What the NRA is against

[Jack DeBear]

Best be minding your manners Canadian restricted weapons owners and wannabes.

Feds eye tougher screening of gun owners for mental health, violence concerns

OTTAWA - The federal government has been eyeing changes that would allow authorities to more quickly identify people considered unfit to have guns for reasons such as mental instability or violent behaviour, an internal memo shows.

The Liberals are planning to introduce legislation in coming weeks to fulfil platform promises on firearms — including a requirement for "enhanced background checks" for anyone seeking to buy a handgun or other restricted gun.

The federal memo, released under the Access to Information Act, indicates the government could go further, beefing up screening of those who already have guns "by allowing authorities to reassess licence eligibility in a more timely fashion."

<snip>

http://nationalpost.com/pmn/news-pmn/ca ... e-concerns

P.S. I still think anyone (outside of training for law enforcement and military) who wants to play 'home on the range' cowboy with a restricted weapon must be a little off . . ..

P.P.S. I’m wondering what the NRA members think of having retro background checks in the US.

[Jflem1983]

That is why i will never vote for a liberal . Juat out to take things away from people who worked for it. Should be a mental health exam before u can vote.

[Sparki55]

P.S. I still think anyone (outside of training for law enforcement and military) who wants to play 'home on the range' cowboy with a restricted weapon must be a little off . . ..

There is nothing wrong with liking something such as a hand gun or a fast car or an aircraft. Arguing a hand gun owner is mentally ill since they aren't law enforcement or military is the same as saying a fast car or aircraft owner is ill because they aren't a race car driver or commercial pilot. It's ok to have a hobby; if that hobby is target pistol practice so be it.

The car and aircraft are also dangerous if not used by a responsible owner.

Shaming people into thinking they have a mental illness because they like certain fire arms would be like telling a gay hes mentally ill for liking the same sex. People lile what they like, thought liberal's had that figured out.

[Jack DeBear]

Touché, Sparki55 (and Glacier and anybody else who adds to the like column above).

Handgun ‘mental illness’ argument accepted.

But now, what do you think of the proposed retro background screening checks in Canada (and the US: as if it could ever come to that)?

In the mean time please indulge me in a little side story:

I’m an ‘honorary uncle’ to a (now) young man who owned a semi-automatic handgun, shotgun, and assault type rifle.

He took an advanced handgun training course and said he really enjoyed it.

Then, when he ‘grew up’ (just a little before he turned thirty) he sold all those guns, and not through any of my influence by a long shot, I support owing ‘sensible’ rifles and bows for hunting and pesky bird / varmint control, he just came to a conclusion on his own that it was kind of dumb thing to own a bunch of toys like that.

An interesting highlight of his sale might be that before the deal for the assault-type rifle went through he got a probing call from a police detective asking about its history and what he knew of the prospective buyer.

Canadian eh?

Now, to another the NRA-member thingy.

How do members feel about belonging and contributing to an NGO interest group where the leaders consider spending their money on attack ads is a more effective weapon towards influencing a democratic process than spending it on political lobbying?

The real reason the NRA’s money matters in elections

Direct contributions to candidates aren’t the only way to wield clout.

<snip>

If anything, the NRA’s complex web of political spending is more pernicious than direct campaign donations from interest groups to politicians. It doesn’t fit into a clean narrative of rich people corruptly buying policy.

Instead, we see something that almost looks like democracy at work: people organizing around shared policy preferences, consolidating their resources, and mobilizing to pressure lawmakers into doing what they want. We’ve all done some version of this when we’ve made a $5 or $10 contribution to an advocacy organization.

But the NRA spending ultimately leads to policies that run counter to the expressed preferences of the majority of Americans. A small group of extreme, sometimes profit-motivated donors funnels money to an (ostensibly grassroots) group. That group then blankets our electoral cycles in political ads meant to scare Americans into opposing laws that would actually protect them, laws most of them claim to want. Red-state legislators who might otherwise support commonsense gun restrictions instead live under the constant threat of NRA attack ads; all it takes is one small step toward gun reform.


Most scholars get this.

<snip>

https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2018/2 ... s-parkland

P.S. the NRA can't rag on the current POTUS so they have to rag on the ex

[Jflem1983]

As a proud member of the NRA. With cards and badges to prove it. I say whatever it takes. War is dirty. This is a war for rights and freedoms. It stretches beyond guns. Beyond the USA. Groups like NRA will long outlive our current political system

[Dizzy1]

As a proud member of the NRA. With cards and badges to prove it. I say whatever it takes. War is dirty. This is a war for rights and freedoms. It stretches beyond guns. Beyond the USA. Groups like NRA will long outlive our current political system

Fighting to be allowed to own a semi-automatic assault rifle, oops sorry, "sporting rifle" according to your precious organization - has nothing to do with rights and freedoms. Rosa Parks understood fighting for rights and freedoms. Martin Luther King understood rights and freedoms. Nelson Mandela understood rights and freedoms. Anne Frank understood rights and freedoms. The NRA doesn't simply hides behind an argument that has zero relevance to weapons capable of mowing down dozens of people in a matter of minutes.

[Jflem1983]

As a proud member of the NRA. With cards and badges to prove it. I say whatever it takes. War is dirty. This is a war for rights and freedoms. It stretches beyond guns. Beyond the USA. Groups like NRA will long outlive our current political system

Fighting to be allowed to own a semi-automatic assault rifle, oops sorry, "sporting rifle" according to your precious organization - has nothing to do with rights and freedoms. Rosa Parks understood fighting for rights and freedoms. Martin Luther King understood rights and freedoms. Nelson Mandela understood rights and freedoms. Anne Frank understood rights and freedoms. The NRA doesn't simply hides behind an argument that has zero relevance to weapons capable of mowing down dozens of people in a matter of minutes.

Thats all your opinion.

[Dizzy1]

Thats all your opinion.

You're right - it is my opinion.

Its also my opinion that putting owning a high powered assault weapon in the same category as treating as respecting other humans the same and with equal dignity, regardless of skin colour or race, simply ridiculous

You feel that owning such weapons is OK - and you're willing to to fight for that - and thats cool, I respect that. But to use the "protecting our civil rights and freedoms" argument is simply not a valid argument anymore.

[Gilchy]

That is why i will never vote for a liberal . Juat out to take things away from people who worked for it. Should be a mental health exam before u can vote.

So you'd like a mental health examine to qualify people to vote, but not to own a firearm?

[Dizzy1]

So a .223 AR-15 is a high powered rifle? You do realize that you can't even use that round to hunt larger game right? Also you do realize that it is only a semi-auto, which is one pull one bang.

https://thehandsomecamel.wordpress.com/ ... bout-guns/

Take a quick look at this.. Maybe stop being so afraid of something you clearly know nothing about?

I'm curious as to why the supporters are so obsessed with the round size? It doesn't matter if it fits into other guns. It doesn't matter if you can't use it for hunting big game. The round is extremely effective in doing serious damage to a human body. These lunatics aren't buying these guns to go out to kill moose, they're buying them to kill as many people as they can - plain and simple.

Also, don't assume that "I'm afraid of anything" or "I don't know anything about something" simply because I have a different opinion than yourself or anyone else. Once I start posting false claims (i.e: such and such gun uses such and such round or the earth is flat, etc.) then, you are more than welcome to make such a statement

Fact is, that the AR15 is the weapon of choice for mass shootings, plain and simple - thats a problem. Why is it that this weapon is the number one choice for madmen to kill as many people as they can?

Is it easily accessible?

Is it easy to modify?

Is it easy to use? Simply pull the trigger, shoot and aim?

Why the attraction to this weapon compared to any other weapon when someone decides to go out and kill dozens of men, women and children?

So Kilohotel, Jflem, please, explain to me why this is the go to weapon for mass shootings.

[Jack DeBear]

What an AR-15 Can Do to the Human Body

All guns can kill, but they do not kill equally.

Compare the damage an AR-15 and a 9mm handgun can do to the human body: “One looks like a grenade went off in there,” says Peter Rhee, a trauma surgeon at the University of Arizona. “The other looks like a bad knife cut.”
<snip>

So let's consider the physics of an AR-15.

A bullet with more energy can do more damage. Its total kinetic energy is equal to one-half the mass of the bullet times its velocity squared. The bullet from a handgun is—as absurd as it may sound—slow compared to that from an AR-15. It can be stopped by the thick bone of the upper leg. It might pass through the body, only to become lodged in sskin, which is surprisingly elastic.

The bullet from an AR-15 does an entirely different kind of violence to the human body. It’s relatively small, but it leaves the muzzle at three times the speed of a handgun bullet. It has so much energy that it can disintegrate three inches of leg bone. “It would just turn it to dust,” says Donald Jenkins, a trauma surgeon at University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio. If it hits the liver, “the liver looks like a jello mold that’s been dropped on the floor.” And the exit wound can be a nasty, jagged hole the size of an orange.

These high-velocity bullets can damage flesh inches away from their path, either because they fragment or because they cause something called cavitation When you trail your fingers through water, the water ripples and curls. When a high-velocity bullet pierces the body, human tissues ripples as well—but much more violently. The bullet from an AR-15 might miss the femoral artery in the leg, but cavitation may burst the artery anyway, causing death by blood loss. A swath of stretched and torn tissue around the wound may die. That’s why, says Rhee, a handgun wound might require only one surgery but an AR-15 bullet wound might require three to ten.

Then, multiply the damage from a single bullet by the ease of shooting an AR-15, which doesn’t kick. “The gun barely moves. You can sit there boom boom boom and reel off shots as fast as you can move your finger,” says Ernest Moore, a trauma surgeon at Denver Health and editor of the Journal of Trauma and Acute Surgery, which just published an issue dedicated to gun violence.

Handguns kill plenty of people too, of course, and they’re responsible for the vast majority of America’s gun deaths. But a single bullet from a handgun is not likely to be as deadly as one from an AR-15.
https://www.wired.com/2016/06/ar-15-can-human-body/

Or for those NRA members who'd rather have a video than spend some time reading with an inkling of comprehension.

[Dizzy1]

^^^ Hmmmm, so a weapon designed to do maximum damage with minimal effort or experience. Sounds like the very basic requirements of a "sporting rifle" to me

[Jack DeBear]

From Kilohotel's article above.

" (The .223} . . . It’s just a tribal ritual. It’s good for bonding, but not much else. . . ."

https://thehandsomecamel.wordpress.com/ ... bout-guns/

So Kilohotel, Jflem, please, explain to me why this is the go to weapon for mass shootings.

Just part of the 'tribal ritual?'

[Queen K]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/03 ... dment.html

The NRA is really flexing it's muscle in FLA. If they win, people who are elected do not run the country, special interests do by way of judge ruled law.

Really disgusting if you ask me.

[Dizzy1]

So the Florida Government is still allowing you to own guns but simply requiring a few days longer to do a more thorough background check and cooling off period yet the NRA is still preaching the 2nd Amendment?

I guess bump stocks are protected by that too now.

Good grief