Did NRA Members really think President Obama was going to take their guns?
Did anybody think black helicopters were going to descend on their homes and troops descend on their gun safes? Even a caricature has to have some semblance to reality. That’s just a slur.Scalia’s opinion in the Heller case looked to your average gun owner like a simple re-statement of the obvious. Yet it was a 5–4 decision. A swing in the other direction would have left the Second Amendment without meaning. Even today, the part about gun rights not being absolute is used by anti-gunners as an excuse to ignore the constraints altogether.An example: we have a right to bear arms. It is absolutely the right of every citizen to carry a gun in public. California has one law that says you can’t carry it openly (that law being constitutionally OK) and another that says you can’t carry a gun concealed, unless you have a permit that may be impossible to get (also constitutional). In conjunction, then, the two constitutional laws add up to one unconstitutional one. Chipping away here and there is a real problem, and Mr. Obama was more than willing to go along, often using his executive power when Congress opposed his views.His support for an “assault weapon” ban was also a real problem. In case you don’t know, it needs to be repeated: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN ASSAULT WEAPON. These laws have to make up some rather absurd definitions and lists, because there’s no other way to do it. If you can ban one gun but not a very similar one, that means none is safe. All it takes is an expansion of the list.I watched how this worked in the run-up to the 1968 Gun Control Act, and have been watching ever since. The anti-gunners know they can’t get an outright ban on all guns, so they go for an incremental erosion of gun rights. There’s nothing new here. “Coming for your guns” is a bit of hyperbole, but it isn’t nearly so wrong as “common sense gun safety measures,” which make no sense and aren’t about gun safety, so by comparison the verbiage is more forgivable.
Is there any truth to the claim that smart guns are banned in the US or that the NRA was responsible for such a ban? I find no evidence of such a ban, but a gun control advocate friend insists it is true.
The answer is an emphatic NO on both portions of the question. The reality is in fact the opposite of what gun control proponents claim (as is often the case policy positions advocated by the progressive left). The only “ban” relating to smart guns, was the one imposed by gun control proponents in government, who declared that once “smart” guns were available (with no definition of what that meant), any firearm which did not meet the arbitrary “smart” criteria would be prohibited for public possession and use - I.e., they would be banned and thus subject to confiscation. Notably, law enforcement were specifically excluded from the mandate, and would be free to continue to use conventional firearms - primarily because of the latter’s much greater functionality and reliability. Hence it is inarguable that the gun control advocates clearly understood the impact of the mandate they intended to impose on law-abiding citizens.There is no resistance in the gun community to “smart” gun technology per se. The resistance is to the regulatory mandates that the gun control community seek to impose on gun owners, which infringe on their constitutional rights to keep and bear arms, and their inalienable natural right to defend themselves and their families, by forcing them to utilize untested, unreliable “smart” technology, instead of the functional and reliable firearms they choose to own and use.If “smart” gun technology were optional (as is virtually every other form of technology), gun owners would be free to utilize it as they do with any other technology - if and when it improved the functionality, accuracy and reliability of their firearms at acceptable cost, and ignore it when it didn’t - just as consumers do with technological advancements in other products. But of course, the “smart gun” mandate is not optional, and originate entire;y with the gun control advocates, precisely because of how it could and would be used as a vehicle to ban conventional firearms.So as always, it’s the gun banners on the progressive left who are lying - the truth is in reality the exact opposite of what they are claiming. It’s the gun control community who seek to ban guns that don’t meet their arbitrarily-defined “smart” gun technology. The opposition by gun owners and the NRA, of course, is to the mandates and the consequent firearm bans that the gun control proponents are pushing.
Why did the NRA sell guns to the Indians?
And dont forget they were fighting soldiers with those same guns. I love history but I dont trust the printed version. I just want to hear what youve thought to be the truth as to why the Indians got guns just like they sell guns to darn near anybody right now. No need to get so touchy. The MO is practically the same. How can one deny that? But claim certain people will never change , Its a waste.
With regards to the right to bear arms, are gun control people too naive or is there another agenda at play?
Now let us not be naive, either.There are many reasons that people favor gun control. Some examples:Some have had a friend or family member hurt or killed by improper or illegal use of firearms. [Some deservedly so. No one believes that their “gangster son or daughter” is a danger to society, nor do they care.]Some fear that “Children will get a hold of them.” [(Check out George Carlin’s routine on “For the children…Leave the kids the fuck alone!”]Some people are against hunting and think animals have the same rights and feelings as humans. [Thank you, Walt Disney]Some oppose firearms on religious grounds [ie. Conscientious Objectors]Some believe that they can band together and have “their” police or military forces impose their will on others [Most dictators enforce strict gun control]Some people are just plain afraid of guns {I was shaking when I first fired a handgun; now I am an instructor]Some believe that the individual has no rights and it is the “Collective” that is superior and guns are an impediment to that. [The “Militia” argument.]Some are incredibly naive and believe that the “Police” will protect them. [Ever notice that in the first five minutes of a TV crime show someone dies and by the end of the hour the police catch the criminal? However, the person killed in the first five minutes is still dead.]Some are criminals and want the public (their victims) disarmed. [It is not unusual in the UK to find criminals who have been arrested more than 50 times for felony offenses and then released, but you better not shoot one of them breaking into your house there.]SO, the short answer is: “Yes, they are incredibly naive.” The genie is out of the bottle and you can’t shove him back in. Criminals and bad people will always get guns and taking them away from law-abiding citizens is silly. Increased spending on mental health is the key to lowering the number of mass shootings.Let’s get the AMA and the APA to report mental patients to the police and the FBI National Firearms Database, so mentally impaired people do not gain access. They won’t do it because it will hurt their businesses (Medical care is Big Business). Hell, Shrinks don’t even indicate that they are psychologists or psychiatrists anymore for fear of alienating their patients. They just list themselves as “doctors.”