Stand Up to NRA

Sunday, May 25, 2014
Article Tools
Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Share Article

It’s time that someone stood up against the NRA and put them in their place. Why doesn’t President Obama do what our prime minister did back 20 years ago — had an amnesty, pulled all rifles from the owners, paid them a small amount of money, and banned firearms. It has worked and stopped killings.

Its time that President Obama stood up to the NRA, and so should Congress and BAN firearms.

It’s time that the NRA realized that they aren’t as good as they reckon they are.


Independent Discussion Guidelines

Do a simple check online and you can see that Peter is being disingenuous. Same would go for the claim that banning certain firearms from the people ALLOWED to own them caused a dramatic rise in crime there. Australia gun ownership laws and those in the US were/are very different. Australian citizens do not and never did have a constitutional right to own firearms. The NRA has roughly 3.5 to 4 million members that pay for membership while approximately 70 million Americans say they own firearms. Any time you see a push to put more gun laws on the books or ban guns, the NRA membership jumps. It's not a thing that vote loving politicians want to face nor will more laws or bans solve the US violence problem. The NRA is fighting for and protecting what their paying membership want. It's just not a simple issue to blame guns and magically it goes away.

jp76er (anonymous profile)
May 25, 2014 at 7:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

An another angle, our "President" doesn't have the constitutional authority to carry out Herman's all-too-simple idea. The NRA as lobbied and effectively purchased much of Congress, esp. House of Reps., so this idea from down under while idealistically attractive won't be happening in this half-century. jp76 is right, most legislators fear the NRA, but it's also true that the rank-and-file NRA member isn't nearly as crazed as the organization's top leaders.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
May 25, 2014 at 7:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Those of you with long attention spans can mull this over.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
May 25, 2014 at 9:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The leaders of the NRA are "crazy" for money. Their largest donors are the firearm and ammunition manufacturers. Those patrons make a product that in normal use never wears out and has no major technological innovations in the last half century. The only way for them to be profitable is to scare people into buying more and more firearms . In the USA there is a almost one for every man, woman, and child . The NRA stokes an irrational fear in gun owners that in the wake of this and the many other tradegies , that the gubment will be coming to take their firearms. The NRA is an industry lobbying group masquerading as a non profit advocacy organization.

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
May 25, 2014 at 10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

They don't get any of my $$$.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
May 25, 2014 at 10:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yea, I am simply trembling over the NRA...They're clout is not nearly as big as their PR machine and yet Progressives quiver over the sound of their acronym.
While no doubt Obama would love to use his power to legislate on gun control through the executive branch as he and his predecessor have so frequently done, as previously stated we have this pesky thing called the Constitution.

nomoresanity (anonymous profile)
May 25, 2014 at 10:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

OK, jp, I accept your statement partway: "It's just not a simple issue to blame guns and magically it goes away."
Fine, but I ask you honestly: isn't the very easy availability of guns {incl. black market & gun shows}, their extraordinary firepower (compared to firearms in 1791 when the 2 Am. was ratified), the high incidence of mental instability (incl. PTSD from our hundreds of thousands of returning veterans)...aren't these factors about guns AT LEAST PART OF THE PROBLEM?? Can you be that honest to admit this?

DrDan (anonymous profile)
May 26, 2014 at 4:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Here's a prime example of the Libtard political progressive and socially liberal cesspool Elliot Rodger was drowning in. (( ))

Politically Progressive + Socially Liberal + Drugs = Violent Predator.

SBLifer (anonymous profile)
May 26, 2014 at 4:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

again, your YouTube ref is a cesspool itself, Lifer, and your meme points like "Libtard" and liberal just show what a crank you are; you can view anything on YouTube, you're just another thread hijacker, bye

DrDan (anonymous profile)
May 26, 2014 at 4:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The answer lies somewhere in the middle.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
May 26, 2014 at 6:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thanks for this HG, and so true: "The NRA is an industry lobbying group masquerading as a non profit advocacy organization." What'd be great if the rank-and-file NRA members would turn out their whacko leadership, tone down their rhetoric, accept reasonable limitations on gun ownershi[/usage, limits on ammo purchases... this can all be done without going haywire about BOO HOO! We're gonna lose the 2 Am. Nuts.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
May 26, 2014 at 6:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The NRA is growing in membership each year. That is because more and more Americans want to own a firearm for personal protection. Many politicians are afraid to vote for more gun regulation for fear of losing their seats. California already has some of the most repressive gun laws in the country. Those laws do nothing to prevent crime. In states like Idaho citizens may soon have the opportunity to become members of the state militia. They must pass the same federal background check one goes through to buy a handgun. Yet..they will then be members of a "well regulated militia". This is simply a step to protect law abiding citizens from folks like Michael Bloomberg, Warren Buffet, Meryl Streep, Diane Feinstein and Andrew Cuomo. The NRA is simply an organization of law abiding citizens...few if any commit criminal acts with firearms. The United States Supreme Court has already done an updated evaluation of the 2nd amendment. It is highly unlikely any federal anti gun legislation will be enacted. State laws are a different story. Yet, in Colorado, some of the legislators who initiated new gun legislation there were recalled and booted out of office. That really got the attention of politicians.

letrianon (anonymous profile)
May 27, 2014 at 12:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I dont need a gun to protect me from those people, Im a big strong burly dude who can whip any of them with one hand tied behind my back if they try to attack me. Seriously, how long do U think Merly Streep would stand up to me in a fistfight.

dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
May 27, 2014 at 3:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This murderer broke 43 laws committing these crimes.
Clearly we need more laws and then people would no longer do this!

or better yet, we could shred our constitution and put our trust in cult-of-personality types like Obama and he could make all the right decisions by fiat, like "banning guns" and "banning the NRA".

Then we could finally live in paradise with a free and open society that respected personal liberty - and not a single crime would every be committed by mentally ill people.

GREAT idea.

realitycheck88 (anonymous profile)
May 27, 2014 at 8:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

There is the very old saying, "Guns don't Kill People, People Kill People".

I have seen the demonstrations and have attempted to get my 9mm Beretta Semi-Automatic, Fully loaded to fire all by itself, I yelled at it, I berated it, even belittled it; all in the effort to make it fire all on its own and to NO avail.
By itself it has no will, no anger, no hate, no intention to fire itself, it is only a Tool but put it in my hand, the hand that chooses to either take a life or protect a life and it becomes a Weapon. Mr Rampaging Killer, decided that his Guns will take lives, will intentionally, with anger, with hate, with free will destroy lives, ruin families, put a town on high alert and bring sorrow to everyone near and far. It was HIS choice to use a Tool as a Weapon; not the guns choice.

dou4now (anonymous profile)
May 27, 2014 at 12:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Gun control would work as well as the war on drugs. Mexico would become the largest importer of illegal weapons into the country and their accesibility would mirror any illegal drug. The distance needed to travel to purchase illegal drugs (or weapons) is shorter for most people than it is to purchase gas or a loaf of bread. More guns in the wrong hands in a less controlled environment. Yeah...gun control is what we need.

brimo7272 (anonymous profile)
May 27, 2014 at 12:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This guy also used his car.. and probably a knife or some sharp object to kill his roommates first.. so I guess using the same logic of some the antigun crowd we should ban sharp objects, cars, maybe even baseball bats since people hit others with them... where does it end. You cant blame tools for what they are used for.. they dont have minds of their own, they dont point themselves at others and fire.

Next will screwdrivers...axes of course..they are so evil.. imagine if you had to buy an axe to work on your land.. but you had to go thru a 10 day waiting period to get one since they are dangerous weapons....really??

Be careful for what you wish might not be what you really want.

audidriver2010 (anonymous profile)
May 27, 2014 at 12:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

problem is money. There are so many of us, look what we built: corporate and political money grubbers. In return, they divide us and create sides to squabble/fight/shoot over. The problem is at the top. The problem is in our so called leaders; they're only managers to poor gas on the fire. SBLifer is an agent. NRA is a sidetrack. Strike 1. Keep your eye on the ball.

spacey (anonymous profile)
May 27, 2014 at 1:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think we all agree we need to do SOMETHING to try to get a handle on this cycle of violence. The status quo simply will not work, and responsible gun owners have to help come up with a solution.

My Proposal:
A ten year ban on all handgun sales (private sales included) and a 1000% tax on all ammunition sales. The tax on ammo will fund a 10 year study to measure it's effects on gun violence in American society, as well as fund professional Mental Health Assessment resources and State Hospital facilities.

Anyone convicted of Black Market sales of guns or ammo will face a mandatory life prison sentence.

After the 10 year study is completed, if the numbers go down, the ban on handguns stays, and the ammo tax increases to 5000%.

If the numbers stay the same, then we end the handgun ban and the ammo tax. (But you know the numbers will go down)

If the only way we can make any changes in gun policy is through the pocketbook, then so be it.

Joe_Paycheck (anonymous profile)
May 27, 2014 at 11:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

We did one during the AW ban Joe.
It lasted ten years and crime didn't do much at all but it is trending downward and has been for quite some time. This in spite of more and more gun ownership with more states, in fact all states now allowing CCW.

There will always be crazy people just like there will always be poor people. Best we can do is keep an eye on our fellow humans and try to stop them from doing bad things.

sslocal (anonymous profile)
May 29, 2014 at 3:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Harvard Study: Gun Control Is Counterproductive

Not only is it counterproductive, in that it doesn't reduce gun violence, gun control is also a violent policy that requires violent force against peaceful non-violent citizens.

When you institute gun control it is easy to remove guns from non-violent law-abiding citizens, but the criminals will still have guns and so that is why gun control becomes counter-productive. The criminals know the law abiding citizens are unarmed and they can take advantage of that situation.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
May 29, 2014 at 4:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Any intelligent, reasonable gun owner has no excuse to continue to tout the NRA as being anything but a detriment to this country. At this point, they aren't even about supposed gun rights, they have crossed over into a for-profit lobbying entity.

The problem with the NRA really does go far beyond the issue of gun control. They have too much influence that comes from unethical and probably technically illegal power via money and contributions.

With them out of the way, some reasonable gun control measures that make some actual sense might have a chance to be enacted.

Native1 (anonymous profile)
May 29, 2014 at 4:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Any intelligent, reasonable gun owner has no excuse to continue to tout the NRA as being anything but a detriment to this country."

You are right, I'm not a gun owner but the NRA has been a detriment to the country by supporting all sorts of federal gun control legislation. That is why I support the GOA (Gun Owners of America), that is an organization that truly supports gun owner rights and the 2nd amendment in this country.

The NRA is a complete joke, if you want gun control you should actually support them, I won't. They may say they support gun rights, but if you look at their record it is absolutely not true.

That said, if you're so "intelligent" how do you explain the study I just posted, why do you ignore that gun control increases violent crime? It just puts the guns in the criminals hands instead of the law-abiding citizens. NOT smart.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
May 29, 2014 at 4:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

4 million people say you are wrong Native.

sslocal (anonymous profile)
June 3, 2014 at 11:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

ahh mate, its not as easy as Oz over here. doesn't matter what numbers, facts, data etc show.

shooting each other is part of the makeup of this country. always has been, always will be. has to be.....why else would they put up with it?

as far as the NRA is concerned, they actually ( unofficially, but trust me) determine gun laws in this country. nobody else. and that will never change.

can the blues beat the maroons one more time.

lawdy (anonymous profile)
June 3, 2014 at 1:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

OK then, but remember, the Brady Bill was supposed to stop this insanity. I've heard this argument before--I don't know why this time it will be different.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
June 3, 2014 at 2:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Would it stop something such as this?

billclausen (anonymous profile)
June 3, 2014 at 2:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

event calendar sponsored by: