NRA -are they Serious?!?

[packsaddle]

Thanks,

The first link has this line: "Store guns so they are not accessible to unauthorized persons." And then offers some explanation. What I was hoping to find was their advice for homes with children and the second link addressed that. But given the (evidently) variable state laws regarding firearms in the home, the NRA couldn't be very specific. But at least this gives everyone a basis for discussion about safe firearms in the home. That helps.

[Eagle732]

The NRA will send you a free packet with child safety information. From the NRA website:

"The Eddie Eagle GunSafe Program can provide you with a sample of materials for your review. Our sample packet includes a copy of a student workbook, testimonials, program statistics and ordering information. To receive a free sample packet, please call 1-800-231-0752 or email eddie@nrahq.org."

 

 

[boomerscout]

not all carjackers have guns. Some just use knives or mean looks.

 

Many get their guns by stealing them -- from stores, pawnshops, homes. There are even illegal gun rentals -- retirement businesses for disabled criminals.

 

The recent uprising in Libya was started with hand weapons. Not saying that friends can't then come & help. If people can be smuggled in, shouldn't be too much harder to smuggle in weapons.

 

I'm for banning online sales of

gun parts, ammo, and accessories. Let the local dealer see your happy shining face as he asks you, just out of curiosity, why you need 10,000 rounds

 

There is this rumor that frequently arises that during the 70s some group came into one of the Browning factories at night (Browning had no night shift) to crank out hundreds of Browning Hi-Powers. The guard was never found for questioning (false ID, false address). This would trump any of the "Home Workshop Guns" you might consider tooling up in your basement.

 

Many of the inner city shootings seem to involve payback for being dis-respected. I would stop the schools from teaching self-esteem, and put them back to teaching skills. If all you have going for you is self-esteem, and someone hurts your feelings, then you have nothing left, so you have to avenge this.???

[Stosh]

I wonder if there are any '56 Chevy's out there so the average person can finally make a good zip gun for a change.

 

 

Criminals will always figure out a way, that's why they are criminals.

 

Stosh

[JoeBob]

An example in American history (1940s) of arms being used rightfully to resist the government:

 

http://voxvocispublicus.homestead.com/Battle-of-Athens.html

[Beavah]

LOL. Gotta love Hollywood!

 

I'll note that da arms used by da veterans came from the national guard armory, eh? They were not personal arms.

 

I'll note that da victory of the "good guys" apparently was da result of having a substantial supply of dynamite with which to dynamite the building. Havin' individuals with guns wasn't enough.

 

So I'm back to "Does the right to bear arms include da same right to easy, untraceable access to high explosives as we currently have for guns?"

 

I get that there's a lobbying group that's well-funded by da firearms manufacturers. What I don't get is why intelligent folks simply repeat this lobbying propaganda, much of it exaggerated, some of it false, without exercising even a little bit of a skeptical filter on it. It'd be like me repeating everything da ACLU says just because they're lawyers, eh? And completely ignorin' that they're lobbyists and more than a bit tunnel-visioned. Just doesn't make sense to me.

 

Beavah

 

[JoeBob]

Think it's all Hollywood?

 

Skip to the end and read the historical marker.

Look at the actual photos of the participants. I was struck by how young they were.

 

BTW, since it was the National Guard being mobilized to support the crooked politicians, I'm guessing that it was the Army Reserve armory referred to in the re-enactment.

[AZMike]

Beavah: "I get that there's a lobbying group that's well-funded by da firearms manufacturers. What I don't get is why intelligent folks simply repeat this lobbying propaganda, much of it exaggerated, some of it false, without exercising even a little bit of a skeptical filter on it. It'd be like me repeating everything da ACLU says just because they're lawyers, eh? And completely ignorin' that they're lobbyists and more than a bit tunnel-visioned. Just doesn't make sense to me."

 

Is it possible that the firearms manufacturers and the firearms owners share the same viewpoint, not because the NRA and firearms manufacturers have performed some sort of sinister mesmerism on the firearms owners, but because they have both examined the evidence and came to the same conclusions, using reason and evidence?

 

Of course the free exercise of constitutional rights under the 2nd Amendment supports the profits of the owners and employees of the firearms industry, but the free exercise of constitutional rights under the 1st Amendment supports the press and Hollywood as well. We don't say that people only exercise their 1st Amendment rights to read "50 Shades of Grey" or play "Grand Theft Auto" or read the National Enquirer because their minds have been manipulated into wanting to do so by Barnes and Noble or the video game industry or the tabloid journalism industry. They do so because they are free citizens with inherent rights and don't need their government's permission to exercise their rights (however regrettable their choices may be from an aesthetic viewpoint.)

 

I support the rights of Americans under the 2nd Amendment because it is in the Constitution, and I have sworn an oath to support and defend the Constitution 5 times in my life. No one ever released me from those oaths. I don't have a lockstep view of firearms ownership, and differ in some instances from the views of the NRA, the firearms industry, and other gun owners. I don't know many firearms owners who share every opinion.

 

What I HAVE found is that most of those who advocate for 2nd Amendment rights are very well-informed, very well-read on the subject, and have a very good understanding of the research and the issues involved (historical, legal, and technical) - much more so than those who are opposed to firearms rights, who tend to rely on emotional appeals. That is why most anti-firearms advocates don't do well in debates, and prefer to keep to the bully pulpit. Even on issues where I may disagree with other firearms owners, I find that those with whom I disagree are very well informed on the issues, we just came to different conclusions.

[Beavah]

What I HAVE found is that most of those who advocate for 2nd Amendment rights are very well-informed, very well-read on the subject, and have a very good understanding of the research and the issues involved (historical, legal, and technical) - much more so than those who are opposed to firearms rights, who tend to rely on emotional appeals.

 

Yah, this has me in stitches. Have yeh been watchin' da news lately? Or readin' what folks have been writin' here in da forums at Scouter.com?

 

I'm not sayin' that any pro-gun argument is bad. I'm a hunter and a firearm owner, a fellow who has actively worked for "shall issue" CCW laws and who believes that Heller was properly decided. Yah, sure, sometimes we as individuals have da same view as an organization profiting off that view.

 

But what we're seein' of late is stuff that no First Class scout at age 12 would buy into without laughin'.

 

If da president has armed federal agents guarding his kids, everyone has to? If they don't, that means the president doesn't care about American children?

 

Really? I can certainly see how yeh would think that's not an emotional appeal.

 

We've seen any number of people here advocate for rules against data collection and research.

 

Yah, that shows they have a very good understandin' of da research, eh?

 

Too funny.

 

If in fact yeh want other folks to perceive what you claim to perceive, AZMike, then yeh have to do your part to call the folks on our side to task when they try to pass off fraudulent or bad research like Lott, or they make emotional claims about da president's children, or they have curiously inaccurate versions of history like the whole yarn about the Nazis and gun registration / gun control. There really are sound, cogent arguments in favor of a relatively broad 2nd Amendment interpretation, but they're bein' lost in some of this silly nonsense.

 

B

[Beavah]

JoeBob, thanks for a trip through da history of da Battle of Athens. An interestin' bit of American history, to be sure. Sorta cut from da same cloth as Matewan or Blair Mountain. Wonder why yeh didn't mention those?

 

Anyways, a good and less Hollywood account can be found at http://www.americanheritage.com/content/battle-athens?page=show . The dispute largely grew out of da returning veterans free-drinking and carousing habits, and da local sheriff's office being paid for every arrest, eh? Gotta love the lads and their booze, and cops who are fee-seeking. Da post-prohibition form of da Appalachian speed trap. So arrestin' the lads for drunkeness was very popular among the cops, and not always completely honest.

 

The ballots had been counted at the jailhouse for years, they weren't absconded with. That's all Hollywood. Unclear whether they ever had fraud in mind, but voter intimidation was certainly out in force. Curiously, da fellow who gets shot was in fact an old black farmer just tryin' to vote, not a white guy with a gun.

 

Many of da weapons, including ammunition and Thompson sub-machine guns were stolen from the National Guard armory. Da National Guard was in fact never called up, that was just a rumor, and the armed veterans outnumbered the deputies by close to 10:1. Despite that, the guns achieved very little, with the attackers nearly shooting their ammo dry while only wounding a few people.

 

Da matter was in fact decided by dynamite, but not carefully placed demolition charges as depicted in the movie. They lit fuses and lobbed packages of dynamite randomly at the building, along with Molotov cocktails as part of a general riot which continued for hours after the deputies had surrendered. It wasn't all done with clean hands, there were beatings and other injuries inflicted on captured deputies and even calls for murder. Da press of the day generally considered it a dangerously lawless riot or a reckless vigilante action, with da notable exception of da liberal Catholic magazine Commonweal. In that way, it sorta resembled Matewan or Blair Mountain as well, with da progressive liberals siding with the rioters.

 

What's interestin' is that da guys depicted as bad guys in the movie in the end opted to resign, thereby ending the standoff in town without any more bloodshed or outside intervention.

 

B

 

[packsaddle]

Blair Mountain is one of my favorite examples that I mention in one of my courses. I use a documentary on a similar but much smaller and more-peaceful conflict for that course in order to make the students think about the connections between energy and society. The Blair Mountain story is especially useful because it helps set up how coal mining was done in the early part of the last century and then the documentary shows that things hadn't changed much by the late part of that century.

Side note: it is interesting that figures like John L. Lewis seem to be largely forgotten now. I take heart, however, that already some students can't quite remember the name of a famous singer who died last year (last name rhymes with 'Houston') . I comfort them, assuring them that nearly all of us will be completely anonymous in 100 years or so. Asked why this is a good thing, I respond that as a result the most bone-headed mistake most of us will ever make in our lives...will eventually be inconsequential and probably forgotten - a liberating thought, at least for some of us. The NRA lately seems to be counting on this being true.

 

[AZMike]

Beavah: "or they have curiously inaccurate versions of history like the whole yarn about the Nazis and gun registration / gun control"

 

Okay, let's isolate this claim, for starters. Beavah, which claim regarding the use of firearms registration and the disarming of the Jewish population and the disarming of the occupied countries does your knowledge of history show to be "inaccurate"?

 

 

[Eagle732]

"Yah, this has me in stitches. Have yeh been watchin' da news lately? Or readin' what folks have been writin' here in da forums at Scouter.com? "

Yes Beaver I have been reading what people say here, especially what you've been saying. What I've seen is that time and time again when someone makes a point that you disagree with you belittle them with some snide little remark like the one above.

 

Something that I've noticed here lately is that if it wasn't for this discussion on gun control or gays in Scouting there would be little activity on Scouter (Currently the "Today's Active Topics" shows about 400 posts on gun control issues and about 70 on all other topics combined). These topics are so emotionally charged that some people just can't be civil when discussing them. I'm wondering if others, like me have decided to step back somewhat from this forum because of the lack of Scout like behavior by some here.

(This message has been edited by Eagle732)

[CalicoPenn]

Pack,

 

I try and try but I just can't get Andy Williams to rhyme with Houston.

[Beavah]

Eagle732, I'm a friend and fellow scouter, a gun owner and hunter, an advocate of personal liberty, a supporter of concealed carry, an opponent of excessive federal regulation, and a former NRA member. In this policy arena, I'm da conservative-moderate friend of gun ownership.

 

If yeh say things that are funny, yeh have to expect that people are goin' to laugh, eh? Sayin' that gun rights advocates don't use emotional appeals da way gun control advocates do is funny. We've had everything from Obama not caring about other people's kids to warnings about da future coming of Stalin or Pol Pot! To my mind, a friend chucklin' is a far kinder thing than spendin' time compiling a long post with every appeal to emotion fully cataloged in rebuttal. That just strikes me as bein' over the top pedantic or lawyerly, and I get accused of that enough.

 

If in your eyes yeh see me as a liberal Democrat out to take guns away, that's just funny to me. If yeh can't convince a paleoconservative gun owner like me, how are yeh goin' to convince da nation?

 

What you're seein' on da forums with any of these issues is that there's debate. Debate is a fine thing. Helps all of us look beyond ourselves, question our own knowledge, and come together. I was actually impressed by how much common ground there was on da gun issue. But as that common ground develops, the debate becomes more heated and goes on for longer when folks stake out fairly rigid positions and startin' viewin' da opposition as the enemy. It's not limited to gays and guns, eh? Yeh should see some of da long threads on Guide to Safe Scouting, Advancement, and Uniforms! The same things happen in those; folks with rigid positions start seein' fellow scouters as bein' out to get kids by "denying" advancement or as unsafe for playin' lasertag privately or as disobedient anarchists for not strictly followin' da Insignia Guide. And that generates some silly fictions about insurance or tort law most of da time.

 

It's all just human. That's why humor is a good thing sometimes, eh? We can't take ourselves too seriously.

 

Beavah