis, who had he lived 40 years ago woulda been the moral equivalent of KKK grand dragon. Jesse Helms and the fundy takeover put goons like Thillis in office.

[ET]

[KeithE]

The 2nd Amendment applies to state-sanctioned militias not to those who want to own a gun for personal protection or for sport. These days both state militias (aka National Guards) and the military buy guns for their personnel. That said I have no problem with the freedom to purchase guns as long as those guns are for personal protection or for sport (although I will not do so).

Assault rifles are killing many; therefore not needed for personal protection (but I suppose could be fun sport for some people) and should be banned or rented at shooting ranges. Felons, mentally challenged, those under 18, and those identified as threats (be they foreign or homegrown, and of whatever religion - usually the right wing elements of those religions) should not be allowed to buy a gun. Thus background checks for all gun purchases only makes sense (to me at least), recognizing that there will be false alarms which certainly does not bear an undue or large burden to anyone. About 90% of Americans agree with me on the need for background checks but only 50% on an assault weapons ban.

I was more burdened by the $350 than the hour wait for a background check when I got the key. And I recognize the societal value of making sure no one was trying to impersonate me and steal my car (although I would think a drivers license and owner’s certificate would suffice).

It was nice to know I’m not on a no-fly list even though I know “they” know I’m a 9/11 skeptic. Flying to Amsterdam for a cruise to Scotland/Ireland next Monday, so I’ll know for double sure.

I will not argue further on these points. It’s a cultural thing.

[Sandy]

Does the second amendment guarantee the right to buy and own whatever calibre and type of firearm that is available on the market, including assault rifles, hand grenades, rocket launchers, or a small, nuclear device? Those are all arms. That's the logic represented in ET's citation above.

The question really is if we are OK with terrorists who, while not adjudicated, still give evidence of an inclination toward terrorist activity being able to arm themselves as heavily as they wish, and we'll just pick up the pieces again and again. The fact of the matter is that it is possible to restrict ownership of weapons without violating the second amendment rights of the multiple masses of gun owners who won't ever commit a mass murder. The debate now is more about manipulative politics than it is about the right to bear arms. The extreme becomes the claim, that the President and Hillary both want to ban private gun ownership. That is a lie.

[Stephen Fox]

[Sandy]

[ET]

Both of you (Keith and Sandy) avoided the question. I didn't ask you what you thought of the 2nd Amendment. I didn't ask you what you thought about some type of rifle. I made no statement about the scope of the 2nd Amendment. Nothing in my question about due process can rationally be argued to advocate for hand grenades, nukes or rocket launchers. I asked a Constitutional question about due process.

I would also ask this. News stories about the San Bernadino and the Orlando shooter have indicated that they were "radicalized" via the internet. If they had not been radicalized due to "too much" free speech, then they would not have bought firearms to kill people.

If it is agreeable to you to increase restrictions on 2nd Amendment related issues due to terrorist's actions, then should you not logically also be arguing for increasing restrictions on 1st Amendment issues? Should we not restrict access or availability to "powerful" or "dangerous" rhetoric along with "powerful" and "dangerous" firearms? If not, why not? What justifies reducing the scope of 2nd Amendment rights but not First Amendment rights when the root cause of the issue can logically be argued that there is "too much" freedom of speech in this country?

Maybe we should restrict freedom of religion in order to prevent more of these attacks in the future? What other Constitutional rights would you argue are subject to restriction without due process?

If a majority of Americans believe freedom of religion should be restricted for Muslims, should we do so?

[Lou]

[KeithE]

[Lou]

[Sandy]

[ET]

[ET]

[Stephen Fox]

The question of the politics of the NRA and how 70 percent of rank and file are at a different place on the matter of assault weapons

Two questions for ET and folks who play these technical games about their mastery of the history and evolution of firearms

One Have you seen the PBS Frontline Doc on the NRA repeacted in the last month and do you think the SBC ERLC should engage the concerns raised about mass shootings.

Two, as a Christian can you justify the NRA selling Fear as the Case is made in easily googled damning piece in the NEW Yorker by Evan Osnos?

Lets frame this conversation with some walking around sense.

KeithE, Flick and any other apologists for the NRA please let us know if you have read the Osnos piece before you respond.

[Sandy]

Interview here, don't know if this is the specific piece Stephen referenced

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk ... -sell-guns

[Stephen Fox]

The piece you can click on at the page Sandy Linked, the one with small pistol in a man's hand is the more significant, exhaustive piece on the politics of the NRA. In tandem with the PBS Frontline Doc, I find it indicting

[David Flick]

[Ed Pettibone]

Ed: David, I am glad to know you are still around.

[ET]

[Ed Pettibone]

Ed: Well Said ET!

[Shawn Koester]

My Dad told me that back in the 70s, before the reactionary takeover, the NRA was actually a respectable organization. It was genuinely about gun safety and training. He taught bb gun shooting at ranges in Boy Scout Camps. He was a member. But the NRA under current leadership is insane.