Attacking the NRA Is Really Attacking Everyday Americans

[D_NATURED]

I'm not talking about potential. I'm talking about locking up or keeping locked up obviously dangerous people. We arrest people numerous times for domestic violence and terroristic threatening with some of them telling others that they are going to kill them and then we either let them right back out or slap them with a totally worthless restraining order. Why don't we listen to them? Recently we have arrested several people, including Dillon Roof's sister, BEFORE they actually did anything. This is what we need to do more of! The Florida shooter was a known menace and yet both the FBI and Florida authorities dropped the ball on him. If I were a parent of one of the Florida victims I wouldn't by crying for gun control, I would be super pissed off that authorities knew this was going to happen, had something to arrest him for, and totally dropped the ball - doing nothing.

Arresting people before they actually do anything is contrary to justice. That is tyranny. You're nice and safe...except from the police. Besides, the idea of using the police to cover the failures of our public health policy is classic conservative thinking. There is always a budget for authoritarianism but health is too expensive.

Please, also understand that when people say "gun control", that's as vague as ****. There is a wide spectrum of actions that could be called "gun control" and many of them are rational. So, when you use paranoid generalities to state your case you seem hysterical. Why is it so vital that military style weapons be available to good people? The irony is thick.

 

[D_NATURED]

when you post silly claims like that it shows you have no real understanding of the issue and your arguments cannot be taken seriously

Yeah, I should have qualified that. An AR is as useless if you don't want to kill innocent people while you're "defending" yourself. I suppose you are denying that high velocity rounds travel through walls very easily? Can you understand my point or not? If not, it's you who shouldn't be taken seriously.

 

[TurtleDude]

Yeah, I should have qualified that. An AR is as useless if you don't want to kill innocent people while you're "defending" yourself. I suppose you are denying that high velocity rounds travel through walls very easily? Can you understand my point or not? If not, it's you who shouldn't be taken seriously.

why don't you educate me on your credentials in this area, Me, I was the firearms training officer for my DOJ component, have had hundreds of hours as both a student and instructor at various well known training facilities and earned "Distinguished Expert" with six different handguns on the US Marshals Service Qualification course. High velocity 5.56 or .223 rounds that are picked for home defense often blow apart when hitting sheetrock or brick or studs while some handgun ammo-such as 45 FMJ has a greater chance of exiting a dwelling and harming innocents. The versatility of an AR 15 or similar carbine (I prefer the SIG MCX myself or the Bulgarian Arsenal in 556 NATO) is unmatched in home defense scenarios due to accuracy, capacity, low recoil and range.

 

[beerftw]

Yeah, I should have qualified that. An AR is as useless if you don't want to kill innocent people while you're "defending" yourself. I suppose you are denying that high velocity rounds travel through walls very easily? Can you understand my point or not? If not, it's you who shouldn't be taken seriously.

High velocity rounds actually do not travel through walls easily, it is a combination of velocity and weight that determines that, often characterized in ft lbs of energy. For example many 30 cal rounds are double or triple the energy of 5.56 and far more effective at killing and wall penetration, in fact 5.56 has been hated by the military in terms of hard surface penetration compares to 7.62.

Muzzle energy of firearms can rank below 100 ft lbs to tens of thousands depending on the model, the round etc, and 5.56 .223 is anywhere from 800 for varmint loads to 1500 ft lbs of energy for hot loads, a far cry from .30 cal hunting rounds.

 

[Nickyjo]

a teeny tiny minority belong to the NRA - and even less follow their extremist leaders. So attacking the positions of leadership hardly is attacking everyday Americans.

Agreed. I know of no attacks on NRA members, especially that much of the membership agrees with gun control positions the NRA opposes. A leadership that opposes even studying gun violence is weird.

 

[Moderate Right]

Arresting people before they actually do anything is contrary to justice. That is tyranny. You're nice and safe...except from the police. Besides, the idea of using the police to cover the failures of our public health policy is classic conservative thinking. There is always a budget for authoritarianism but health is too expensive.

Please, also understand that when people say "gun control", that's as vague as ****. There is a wide spectrum of actions that could be called "gun control" and many of them are rational. So, when you use paranoid generalities to state your case you seem hysterical. Why is it so vital that military style weapons be available to good people? The irony is thick.

You don't lock them up for doing nothing. That's the point. You lock them up because they are obviously dangerous people and they are obviously dangerous people because they HAVE done something already that they could be locked up for. There have been several cases recently where someone was locked up BEFORE shooting up a school, because they had done enough to be locked up. Same with the Florida shooter. He HAD done things he could have been locked up for but both the FBI and Florida authorities failed to lock up a person that should have been locked up. Hell, they just arrested Dylan Roof's sister for bringing a knife to school and making threatening posts on Instagram and that's just one of several where we finally got smart. We will never stop killings and mass killings if we let people run around loose that have already done things they could have been locked up for and we fail to lock them up or keep them locked up.

 

[jaeger19]

Agreed. I know of no attacks on NRA members, especially that much of the membership agrees with gun control positions the NRA opposes. A leadership that opposes even studying gun violence is weird.

Not at all. Leadership understands that studying "gun violence".. is pretty much already a biased study.

 

[TheHammer]

I would agree that hate speech is not free speech. However, to the political left, any disagreement with their stated doctrines is labeled as hate speech.

Closing the market place of ideas is no way to have a fruitful discussion.

The Constitution doesn't classify speech, it says "SPEECH" is free, i.e. "ALL" SPEECH.

 

[Tigerace117]

The Constitution doesn't classify speech, it says "SPEECH" is free, i.e. "ALL" SPEECH.

Except for speech which invites violence, or speech provoking a panic based on falsehoods, or speech supporting anti constitutional systems like Jim Crow.

 

[Nickyjo]

Not at all. Leadership understands that studying "gun violence".. is pretty much already a biased study.

That sounds like classic American anti-intellectualism. The verdict before the trial, aka dont bother me with facts put together by pointy-headed scholars. Why then don't they commission their own study that might inform the political positions they advocate, and have their analysis compete with the CDC's? I am sure the gun industry which is an arm of the NRA (or vice-versa) would be glad to fund something like this.

 

[Moderate Right]

That sounds like classic American anti-intellectualism. The verdict before the trial, aka dont bother me with facts put together by pointy-headed scholars. Why then don't they commission their own study that might inform the political positions they advocate, and have their analysis compete with the CDC's? I am sure the gun industry which is an arm of the NRA (or vice-versa) would be glad to fund something like this.

Anyone can make anything come out exactly how they want it to come out.

 

[D_NATURED]

why don't you educate me on your credentials in this area, Me, I was the firearms training officer for my DOJ component, have had hundreds of hours as both a student and instructor at various well known training facilities and earned "Distinguished Expert" with six different handguns on the US Marshals Service Qualification course. High velocity 5.56 or .223 rounds that are picked for home defense often blow apart when hitting sheetrock or brick or studs while some handgun ammo-such as 45 FMJ has a greater chance of exiting a dwelling and harming innocents. The versatility of an AR 15 or similar carbine (I prefer the SIG MCX myself or the Bulgarian Arsenal in 556 NATO) is unmatched in home defense scenarios due to accuracy, capacity, low recoil and range.

You must be very proud of yourself with such "impressive" qualifications. So, if the neighbor in the apartment next door shoots at an intruder with an AR, I'm supposed to believe the sheetrock will protect me? Sorry, I don't.

What percentage of your training was firearm apologetics, because you have that part down. Maybe if my neighbor had your credentials, I might feel better about it but you and I both know they don't require any training for AR ownership. Furthermore, bullets don't care who they kill or who fires them.

There is no comfort in your words, except to your ego.

 

[D_NATURED]

You don't lock them up for doing nothing. That's the point. You lock them up because they are obviously dangerous people and they are obviously dangerous people because they HAVE done something already that they could be locked up for. There have been several cases recently where someone was locked up BEFORE shooting up a school, because they had done enough to be locked up. Same with the Florida shooter. He HAD done things he could have been locked up for but both the FBI and Florida authorities failed to lock up a person that should have been locked up. Hell, they just arrested Dylan Roof's sister for bringing a knife to school and making threatening posts on Instagram and that's just one of several where we finally got smart. We will never stop killings and mass killings if we let people run around loose that have already done things they could have been locked up for and we fail to lock them up or keep them locked up.

We can't stop murders but we can make the tools of MASS murder more difficult to obtain. Some times, limiting access to crazy people means not allowing their sane parents to buy them. Certainly you realize that every potential killer has not already done something to arrouse suspicion. Some aren't identified until they do something horrible. So, I agree that those who are obviously dangerous must be stopped. However, I'd rather not have the cost of gun freedom for a few be a lack of every other freedom for the rest of us. There are rational limits for citizens AND law enforcement.

 

[Nickyjo]

Anyone can make anything come out exactly how they want it to come out.

Good reason for the NRA to do their study. In the 1960s-70s, Nixon commissioned studies of this and that, and ignored many of the various commissions' conclusions and recommendations. But as we now completely abandon the scientific method, whom/what should we believe? Entrails? Tea leaves?

Have you accepted that cars contribute to smog, that smoking causes cancer, etc?

 

[Moderate Right]

We can't stop murders but we can make the tools of MASS murder more difficult to obtain. Some times, limiting access to crazy people means not allowing their sane parents to buy them. Certainly you realize that every potential killer has not already done something to arrouse suspicion. Some aren't identified until they do something horrible. So, I agree that those who are obviously dangerous must be stopped. However, I'd rather not have the cost of gun freedom for a few be a lack of every other freedom for the rest of us. There are rational limits for citizens AND law enforcement.

We can stop the murders if we lock up obviously dangerous people or keep them locked up. If you take people's guns away and let the dangerous people run around free they just use a different method for murdering, such as with bombs.

 

[D_NATURED]

We can stop the murders if we lock up obviously dangerous people or keep them locked up. If you take people's guns away and let the dangerous people run around free they just use a different method for murdering, such as with bombs.

Well, I'm not arguing that dangerous people should be allowed to "run free" and I'm not proposing that ALL of "people's guns" be taken away. So, I don't know how to respond to your imagined situation. Obviously, the criminally insane as well as tools that have no rational purpose to promote human safety should both be taken off the street.

 

[goldkam]

No, there is no "firearm problem". Gun ownership is actually at its lowest in 40 years. The problem we have is a more complex one. We've always had lots of guns in this country and, in the past, many, many fewer gun laws. Yet, random mass shootings are a fairly recent phenomenon. Our problem is that we no longer confine the mentally ill out of some misbegotten idea that they have a right to roam free even if they are a threat to others and even sometimes express those threats, as Nickolas Cruz did. We've also seen traditional families disintegrate so we have directionless young males with no masculine role models. This leads to alienation, hopelessness, despair and anger, not for all but for far too many. We've also become a society of instant gratification and if people see others getting what they do not have, they feel entitled to exact punishment on them for their own failures. We've also become self absorbed prisoners of our electronic culture, be it the internet, video games, movies, etc. and that also leads to a separation from reality.

All these things play a far larger role than guns. Guns are but the instrument used to carry out an act which is spawned by these other factors. Unless and until we realize this, we will not begin to solve the problem of either rampant inner city gun crime or random mass shootings.

Firstly. Low firearm ownership does not imply a lower crime rate with firearms. The firearm homicide rate has increased from 28,874 in 1999 to 36,252 in 2015. How you can claim there is no problem, is quite misleading and negligent. Its like stating car ownership is at its lowest in 40 years, it doesn't imply less accidents on the road.

Secondly. The inadequacy of the gun legislation in the US is reflective of the ongoing and prior gun deaths and injuries, when a country is having over 36,000 gun deaths and 80,000 gun injuries there is a serious problem that needs to be addressed.

To your third point. I am unsure as to what you class as recent but a general consensus by academics and the like put forth recent as the past 5 years and no greater. The first random "mass shooting" identified was in 1949, now that is not recent and there then was a number leading up to the late 80's. It is simply beside the fact if they are recent or not it does not take away from the fact people are being deliberately and maliciously murdered, with nothing being done about it specifically.

Fourthly. A mentally ill person does not need to be confined, rather they need to be treated. It is not the 1800's where we are locking individuals individuals up in mental asylums and alienating them from the normality of daily life. In some case if insanity is reached or the like, options such as locking up need to be identified. The questions around Nicholas Cruz and what could have been done are assumptions. The assumption I pose is this, what is the easiest and what is of the most risk....his mental health, lack of education or firearm. Once again up for negation, but the firearm I believe is that. The United States has put enough money into mental health to clearly see money (1 billion in the past 9 years), programs and ongoing research is not going to stop these individuals from committing these murders.

No doubt mental health, FBI, lack of education and what I perceive the biggest contributing factor the firearms are all contributing factors.

To your other points. I agree, we are a society that requires instant gratification, primarily driven by technology. No doubt.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Firstly. Low firearm ownership does not imply a lower crime rate with firearms. The firearm homicide rate has increased from 28,874 in 1999 to 36,252 in 2015. How you can claim there is no problem, is quite misleading and negligent. Its like stating car ownership is at its lowest in 40 years, it doesn't imply less accidents on the road.

Secondly. The inadequacy of the gun legislation in the US is reflective of the ongoing and prior gun deaths and injuries, when a country is having over 36,000 gun deaths and 80,000 gun injuries there is a serious problem that needs to be addressed.

To your third point. I am unsure as to what you class as recent but a general consensus by academics and the like put forth recent as the past 5 years and no greater. The first random "mass shooting" identified was in 1949, now that is not recent and there then was a number leading up to the late 80's. It is simply beside the fact if they are recent or not it does not take away from the fact people are being deliberately and maliciously murdered, with nothing being done about it specifically.

Fourthly. A mentally ill person does not need to be confined, rather they need to be treated. It is not the 1800's where we are locking individuals individuals up in mental asylums and alienating them from the normality of daily life. In some case if insanity is reached or the like, options such as locking up need to be identified. The questions around Nicholas Cruz and what could have been done are assumptions. The assumption I pose is this, what is the easiest and what is of the most risk....his mental health, lack of education or firearm. Once again up for negation, but the firearm I believe is that. The United States has put enough money into mental health to clearly see money (1 billion in the past 9 years), programs and ongoing research is not going to stop these individuals from committing these murders.

No doubt mental health, FBI, lack of education and what I perceive the biggest contributing factor the firearms are all contributing factors.

To your other points. I agree, we are a society that requires instant gratification, primarily driven by technology. No doubt.

Assuming that (bolded above) is true then why is the solution to limit the ability of the law abiding and sane to be armed in self defense?

 

[Moderate Right]

Good reason for the NRA to do their study. In the 1960s-70s, Nixon commissioned studies of this and that, and ignored many of the various commissions' conclusions and recommendations. But as we now completely abandon the scientific method, whom/what should we believe? Entrails? Tea leaves?

Have you accepted that cars contribute to smog, that smoking causes cancer, etc?

Like, I said, anyone can make anything come out the way they want to. Global warming is a terrific example. So is gun control. The left use their cherry picked facts and the right use their cherry picked facts. Neither side will own up to the truth, unless it is their biased agenda.

 

[Moderate Right]

Well, I'm not arguing that dangerous people should be allowed to "run free" and I'm not proposing that ALL of "people's guns" be taken away. So, I don't know how to respond to your imagined situation. Obviously, the criminally insane as well as tools that have no rational purpose to promote human safety should both be taken off the street.

I did not list any imaginary situation. The Florida shooter should not have been running around loose in the first place. Both the FBI and Florida authorities dropped the ball on him. That's what led to the shooting, not guns. In fact, there have been a handful of people arrested around and since the Florida shooting, including Dylan Roof's sister, and these people were all arrested BEFORE they did anything, because there was enough on them to not let them run around loose to do anything. There are a ton of domestic violence situations where dangerous people who even come right out and say they are going to kill someone are allowed to run around loose. That's crazy. If they have been arrested numerous times for domestic violence and threatened to kill their victim, we stupidly slap them with a restraining order, let them run around loose, and then many times someone winds up being killed. And, it's not just about guns. Many of these people kill without even using guns, people that shouldn't be allowed to be running around loose in the first place. The left are just so blind and stupid. You would rather trample on the second amendment rights of law abiding citizens but you're perfectly fine with the Texas bomber killing people with bombs because he wasn't using a gun.

 

[veritas1]

Firstly. Low firearm ownership does not imply a lower crime rate with firearms. The firearm homicide rate has increased from 28,874 in 1999 to 36,252 in 2015. How you can claim there is no problem, is quite misleading and negligent. Its like stating car ownership is at its lowest in 40 years, it doesn't imply less accidents on the road.

Secondly. The inadequacy of the gun legislation in the US is reflective of the ongoing and prior gun deaths and injuries, when a country is having over 36,000 gun deaths and 80,000 gun injuries there is a serious problem that needs to be addressed.

To your third point. I am unsure as to what you class as recent but a general consensus by academics and the like put forth recent as the past 5 years and no greater. The first random "mass shooting" identified was in 1949, now that is not recent and there then was a number leading up to the late 80's. It is simply beside the fact if they are recent or not it does not take away from the fact people are being deliberately and maliciously murdered, with nothing being done about it specifically.

Fourthly. A mentally ill person does not need to be confined, rather they need to be treated. It is not the 1800's where we are locking individuals individuals up in mental asylums and alienating them from the normality of daily life. In some case if insanity is reached or the like, options such as locking up need to be identified. The questions around Nicholas Cruz and what could have been done are assumptions. The assumption I pose is this, what is the easiest and what is of the most risk....his mental health, lack of education or firearm. Once again up for negation, but the firearm I believe is that. The United States has put enough money into mental health to clearly see money (1 billion in the past 9 years), programs and ongoing research is not going to stop these individuals from committing these murders.

No doubt mental health, FBI, lack of education and what I perceive the biggest contributing factor the firearms are all contributing factors.

To your other points. I agree, we are a society that requires instant gratification, primarily driven by technology. No doubt.

If low gun ownership does not correlate to low gun crime, then the calls to further limit the ability of law abiding people without mental health issues to buy guns, makes no sense. We have laws in place to stop many, but not all, mass shootings but they are unevenly and indiscriminately applied. We need a better background check system and we need harsh penalties for those knowingly selling guns to either criminals or those with mental health issues. The idea that banning more types of guns will have any effect is not supported by any facts. With the number of guns already in circulation, those bent on mayhem can surely get one. Let's also remember that the biggest mass shooting before Orlando and Las Vegas was Virginia Tech and that was carried out with two handguns and, again, by a person who shouldn't have been able to buy them. So, calls to ban more "assault" weapons will not solve the problem.

As for the mentally ill, they've been done a grave injustice ever since the mental health and pharmaceutical industries, starting in the 70's, decided that institutionalization should be replaced with out patient medication. That's why we have an epidemic of mentally ill people who are homeless and living on the streets. They are unable to care for themselves and become a blight on many of our cities yet people claim that this is somehow their right, as if they have any other choice under the circumstances. It is both wrong headed and callous and makes it extremely difficult to identify those with a penchant for random violence.

 

[code1211]

The Constitution doesn't classify speech, it says "SPEECH" is free, i.e. "ALL" SPEECH.

With respect, not all speech is free. The Supreme Court has ruled on this a few times.

The words of the First Amendment are pretty brief and the speech it protects is pretty extensive, but not unlimited.

Limitations on the freedom of speech by any individual is pretty much defined by the damage it does/can do to others.

It's a little like the Second Amendment protections. I can keep and bear arms, but if I use those arms to hurt others, I've crossed a line.

Personal liberties and societal responsibilities are usually held in balance and laws evolve to keep pace with a changing society.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States

 

[goldkam]

It has already been pointed out to you how the use of "gun violence" is an invalid statistic and leads to an erroneous conclusion regarding firearms.

Yet you continue to persist in its use.

From your perspective what is the correct way to define gun violence and thus what statistics would you allude to. I persist to use such statistics because I believe they clearly represent and demonstrate the problem in the US. I must ask the same question, why do you persist to deny statistics which a majority of the US support and understand.

I understand that from your statement you just don't agree with terming of the violence, does that mean you agree with the statistics??

 

[goldkam]

If low gun ownership does not correlate to low gun crime, then the calls to further limit the ability of law abiding people without mental health issues to buy guns, makes no sense. We have laws in place to stop many, but not all, mass shootings but they are unevenly and indiscriminately applied. We need a better background check system and we need harsh penalties for those knowingly selling guns to either criminals or those with mental health issues.

As for the mentally ill, they've been done a grave injustice ever since the mental health and pharmaceutical industries, starting in the 70's, decided that institutionalization should be replaced with out patient medication. That's why we have an epidemic of mentally ill people who are homeless and living on the streets. They are unable to care for themselves and become a blight on many of our cities yet people claim that this is somehow their right, as if they have any other choice under the circumstances. It is both wrong headed and callous and makes it extremely difficult to identify those with a penchant for random violence.

Firstly. The gun ownership rates are completely separate issue, the issue that is being examined is the number of firearm deaths and injuries that are occurring. Lets just clarify this notion, that over 33,000 people are dying and 80,000 people are being injured by a weapon you believe should maintain as a normality within society. Additionally what about the law abiding citizens who wish to give up this right or part of this right, for the greater good. Just because someone is a law abiding citizen doesn't necessarily mean they are not willing to remove a right. It makes reasonable sense and is a rational and possible solution which is validated by the polls which highlight an average of 54% of Americans want stricter guns legislation, by the over 700 marches across the United States. Firearms is one of the most talked about topics in the past decades, but one of the least acted on. You can only make mistakes so many times before action, proper action needs to be undertaken.

To your next point. These current laws are no doubt not being effective but when is enough that one can say change needs to happen. An alternative approach must be executed, an alternative approach that has been proven by so many countries effectively. I don't deny that better background checks are needed and in some cases harsher penalties.

Increased background checks....."Firearm Use by Offenders”, the Federal Government noted that nearly 40 percent of all crime guns are acquired from street level dealers, who are criminals in the black market business of peddling stolen and recycled guns.

1) Background checks are not going to stop this type of activity
2) Background checks are not going deter someone from getting someone else to purchase their weapon.
3) Background checks are not going to stop legal gun owners or those who already have a weapon from committing a crime.

This is one piece of the puzzle, that must be combined with so many other pieces.

Harsh penalties for those knowingly selling guns to either criminals or those with mental health issues......

1) If you are referring to gun shops, the above statement shows how little this would work.
2) Private gun shows don't require background checks, and it seems impracticable to apply background checks to such shows which only exist for smaller periods of time.


Thirdly. So Australia is not an example that has demonstrated this effectiveness, when you claim this is not supported by an facts explore the facts and success of gun legislation which surrounds the US.

Fourthly. Virginia Tech was carried out by a mad man, who was actually considered a legal gun owner. The only way you can be classed as an "illegal" gun owner is if you are institutionalised. This brings forward a grey area in terms of applying gun bans to mentally ill, the question remains what kind of mentally ill people receive this. Depression, Anxiety... It is simply a task which a lot of questions, doesn't actually solve the issue and consists of technical glitches. Thus the total ban of firearms does but it has proven success and ongoing reductions in firearm violence, and no doubt too has its flaws.

To your next point. Of course banning assault weapons will have some sort of impact, not necessarily a total reduction of firearm crime but to an extent. No it will not solve the problem but will start to solve. Additionally what will not solve the problem is the continual talking that occurs, trying to blame it on everything but firearms.

 

[jnug]

First, the NRA is not a membership organization. It is a Industrial Lobby. What was John Bolton doing in Russia promoting gun ownership rights ala' the NRA. Give me a break.

What the NRA does do to its membership is that it has screamed loud enough and long enough that gun control advocates want to "take all the guns" that it is the battle cry that makes an effort regarding any one type of gun an effort against all guns. That has always been a massively illogical argument, yet another fear campaign that makes no sense. It is literally the most illogical argument on the American political scene today. It is the lack of reason embodied in this argument that drove me out of the NRA years ago combined with the ridiculous trash I would find in my mailbox weekly from the NRA and NRA associated groups.

There is no logic to the argument that an effort regarding assault rifles will ultimately lead to an effort regarding pistols or real hunting rifles or shotguns. If you gave me my choice of sides in a political debate format I would wipe the floor with any argument to ban the sale of pistols or real hunting rifles or shotguns....literally wipe the floor with the arguments from the other side. So first you have to get by the numbers....that there is a very small fraction of the gun control community that thinks in terms of taking all the guns and then you have to get past the simple reality of the arguments available to both sides being lopsided beyond belief for retaining the rights of citizens to own pistols, actual hunting rifles and shotguns.

Then, whether the NRA, its advocates and supporters like it or not even when the gun control community wants to fill the cracks in things like NICS, an actual working background check system and keeping guns from people with mental illness the NRA roadblocks those efforts. The very first legislation signed by this administration was to reverse the law that made it harder for the mentally ill to buy guns. The recent bump stock order is a sham developed out of the partnership between the NRA and the trump administration. It is a miserable sham. If we cannot even get a reasoned, honest approach to those stupid things then why should we buy any of the NRA's screwiest arguments. If NRA members themselves want to buy the screwiest arguments from that organization.....fine......I think the momentum is moving away from that garbage.