New NRA member here, as of 5 minutes ago.

selmaborntidefan said:

I'm amused by the old what amounts to "if they're suspicious." Interesting. Didn't we recently have a kid bring a clock to school and when the school thought it might be a bomb, they got blasted (swidt?) as bigots.

But what if it had been?

This is why "suspicion" - also known as profiling - won't work. The ONLY thing that will work is the same way nearly every mass shooting ends - putting a bullet into the criminal.

Click to expand...

Seems that Trayvon may have been a bit "suspicious" as well.

Bazza said:

Click to expand...

Yep pretty much the reality

What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immoveable object? The gun control debate.

JBama_in_PCOLA said:

I have no idea. It's hard to figure this out. We know something must be done but at the same time you don't want to impede on someone's rights as a US citizen. There ought to be a simple starting place. Just don't know where.

I don't believe that citizens should have automatic weapons though. I don't understand the rationale behind that other than the bad guys have them.


Sent from my iPhone 6+ using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

So I guess you have never read or heard of the National firearms act of 1934...

BamaJama17 said:

So I guess you have never read or heard of the National firearms act of 1934...

Click to expand...

No, I wasn't aware of it.


Sent from my iPhone 6+ using Tapatalk

TIDE-HSV said:

One thing that's not mentioned is that it's almost impossible to control a weapon as light as an AR in full auto. I was **, but my son was Army and, when he went through the basic for officers coming out of ROTC, they were all given the opportunity to qualify FA. Nobody could hit reliably enough to qualify. That's the reason the army went to 3 shot burst, except for suppressive fire. Now, I have mine outfitted with what's called a "bump" or "slide" stock. It will keep firing as long as the trigger is depressed (and it's legal). However, I found that I couldn't control it until I installed a muzzle brake. That gadget directs the muzzle blast upwards, which depresses and damps down the muzzle hop. The drawback is it's as loud as holy hell, even with ear protection. My weapon is for home defense at very short range, so I wouldn't be worried about hearing, under home invasion-type circumstances, but it is a problem with a muzzle brake. However, back to the original point, a weapon like the AR platform is just not intended to be fired FA, not that the media knows or cares...

Click to expand...

Even weapons designed for full auto are difficult to control. You have to have special training. I got a chance to fire an M-60 and it was a blast but I could barely keep it on a line and really couldn't keep it on a specific target. It's extremely heavy and unwieldy which actually helps stabilize it. I can't imagine going FA with a light weapon like the AR-15 and hitting anything at a distance.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have never owned a gun and that is unlikely to change. In a more ideal society I would favor background checks, a reasonable waiting period, etc., but because we live in the degenerating society we do, there are at least 2 reasons I don't favor any changes to the current laws:

The gun control advocates who matter: politicians, academia and the mainstream media, have shown they will not relent on any cultural issue, even after they gain the original concession. The left (I'm apolitical) is relentless. Homosexual supporters said just a few short years ago that all they wanted was civil unions. Now we have the Fed gov't forcing the acceptance of boys showering with girls, with the real prospect of sanctioned polygamy, bestiality, etc. not far away. IMO, the same would happen with gun control. It is likely that most gun control advocate foot soldiers would be reasonable, but those in positions of power have proven they can not be trusted. Thus, I can understand NRA types fighting tooth and nail for every inch of ground.

The other reason is that this country has literally hundreds of millions of guns and it would be impossible to make a meaningful dent in that number without a gov't ruthlessness that, thankfully, has yet to be manifested. So, there is no way the criminal element would not still be able to easily acquire guns. But just as importantly is the benefit of criminals not knowing if their prospective victim has a gun. Not only that, but guns are a great equalizer. If there were no guns, then the weaker such as women and the elderly would be much more vulnerable. Criminals have already become much bolder. If they knew their prospective victim had no gun that boldness would only increase. Even though I have no gun, I'm grateful that any potential burglar does not know that.

JBama_in_PCOLA said:

That's a good point. Still though at least come to the table. There needs to be something. Right now, there's nothing.


Sent from my iPhone 6+ using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

What do you mean? Everything that guy did was against the law except buying a gun. Do you really think that stealing a gun would be a big stumbling block for a guy about to commit such a thing as mass murder?

JBama_in_PCOLA said:

I have no idea. It's hard to figure this out. We know something must be done but at the same time you don't want to impede on someone's rights as a US citizen. There ought to be a simple starting place. Just don't know where.

I don't believe that citizens should have automatic weapons though. I don't understand the rationale behind that other than the bad guys have them.




Sent from my iPhone 6+ using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

AR-15 is not an automatic weapon

bama_wayne1 said:

What do you mean? Everything that guy did was against the law except buying a gun. Do you really think that stealing a gun would be a big stumbling block for a guy about to commit such a thing as mass murder?

Click to expand...

You're ignoring the fact he might get shot by the homeowner from whom he's trying to steal the gun.

America Doesn't Have a Gun Problem, It Has a Gang Problem

The country's real "gun culture" is controlled by the urban Democratic machine.

America’s murder rate isn’t the work of the suburban and rural homeowners who shop for guns at sporting goods stores and at gun shows, and whom news shows profile after every shooting, but by the gangs embedded in the urban areas controlled by the Democratic machine. The gangs who drive up America’s murder rate look nothing like the occasional mentally ill suburban white kid who goes off his medication and decides to shoot up a school. Lanza, like most serial killers, is a media aberration, not the norm.

Click to expand...

America is, on a county by county basis, not a violent country, just as it, on a county by county basis, did not vote for Obama. It is being dragged down by broken cities full of broken families whose mayors would like to trash the Bill of Rights for the entire country in the vain hope that national gun control will save their cities, even though gun control is likely to be as much help to Chicago or New Orleans as the War on Drugs.

Obama’s pretense that there needs to be a national conversation about rural American gun owners is a dishonest and cynical ploy that distracts attention from the real problem that he and politicians like him have sat on for generations.
We do not need to have a conversation about the NRA. We need to have a conversation about Chicago.

Click to expand...

I don't think mandatory minimums have held up over time to be a good deterrent to crime, whether it's drug sentencing or the three strikes laws.

That being said, I think any conversation regarding gun regulation would be remiss if it didn't also talk about the other side of the liberty debate. Many people who commit crimes like these have some level of psychological issues. There used to exist a way for families to get long term care help for their loved ones if they exhibited mental issues that didn't cause them to go broke, or cause them to essentially self sacrifice their own lives in the long term care of their family member. Granted much of that has been offloaded into the prison system, but unfortunately that requires someone to commit a serious crime before they can be put away for any length of time.

In addition, I find it interesting that people who so vehemently proclaim that any discussion of gun control is a non starter because they have an inalienable right, are more than willing to bend on the 1st, 4th, 5th and 6th amendments. I will point to the great groundswell of armchair FBI agents who think that they should have just arrested Mateen because he obviously was going to do something terrible.

I have no problem with expanded background checks and waiting periods because I believe this would help more than trying to ban a particular type of firearm.

We need to do a better job policing our current laws. Period.

Until that happens.....this is just another waste of time.

TIDE-HSV said:

One thing that's not mentioned is that it's almost impossible to control a weapon as light as an AR in full auto. I was **, but my son was Army and, when he went through the basic for officers coming out of ROTC, they were all given the opportunity to qualify FA. Nobody could hit reliably enough to qualify. That's the reason the army went to 3 shot burst, except for suppressive fire. Now, I have mine outfitted with what's called a "bump" or "slide" stock. It will keep firing as long as the trigger is depressed (and it's legal). However, I found that I couldn't control it until I installed a muzzle brake. That gadget directs the muzzle blast upwards, which depresses and damps down the muzzle hop. The drawback is it's as loud as holy hell, even with ear protection. My weapon is for home defense at very short range, so I wouldn't be worried about hearing, under home invasion-type circumstances, but it is a problem with a muzzle brake. However, back to the original point, a weapon like the AR platform is just not intended to be fired FA, not that the media knows or cares...

Click to expand...

I have a good friend who is on the local police force's SWAT team. He and I have been shooting several times. I own an AR-15 and shoot it fairly frequently. I'd say I'm a pretty good shot. My buddy has let me shoot his service weapon on full auto and it is incredibly difficult to control. Even shooting it in bursts of a few rounds at a time, I was only able to about 1 out of every 4 shots on paper at 50 yards. It's really hard to keep it on target after the first shot.

I'm not anti-gun, but Is it really too much of a burden to do better background checks for anything other than a bolt action rifle or break action shotgun? I mean I had to do a more in depth background check to get my Global Entry than to buy a gun. Private sales are problematic. The media isn't being helpful with the "assault rifle" thing. Meanwhile, everyone and their brother knows handguns are the main contributor to gun violence.

I really wish the NRA would come out with some sort of proposed legislation. Something is eventually going to get passed. Better to name your own terms than have them dictated to you. I think there is some kind of middle ground that doesn't put an unreasonable burden on law abiding citizens and still keeps guns off the street.