Gotta (not) love the NRA

52 thoughts on “Gotta (not) love the NRA”

  1. NRA was once actually an association of gun owners. It has transformed itself into the propaganda wing of gun manufacturers, serving their interests only. The rest of us deal with flying bullets and their lies.

    1. The NRA was originally founded as an organization to improve marksmanship.
      It later morphed into an organization to teach marksmanship and promote gun safety.
      However, the NRA-ILA (Institute for Legislative Action) was developed as an an affiliate to speak-up for the rights on the individual gun owner. This happened in the mid 70’s as anti-gun legislation became more common and threatening. Here to for, the NRA supported much of the gun legislation until the government began over reaching and demanding too much. The NRA is only reacting to the heavy handed policies of the government. The more the government tries to restrict, the more powerful the NRA will get.

  2. am so amazed whenever the NRA comes out against new gun laws. Its beyond me how they manage to be such a powerful group with their lobbying, the gun manufacturers must pay them a bundle to keep going…

    1. No one organization should have so much power in this country. Somebody suggested recently that if we can no longer fight the NRA, we should all join it and then bring it down from within. I’ve heard worse ideas …

      1. Nah, me neither. As a gun owner and retired military officer I can state with confidence that the NRA has become a political tool of immature males who have become paranoid for no supportable reason.

      2. As a gun owner and not a member of the NRA, I am still glad to hear their immature voice as a counter to the immature voices on the other side of the debate.

        I’ve always felt it’s best to have a balanced level of immaturity in any important issue. The benefit is that as long as they yell at each other, it should have minimal impact on me.

      3. @ disperser,

        What it comes down to then is whether you are willing to trust a representative government. Maybe you’re right because the way it’s trending this election eve, it appears that emotion, superstition and paranoia have the stage. Maybe in a couple of millennia, assuming the nation lasts that long . . .

      4. The key word being ‘representative’ . . . more and more I am of the opinion the government is not exactly representing the interests of the people it governs.

        Even in those instances when it does, it seems no more than a means to an end, usually relating to the passage of this or that law that always, always expands the government’s reach and power.

        In the olden days, one might have left to other frontiers, perhaps less safe, but also a bit less restrictive. These days, unless one has lots of money, or decides to go live in some forest (illegal in most places), there’s an increasing feeling of annoyance, and that does breed a feeling of distrust.

        The gun issue is just one thing, and no, I’m not one of them who has any illusion of armed resistance. My only interest in guns is for enjoyment and, peripherally, one small part of my overall strategy to minimize the chances of any harm coming to me or mine. A last resorts of sorts, like having bandages in the house even though I hope I never need them.

  3. That Colorado legislature is clearly out of control. Next thing you know, they’ll want to raise the minimum age for practicing with an Uzi on full auto from 8 to, who knows, even 16? This madness must stop! 🙄

    1. What!? Infringe on the rights of those youngsters to learn safe gun handling!!?? Without that invaluable training we’ll have gun violence and accidental shootings and kids killing kids and … oh … hmm … never mind

  4. Wow. I really should wander over there just to know what’s being said.
    Why does everyone/every group – on both sides – have to write/think/speak in such hyperbole extreme language?
    Do they think it encourages real dialogue or people wanting to stand anywhere close to them?
    Sensible people don’t have anywhere to go any more.

      1. I’ll have to page back that…..Actual debate with facts without opinion shading them is almost nonexistant these days. People that can only call names and insults, don’t have any solid evidence to back their statements or real ideas to counter with…So it’s back to little kid’s “my dad can beat up your dad” and “you’re it, I quit”?
        (add a dose of snorts here….nothing really changes…so you can be sure that one will get that comment bounced back to them eventually…and be insulted and stunned. While we laugh )

      2. It was a lengthy and relatively civil discussion (with “Eric”). But ultimately it became clear that neither of us was going to change our mind. I doubt anyone read it all; the comment nesting got rather confusing and was interrupted with other comments.

      3. I think I started reading it – but wandered off. After a while sometimes it’s pointless to keep responding if it;s going no where.
        In any case, agreeing to disagree is a good thing. Life would be very dull and boring if we all thought, dressed and acted just alike.
        (Sadly some now don’t enjoy/get civil debates for entertainment – and can only get red in the face, angry and scream…what fun is that? (Stopped raining for a bit, but UGH looks likes a snoozie holiday with hysterical frantic runs outside between showers/thunder…hope yours’ is better!)

      4. Yes, that discussion really did kind of go in circles. The up side was I think we covered most of the arguments and rebuttals ever presented in most gun discussions, and the down side was neither of us would concede and kept wanting to have the last word. All it really did was frustrate me.

        Forecast here is for mostly sunny skies through Monday. Wish I could share …

  5. I have to go by sites like that one when fact-checking sometimes, and they always sadden me (after I finally stop laughing at the utter ridiculousness and stop seething over the perverse insanity of their rhetoric). These guys are more of a danger to gun rights than we are since they want to antagonize and belittle everyone who doesn’t agree they absolutely must have multitudes of guns with the capability of shooting 30 rounds. Grrrrr …

  6. Just as amatter of interest, will somebody advise this alien as to why this so called ‘Second Ammendment ” is still relevant. It might have been useful back in the late 18th early 19th centuries but theres been a lot of water under the bridge since then.

    Can it not be removed from your Constitution or wherever this archaic load of codswallop sits?

    🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂

    ( being a bit cheeky heream I not!?

    1. Whether or not you think it’s relevant, it is next to impossible to change or remove it. From

      The United States Constitution is unusually difficult to amend. As spelled out in Article V, the Constitution can be amended in one of two ways. First, amendment can take place by a vote of two-thirds of both the House of Representatives and the Senate followed by a ratification of three-fourths of the various state legislatures (ratification by thirty-eight states would be required to ratify an amendment today). This first method of amendment is the only one used to date. Second, the Constitution might be amended by a Convention called for this purpose by two-thirds of the state legislatures, if the Convention’s proposed amendments are later ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures.

      Because any amendment can be blocked by a mere thirteen states withholding approval (in either of their two houses), amendments don’t come easy. In fact, only 27 amendments have been ratified since the Constitution became effective, and ten of those ratifications occurred almost immediately–as the Bill of Rights.

      In lieu of all that we are stuck with Supreme Court rulings and interpretations handed down whenever someone challenges the law in court.

      1. Obviously it was all relevant when written, just a pity the forefathers couldn’t foresee the repercussions it would have and the subsequent politicians/rulers didn’t make ammendments. Why the founding fathers are revered to the extent they must be by Americans sticking to this ridiculous clause is beyond me. To the old saying ‘if it ain’t broke don’t fix it” should be added ‘if it is broke get rid of it!”

        I’m glad we don’t have a Constitution here in Australia that is so hog tied, now I’m wondering if we do indeed have a Constitution, 🙂

      2. @LordBeariOfBow

        Realizing that a democracy with only a majority vote could legalize slavery, Socrates’ conviction for his advocating a constitutional republic led a plurality of the mob to sentence him do death by poison. Rather than recant, he drank the Hemlock and the rest is history.

        The US constitution protects individual citizens rights against an unreasonable mob.

        The 2nd amendment grants no rights at all.

        The 2nd amendment prohibits the government from interfering with a citizens pre-existing right to defend him or her self against any aggressor.

      3. Does that mean that a good American citizen siitting at home watching baseball on TV and the police come forcing their way into his home, (mistaking it for the house next door where their suspect is), he has the right to pick up his gun and shoot them? Are they, the police in such an instance, not the aggressor’s and this good citizen is exercising his right?

        Of course such a scenario cannot exist because the police would shoot him dead in a hail of bullets and claim that he shot first!

        Is there any definition of “any aggressor” or is it subject to the interpretation of whoever is sitting on the bench?

      4. It depends. If the cops came in unannounced with guns at the ready, then the innocent victim of that aggression would indeed have the right and the responsibility of protecting him or her self. On the other hand, it the cops announced who they were and their authority (a proper warrant) to be there, the innocent citizen would be required to allow them entry.

        Such a scenario not only can exist, it has occurred more than once. Of course the more likely scenario you suggest has also occurred more than once.

        The definition isn’t complex. An aggressor is any one (or more) who INITIATE coercive force in the absence of any other pre-existing force. Force used in response to an initiated force is a defensive force.

  7. The power and size of the NRA always seems to be the reasoning behind folks like me and you feeling like “we” have no power whatsoever when it comes to fighting the NRA. What boggles my mind however in this debate is the fact that currently they have a membership of around 5 million and the “adult” population of the United States is approximately 240 million. Now I understand a lot more demographics have to be calculated into that 240 million but please don’t try to convince me that the NRA is in the majority. We should be able to snuff them out like a two-day old burning matchstick!! 😕

    1. Thanks to the gun manufacturers, their funding far exceeds what their number of members suggests. And that money talks very loudly in Washington. Plus there’s a huge number of gun owners who don’t belong to the NRA. No, they’re not the majority. But it’s a scary large percentage — something like 37% of American homes have guns.


      There are by various estimates anywhere from 270 million to 310 million guns in the United States — close to one firearm for every man, woman and child. But in point of fact, only a minority of Americans own guns.

  8. Sorry if I was unclear, I wasn’t suggesting getting rid of all guns. In fact I own a couple myself. I was however suggesting that the fact that the NRA seems to control the conversation surrounding ‘gun control’ seems somewhat asinine, given my quoted numbers. To be more specific, I would think the advocacy voting block for supporting serious, common sense gun control would be well in the majority. But that assumed majority as I see it seems reluctant to exercise their will at the voting booth.

    1. I didn’t take it as meaning you wanted to get rid of guns. I was just trying to point out how many gun owners there are and therefore, how much potential opposition to tighter gun control laws. You’d think responsible gun owners would see the need for some common sense gun control, but here in Colorado, at least, the issue seems to balance on a tenuous 50/50 split all the time. (Gun advocates, of course, say “You’d think responsible non-gun owners would understand guns are not the problem … “)

  9. Hmm . . . can’t speak for the NRA, but I like large magazines. Also, you already made the point I was going to make about private sales. The fee thing is annoying because it’s an extra background check (purchases are already subject to the National Check, and the CBI check adds nothing to that).

    1. Given, you like larger magazines. You don’t have to reload as often. I get that. But how does that affect your right to own or use your gun(s)?

      Isn’t the fee to cover background checks that the federal government doesn’t require, those at gun shows, on the Internet, or private transactions? Not all purchases are subject to the federal check.

      1. The objection, or at least my objection, is not that it affects the cost of using or owning a gun, is that it’s touted as a “solution” to mass shooting (defined as four or more victims). It is not, and it should not be presented as such. None of these laws take into account real data, and by their own (after-the-fact) admission would not stop another Columbine . . . the question then is why?

        Private sellers must go through a dealer and get the background check. As near as I can determine, the dealer runs the check as it normally would (through the NCIS system –, and the paperwork forwarded to CBI.

        Basically an additional fee for no reason that I can see.

        By the way, I’m not getting notices of replies. I’ll probably check a few more times, but won’t continue to do so just to see if there is a response.

      2. I don’t know that these laws were promoted or touted as a solution to mass shootings specifically. But I think any law that helps keep guns out of the hands of people with criminal backgrounds, histories of mental illness, or other disqualifiers is a step toward reducing gun violence.

        It looks like you didn’t include your email address on the comment form, so an email notification couldn’t be sent. You also didn’t include your blog’s URL so WordPress could not include a notification in your notifications list. If you’ll include one or the other or both with your next comment, you should get notifications (be sure to tick the box below the comment form if you want an email notification).

      3. You have your own domain. Because of it, wordpress wants to set third party cookies, and I don’t allow it, so coming in with my wordpress credentials does not work (although it depends on your settings).

        If I just enter my e-mail, it’s recognized as having a wordpress ID, and it will ask for the password.

        When I enter it, it tells me the comment cannot be set (because I don’t have 3rd party cookies enabled).

        There are blogs with their own domain that allow me to come in without 3rd party cookies being set, and I’ve yet to figure out why.

        Regardless, as a consequence I come in and comment using Twitter . . . most of the time if I click on “notify me” I will receive an e-mail.

        On some blogs, yours being one of them, that has no effect, and I receive no notices.

        I’ve written about it here:

      4. I read that last night, and I do not require you be registered and logged in to comment here. I do normally require a valid email address from new commenters, but approved yours because I’d already visited your blog. I’m sorry if you don’t get notifications, but it sounds like you’ve effectively short-circuited all the normal automated methods.

      5. What do you know. It worked. It did not work the other day.

        However, it used to work with Timethief’s blog for a while before stopping. We’ll see how long this lasts.

      6. As for the law being touted as solutions to mass shootings, that was exactly the case. Why, the president himself made a big speech about it right here in Colorado.

        Also, I did not object to the background checks. I objected to some of the provisions associated with those.

        I also object that if a person fails the background check (about 40 so far, or 1% since the law has been enacted, but they don’t say for what), they are not subject to persecution for legally or illegally trying to obtain a gun. Also, the person trying to sell the gun is not checked. Now, the reality is that a criminal is not going to try and obtain a gun through legal means, but the checks may catch people who don’t even realize they can’t buy a gun.

        Again, if you read my comments on guns and gun control you will find I am very much for reasonable legislation to minimize the illegal use of guns.

        Much that is being proposed will do no such thing. Add to that the stated goal of gun “control” proponents to “eliminate” guns, and I am skeptical when I hear a ban on “assault rifles” will help save lives (the numbers don’t support it). Even more skeptical when it’s mentioned as a “first step”.

        And extremely skeptical when guns are banned based on how they look.

        The National Research Council, during congressional testimony following the Newtown shooting, stated:

        “In summary, the committee concludes that existing research studies and data include a wealth of descriptive information on homicide, suicide, and firearms, but, because of the limitations of existing data and methods, do not credibly demonstrate a causal relationship between the ownership of firearms and the causes or prevention of criminal violence or suicide.”

        That does not keep people (on both sides) from making all sorts of claims. Most of all, even smart people will insist “something must be done” . . . without any credible data to give any indication of what would work.

        I’d like to see mandatory sentences for gun crimes (they make more sense than mandatory sentencing for drug offenses), I would like to see no parole for people who committed crimes with guns (or any weapon), I’d like to see a licensing strategy similar to driving licenses (i.e. recognized across state borders). We already have background checks, but I do not object to extending their reach and scope (depending on the exact implementation). I’m open to all sorts of stuff provided it can be backed up by data. Nothing being proposed even comes close. At best it demonstrates both a bias against guns in general, and significant ignorance about guns. Most of all, it gives the false sense of security that arises from “something having been done”.

        Call me unimpressed.

      7. I wasn’t paying close attention to the debate since it was in the legislature, not on a ballot. I will say Obama’s visiting the state never impresses me. It’s always a political move on his part and it does nothing here but create traffic jams.

        Sounds like you have a lot of good suggestions. I do plead guilty to frequently thinking and saying that “something must be done” because I think it’s true. And some of your suggestions are among the things that could be done. Mandatory sentencing for gun crimes, for example, seems like a no brainer.

  10. I’ve just been reading where a mother who’s son took a gun to school has been sentenced to 14 months jail, does this mean that there are laws in America that can be brought to bear on the parents of this girl who killed a man.

    I can’t see much difference in the mentality of a moron who lets their child take a gun to school and a moron or two who allow and authorize their child to shoot a high powerd gun at a shooting range.

    1. It varies by state, but parents are subject to child neglect and/or endangerment charges if they own guns and leave them where children get hold of them and endanger or hurt or kill others.

  11. I am more afeared of the resultant mayhem which will surely occur if young girls are NOT allowed practise and instruction…Who in their right mind wants untrained gunsters trotting about blasting all and wasting rounds?
    and in regards to:
    “Given, you like larger magazines.”
    Obviously a young upstart.
    At MY advanced age and diminished vision, I treasure and support large magazines. And not only LARGER but more with “turn 90 degrees and open fold out pages”
    If you are determined to hang onto this “Let’s not esplain to the chirruns” mentality, how can we expect legions of young lads to NOT think that 3-page ladies do not mince around with shiny staples in their navels?

... and that's my two cents