.NRA "What me worry?"

[mtn_mouse]

OK, I must present the other side of sheep stouts gun nutiness. I live very close to Moscow ID, in and out of there all the time and know lots of people there. Basically it is a great town, but it is still Idaho, a major stigma it can not shake. This weeks shooting there shook up a lot of people. I knew Newbill who was killed, through working with him on the Lewis and Clark Corps of Discovery II events the last few years. He was a member of the Hog Heaven Muzzleloaders, and reinacted the 1805 expedition and a good guy. He died from shots from a fully automatic AK-47. Doesn't it seem odd that the NRA and most Idahoans feel that any gun restrictions at all are unbearable to them. Face it dumb shits, not everyone can be trusted with guns. And automatic weapons, assault weapons, etc have no place in civilization. Being half Canadian, I was raised with a different attitude towards guns, and have never understood the love affair with weapons that the US has. Get over it folks, some gun control is necessary in this country. We can never get the gun nuts to see the light, but many of you do vote, and vote you should.

 

 

[archenemy]

I was very sorry to hear about the shooting in Moscow. I am also sorry to find that you knew one of the victims. I am a Vandal and lived in Moscow for six years--I love that town.

 

I am also a member of the NRA. The NRA don't feel that the restriction of fully automatic weapons is an "unbearable" thing. The reason they fought the renewal of the assualt weapons ban is because many gun features in that ban affect semi-auto weapons. As a matter of fact, it directly applies to each of the hunting rifles I own/have owned. It impacts many, many MFA hunters--people like me who are just regular schmoes and aren't going to run out in the streets with an AK-47. To punish regular folk for others' actions would be like taking everyone's cars away b/c some people used theirs to commit vehicular manslaughter.

 

Again, my sympathy to you after this terrible trauma. But please don't let it polarize people--not everyone who owns a gun is a gun nut.

[AlpineK]

I also lived in Moscow for 6 years. I was pretty shocked to hear about that shooting.

 

As far as gun control goes something may need to be done, but I'm totally against taking away somebody's right to hunt or shoot targets. I had a bunch of friends in Moscow that hunted. They were all great folks and very responsible.

[kevbone]

Oh my…..sorry mtn mouse I thought your thread read NBA and you were going to talk about how the Detroit Pistons are going to sweep Cleveland. My bad.

[mtn_mouse]

Thanks for the comments, but I still have to go to a funeral today.

Don't get me wrong, I believe in gun ownership of shotguns and hunting rifles. But I am opposed to any ownership of automatic weapons, and assault weapons even if semi-auto. Also opposed to handguns. Maybe it;s just my Canadian roots.

[archenemy]

Fair enough.

 

I am also against the ownership of fully automatic assault weapons and very much for the current laws that outline fair, logical restrictions on any type of gun ownership.

 

It may be because you are a Canadian, but it may be because you are a human being who can't bear the senseless violence that goes on around us. I am so sorry that you have been touched so closely by this violence, and my heart goes out to you.

[sk]

my heart goes out to you Mnt Mouse. i am so sorry you hear you have lost a friend.

 

I am not a fan of big government. yet when Kip Kinkle shot and killed his parents and several students here in my area, i was devistated. I knew his father and took classes from him at the cominity college. he was a good teacher. I don't know what the answer to gun controle or the lack ther of, is. I wish i did. but it seems to me crazy people are going to kill no matter what kinds of weapons they can get. I think we would do better to help the people who have such serious social issues.

 

Peace to you Mnt Mouse

 

Hugs!!!

[jjd]

This issue is poorly understood. First of all, automatic weapons were outlawed under the 1939 National Firearms Act. AK-47s (which didn't exist at that time), Tommy Guns and all other automatic weapons have been outlawed since then.

 

An automatic weapon, for those who don't know, is a firearm that will fire more than one round per trigger pull. A semi-automatic weapon fires once each time the trigger is pulled.

 

When you talk about "assault weapons" then, what exactly are you talking about? The so-called "Assault Weapons Ban" targeted (pun intended) firearms with certain cosmetic features, regardless of other factors.

 

The ultimate "point" of the Second Amendment isn't to protect one's right to hunt or shoot targets (though it does that). The Second Amendment is intended to protect one's right to self-preservation (i.e. self defense). It is further intended to act as a check against government power when all else has failed. And before you claim that citizens armed with small arms couldn't possibly resist the U.S. Government, I suggest you take a look at what's happening in Iraq. Or look at countless "guerrilla campaigns"/insurgencies throughout history.

 

The proper role of government is to protect indiviudal liberty, nothing else.

 

Edited to clarify the definition of automatic weapon.

 

Edited May 25, 2007 by jjd

[ALLCAPS]

I WOULD LOVE TO OWN AND OPERATE A BAZOOKA. FOR SELF DEFENSE ONLY THOUGH, I SWEAR.

[Dechristo]

An automatic weapon, for those who don't know, is a firearm that will continue to fire as long as the trigger is held.

 

Perhaps, the definition is closer to "more than one shot fired per pull of the trigger" as three-round bursts would also qualify.

[archenemy]

An automatic weapon, for those who don't know, is a firearm that will continue to fire as long as the trigger is held.

 

Perhaps, the definition is closer to "more than one shot fired per pull of the trigger" as three-round bursts would also qualify.

An even closer definition would include that it will only fire until it runs out of bullets.

[archenemy]

 

The proper role of government is to protect indiviudal liberty, nothing else.

 

I don't know if this comes across as splitting hairs, but I would venture to say that a government's only job is to provide security. (I think of protection from foreign invasion, our court systems, police force, FDIC, that kind of stuff).

 

It is not the job of the government to specifically protect you--that is your responsibility. If you are harmed, the gov't can help afterwards (call the cop, use the prosecutor, put the bad guy in jail, etc). But the gov't cannot come and hang out with you to be sure you don't get shot in the head by some kid with a gun.

 

I believe the sad statement that says "Liberties are never given, they are only taken" and that the gov't is not going to give you any. And if they had their druthers, they remove as many from you as possible.

Edited May 25, 2007 by archenemy

[Dechristo]

no, three-round bursts qualify as "automatic" allowing for multiple firings/pulls of the trigger, depending on clip capacity.

[archenemy]

No matter what your clip capacity is, it will eventually run out of bullets.

[jjd]

I don't know if this comes across as splitting hairs, but I would venture to say that a government's only job is to provide security. (I think of protection from foreign invasion, our court systems, police force, FDIC, that kind of stuff).

 

I wouldn't include the FDIC as a proper role for government. I agree that the government doesn't have a duty to prevent any wrongdoing to anyone at any time. It does have the duty to prosecute and penalize people who violate others' rights.

[archenemy]

Yeah, there is certainly room for argument on that one.

 

 

I was trying to think of a way to include some measure of security in our economy. I think it is part of the gov't job to not let a totally unfettered market system fuck up people's lives. I think that is fertile grounds for great discussions. I waver back and forth on a lot of those lines.

Edited May 25, 2007 by archenemy

[Stefan]

I am not a gun owner and not around many people who do own guns.

 

But I do find it troubling that I do not see the NRA taking a more active role in educating about gun handling. Maybe it is about marketing....

 

I bet if I saw more of the NRA doing education about guns then other people might not be so "against them". Kinda like Budweiser putting out commercials on responsible drinking so there is less potential drunk drivers.

[archenemy]

Agreed.

Furthermore, many of the comments and decisions that Heston made over the years have not been representative of the group as a whole. I respect individuals' rights to say what they believe, but not when they are in a position to represent a group who has put their trust in them. A little more diplomacy and sensitivity is appropriate.

 

Remember that all hunter safety classes are taught by volunteers; many of them NRA members. There are lots of folks out there who want to see the same thing you want to see, more responsibility and more involvement from individuals and from the NRA.

[badvoodoo]

To punish regular folk for others' actions would be like taking everyone's cars away b/c some people used theirs to commit vehicular manslaughter.

Only if cars were made exclusively for running into things and destroying them. A car can be used as a weapon. A chair can be used as a weapon. A gun IS a weapon, and nothing else.

 

To deny someone their car could deny them their livelihood. To deny someone an automatic weapon in a lawful country with regulated enforcement would merely deny them their hobby.

 

Luxury rights are fine, but lets not compare them to the right to support yourself and your family.

[Dechristo]

it is also a piece of sport equipment.

 

But, then, you may be unfamiliar with shooting competition.

[sk]

To punish regular folk for others' actions would be like taking everyone's cars away b/c some people used theirs to commit vehicular manslaughter.

Only if cars were made exclusively for running into things and destroying them. A car can be used as a weapon. A chair can be used as a weapon. A gun IS a weapon, and nothing else.

 

To deny someone their car could deny them their livelihood. To deny someone an automatic weapon in a lawful country with regulated enforcement would merely deny them their hobby.

 

Luxury rights are fine, but lets not compare them to the right to support yourself and your family.

 

even in today's world, there are family's that can not survive with out hunting for food. of course you don't need a an automatic weapon for that ...

[badvoodoo]

even in today's world, there are family's that can not survive with out hunting for food. of course you don't need a an automatic weapon for that ...

Which is my point. I'd feel better about state-sponsored programs teaching people how to aim than legalizing automatic weapons.

[sk]

even in today's world, there are family's that can not survive with out hunting for food. of course you don't need a an automatic weapon for that ...

Which is my point. I'd feel better about state-sponsored programs teaching people how to aim than legalizing automatic weapons.

 

thats a good plan

[mtn_mouse]

First of all, automatic weapons were outlawed under the 1939 National Firearms Act. AK-47s (which didn't exist at that time), Tommy Guns and all other automatic weapons have been outlawed since then.

 

Well that is what I thought too. However I found out the firearms used in this murder were a fully automatic AK-47 bought legally from a firearms dealer in Harvard Idaho, with an approved class 3 firearms license, and the second gun was an M-1 semi-automatic. An automatic firearm is one that will continue to shoot rounds as long as the trigger is pulled. A semi-auto firearm will only shoot one round with each pull. So this was an automatic, and contridicts what you said above. Talking with a gun expert, he said that full autos are still able to be bought with the proper permits. This in my mind should stop.