Companies dumping the NRA

[UtahPete]

Without the argument about which guns should or should not be allowed, doesn't the NRA serve the same purpose for gun owners as the AMA serves for Motorcycle owners? Protection of our rights. I also don't get how it's is the NRAs fault that some mentally ill (deranged) person goes on a shooting spree. It's like blaming the AMA because some idiot rides his motorcycle through a crowd and kills some people. While we're at it lets get rid of the term "Gun Violence" it is not gun violence, it is violence, but it is an evil act committed with a gun. I also think that the only people that have a right to complain are the victims and their families, the rest of us should put our brains to work and try to come up with a reasonable way to prevent future violence. Making things illegal is probably not the way, it didn't work for alcohol, it hasn't worked for drugs and sure as heck hasn't worked for texting while driving.

Okay, this is the last I' going to say on this, Thanks for listening.

I agree with you in principle on most of what you say. To me, the difference between the NRA and the AMA is the AMA isn't funded by manufacturers trying to drive motorcycle sales. It's funded by enthusiasts.

 

[PrairieSpyder]

:chill:

:dontknow: I can't believe we're at this again.

:bdh:

 

[UtahPete]

This is what I know about the 'registration' debate so far (from the Washington Post);

[FONT=&quot]The NRA’s love-hate relationship with a database for background checks[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]After the high school shooting in Parkland, Fla., NRA spokeswoman Dana Loesch was on TV lamenting that states don’t send all the required criminal and mental health records to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). Because of these gaps, she said, many people legally barred from buying guns can get them anyway. “It’s not federally mandated,” she said on CNN. “Politicians could change this today; they could change it tomorrow,” she said on ABC News.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]We did some digging and found that politicians did try to change this, 25 years ago, with a federal mandate. And they were blocked — largely by the NRA. The group funded several lawsuits challenging the Brady gun law, which created the NICS, and filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court arguing that the entire law had to be chucked or federalism would implode in the United States. NRA attorneys said it was unconstitutional to impose a federal mandate on local officials that required them to conduct background checks in the days before NICS was up and running. The Supreme Court agreed and struck down that part of the Brady gun law. Fast-forward 25 years: Loesch complains that nothing in the law requires local officials to feed the background check database (“it’s not federally mandated”). [/FONT]

 

[Bob Denman]

I'm not. And my understanding of gun registration and licensing is it would operate the same way.

This is an interesting discussion, by the way. I'm really interested in learning why responsible gun owners are opposed to registration and licensing (aside from the NRA's official positions on it).

Background checks: I'm good with them! :thumbup:
Licensing for the purpose of showing that it's okay for a person to own firearms: ditto!

Registering them to the owners?? Hmmm....
If a Government decided that it didn't want citizens to own firearms any more: pull the database, and start knocking on doors! :shocked:
This one gives me problems... Safeguards would need to be in place! nojokenojokenojokenojokenojoke

 

[Cavman]

The NRA has insurance in case you have to use deadly force to protect yourself. The company that provides that insurance is Chubb. Chubb has decided to drop its relationship with the NRA.

I have the same type of insurance with the USCCA but with more coverage than the NRA’s policy would cover.

 

[SPECTACUALR SPIDERMAN]

the number 1 killer of black males in the u.s. is black males, who wants to ban black males in urban environments?:yikes:
before making any comments, tell me if the stats show it.

 

[Bob Denman]

:shocked: I can't believe that you just posted that... :banghead:

 

[SPECTACUALR SPIDERMAN]

:shocked: I can't believe that you just posted that... :banghead:

it's true, so why doesn't everyone cut the crap on banning this & that. that is how stupid it sounds to me.
banning cars, knives and everything else.
common sense is what's needed to save lives. maybe there should be laws mandating people to use it.

 

[Netminder]

Interesting read.Have not posted on SL for a long time and just want to say one word before this thread gets closed! WOW!:yikes:

 

[Bob Denman]

Yup... It's already circling the bowl...:gaah:

 

[RinconRyder]

And the concert was gun free which ment they had no way to fire back and the hotel calls them selfs gun free

The hotel was STATED as gun free but neither you nor I know how many people in that crowd were actually armed. The major problem in the crowd, once the gunfire began, was that no one could identify where the shots were coming from.

 

[RinconRyder]

It's a legitimate sport, both target shooting and hunting. Nobody wants to impinge on your ability to enjoy your gun-related interests. Registering legal guns and licensing of users wouldn't be that great a burden, would it?

Neither are legitimate sports but rather activities but in keeping with the thread.....

Out West we have a considerable number of people who enjoy off road activities (also not sports). A couple of decades ago most states out here began registering and licensing off road vehicles due to their numbers and the need for funds to maintain designated riding areas. We all bitched about it at the time but in the long run it has become a benefit - both to the lands themselves and to the people who work to maintain them. It has become a non-topic.

If you own and drive motor vehicles you are subject to this requirement. Same with boats and aircraft.

I do not see where the registration and licensing of firearms and their owners, subject to the identical requirement, would be the least bit intrusive to gun enthusiasts.

 

[Machinegunner]

Universal background checks won't work, because in order to work all the guns have to be registered. Only law abiding people will register theirs. The bad guys won't. If the government decides they have to ban the guns, all they have to do is look at the registration and pick them up. There is no record of the guns owned by the bad guys. So how do you take them if you don't know where they are?

 

[UtahPete]

Background checks: I'm good with them! :thumbup:
Licensing for the purpose of showing that it's okay for a person to own firearms: ditto!

Registering them to the owners?? Hmmm....
If a Government decided that it didn't want citizens to own firearms any more: pull the database, and start knocking on doors! :shocked:
This one gives me problems... Safeguards would need to be in place! nojokenojokenojokenojokenojoke

Thanks for the response. It seems this is the biggest argument against registration of guns (the guv'mint knows where to go to confiscate them). This seems a pretty hollow argument to me and only legitimate if you truly fear that we will lose our democracy to an autocratic police state.

 

[Bob Denman]

This seems a pretty hollow argument to me and only legitimate if you truly fear that we will lose our democracy to an autocratic police state.

:lecturef_smilie: You're playing the "Short Game"... nojoke
The Founders of this great Country were planning for... forever!
The Government is set up with a marvelous series of checks and balances.
The FINAL one, is the armed citizenry.

Those guys were "heart attack serious smart"! :bowdown:
Their only mistake: they missed the appearance of the "Political Ruling Class". Their primary concern is only to expand their base of power, and keep getting elected. :gaah:

Had every public office been set up with term limitations: problem solved!

 

[SPECTACUALR SPIDERMAN]

and today if the citizens are armed are you saying we should go to war with our government? should we storm
the white house or governors office, then what?

 

[JerryB]

Hi Pete,

Re: a pretty hollow argument

The one that is absolutely stupid to me is, "I have my guns to protect me from the gov't."

Anyone that thinks they have sufficient armament to stop the gov't is nutz. Has anyone seen what a SWAT vehicle looks like? You got something like that?

Boys & their toys,

Jerry Baumchen

 

[Holly]

it's true, so why doesn't everyone cut the crap on banning this & that. that is how stupid it sounds to me.
banning cars, knives and everything else.
common sense is what's needed to save lives. maybe there should be laws mandating people to use it.

Don't forget to include Hammers also. Raise the minimum purchase age to 21 and let Home Depot know these weapon's are dangerous.

 

[moogully]

NRA

I spent 26 years of my life in the service. I have never believed that anybody needs a rifle larger than a Garland M1. If you can’t get your Deer with an M1, stop hunting. I believe it is BS that people need an AR15, or an AK47. That said, companies that drop the NRA are blamiming them for these school killings, when it is societies fault for closing Nut Houses. The idiot in Parkland was know by family and friends to be a Soace Cadet, and nobody did a thing. Also, this guy need to be executed plain and simple!

 

[Bob Denman]

The Garand was a mighty fine battle weapon...


....But a REALLY lousy hunting rifle!
They weighed too much, and if you got your gloved thumb caught in it; when the action slammed shut... :gaah:

Besides: a lot of States limit the magazine capacity to five rounds in hunting semi-autos. That eight round clip wouldn't be too cool...
Did you ever try loading anything less than a full clip into one?
I have... very tedious, and easy to bugger-up! :banghead:

But my National Match Garand would punch one inch groups at 100 yards: with open sights! :bowdown: