This has been one of my key problems with the ongoing debate. They represent the product, the companies. Though the GOP way now is to let the fox guard the hen house and say everything is fine... Have a lobbyist for an industry be in charge of regulating that industry... as if he'll have the public's interest and not the industry's interests. Have the lawyer for Verizon in charge of regulating Verizon and similar companies, and we've already seen he has no interest in the public good, just what is good for Verizon. Put a guy who hates the EPA and has tried to shut it down, in charge of the EPA... let the Cuyahoga River burn again by rolling back all the regulations that prevent it from happening again. These people have zero integrity, and the NRA is just an extension of this issue, and perhaps was the wedge in the door. Let the industry's lobby group control the debate, and people get used to the idea of the fox guarding the henhouse. It is rather maddening.

NRATV ?? Really???
A complete testament to everything that is wrong with the NRA .

Mrs. NRA is pronounced Nurae. It's Norwegian. She didn't come here from a non-shithole country to get her name mispronounced.

Congratulations! Your video, Full Frontal - The NRA is a Cult, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 11 Badge!

Your video, Full Frontal - The NRA is a Cult, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

That is the part that befuddles me with their whole argument. Every other country in the world has these games, movies, and TV... have they seen some of the stuff coming out of Japan and parts of Europe. They all have equally violent games and movies, and they don't have the same problem. And as was pointed out by CrushBug, they are all Rated M games.

They all have "mentally ill" people too... and don't have the same problem. Another argument that makes no sense, given that one of their first actions was to make it easier for "mentally ill" people to get guns. Though as I understand it that hasn't gone into effect yet, it's still the principle of saying "it's mental illness" while making it easier for those you are blaming. Not to mention every version of their attempts to get rid of Obamacare included massive cuts to mental health programs.

The fact that all these people are the same people who scream "right to life" in regards to abortion, and that's why they vote Republican (a party that loves war and the death penalty), is a bit odd since they seem to love their right to own a gun far more than the tons of lives snuffed out by said guns each year. I'd be more or less happy enough, for now, to just end the Dickey amendment and see how the data works out. But no, they still refuse to do that... probably because the NRA has an idea of where that data will go.

@MilkmanDan, excellent points all round.

I'm not a gun owner, and I have no interest in buying one for self-defence, but I have fired guns a few times (at shooting ranges or clay pigeon shoots) and it's an undeniably fun activity. I could also see myself going hunting for food at some point.

Jim Jeffries makes an excellent point in his gun control rant.
"fuck off, I like guns" is actually a reasonable argument. If you like something and you're not harming anyone with it, why should it be taken from you? After all, many "anti-gun" (or more accurately "pro-gun control") people will make the same argument FOR drugs. "I'm just smoking some weed/having a beer in my house. I'm not hurting anyone, just leave me alone".

But the thing is unless you're a hardcore libertarian, almost everyone agrees that there should be some sensible limits on drugs. Even for legal drugs like alcohol, we mandate that you must be a certain age (older than you have to be to buy a gun, which is lunacy to me) and that you can't drive drunk, etc.

The sad thing is, there's near universal agreement on this, even in the US. The vast majority of people are in favour of the kind of simple, common-sense regulations you mention.

It's just that the politicians are in the pocket of the NRA. As one of shooting survivors pointed out "We should change the names of AR-15s to “Marco Rubio” because they are so easy to buy", and I cannot say how much I want to stand up and applaud that epic burn.

@eric3579 -- I agree that that is a sticking point. I have trouble buying it because there are already limitations on the "right to bear arms".

The 2nd amendment:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


Certainly, one could argue that licensing / registration of firearms would count as infringing on the right to keep and bear arms. However, "arms" is rather unspecific. Merriam Webster defines it as "a means (such as a weapon) of offense or defense; especially : firearm".

The government has already decided that limiting the access to some "arms" is fine, and doesn't infringe on the constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms. For example, in many states it is "legal" to own a fully automatic, military use machine gun. BUT:
1) It had to be manufactured before 1986
2) Said machine gun has to be registered in a national database
3) The buyer has to pass a background check

So there's 3 things already infringing on your constitutional right to bear a specific kind of "arm". A firearm -- not a missile, grenade, or bomb or something "obviously" ridiculous. And actually, even "destructive devices" like grenades are technically not illegal to own, but they require registration, licenses, etc. that the ATF can grant or refuse at their discretion. And their discretion generally leads them to NOT allow civilians to exercise their right to bear that particular sort of "arm".

If those limitations / exceptions aren't an unconstitutional infringement on the right to bear arms, certainly reasonable expansion of the same sort of limitations might also be OK.

I empathize with pro-gun people's fear of "slippery slope" escalating restrictions; the potential to swing too far in the other direction. But at some point you gotta see the writing on the wall. To me, it seems like it would be better for NRA-types to be reasonable and proactive so that they can be part of the conversation about where and how the lines are drawn. In other words, accepting some reasonable "common sense" limitations (like firearm licensing inspired by driver's licensing) seems like a good way to keep any adjustments / de-facto exceptions to the 2nd amendment reasonable (like the laws about machine guns). Otherwise, you're going all-in. With a not particularly good hand. And that's when you can lose everything (ie., 2nd amendment removal rather than limited in sane ways that let responsible people still keep firearms).

Excellent.

"The problem is that very dangerous people have very easy access to very dangerous weapons."

So, there's 3 issues there. Address any ONE of the three, and things would get better. Maybe not "job done" better, but better. Take moderate, corrective steps on all three, and we'd be MUCH better off.

1) Dangerous people. How could we take dangerous people out of the equation? Background checks. Licensing. Revoking gun ownership privileges for convicts and people diagnosed with mental health problems.

2) Easy access. What could we do better to sensibly and fairly restrict access to firearms? Well, lets see ... fucking anything stands a better chance of working than the nothing that we're doing now. So again, background checks, licensing, registration. Enforcement of said requirements.

3) Dangerous weapons. I think a legitimate criticism of "the left"s typical stance on gun control is that they might be a bit TOO focused on this one.
There is some core truth to the NRA harping "guns don't kill people, people kill people." If a murderous psycho decides that they want to kill a bunch of people, they can find ways of doing it that don't necessarily require guns.
However, it is also true that easy access to weapons designed for war can escalate the degree of tragedy quickly.

Basically, this one and #2 are a trade-off. Bolt action rifles and shotguns might be OK with fewer restrictions. Semi-automatic? High capacity? Doesn't it make sense at some point to at least be a bit careful about who we allow unfettered access to these things?


Trump's parroting of the NRA plan to put MORE guns in schools would be laugh out loud stupid if it wasn't guaranteed to end in tragedy rather than comedy. I can't fathom how anyone, even the nuttiest of gun nuts, could think that is a good idea. And I'm actually rather pro-gun. But, c'mon ... some limitations and restrictions just make obvious sense.

A car is a much better and more legitimate general-purpose "tool" than a firearm. But improper use is dangerous and potentially deadly, so we take some common sense steps to try to limit that. Want to drive? Get a license. Pass a safety test. Pass physical and medical tests to show that you are capable of controlling the vehicle. Periodically re-test to stay current. And, expect to LOSE your license if you drive irresponsibly (drunk, moving violations, etc.).

I don't think those are unfair requirements to be granted the privilege of a license to drive a motor vehicle. To me anybody that has a proper respect for the utility of a firearm, and also a respect for the damage that improper use of firearms can do, should be in favor of sensible restrictions and limitations placed on the privilege of being allowed to own and use a firearm, just like we accept for cars.

The industry financially supporting the NRA doesn't mean the NRA "work for" the industry. Obviously you disagree and that's fine.

"You mentioned there were studies, but still didn't list any or any data, did you?"

Yeah, 4 posts up from yours. I'd read it twice to prevent yourself from making another error.

No, I don't accept that because their stated purpose is no longer their actual, clear purpose. I quit when I noticed the shift in focus, I was a long time member and learned to shoot in an NRA sponsored course. Check where the money comes from, you'll see who they work for. It's not membership dues, it's industry donations....or at least was when I left.
.
You mentioned there were studies, but still didn't list any or any data, did you? He did, and you dismiss them off hand while still offering none, while continuing to make extraordinary claims that demand evidence.
I will say, his limited data wasn't extremely convincing either, but was far better than none.... a decade of data surrounding the law change might be enlightening. Got it? I'll change my tune if you convince me, but that takes verifiable data, not just dataless contentions or baseless claims.

No. While we're both wrong about their primary purpose (which after looking it up on their website is education and training people in firearms use), their other purpose is (from their about page):

"as a major political force and as America's foremost defender of Second Amendment rights"

https://home.nra.org/about-the-nra/

"Downvote for lying".

Oh really? Lol.

I've produced peer reviewed research supporting my views. StukaFox produced none.

There are opposing research papers of course (it is a contentious issue). But it takes a very short sighted person to produce a limited set of ABS data (lol, 2 years) and a Snopes article to declare that I'm wrong. Keep in mind I mentioned in my first comment that there were studies on this topic.

Your video, Liberal Redneck: NRA thinks more guns solve everything, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Mental health is a pretty big issue that is connected. So are socio-economic issues. There is a bigger puzzle of which access to firearms is only the last piece.

I don't think anyone should expect the NRA to address mental health. This is not their mandate. They exist to champion firearm rights. Mental health or other issues are some other lobby group or the general population's responsibility.

The Australian and New Zealand law changes show that restricting the types of firearm, caliber, and magazine capacities has little to no effect. There are multiple studies (the majority in fact) concluding that the draconian Australian laws didn't even affect the homicide by firearm rate.