Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 10/13/2002 4:10:54 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/13/2002 4:11:45 PM EDT by RipMeyer]
[url]http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/opinion/1002/11guns.html[/url] Desperate police in suburban Washington, D.C., are attempting to track a deadly sniper through the vehicles he might be driving. Cars and vans can be traced; the high-powered rifle he is using cannot. It's not a matter of technology. The tools exist to track a bullet back to the weapon that fired it. But despite entreaties by law enforcement for a national database of "ballistic fingerprints," the National Rifle Association has blocked creation of this critical, crime-fighting tool. As a consequence, authorities in Maryland and Virginia still have very few clues as to who shot eight innocent people as they went about their daily lives, walking to school, unloading groceries, mowing the lawn . . . Only two states -- Maryland and New York -- have managed to surmount NRA lobbying and create computerized ballistics fingerprint databases. But thanks to the NRA, even those systems are useless in this case. By law, the Maryland and New York laws apply only to handguns, not to long rifles such as that being used by the sniper. While the NRA now seems to recognize that its stance is indefensible on any rational basis, it is important to note that the group has not reversed its opposition. The National Rifle Association continues to cling to the notion that ballistic fingerprinting is a prelude to gun confiscation. The daftness of that position would be easy to ignore if not for the group's sway in Washington. In Attorney General John Ashcroft, for example, the NRA has an ally so devoted that he values its extremist interpretation of the Second Amendment above pursuit of Sept. 11 terrorists. Ashcroft, you may recall, refused to let the FBI use a law-enforcement database to investigate whether suspected terrorists have purchased or tried to purchase firearms. In essence, the NRA's absolutist position -- combined with the cowardice of U.S. politicians unwilling to confront them on it -- has left the people of Maryland vulnerable to a terrorist, and has denied law enforcement what might be an invaluable tool in tracking that person and stopping this killing spree. The NRA has a lot to answer for.
Link Posted: 10/13/2002 4:18:33 PM EDT
What a load of crap!
Link Posted: 10/13/2002 4:27:54 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/13/2002 6:48:06 PM EDT by RipMeyer]
ajc.com ajc.com Editorial Director - Hyde Post, 404-526-5341, hpost@ajc.com News Editor, days - Carolyn Warmbold, 404-526-7268, cwarmbold@ajc.com News Editor, evenings - Phil Gast, 404-526-7268, pgast@ajc.com Feedback/Customer Service - listen@ajc.com @issue - Richard Halicks, 404-526-5635, rhalicks@ajc.com Business News - Chris Seward, 404-526-5314, cseward@ajc.com Nadirah Sabir, 404-526-5602, nsabir@ajc.com Features - Jay Croft, 404-526-5433, jcroft@ajc.com Metro News - Steve Harvey, 404-526-5603, sharvey@ajc.com Sports - Robbyn Footlick, 404-526-5622, rfootlick@ajc.com Craig Custance, 404-526-7504, ccustance@ajc.com Advertising - Debbie Campbell, 404-526-5653, dcampbell@ajc.com Classifieds - Les Psalmonds, 404-526-5230, lpsalmonds@ajc.com The Public Editor [size=5][b][red]Mike King, 404-526-5819, fax 404-526-5611, insideajc@ajc.com As your liaison to the newsroom, the Public Editor takes comments from our readers about fairness and accuracy in our news coverage and editorial pages.[/size=5][/b][/red] The AJC Executives Publisher - Roger Kintzel, 404-526-5892, rkintzel@ajc.com VP & General Manager - Sandy Schwartz, 404-526-5889, sschwartz@ajc.com VP, Advertising - Mike Perricone, 404-526-5256, mperricone@ajc.com VP, Circulation - Dick Huguley, 404-526-5011, dhuguley@ajc.com VP, Community Affairs & Work Force Diversity - Booker Izell, 404-526-5091, bizell@ajc.com VP, Employee Development - Madelyn Adams, 404-526-5040, madams@ajc.com VP, Operations - Stan Pantel, 404-526-5528, spantel@ajc.com VP, Stategic Marketing - Paula Rattray, 404-526-5990, prattray@ajc.com General Manager, Internet Operations - John Triplett, 404-526-5405, jtriplett@ajc.com Controller - Chad Richardson, 404-526-5125, crichardson@ajc.com The News Executives phone 404-526-5533, fax 404-526-5033 Editor - Julia Wallace, 404-526-7679, jdwallace@ajc.com Managing Editor, News - Hank Klibanoff, 404-526-5416, hklibanoff@ajc.com Managing Editor, Initiatives & Operations - James Mallory, 404-526-5325, jmallory@ajc.com Editorial Page Editor - Cynthia Tucker, 404-526-5084, cynthia@ajc.com ajc.com Editorial Director - Hyde Post, 404-526-5341, hpost@ajc.com Deputy Managing Editors - Don Boykin, 404-526-5488, dboykin@ajc.com Shawn McIntosh, 404-526-5007, smcintosh@ajc.com Susan Stevenson, 404-526-5877, sstevenson@ajc.com Staff Development & College Internship Program Director - Angela Tuck, 404-526-5472, atuck@ajc.com @issue/Opinion phone 404-526-5432, fax 404-526-5611
Link Posted: 10/13/2002 5:11:39 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/13/2002 5:13:47 PM EDT by SFC_Rick]
I really think this is a bunch of crap when people jump to unsupported conclusions.
Link Posted: 10/13/2002 5:31:28 PM EDT
There is no such thing as a "ballistic fingerprint" Anyway all you have to do is buy a new barrle and f*k the whole thing up if ther was[rolleye]
Link Posted: 10/13/2002 6:16:44 PM EDT
Maybe it's the years of gun control in Maryland to blame....... after all, they've done their best to ban Saturday Night Specials, guns that would usually wound, and often misfire. they've done their best to virtually ban handguns..... Maybe the "sniper" simply chose the easiest gun to buy - a nice bolt action rifle. I'm betting it's foreign terrorists, but ya never know.
Link Posted: 10/13/2002 6:21:49 PM EDT
I wonder how all those gun control prognosticators would feel if they also said "oh and by the way if we had hair, DNA, and fingerprints from every adult in the Country ti would make crime easier to solve". Shouldn't you also have to "register" the tire patterns from your vehicle in case they find a tire track at the scene too??
Link Posted: 10/13/2002 6:24:46 PM EDT
I remember when the AW ban came about, the big arguement was that assault weapons were to inaccurate for target shooting and too weak for hunting. How is it that since this has happened the .223 is now a high powered round, fired from a "sniper rifle" often represneted in the media as an AR-15?
Link Posted: 10/13/2002 6:30:52 PM EDT
Link Posted: 10/13/2002 6:36:10 PM EDT
I heard that assault weapons were [i]"designed to spray from the hip, hosing down a room"[/i] So much for that theory, eh?
Link Posted: 10/13/2002 6:39:55 PM EDT
Beep,Beep,Beep,Beep What's that sound? Another truckload of anti gun bullshit being delivered to the people of America! Meplat-
Link Posted: 10/13/2002 7:21:29 PM EDT
People in Atlanta call the Atlanta Journal/Constitution the Atlanta Urinal/Constipation for good reason. ARH
Link Posted: 10/13/2002 7:21:49 PM EDT
Hate these people, didn't try to be nice, hacked out a quick response and sent it off to them. Let's see if I get a response, ofcourse without the search button it would be hard to post a follow up unless this thread stays in the top 2-3 pages. [I]Regarding your commentary on this page, http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/opinion/1002/11guns.html You people are a joke. Blame the NRA all you want, in the end their argument that ballistic finger printing is a waste of time is a valid argument. Ofcourse, to those people who don't have a working knowledge of firearms or have no exposure to using them, ballistic finger printing will sound like a logical thing to do. But anyone who does have experience with firearms will quickly realize that it's a futile effort, it is all too easy to change identifying marks on a firearm by polishing or sanding areas that are typically used for identification purposes by forensic investigators. Casings fired at time of manufacture and turned into state or federal law enforcement agencies will no longer match fired casings if the owner/shooter were smart enough to make a few key changes to the firearm. Suddenly ballistic finger printing is useless, no matter what the type of firearm. I suppose your next article will be about bans on "sniper rifles" and how there is no need for civilians to own high powered rifles such as the 223Remington, focused that is a ridiculous joke because in most states the 223Remington isn't even suitable for use against deer and state hunting regulations will prove that it isn't allowed. Why don't you guys just cut&paste your commentary directly from the VPC.org webpages? Afraid that people will more readily identify your biased opinions?[/I]
Link Posted: 10/14/2002 1:09:42 AM EDT
That's worse than the anti-gun vile coming out of San Francisco.
Link Posted: 10/14/2002 1:19:27 AM EDT
Yes, the NRA has a lot to answer for. How come the entire state of MD isn't armed in case some idiot decides to pull up in a white van and start shooting people. Well??? Get off your asses NRA. Join forces with the GOA and get something done.
Link Posted: 10/14/2002 1:55:06 AM EDT
Cars and vans can be traced
View Quote
Really? Is this why no one can track down a big ol white truck with a sniper inside?
Link Posted: 10/14/2002 3:14:07 PM EDT
Originally Posted By The_Beer_Slayer: And when exactly will we here an NRA response to these charges in a public forum? I'm not holding my breath. mike
View Quote
We will HEAR an NRA response when this psycho is found and proven to be just another no-load who was having a bad day. The NRA is not a law-enforcement organization. Get over this "NRA should have all the answers" crap. You a member? If you are, then there is no reason for your "question". If you are not a member, then you have nothing to say. Anything else? Good, now, go away.
Link Posted: 10/14/2002 3:29:38 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Stealth: Yes, the NRA has a lot to answer for. How come the entire state of MD isn't armed in case some idiot decides to pull up in a white van and start shooting people. Well??? Get off your asses NRA. Join forces with the GOA and get something done.
View Quote
Let's see, almost 200 million gun-owners in the USA and only 4 million NRA members. GOA-Most people have never heard of them. Like I've previously stated, Every gun-owner in the United States joined the NRA, You'd NEVER see another anti-gun piece of legislation. We're our own worst enemy. When the gov't clowns call for a massive turn-in of all our hated arms, you will only have yourself to blame. Good luck!
Link Posted: 10/14/2002 3:36:01 PM EDT
Originally Posted By The_Beer_Slayer: And when exactly will we here an NRA response to these charges in a public forum? I'm not holding my breath. mike
View Quote
Good. Because that is not their job, nor would we want it to be. How much time and money would they spend responding to the 20,000+ newspapers, hundreds of television stations, 1,000s of info-babes and dudes, thousands of web sites, etc. I want them where they are... In congress preventing the anti's objectives.
Link Posted: 10/14/2002 3:48:06 PM EDT
Originally Posted By The_Beer_Slayer: And when exactly will we here an NRA response to these charges in a public forum? I'm not holding my breath. mike
View Quote
They need "'mo money"....
Link Posted: 10/14/2002 3:58:16 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Stealth: Yes, the NRA has a lot to answer for. How come the entire state of MD isn't armed in case some idiot decides to pull up in a white van and start shooting people. Well??? Get off your asses NRA. Join forces with the GOA and get something done.
View Quote
GOA would not join forces with a gun control organization.... [url]http://www.nrawol.org/[/url]
Link Posted: 10/14/2002 3:59:55 PM EDT
Originally Posted By liberty86:
Originally Posted By The_Beer_Slayer: And when exactly will we here an NRA response to these charges in a public forum? I'm not holding my breath. mike
View Quote
They need "'mo money"....
View Quote
Das' right, mo-fo! Da mo money you give, da mo yuz don hafta worry 'bout da govmt steelin yoo weaponz. "sup, Gee? In words of one syllable: Why don't you stop criticizing the only pro-weapons group that has even a snowball's chance in hell of holding the line against the anti-gun yo-yo's, and HELP! Or would you rather just try to make-fun of those of us who are doing it for you?
Link Posted: 10/14/2002 4:04:24 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Fly-n-hitch-hiker: Let's see, almost 200 million gun-owners in the USA and only 4 million NRA members.
View Quote
I agree. Just to correct your stats: 1. There are 280 million people in the US. 2. Estimates put the number of firarms at about 200 million. 3. There are between 80 - 90 million gun owners in the US. 4. There are anywhere between 70 and 80 million handguns in the US. 1 in 3 US residents own a firearm. The average firearm owner owns almost 3 guns of which one is a handgun.
Link Posted: 10/14/2002 4:07:28 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Fly-n-hitch-hiker: In words of one syllable: Why don't you stop criticizing the only pro-weapons group that has even a snowball's chance in hell of holding the line against the anti-gun yo-yo's, and HELP! Or would you rather just try to make-fun of those of us who are doing it for you?
View Quote
Maybe you oughta press the button called "user info" before you shoot your yap....
Link Posted: 10/14/2002 4:10:42 PM EDT
Aaah, the Atlanta Urinal Constipation. You can always count on that toilet paper to fly the most leftist flag they can find. --LS
Link Posted: 10/14/2002 4:19:29 PM EDT
Originally Posted By liberty86:
Originally Posted By Fly-n-hitch-hiker: In words of one syllable: Why don't you stop criticizing the only pro-weapons group that has even a snowball's chance in hell of holding the line against the anti-gun yo-yo's, and HELP! Or would you rather just try to make-fun of those of us who are doing it for you?
View Quote
Maybe you oughta press the button called "user info" before you shoot your yap....
View Quote
Rather, maybe you should do a little research before you reply to a post that you don't know anything about. Remember, putz, always make sure your brain is engaged before you put your mouth in gear.
Link Posted: 10/14/2002 4:27:06 PM EDT
Originally Posted By MrP:
Originally Posted By Fly-n-hitch-hiker: Let's see, almost 200 million gun-owners in the USA and only 4 million NRA members.
View Quote
I agree. Just to correct your stats: 1. There are 280 million people in the US. 2. Estimates put the number of firarms at about 200 million. 3. There are between 80 - 90 million gun owners in the US. 4. There are anywhere between 70 and 80 million handguns in the US. 1 in 3 US residents own a firearm. The average firearm owner owns almost 3 guns of which one is a handgun.
View Quote
My statement wasn't a quote of facts; just an educated estimate. If there are over 200 million firearms in the US, and probably alot more, then logic suggests that at least 50 percent of owners will deny ownership. Thanks for the support, but as long as there are horse's asses like liberty 86 we're never going to make any headway against the anti-gunners. Keep up the fight, anyway.
Link Posted: 10/14/2002 4:36:01 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Fly-n-hitch-hiker:
Originally Posted By liberty86:
Originally Posted By Fly-n-hitch-hiker: In words of one syllable: Why don't you stop criticizing the only pro-weapons group that has even a snowball's chance in hell of holding the line against the anti-gun yo-yo's, and HELP! Or would you rather just try to make-fun of those of us who are doing it for you?
View Quote
Maybe you oughta press the button called "user info" before you shoot your yap....
View Quote
Rather, maybe you should do a little research before you reply to a post that you don't know anything about. Remember, putz, always make sure your brain is engaged before you put your mouth in gear.
View Quote
I've done enough research to know that nra has helped write most of the legislation on the books... [b]NRA Supported the National Firearms Act of 1934 In fact, they've supported gun rights infringements "since...1871." by Angel Shamaya Founder/Executive Director KeepAndBearArms.com March 29, 2002 "The National Rifle Association has been in support of workable, enforceable gun control legislation since its very inception in 1871." —NRA Executive Vice President Franklin L. Orth NRA's American Rifleman Magazine, March 1968, P. 22 INTRODUCTION When I recently used the term "NRA-supported" in reference to the National Firearms Act of 1934, some readers asked why I would assert such a thing. They believed NRA had no involvement in gun control politics back then. Because they and others didn't believe me, I prepared this historical record — to prove my claim and inform others. I agree that blaming today's NRA management for transgressions of their predecessors is wrong. But confronting NRA management's longstanding support of gun control is a first step toward understanding that "My NRA" of today views the Second Amendment differently than America's Founders did — and they have for a very long time. Don't take my word for it. KeepAndBearArms.com — The National Rifle Association has been called "the largest and oldest gun control organization in America" by more than a few gun owners. A fair amount of evidence supports their claim. As the Gun Control Act of 1968 was nearing the President's desk, NRA was being accused by Senator Robert Kennedy (D-NY) of not supporting "any legislation to try and control the misuse of rifles and pistols in this country." Naturally, NRA needed to respond to the allegation, and they responded with great detail and unusual candor. To deflect Senator Kennedy's assertion, NRA published an article by their magazine's Associate Editor entitled "WHERE THE NRA STANDS ON GUN LEGISLATION" — elaborating at length about NRA's longstanding support for a wide variety of gun controls that included gun and gunowner registration, waiting periods, age restrictions, licenses for carrying a firearm or having a firearm in your vehicle, increased penalties for violating gun laws, regulating ammunition and more. Following are several telling quotes from the March 1968 American Rifleman — NRA's premier magazine, then and now — and brief analysis of a few of them. The complete article from which these quotes were taken can be found further below. Scanned images of this article are also linked below. First, let's clear up the matter of NRA's support of NFA'34: "The NRA supported The National Firearms Act of 1934 which taxes and requires registration of such firearms as machine guns, sawed-off rifles and sawed-off shotguns. ... NRA support of Federal gun legislation did not stop with the earlier Dodd bills. It currently backs several Senate and House bills which, through amendment, would put new teeth into the National and Federal Firearms Acts." —American Rifleman, March 1968, P. 22 Unless someone has evidence to prove that the NRA lied to its membership in its premier magazine, let the record show that the NRA got behind the first unconstitutional federal gun law in America and then bragged about having done so, many years later — decades after the law had been continually used to violate the rights of untold numbers of American citizens, including, surely, their own members. The "Dodd" to which the above quote refers is the late Senator Thomas J. Dodd. Senator Dodd mimicked the Nazi Weapons Law of 1938, applied the underlying principles to the Gun Control Act of 1968, and took a leading role in getting the bill signed into federal law. "The NRA supported The Federal Firearms Act of 1938, which regulates interstate and foreign commerce in firearms and pistol or revolver ammunition..." (P. 22) The term "interstate commerce" is the BATF's fundamental justification for its firearms branch — a "color of law" excuse for the many assaults of innocent people they've conducted. "The NRA supported the original 'Dodd Bill' to amend the Federal Firearms Act in regard to handguns when it was introduced as S.1975 in August, 1963. Among its provisions was the requirement that a purchaser submit a notarized statement to the shipper that he was over 18 and not legally disqualified from possessing a handgun." (P. 22) That's one form of registration. "In January, 1965, with the continued support of the NRA, Senator Dodd introduced an amended version of his first bill, now designated 5.14 and expanded to cover rifles and shotguns as well as handguns." (P. 22) That's an extension of one form of registration to all types of guns not already under registration schemes at the time.[/b] (continued)
Link Posted: 10/14/2002 4:37:21 PM EDT
[b]In order to "put new teeth into the National and Federal Firearms Acts," NRA management also pressed the federal government, in 1968, to: "Regulate the movement of handguns in interstate and foreign commerce by: "a. requiring a sworn statement, containing certain information, from the purchaser to the seller for the receipt of a handgun in interstate commerce;" That's a registration list. "b. providing for notification of local police of prospective sales;" That's another registration mechanism. "c. requiring an additional 7-day waiting period by the seller after receipt of acknowledgement of notification to local police;" Wait a week to exercise your inalienable rights. "d. prescribing a minimum age of 21 for obtaining a license to sell firearms and increasing the license fees;" That is called Age Discrimination. In essence, in 1968, the NRA was saying "You can go die over in Vietnam for your country at age 18, but you can't sell a constitutionally protected item to your own neighbors for three more years." "e. providing for written notification by manufacturer or dealer to carrier that a firearm is being shipped in interstate commerce;" "Carrier" includes the U.S. Postal Service — another ripe opportunity for the federal government to collect names of gun buyers. "f. increasing penalties for violation." (P. 22-23) What do you think America's Founders would say about the NRA calling for "increasing penalties for violation" of unconstitutional gun laws? At least as early as 1930, the NRA supported: "...requir[ing] the purchaser of a pistol to give information about himself which is submitted by the seller to local police authorities..." Historically noteworthy is the fact that the Germans were simultaneously doing the same thing, laying the groundwork for a Hitler to happen. and "...requir[ing] a license to carry a pistol concealed on one's person or in a vehicle..." [emphasis mine] Ever heard of a license to carry a firearm in a vehicle? NRA has — over 70 years ago. Not only has NRA management long supported gun owner registration, they've worked hard for it and still do. And NRA's current management still supports "penalties" for exercising your rights, which they now call "zero tolerance enforcement". (See Project Exile Condemnation Coalition and the Project Exile Archives for more information.) "Many other instances of NRA support for worthwhile gun legislation could be quoted. But these suffice to show that Senator Kennedy's 'terrible indictment' of the NRA is groundless." (P. 23) "Worthwhile gun legislation"? The "terrible indictment" of NRA, as you will see in the full text below, was that NRA didn't support gun control. NRA set that matter straight with a loud thud. NRA Management still to this day supports a wide variety of ever-complex gun controls. And despite taking in hundreds of millions of dollars a year, they've still never managed a Supreme Court court victory based on the Second Amendment's historically-valid "individual right" argument. It's no wonder — their version of the Second Amendment is different than that of America's Founding Fathers. Do notice the subtitle of NRA's 1968 article below. A "97-year record" of supporting gun control, to NRA's management, was a matter of pride. Some things never change: "We think it's reasonable to support the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act. ... We think it's reasonable to expect full enforcement of federal firearms laws by the federal government. ... That's why we support Project Exile -- the fierce prosecution of federal gun laws...we think it's reasonable because it works. ... We only support what works and our list is proud." —NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre Congressional Testimony, May 27, 1999 Hearing Before 106th Congress House of Representatives Committee On The Judiciary Subcommittee On Crime First Session (source) [/b] [url]http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=3247[/url] Maybe you'd like me to read it to ya too????
Link Posted: 10/14/2002 4:42:36 PM EDT
a little 'mo.... [b]The NRA is to the 2nd Amendment as H & R Block is to the 16th. by Gary Clark March 29, 2002 KeepAndBearArms.com — A March 12, 2002 news item got me thinking. It was titled "Gun Violence Prevention Groups Claim Victory as H&R Block Severs Ties with National Rifle Association." It wasn't the article itself, or what the article was about that was significant. It was the title that used the names "NRA" and "H & R Block" in the same sentence. Seeing those two names together reminded me of something too many people in the pro 2nd Amendment movement either don't see or refuse to recognize, the effect of self-interest. We live in a time characterized by far broader concerns over issues of liberty and unconstitutional encroachment upon liberty by government than just those centered on the Second Amendment. Over the last quarter century or so (a period concurrent with the gun control vs. 2nd Amendment battle) we have also seen the rise of an ever-growing anti-income tax movement. And, just as the gun control battle orbits a Constitutional amendment so too does the battle over the income tax. We've all seen serious and well-researched assertions that the 16th Amendment that created the income tax was never legally ratified. We're also seeing the government refusing to address the issue. So, what's all this got to do with the NRA and H & R Block? Plenty! Why? Because of a fact of life far too many of us in the pro 2nd Amendment movement either fail to see or refuse to acknowledge. That fact of life centers on the economic self-interest of an organization and its leadership. Expecting the NRA to support the position that "shall not be infringed" means just that -- no permits can be required if it's a "right" and not a "privilege" -- is a lot like expecting H & R Block to support the position that the 16th Amendment was never legally ratified. If the 16th Amendment and the income tax are thrown out, H & R Block is out of business. That much is pretty obvious, but Block does not hold itself out to be opposed to the income tax. The situation is very different where the NRA is concerned, and this is what gives rise to the dichotomy of opinion about the NRA within the pro 2nd Amendment movement. We all need to become more aware of what the NRA is and has been historically. We then need to take a really hard look at what the strongest supporters and members of the NRA do for a living. Looking at it this way reveals one likely reason why the NRA refuses to support the position that no permits or registrations should be required if firearms ownership is a "right" that "shall not be infringed." The NRA is, and has historically been, the single strongest advocate (and provider) of firearms use and safety training. Think about this for a minute. How many firearm use and safety course instructors do you know of who are NOT NRA certified? According the the NRA's own website, there are currently some 38,000 NRA Certified Instructors throughout the United States. The NRA may not be the only organization that certifies gun use and safety instructors, but it is certainly the single biggest one. 38,000 NRA Certified Instructors averages 760 per state. The numbers alone prove the NRA virtually owns the firearms instruction certification market in this country. Now there's nothing wrong with this. The NRA does a wonderful job teaching gun safety and certifying instructors. It's what they're really good at and I fully approve of what they do in this regard. Personally, I think every gun owner should take at least one gun use and safety course from an NRA certified instructor. I don't think any governmental body should require it though. Now take a look around the country. Most states have now become "shall issue" states and in every one of them (that I know of) the "issue" of the "permit" requires two things: 1. A clean criminal record 2. Attending and passing some form of firearms use and safety course Where do you think the instructors for these courses come from? Wouldn't you have to assume that with 38,000 NRA certified firearm safety instructors in the U.S. that most (if not nearly all) of the people who teach the courses required for CCW permits are among those 38,000? I would. Now ask yourself this: How many of these NRA certified instructors, whose economic life depends upon a steady stream of course attendees, are likely to support the position that it is illegal and unconstitutional for any level of government to REQUIRE gun permits and gun safety courses? While you're at it, take a look at the NRA as a national organization. What do they sell and profit from? It is the sponsorship of gun training and gun safety courses and teaching materials. Furthermore, this is what the NRA has been doing for over a hundred years. It is their core business. Do you REALLY expect them to support the position that gun permits (and the training required by them) are unconstitutional? If you do, I've got a bridge between Manhattan and Brooklyn I'll sell you cheap. Gun control isn't like being pregnant. Being pregnant is a binary state. Someone either IS or ISN'T pregnant. But gun control exists on a continuum. You can have total gun control, such as outright bans, or only a little gun control, such as permits. The mistake too many in the pro 2nd Amendment movement make is the assumption that the NRA is opposed to gun control. This assumption is false. The NRA is, always has been, and will continue to be a PRO GUN CONTROL ORGANIZATION! They will always support requirements for permits and attendance at gun safety and training classes because teaching these classes is what the economic life of so many of the NRA's strongest supporters, depends upon. Any assertion that the NRA does not virtually "own" the firearms and gun safety instructor training and certification market in this country is like making the assertion that Microsoft does not virtually "own" the computer operating system market. Both are obvious on their face. It is because of this that I do not belong to, nor support the NRA in any way. Supporting the NRA is supporting (a form of) gun control and I am opposed to ALL forms of gun control... unless you define "gun control" as being capable of putting a .30 round through an enemy of the Constitution's left eye at 300 yards. Gary Clark is a writer, small business owner and staunch defender of the right of every individual to own, bear and use ANY type of weapon that can be carried on the person. He lives in Las Vegas and can be reached by e-mail at Liberty@wtw.org. [/b]
Link Posted: 10/14/2002 5:03:18 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/14/2002 5:09:31 PM EDT by liberty86]
From world net daily [b]Has the NRA gone soft? by Joseph Farah, Worldnetdaily.com Ignatius Piazza has a dream. He wants to build the safest community in the world -- a well-armed one on 550 acres in Nevada. Called Front Sight, Piazza's dreamland serves primarily today as a Disneyland for shooting enthusiasts -- a site where he offers instruction on the use of firearms, including Uzi submachine guns. When it's finished, the community will have 12 shooting ranges, an assault tower, 400 yards of training tunnels, 177 home lots, a convenience store and a private K-12 school. About $3 million of infrastructure is in the ground and the total project is expected to cost some $25 million. You might think such a resort -- even in the Nevada desert -- might cause something of a political stir. It has not. In fact, rather favorable stories have been written about Piazza's project in the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times, the London Times and USA Today. [red]But there is one place you won't read about Piazza's Front Sight. You won't read about it in any publications associated with the National Rifle Association -- at least not for the foreseeable future. Why? The political climate is not right for any reference to a project involving machine guns. I'm not kidding. The fascinating plan is off limits as a topic in the NRA. That's the official word I got from Joe Graham, director of publications for the organization.[/red] [blue]"It's just not the right political climate with elections so near," he said. "Nobody wants to hear about machine guns right now. We don't need to take a step backward. We need to move forward."[/blue][rolleyes] In fact, Graham confirmed for me, [red]the NRA will not even accept paid advertising from Piazza and Front Sight if there is any reference to the free machine-gun training the company offers to law-abiding citizens and law enforcement officers as well.[/red] Does it seem strange to you that you can read about Piazza's Front Sight project in dozens of articles in mainstream news sources but not in the publications of the nation's premiere gun organization? It certainly does to Piazza. [red]"What in the hell is the NRA thinking when they are afraid to tell their millions of members about an opportunity to receive a day of world-class training with an Uzi submachine gun, plus the ammunition, food and beverages all free of charge?" he asks rhetorically. "What in the hell is the NRA thinking when they refuse to accept an advertisement from a leader in the firearms training industry that has already trained over 6,500 law-abiding citizens and police officers together in the safe and responsible use of a submachine gun -- all free of charge?"[/red] Has the NRA gone soft? Has it gone establishment? Is it too concerned about what its gun-grabbing enemies will think about it? Graham says the NRA's political adversaries monitor its publications and use anything they can as ammunition against the organization and the right to bear arms. But Piazza thinks that kind of defensive thinking is timid and self-defeating. [red]"If any organization in the world should be shouting positively and encouraging their members to take advantage of such a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, it should be the NRA," Piazza said. "Instead, we are told that they don't want to touch anything that involves submachine guns due to political fallout."[/red] He continues: "The NRA's fears are quite simply pathetic. The NRA's lack of courage to promote the safe and responsible, free training in the use of a submachine gun is disgusting. The sad fact is that the people who are really losing out are the millions of NRA members who won't find out that they could have received a $500 course in Las Vegas, free of charge. They won't find out until it is too late and we are no longer offering the course for free." One gun activist I know who took the course gave it a thumbs up. "It is professionally run and certainly lives up to its billing," she said. "You are taught proper technique in using a fully automatic firearm under proper supervision." Piazza offers the free courses as a way of attracting interest and positive publicity for the bigger Front Sight picture and two- and four-day courses in pistol, rifle and shotgun use. [red]"Maybe what the NRA wants us to offer is a free musket course or a free sporting clays course," Piazza says derisively. "The NRA could then report on such courses without the fear of upsetting their slave masters in Washington. I guess if the NRA ran a story about Front Sight's uniquely positive and extremely successful free submachine gun courses, the NRA might actually have to stand up and tell the people who hold their chains that the Second Amendment is not about the freedom to own antiques or sporting arms."[/red] Piazza closes with this: "What the hell is the NRA thinking? Can somebody answer that question? In the answer we will find the reason why we are losing out gun rights." [/b] In closing fly, that city boycott I mentioned in my "user info"?? NRA refused to support it!!!....... GOA, SAF,(second amendment foundation), and JPFO, all lined up in support, and we won the first victory of it's kind in the state of Oregon....(but then I'm just "a horses ass" who has run a sucessful pro-gun boycott against a major tourist destination in Oregon)
Link Posted: 10/14/2002 5:07:51 PM EDT
Originally Posted By liberty86: a little 'mo.... [b]The NRA is to the 2nd Amendment as H & R Block is to the 16th. by Gary Clark March 29, 2002 KeepAndBearArms.com — A March 12, 2002 news item got me thinking. It was titled "Gun Violence Prevention Groups Claim Victory as H&R Block Severs Ties with National Rifle Association." It wasn't the article itself, or what the article was about that was significant. It was the title that used the names "NRA" and "H & R Block" in the same sentence. Seeing those two names together reminded me of something too many people in the pro 2nd Amendment movement either don't see or refuse to recognize, the effect of self-interest. We live in a time characterized by far broader concerns over issues of liberty and unconstitutional encroachment upon liberty by government than just those centered on the Second Amendment. Over the last quarter century or so (a period concurrent with the gun control vs. 2nd Amendment battle) we have also seen the rise of an ever-growing anti-income tax movement. And, just as the gun control battle orbits a Constitutional amendment so too does the battle over the income tax. We've all seen serious and well-researched assertions that the 16th Amendment that created the income tax was never legally ratified. We're also seeing the government refusing to address the issue. So, what's all this got to do with the NRA and H & R Block? Plenty! Why? Because of a fact of life far too many of us in the pro 2nd Amendment movement either fail to see or refuse to acknowledge. That fact of life centers on the economic self-interest of an organization and its leadership. Expecting the NRA to support the position that "shall not be infringed" means just that -- no permits can be required if it's a "right" and not a "privilege" -- is a lot like expecting H & R Block to support the position that the 16th Amendment was never legally ratified. If the 16th Amendment and the income tax are thrown out, H & R Block is out of business. That much is pretty obvious, but Block does not hold itself out to be opposed to the income tax. The situation is very different where the NRA is concerned, and this is what gives rise to the dichotomy of opinion about the NRA within the pro 2nd Amendment movement. We all need to become more aware of what the NRA is and has been historically. We then need to take a really hard look at what the strongest supporters and members of the NRA do for a living. Looking at it this way reveals one likely reason why the NRA refuses to support the position that no permits or registrations should be required if firearms ownership is a "right" that "shall not be infringed." The NRA is, and has historically been, the single strongest advocate (and provider) of firearms use and safety training. Think about this for a minute. How many firearm use and safety course instructors do you know of who are NOT NRA certified? According the the NRA's own website, there are currently some 38,000 NRA Certified Instructors throughout the United States. The NRA may not be the only organization that certifies gun use and safety instructors, but it is certainly the single biggest one. 38,000 NRA Certified Instructors averages 760 per state. The numbers alone prove the NRA virtually owns the firearms instruction certification market in this country. Now there's nothing wrong with this. The NRA does a wonderful job teaching gun safety and certifying instructors. It's what they're really good at and I fully approve of what they do in this regard. Personally, I think every gun owner should take at least one gun use and safety course from an NRA certified instructor. I don't think any governmental body should require it though. Now take a look around the country. Most states have now become "shall issue" states and in every one of them (that I know of) the "issue" of the "permit" requires two things: 1. A clean criminal record 2. Attending and passing some form of firearms use and safety course Where do you think the instructors for these courses come from? Wouldn't you have to assume that with 38,000 NRA certified firearm safety instructors in the U.S. that most (if not nearly all) of the people who teach the courses required for CCW permits are among those 38,000? I would. Now ask yourself this: How many of these NRA certified instructors, whose economic life depends upon a steady stream of course attendees, are likely to support the position that it is illegal and unconstitutional for any level of government to REQUIRE gun permits and gun safety courses? While you're at it, take a look at the NRA as a national organization. What do they sell and profit from? It is the sponsorship of gun training and gun safety courses and teaching materials. Furthermore, this is what the NRA has been doing for over a hundred years. It is their core business. Do you REALLY expect them to support the position that gun permits (and the training required by them) are unconstitutional? If you do, I've got a bridge between Manhattan and Brooklyn I'll sell you cheap. Gun control isn't like being pregnant. Being pregnant is a binary state. Someone either IS or ISN'T pregnant. But gun control exists on a continuum. You can have total gun control, such as outright bans, or only a little gun control, such as permits. The mistake too many in the pro 2nd Amendment movement make is the assumption that the NRA is opposed to gun control. This assumption is false. The NRA is, always has been, and will continue to be a PRO GUN CONTROL ORGANIZATION! They will always support requirements for permits and attendance at gun safety and training classes because teaching these classes is what the economic life of so many of the NRA's strongest supporters, depends upon. Any assertion that the NRA does not virtually "own" the firearms and gun safety instructor training and certification market in this country is like making the assertion that Microsoft does not virtually "own" the computer operating system market. Both are obvious on their face. It is because of this that I do not belong to, nor support the NRA in any way. Supporting the NRA is supporting (a form of) gun control and I am opposed to ALL forms of gun control... unless you define "gun control" as being capable of putting a .30 round through an enemy of the Constitution's left eye at 300 yards. Gary Clark is a writer, small business owner and staunch defender of the right of every individual to own, bear and use ANY type of weapon that can be carried on the person. He lives in Las Vegas and can be reached by e-mail at Liberty@wtw.org. Clown, you can quote every moronic, dopey bunch of crap you've ever read. But, the same as your bible-quoting nonsense, no one is listening. Save your keyboard fingers. You're probably going to need them for a more personal reason. You indicate that you are not a NRA member. Your loss. Here's a tip from someone older and wiser than you, sonny: Cut a check for $35.00 to the NRA. Maybe, then, you'll finally realize that there are people smarter and more experienced than you are. But you probably won't. You'll still slam the NRA and all it hasn't done fore you. You should be ashamed of yourself. But then again, that requires the knowledge that you are wrong. And, you're not wrong, are you?
Link Posted: 10/14/2002 5:20:50 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Fly-n-hitch-hiker: Here's a tip from someone older and wiser than you, sonny:
View Quote
Why do I doubt that? ....
Cut a check for $35.00 to the NRA.
View Quote
I wouldn't piss down their throat if their heart was on fire...they helped ban my guns.
Maybe, then, you'll finally realize that there are people smarter and more experienced than you are.
View Quote
ya, but it ain't the guy I'm responding to...
But you probably won't. You'll still slam the NRA [blue]and all it hasn't done fore you.[/blue]
View Quote
yer right, it hasn't done shit for me, except help the anti-gunners.
You should be ashamed of yourself. But then again, that requires the knowledge that you are wrong. And, you're not wrong, are you?
View Quote
No....
Link Posted: 10/14/2002 5:24:26 PM EDT
Originally Posted By liberty86: From world net daily [b]Has the NRA gone soft? by Joseph Farah, Worldnetdaily.com Ignatius Piazza has a dream. He wants to build the safest community in the world -- a well-armed one on 550 acres in Nevada. Called Front Sight, Piazza's dreamland serves primarily today as a Disneyland for shooting enthusiasts -- a site where he offers instruction on the use of firearms, including Uzi submachine guns. When it's finished, the community will have 12 shooting ranges, an assault tower, 400 yards of training tunnels, 177 home lots, a convenience store and a private K-12 school. About $3 million of infrastructure is in the ground and the total project is expected to cost some $25 million. You might think such a resort -- even in the Nevada desert -- might cause something of a political stir. It has not. In fact, rather favorable stories have been written about Piazza's project in the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times, the London Times and USA Today. [red]But there is one place you won't read about Piazza's Front Sight. You won't read about it in any publications associated with the National Rifle Association -- at least not for the foreseeable future. Why? The political climate is not right for any reference to a project involving machine guns. I'm not kidding. The fascinating plan is off limits as a topic in the NRA. That's the official word I got from Joe Graham, director of publications for the organization.[/red] [blue]"It's just not the right political climate with elections so near," he said. "Nobody wants to hear about machine guns right now. We don't need to take a step backward. We need to move forward."[/blue][rolleyes] In fact, Graham confirmed for me, [red]the NRA will not even accept paid advertising from Piazza and Front Sight if there is any reference to the free machine-gun training the company offers to law-abiding citizens and law enforcement officers as well.[/red] Does it seem strange to you that you can read about Piazza's Front Sight project in dozens of articles in mainstream news sources but not in the publications of the nation's premiere gun organization? It certainly does to Piazza. [red]"What in the hell is the NRA thinking when they are afraid to tell their millions of members about an opportunity to receive a day of world-class training with an Uzi submachine gun, plus the ammunition, food and beverages all free of charge?" he asks rhetorically. "What in the hell is the NRA thinking when they refuse to accept an advertisement from a leader in the firearms training industry that has already trained over 6,500 law-abiding citizens and police officers together in the safe and responsible use of a submachine gun -- all free of charge?"[/red] Has the NRA gone soft? Has it gone establishment? Is it too concerned about what its gun-grabbing enemies will think about it? Graham says the NRA's political adversaries monitor its publications and use anything they can as ammunition against the organization and the right to bear arms. But Piazza thinks that kind of defensive thinking is timid and self-defeating. [red]"If any organization in the world should be shouting positively and encouraging their members to take advantage of such a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, it should be the NRA," Piazza said. "Instead, we are told that they don't want to touch anything that involves submachine guns due to political fallout."[/red] He continues: "The NRA's fears are quite simply pathetic. The NRA's lack of courage to promote the safe and responsible, free training in the use of a submachine gun is disgusting. The sad fact is that the people who are really losing out are the millions of NRA members who won't find out that they could have received a $500 course in Las Vegas, free of charge. They won't find out until it is too late and we are no longer offering the course for free." One gun activist I know who took the course gave it a thumbs up. "It is professionally run and certainly lives up to its billing," she said. "You are taught proper technique in using a fully automatic firearm under proper supervision." Piazza offers the free courses as a way of attracting interest and positive publicity for the bigger Front Sight picture and two- and four-day courses in pistol, rifle and shotgun use. [red]"Maybe what the NRA wants us to offer is a free musket course or a free sporting clays course," Piazza says derisively. "The NRA could then report on such courses without the fear of upsetting their slave masters in Washington. I guess if the NRA ran a story about Front Sight's uniquely positive and extremely successful free submachine gun courses, the NRA might actually have to stand up and tell the people who hold their chains that the Second Amendment is not about the freedom to own antiques or sporting arms."[/red] Piazza closes with this: "What the hell is the NRA thinking? Can somebody answer that question? In the answer we will find the reason why we are losing out gun rights." [/b] In closing fly, that city boycott I mentioned in my "user info"?? NRA refused to support it!!!....... GOA, SAF,(second amendment foundation), and JPFO, all lined up in support, and we won the first victory of it's kind in the state of Oregon....(but then I'm just "a horses ass" who has run a sucessful pro-gun boycott against a major tourist destination in Oregon)
View Quote
Cripes, it must have taken you a hellofalongtime to type that that drivel. I coulda' saved you the trouble, but why show everyone you're not as big a horse's ass as you are?. When you grow up you, hopefully, will realize that the world isn't the "sugar-plumb-bumkin-land" that you want it to be. Everything's a compromise. You're never going to get the gun-right's utopia you want. Forget it. The NRA's your best bet for keeping your gun-rights. Think you've got a better way? Dream-on.
Link Posted: 10/14/2002 5:29:02 PM EDT
Link Posted: 10/14/2002 5:31:55 PM EDT
Originally Posted By liberty86:
Originally Posted By Fly-n-hitch-hiker: Here's a tip from someone older and wiser than you, sonny:
View Quote
Why do I doubt that? ....
Cut a check for $35.00 to the NRA.
View Quote
I wouldn't piss down their throat if their heart was on fire...they helped ban my guns.
Maybe, then, you'll finally realize that there are people smarter and more experienced than you are.
View Quote
ya, but it ain't the guy I'm responding to...
But you probably won't. You'll still slam the NRA [blue]and all it hasn't done fore you.[/blue]
View Quote
yer right, it hasn't done shit for me, except help the anti-gunners.
You should be ashamed of yourself. But then again, that requires the knowledge that you are wrong. And, you're not wrong, are you?
View Quote
No....
View Quote
Okay, you're right. You've got all the answers don't you? Haven't heard any so far, except that you think you are a major-league smart-ass. So, genius, what are you going to do? Well, we're waiting. Please tell us, Einstein, what should we do to preserve our gun rights? I mean, specifically.
Link Posted: 10/14/2002 5:36:07 PM EDT
Link Posted: 10/14/2002 5:41:13 PM EDT
[size=5]IBTL[/size=5]
Link Posted: 10/14/2002 5:44:01 PM EDT
Originally Posted By raf: Ok...OK! You can sqwawk back and forth about the NRA all you want, but let's keep the personalities out of the discussion from here on out. No need of it.
View Quote
Not blasting any personalities, Raf, just pointing out the stupidity of these anti-NRA comments. If the little-boys can't take it, maybe they should leave the forum. But since they continue to dis the NRA, they will be dealt with in the manner they are used to.
Link Posted: 10/14/2002 5:47:09 PM EDT
Personalities? Sorry, I don't feel I know what you are talking about. You Dis the NRA-I'm going to blast you,
Link Posted: 10/14/2002 5:49:01 PM EDT
Link Posted: 10/14/2002 5:52:58 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/14/2002 5:59:24 PM EDT by raf]
Top Top