NRA: ‘This is our lane’

31 thoughts on “NRA: ‘This is our lane’”

    1. Yep, it’s a multi-lane highway, used by everyone, maintained by everyone. If the NRA can’t accept that and act responsibly (not just talk), they can jolly well get off the road and out of the wayl Nobody’s big enough to get their own private lane.

  1. We know what the NRA’s solution to the problem is — more guns for everyone and we can just shoot it out. Whoever is left standing is right. Sorta like, whoever has the most money can do what they like.

    1. The NRA is just a shill for gun manufacturers, and selling more guns is all they care about. They’ll continue to oppose any measures that affect gun sales. Ethics and morality are out the window; profit is the bottom line. Of course, if enough responsible NRA members abandoned the organization, things might change. But I’m not holding my breath.

  2. johnthecook…It is my personal opinion “guns” are not the problem. Guns just so happen to be the weapon of choice of the PEOPLE who choose to do harm to others. There are many other forms of violence that people could use but choose not to or they haven’t given much thought to alternative methods of…you get the picture.
    When they outlaw guns and confiscate them only criminals will have guns! Outlaws and criminals don’t care about “no stinking laws.”they never have and never will. That 9-11 thing killed more people at one time than any one time act of gun violence ever has;except in a time of war or declared “police action.”
    By the way you can’t successfully legislate Ethics or Morality. Have no fear there is ONE KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.who will return one day to set thing straight,and HE is not going to be a happy camper!

    1. Note I did not suggest the confiscation of guns. Also, when guns are the weapon of choice I’m guessing it’s because they have portability, range, lethality, and a rate of fire/killing not available with any other weapon I can think of.

      And I’m not suggesting anyone try to legislate ethics or morality. People and their organizations either have them or they don’t. But yes, one has to question the morality of continuing to allow the murder of innocents with guns.

  3. We all know the issues of gun control, debated endlessly. I understand where John and ImaLibertarian are coming from, but it just doesn’t make sense that the answer has to be either of the two extremes. Because of the passions evoked by American culture in the past half-century I have come to the conclusion that we will never approach the degree of gun safety achieved by the likes of the other first-tier countries, at least not in my lifetime. I submit, however, that the Democratic position should be to:

    1. Limit access by federal law to the most lethal guns, which because of design in ammunition, firing rate and magazine capacity has enormously surpassed anything the founders might have imagined.
    2. Limit access to guns by those who are mentally unstable or have conditions such as PTSD, again by federal law.

    I specify federal law because when state laws vary it makes it impossible for cities like Chicago to control gun violence.

    1. Yes, it must be federal law. When Colorado passed a law limiting the size of gun magazines, the majority of sheriffs in the state spoke up immediately and said they would not enforce the law. Period.

      1. I’m an old-fashioned girl who believes an officer of the law should enforce the law whether or not he agrees with it. On the other hand, they let me into the state 13 years ago, so I suppose I shouldn’t complain.

  4. johnthecook…what about the killing of the innocent that involve the use of alcohol,drugs and cars? Certainly those numbers have to be staggering as well! YES people with guns can be and are a problem,but it is the PERSON, and not the object of their affection that is the problem.

    1. John, with all due respect, the issue is gun violence and gun control. Changing the subject is simply avoiding the issue.

      (Besides, cars have to be registered and their drivers licensed. The purchase of alcohol has an age restriction. Legally obtained drugs have to come from a doctor. Etc., etc.)

      1. johnthecook…thank you Pied Type for redirecting me to the issue at hand “gun control and gun violence. Guns by themselves can do no harm,it is the person behind the trigger that is responsible for what the gun is capable of doing. A manufacturer of guns can make them with safety devices,however all it takes is one PERSON to disable or override those safety devices then they;the people, are free to do whatever they want with the gun. A thousand more laws governing what a gun owner can do will make no difference to a criminal or potential criminal.There are already over 100 different laws,rules and guides covered by Legislation of various Government entities,and we can all see just how well they are being followed. My point, it is the person who is responsible,and not the gun!

      2. johnthecook…absolutely,spot on. You are most correct. No gun,no gun violence. You are aware that guns have been on American soil since the early 1600’s and they will never ever go away.They have been enforcing gun legislation,regulation,and the use of guns for nearly the same period of time.Everyone knows and sees that criminals do not care about them. EDUCATION is the key to gun violence. When enough people care,only then will the frequency of gun violence become a thing of the past. It has been said we are a “stiff necked people” and that cannot be disputed…period!

      3. You’ve reminded me that I’m fond of saying “education is the solution to every problem,” but what education is going to stop our crazy gun violence?

  5. I’m nearly 80 years young. I started school in 1946. I remember what it was like then, the cultural transition to what is now. All the changes result from the abandonment of personal responsibility aided by the acceptance of government that laziness coupled with irresponsibility is not only normal, it is encouraged.

    1. In the same vein as personal responsibility, simple good manners would go a long way. Or the Golden Rule. I don’t harbor much hope that our society will return to the kinder, gentler days you and I once knew.

      1. The point of both our comments is cultural, not guns. The gun issues are like symptoms of a terminal cancer. Tackling them is akin to using morphine to cure liver cancer.

  6. Regardless whether you agree or disagree, passing laws that affect the law abiding but don’t affect law breakers does not seem to me as helpful. Don’t you ultimately desire to repeal of the constitutional restriction against government limiting its citizens ability to defend themselves against aggression? How on Earth do you hope to achieve that?

    1. We have plenty of laws affecting law abiding citizens but not law breakers. Auto registrations and drivers licenses, for example. Law breakers break or ignore laws, hence the name. I know you feel the need to have a gun for self defense. I don’t. That’s the job of our many law enforcement agencies.

      But getting back to my original point, you are a responsible gun owner. Since that’s your lane, what would you do to greatly reduce or eliminate mass shootings and gun violence in general? What positive, active steps would you take?

  7. I’ll have to think about a comprehensive response, but simply incarcerating people who fail to meet the requirements when attempting to purchase a firearm would be a good step in that direction. Primary schools focusing on individual instead of group responsibility would be another. More to come…

... and that's my two cents