I think the trouble with supporting the right to bear arms for the purpose of defense is it leaves the field too open in terms of understanding who the defense is against. An armed robber? An invading army? Your worst racial fears?
I think talking about limiting the kinds of guns, is a positive step. Though, it’d be better if the NRA just stops spending its money opposing gun control legislation.
For instance, I hate it when guns are compared to cars. Sorry, but you can’t talk about how cars can be used as a weapon and not talk about car regulation.
Not everyone is allowed to drive. There is a skills test that requires a good amount of time to study for. There is a license that has to be renewed every few years. There are different licenses for different vehicles. There are extensive laws determining the use of cars - how fast, in which zones, where, and also, who is at fault if there’s an accident and how damages are awarded. In some states, there’s a requirement to purchase insurance to cover those damages.
I know if I wanted to, I can walk into a shop today and walk out with a gun in probably less than twenty minutes. If I see someone coming at me in a threatening manner, I can shoot that person and take my (good) chances at a self-defense plea. That’s the reality and it is nothing like owning a car. And, it’s that easy in large part due to the NRA’s efforts to block any and all kinds of gun control legislation.
So, I’m glad that it’s members are talking about this. What you’ve outlined above is a step towards something, but recognize that it’s very far from what’s needed. Instead of defending the right to ownership, blocking all gun legislation, the NRA has to become an advocate of legislation enabling responsible gun ownership.
And that is really what they originally were...they advocated for gun control measures...they sponsored gun safety...they lobbied for safe and controlled gun use.
After the St. Valentine’s day massacre, they decided that - hey, maybe letting any dude go buy a frickin Tommy Gun might be a bad idea.
And so they advocated for controls.
Then slowly over the years, the money began to take over...it became less about what it started out as, and more of a way to block common sense legislation (such as federal funds to study gun violence being outlawed in the US), or they push away common sense stricter background checks.
Instead they feel the need to advocate the owning of as many assault rifles as someone wants, with bump stocks, with endless amounts of armor piercing rounds, not to mention the other things they found in his house and car in order to make plenty of explosives as well.
And yes, they do advocate explosives...there are explosive targets you can buy that can easily kill someone.
Someone just outside of Portland last year filled his car with these “legal” explosive targets and then shot them blowing up his car with him inside at a freeway turnout.
If there was an internal push via it’s own members to listen to the will of the people, instead of the stance of everyone these days - how can we gouge the consumer the most?
How can we make the most profits...school shootings be damned.
What’s a few dozen kids shot and killed every month or so compared to a new yacht?
I mean, come on...duh.
Private owner to owner gun sales should have to go through an intermediary who will hold the gun until background checks are complete.
Ammo should be regulated like they regulate Vicodin...most states have made it near impossible for someone to “Doctor shop” or “Prescription shop” now, where people would see multiple doctors and get multiple prescriptions then take them to multiple pharmacies to be filled.
We do that with medication, but not with ammo?
Seems silly.
You can’t even buy over a certain amount of Sudafed and must show a Driver’s license that is all connected to a database to make sure you aren’t hoarding them to cook Meth.
But oh no...the names on a dreaded “list”.
The list they will use when they come to take everyones' guns...*eye roll*.
