The REAL NRA

[Chuck]

Don't know how many of you get this - I am a member of the NRA in the USA and this comes through regularly with lots of info.

Interesting to see just how much effort is being made to screw the law abiding and the steps being taken by the Obama Regime to demonsie the shooter.. The carry on with straw sales to make things look bad and the subsequent death of law enforcement officials by said weapons kind of re-affirms my belief that maybe something like Dunblane really was ALLOWED to happen for political expediency.

Anyway, here's the link.

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Feder ... px?id=6973

[dromia]

I think Dunbalne was allowed to happen for reasons of police corruption at the top, not for political expediency, they are not capable of being that well organised. However political anti gun capital was certainly made of it and the whole tradgedy abused by b*****d Blair for selfish power seeking reasons.

At least in the US the gun lobby fights fire with fire arguing the case for guns not a sport, here our mixed bag of non national non representative organisations fight fire with petrol.

[Chuck]

here our mixed bag of non national non representative organisations fight fire with petrol.

:lol: :lol: :lol:



From same issue

Did You Know
In his Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765-1769), the foundation of all legal education in England and the U.S. for a century, the great English jurist, Sir William Blackstone, discussed "the principle absolute rights which appertain to every Englishman" under the English Bill of Rights of 1689, and observed, "[T]o vindicate these rights, when actually violated or attacked, the subjects of England are entitled . . . lastly, to the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defense."

More guns = less crime - as we all know;

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets ... &issue=007

[Porcupine]

I'm also a member of the NRA, as well as GOA (Gun Owners of America) and JPFO (Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership - I'm not Jewish, but they are the most staunchly pro-gun lobbying organization I know of) and it is a totally different ball game to BASC and the like. They do excellent work - although the NRA is too quick to compromise on apparently minor issues, something GOA and JPFO refuse to do.

One of the problems in this country is that gun rights are lobbied for solely on the basis of sporting use. So when Mothers Against Guns or the Snowdrop Campaign or whoever says we need tighter gun control, all that the gun lobby can reply is "Yeah but that would stop us having fun!" Lives vs fun seems an obvious choice for most people when it's not their past time that is being affected. Yes, BASC etc do argue that increased gun control won't work, but not very forcefully.

Partly this is because they cannot (refuse to) point to the downward effect that gun ownership has (or can have) on crime - which gun control reduces. This is the most convincing argument in favour of gun rights (unless one philosophically argues for inalienable property rights). Sporting use arguments inevitably lead to registration and then to confiscation of many or most types of firearms, restrictions on who may own firearms, how many, how and where they may carry or use them, for what purpose, how they must store them, etc.

Of course it is not all down to lackluster lobbying. Britain has historically had a very low murder rate (long before gun control was a twinkling in the eye of politicians) so people are less inclined to think about their personal safety or to want to reduce murders in general. The only murders that catch people's attention are therefore the rare spree killings a la Hungerford, Dunblane etc. With a much weaker historical tradition of gun ownership, and no second amendment, the idea of a a right to gun ownership quickly fell entirely out of favour (although it did once exist).

Having a police force not generally equipped with firearms makes the juxtaposition between armed ruler and unarmed subject much less stark - nor can we say "If a cop can carry a gun - why can't I?" or "You call the cops because cops have guns - why not cut out the middle man?"

Gun control has its own terrible momentum too. A little bit of gun control like needing to get a certificate before you can buy a gun makes people much less inclined to own guns. For some people the cost, time and hassle is a minor inconvenience given their love of guns - but for anyone with only a mild interest it can be off-putting. Not to mention the formalized system of gun clubs and disciplines. Fewer gun owners makes it easier and easier to pass more gun control as people's contact with guns is reduced (not to mention their knowledge of guns and their sympathy with gun owners).

The gun club system, I think, also breeds acceptance of gun control. How many times have I heard "Well I'm ok to own guns, but not the average oik on the street." By putting up all these barriers to gun ownership and destroying casual, informal access to firearms for most people gun ownership becomes an elite club. People feel very special for having undergone all this appraisal and instruction - obviously the ordinary peasants would create a blood bath if ever they got their hands on firearms!

And now that guns cannot be carried, and must be kept locked up, and their ownership is so rare, people do not see instances of self defence with guns. In the USA, for every gangland murder there is a home invasion stopped in its tracks, or a pizza delivery man who saved his own life, or a shop owner who saw off an armed robbery. In the UK the only knowledge most people have of guns is negative (crime) or at best neutral (sporting use).