Need some Assistance

[visaveteran1 33]

There really is a difference in risk though. I actually have an ex that is so narcissistic, greedy, and vengeful that I do worry a little about being a target of gun violence. I would not be worried about being a target of a knife attack, I am quite confident I could effectively defend myself. Guns, for better or worse, really are an equalizer!

"God made men. Samuel Colt made them equal."

[Dave-n-Oksana 49]

Well the paper has taken a different turn than what I had planned. It has turned into a paper to discredit the falsehoods and myths that the Gun Control Lobby has been spewing for years. There is one thing in this world I cannot stand and that is a liar, and that is all I am seeing from the gun control lobby.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Well the paper has taken a different turn than what I had planned. It has turned into a paper to discredit the falsehoods and myths that the Gun Control Lobby has been spewing for years. There is one thing in this world I cannot stand and that is a liar, and that is all I am seeing from the gun control lobby.

Good for you

Google "Heller" and "McDonald". There is plenty of debunking in those two decisions. Particularly as it relates to the anti's constant attempts to rewrite the constitution, and even after these decisions, antis will try to tell you what the Supreme Court REALLY meant. Read it, is is pretty clear what they mean

If you hit on any myths in particular and need help, post here. There are too many to even begin to list. Again try the NRA website as they are excellent at debunking these myths.

Try to use the info you find on the NRA site by referencing the source of their report, Antis want to always "discredit" the NRA because they are biased So don't. Just reference the studies and results they cite

Edited January 8, 2012 by Gary and Alla

[Dave-n-Oksana 49]

Good for you

Google "Heller" and "McDonald". There is plenty of debunking in those two decisions. Particularly as it relates to the anti's constant attempts to rewrite the constitution, and even after these decisions, antis will try to tell you what the Supreme Court REALLY meant. Read it, is is pretty clear what they mean

If you hit on any myths in particular and need help, post here. There are too many to even begin to list. Again try the NRA website as they are excellent at debunking these myths.

Try to use the info you find on the NRA site by referencing the source of their report, Antis want to always "discredit" the NRA because they are biased So don't. Just reference the studies and results they cite

Thanks for tips. As for the NRA, I do plan on hitting the references that they cite.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Thanks for tips. As for the NRA, I do plan on hitting the references that they cite.

They are a great organization and very knowledgable and factual and very effective. However they are routinely dismissed as "the gun lobby" and citing the NRA will cause people to view your report as biased. Stupid but true. But if you use the sources they quote, such as the University of Chicago or the FBI uniform crime report it is pretty hard to argue with that, or at least claim it is biased.

Antis will use sources such as the "Violence Policy Center", a subsidiary of the Brady Handgun Violence Center, and say it is perfectly sensible and logical, even though they ignore recognized and consistent sources such as the Uniform Crime Report. Why?

I consider the NRA a "hub" of information gathered in one place. Not a source, but an encyclopedia of sources.

Incidently the NRA itself does not consider itself a "source" either.

[visaveteran1 33]

The NRA is basically all that prevents us from becoming "Great" Britain." First the Brits took the semi-auto rifles. Then all rifles and shotguns. Then they took the handguns. Then the knives...sharp sticks, nail clippers. Merry old England would put a smile on Stalin's face.

Any gun owner who doesn't join the NRA is crazy...or ready to turn over their guns to Uncle Stalin.

[james&olya 1,121]

Any gun owner who doesn't join the NRA is crazy...or ready to turn over their guns to Uncle Stalin.

Are you serious?! Just out of curiosity, are there ANY gun-owners on here that would turn over their weapons voluntarily if the government actually passed a law demanding it? The NRA may be a place for gun-owners to share their opinions but if it ceased to exist I really don't think gun-owners would be any more ready to disarm.

[visaveteran1 33]

Are you serious?! Just out of curiosity, are there ANY gun-owners on here that would turn over their weapons voluntarily if the government actually passed a law demanding it? The NRA may be a place for gun-owners to share their opinions but if it ceased to exist I really don't think gun-owners would be any more ready to disarm.

This scenario already played out during Katrina. The National Guard went door to door and confiscated weapons from citizens doing no wrong because they were ordered to do so. Some GIs refused to take weapons. Others "followed orders." They also illegally forced people to stay in the stadium and blocked roads to prevent escape. Sounds like Russia, doesn't it?

Here's more details:

Let’s take a look back at some events that occurred after Hurricane Katrina hit Louisiana back in August of 2005.

Everyone remembers the total devastation that the hurricane caused in New Orleans, as well as the total lawlessness that occurred afterward. In response to that, the New Orleans police superintendent, Eddie Compass, sent out an order to his local police and the National Guard to confiscate every civilian firearm. This was supposed to somehow lessen the violence and lawlessness that was occurring, and obviously ignored the fact that the innocent would-be or soon-to-be victims of this lawlessness would now have no means of self-defense.

The most reported instance of this was of a 58 year-old woman named Patricia Konie who had made it through the hurricane and owned a revolver for protection. Her house was targeted while law enforcement officials were conducting searches and seizures without warrants, and she was tackled, injured, and taken to jail when she refused to turn over her only means of protection.

Yes, I'm very serious.

[baron555 934]

Are you serious?! Just out of curiosity, are there ANY gun-owners on here that would turn over their weapons voluntarily if the government actually passed a law demanding it? The NRA may be a place for gun-owners to share their opinions but if it ceased to exist I really don't think gun-owners would be any more ready to disarm.

Many of mine would somehow not be able to be found.

Some are traceable....many are not.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Are you serious?! Just out of curiosity, are there ANY gun-owners on here that would turn over their weapons voluntarily if the government actually passed a law demanding it? The NRA may be a place for gun-owners to share their opinions but if it ceased to exist I really don't think gun-owners would be any more ready to disarm.

It is not an issue if anyone "on here" would turn in their guns. Some would, we already saw that in New Orleans. The NRA subsequently sued the city, won and got the victims of this abuse compensated and ther guns returned and laws passed to prevent this in the future.

what VV means that absent the NRA we WOULD have severe restrictions on our rights, instead of 49 states allowing concealed carry, the Heller and McDonald decisions.

James it is kind of silly you say something like this. Does banning Gay marriage end Gay activity? Does banning abortion end abortion? So why not? What about racial discrimnation? Is it OK because no one would pay attention to it?

The contribution of the NRA cannot be disbuted and is not disbuted among those who know what they can do. The "Assault Weapons Ban" was the LAST federal anti-gun legislation. (nearly 20 years ago now) There will be no more, the NRA is why.

[james&olya 1,121]

It is not an issue if anyone "on here" would turn in their guns. Some would, we already saw that in New Orleans. The NRA subsequently sued the city, won and got the victims of this abuse compensated and ther guns returned and laws passed to prevent this in the future.

what VV means that absent the NRA we WOULD have severe restrictions on our rights, instead of 49 states allowing concealed carry, the Heller and McDonald decisions.

James it is kind of silly you say something like this. Does banning Gay marriage end Gay activity? Does banning abortion end abortion? So why not? What about racial discrimnation? Is it OK because no one would pay attention to it?

The contribution of the NRA cannot be disbuted and is not disbuted among those who know what they can do. The "Assault Weapons Ban" was the LAST federal anti-gun legislation. (nearly 20 years ago now) There will be no more, the NRA is why.

You really give the NRA that much credit? They are a factor, to be sure, but I think they exist because of pro-gun attitudes in the US, rather than the other way around. Do you really think that if an anti-gun organization were to have tried to do the opposite what the NRA has done they would have succeeded? And if the NRA had not sued in NO that everyone would have meekly gone along?!!

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

You really give the NRA that much credit? They are a factor, to be sure, but I think they exist because of pro-gun attitudes in the US, rather than the other way around. Do you really think that if an anti-gun organization were to have tried to do the opposite what the NRA has done they would have succeeded? And if the NRA had not sued in NO that everyone would have meekly gone along?!!

Why do you speak in absolutes? Would everyone in N.O. have gone along? NO. DID everyone in N.O. go along? NO. But many did and the city DID have both police and National Guard sent out to collect firearms from people and they DID declare that citizens had to turn in their firearms and the ONLY thing that brought that to a halt was the legal action by NRA. The ONLY people that took action afterward was the NRA, the only organization that pressured to pass laws to prevent that again was the NRA.

Do you really think AARP has any effect? Do you really think the AMA has any effect? Do you really think the NAACP has any effect?

I have been a life member of th NRA since 1973. During that time there have been huge changes in guns laws. The removal of the GCA of '68 by the FOPA of '86, range protection laws in nearly all states, hunter harassement laws in every state, Brady Bill came and went ONLY because of the provisions the NRA pushed and the NICS program is directly a result of that, the AWB came and went, concealed carry laws going from 5 states to 49, Heller decision, McDonald decision, not to mention hundreds of state anti-gun laws turned back.

Our rights have gone from political football to political "third rail" and that is where they should be. They NRA is the reason. Period.

If you study the passage of the two major federal anti-gun laws since 1977 when the NRA committed to firearms legislation efforts, the Brady Act and the AWB you will see that neither passed congress until NRA sponsored amendments were added. Many people were mad at the NRA for "compromising" I do not see it as that. The amendments to the Brady Act were to set up the NICS program and eliminate the Brady Act once it was put in place. With this amendment the NRA got passed what it had long wanted...NICS. The AWB did not pass until the NRA amendments grandfathering existing firearms were added and the sunset rule. The NRA then used it as powerful hype to get the Dems tossed out of control of congress. The Dems have still not recovered from that to the degree they held control for nearly 50 years and have not touched the idea of gun laws ever since. None other that Bill Clinton stated quite plainly that the NRA was the reason the Dems lost control in 1994. Al Gore's position on those issues cost him the electoral votes of his home state and West Virginian. Had he won either of those he would have been President.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

You really give the NRA that much credit? They are a factor, to be sure, but I think they exist because of pro-gun attitudes in the US, rather than the other way around. Do you really think that if an anti-gun organization were to have tried to do the opposite what the NRA has done they would have succeeded? And if the NRA had not sued in NO that everyone would have meekly gone along?!!

Anti gun organizations implemented the NFA of 1934, GCA '68, Brady Act, AWB...so yes, anti gun forces were effective at one time and yes they did get legislation. Not to mention the laws against carrying concealed firearms in 45 states which existed in 1986. There is now ONE state that does not allow concealed carry.

The NRA has existed since 1871. It did not concern itself with legislative issues until 1977 when it decided at its Cincinnati convention to commit a large amount of its resources to legislation. There was a huge rift but the faction of the NRA which I supported said simply "It is all well and good to serve competition, hunting and collecting but if we cannot own firearms, what is the point?"

It was a fundamental change, a change to build a foundation. It of course had detractors who said politics was dirty and they did not want to dirty their hands, let someone else do it.

Membership which had held steady at about one million for decades jumped to 3 million within a few years and is now well over 5 million members.

[slim 1,525]

You really give the NRA that much credit? They are a factor, to be sure, but I think they exist because of pro-gun attitudes in the US, rather than the other way around. Do you really think that if an anti-gun organization were to have tried to do the opposite what the NRA has done they would have succeeded? And if the NRA had not sued in NO that everyone would have meekly gone along?!!

The only reason I joined the NRA was because I thought it important to have someone who works with legislators concerning my gun rights. I can call, email, write my congressman all day long and tell him I want this or that, but with 5,000,000 members backing up my position, congress is forced to take notice.

There's really no other organization in America more influential with politicians when it comes to gun rights. In short, they're my lobbyists.

[visaveteran1 33]

they're my lobbyists.

And our lawyers. They go to court for us. And they win a lot of the time.